Abstracts of Remediation

Case Studies

Volume 3

Federal

Remediation

Technologies

Roundtable

<www.frtr.gov>

Prepared by the

Member Agencies of the

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

EPA 542-R-98-010

September 1998
Abstracts of Remediation 

Case Studies

Volume 3

Prepared by Member Agencies of the 

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Defense

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Army

U.S. Navy

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Tennessee Valley Authority

Coast Guard

September 1998
ii

NOTICE

This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S.

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes

any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents

that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views

and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government

or any agency thereof.

Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
iii

FOREWORD

This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 86 case studies of site remediation prepared by

federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal Remediation

Technologies Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons learned from technology

applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance which should lead to

greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.

The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider

cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable

member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense,

and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near future. 

These agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to

be realized from greater coordination.

The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology in a multi-volume set listed below. 

Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-6, and Abstracts, Volumes 1 and 2, were published previously,

and contain 54 projects. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, and Abstracts, Volume 3, were

published in September 1998. Abstracts, Volume 3, covers a wide variety of technologies, including fullscale remediations and large-scale field demonstrations of soil and groundwater treatment technologies. 

In the future, the set will grow as agencies prepare additional case studies.

1995 Series

Volume 1: Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995; PB95-182911

Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995; PB95-182929

Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995; PB95-182937

Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005;

March 1995; PB95-182945

1997 Series

Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997; PB97-177554

Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies, EPA-542-R-97-009; 

July 1997; PB97-177562

1998 Series

Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,

Thermal Desorption), EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998

Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes),

EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998

Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA-542-R-98-013;

September 1998
iv

1998 Series (continued)

Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants), EPA-542-R-98-014;

September 1998

Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-015; 

September 1998

Volume 12: On-Site Incineration, EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998

Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous

Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998

Abstracts

Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711

Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570

Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998

Accessing Case Studies

The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Federal Remediation

Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site provides links to

individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows users to

complete a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick lists for

media treated, contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search function

provides users with basic information about the case studies, and allows them to view or download

abstracts and case studies that meet their requirements. 

Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site. Some of the

case studies are also available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.

In addition, a limited number of hard copies are available free of charge by mail from NCEPI (allow 4-6

weeks for delivery), at the following address:

U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Phone: (513) 489-8190 or

(800) 490-9198

Fax: (513) 489-8695
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

INTRODUCTION .............................................................1

EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (BIOREMEDIATION, SOLVENT

EXTRACTION, THERMAL DESORPTION) ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

BIOREMEDIATION ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable 

Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area Vancouver, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Land Treatment of the UST Soil Piles at Fort Greely, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Ex Situ Bioremediation at the Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

SOLVENT EXTRACTION ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Solvent Extraction at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . 48

THERMAL DESORPTION ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the FCX Washington

Superfund Site, Washington, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Thermal Desorption at the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington . . 54

Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2,

Jacksonville, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Thermal Desorption at the Port Moller Radio Relay Station, Port Moller, Alaska . . . . . 58

Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, North Dartmouth,

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Thermal Desorption at the Waldick Aerospace Devices Site, Wall Township,

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION, 

THERMAL PROCESSES) ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, Area A, 

Onslow County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Soil Vapor Extraction at Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
vi

Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5, Chesterfield

County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Texas

Tower Site, Ft. Greely, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington . . . . . . . 76

Soil Vapor Extraction at Fort Richardson Building 908 South, Anchorage, Alaska . . . . 78

Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5, Holloman AFB, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Soil Vapor Extraction at the Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, Cupertino, California . . . 82

Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at NAS North Island, Site 9,

San Diego, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Soil Vapor Extraction at the Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site,

Seymour, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at OU1, Shaw AFB,

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Soil Vapor Extraction at the Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site, Upper Merion 

Township, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

THERMAL PROCESSES ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)TM Process at the Brodhead Creek 

Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

In Situ Thermal Desorption at the Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site,

Cape Girardeau, Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT (CHLORINATED SOLVENTS) ABSTRACTS . . . 99

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Des Moines TCE 

Superfund Site, OU 1, Des Moines, Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Former Firestone 

Facility Superfund Site, Salinas, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the JMT Facility RCRA Site,

Brockport, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Keefe Environmental 

Services Superfund Site, Epping, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
vii

Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE’s Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU, Livermore, California . . . . . . . . . 108

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20

Superfund Site, Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Groundwater Containment at Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Old Mill Superfund Site, 

Rock Creek, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund 

Site, Cayce, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Groundwater Containment at Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Groundwater Containment at Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina . . . 120

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Solid State Circuits 

Superfund Site, Republic, Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Sol Lynn/Industrial 

Transformers Superfund Site, Houston, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater with Containment Wall at the 

Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site, Southington,

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT (NONCHLORINATED CONTAMINANTS)

ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Baird and McGuire 

Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 132

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the City Industries Superfund 

Site, Orlando, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the King of Prussia Technical

Corporation Superfund Site, Winslow Township, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the LaSalle Electrical 

Superfund Site, LaSalle, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Mid-South Wood Products

Superfund Site, Mena, Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
viii

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Odessa Chromium I 

Superfund Site, OU 2, Odessa, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Odessa Chromium IIS 

Superfund Site, OU 2, Odessa, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Groundwater Containment at Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Groundwater Containment at Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at the 

Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, Nashua, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the United Chrome Superfund 

Site, Corvallis, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,

Niles, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Western Processing 

Superfund Site, Kent, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

INNOVATIVE GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ABSTRACTS . . . . . 159

Enhanced Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater - Balfour Road Site, 

Brentwood, CA; Fourth Plain Service Station Site, Vancouver, WA; Steve’s 

Standard and Golden Belt 66 Site, Great Bend, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Coagulation/Flocculation/Dissolved Air Flotation and OleofiltrationTM at 

Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, Panama City, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat Contaminated 

Groundwater at the Former Intersil, Inc. Site, Sunnyvale, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater 

at the French Ltd. Superfund Site, Crosby, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Pump and Treat and Air Sparging of Contaminated Groundwater at the Gold 

Coast Superfund Site, Miami, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater 

at the Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, Libby, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat Contaminated Groundwater at the Moffett 

Federal Airfield, Mountain View, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Dual Auger Rotary Steam Stripping at the Pinellas Northeast Site, Largo, Florida . . . 174
ix

In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation at the Pinellas Northeast Site, Largo, Florida . . . . . 176

PerVap Membrane Separation Groundwater Treatment at the Pinellas Northeast TM

Site, Largo, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Pump and Treat, In Situ Bioremediation, and In Situ Air Sparging of Contaminated

Groundwater at Site A, Long Island, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

In Situ Permeable Reactive Barrier for Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater 

at the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 182

ON-SITE INCINERATION ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Incineration at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts . . . . 186

Incineration at the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site, Slidell, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Incineration at the Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services Superfund Site, Logan

Township, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Incineration at the Celanese Superfund Site, Shelby, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Incineration at the Coal Creek Superfund Site, Chehalis, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Incineration at the FMC Corporation - Yakima Pit Superfund Site, Yakima, 

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Incineration at the Former Nebraska Ordinance Plant Site, Mead, Nebraska . . . . . . . . 198

Incineration at the MOTCO Superfund Site, Texas City, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Incineration at the Old Midland Products Superfund Site, Ola, Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Incineration at the Petro Processors Superfund Site, Baton Rouge, Louisiana . . . . . . . 204

Incineration at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site, Commerce City, 

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Incineration at the Rose Disposal Pit Superfund Site, Lanesborough, Massachusetts . 208

Incineration at the Rose Township Dump Superfund Site, Holly, Michigan . . . . . . . . 210

Incineration at the Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Site, Crosby, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Incineration at the Times Beach Superfund Site, Times Beach, Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Incineration at the Vertac Chemical Corporation Superfund Site, Jacksonville,

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
x

DEBRIS AND SURFACE CLEANING TECHNOLOGIES, AND OTHER 

MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGIES ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at the Alabama Army

Ammunition Plant Site, Alpine, Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor Argonne

National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor Argonne

National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc., Salt Lake City,

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Cap at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Pit 6

Landfill OU, Livermore, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies

(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption) .......................3

2 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies 

(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes) ...................................5

3 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat

(Chlorinated Solvents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat 

(Nonchlorinated Contaminants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

7 Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies,

and Other Miscellaneous Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8 Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1

INTRODUCTION

Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more

cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in

the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation

Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale

remediation and demonstration projects. Previously, the Roundtable published six volumes of case study

reports. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing seven additional volumes, primarily focused on soil

and groundwater cleanup.

The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.

Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). They were prepared based on

recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures are summarized

in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects

(EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998). (The October 1998 guide supersedes the original Guide to

Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects, published in March 1995.)

The case studies and abstracts present available cost and performance information for full-scale

remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary

reference sources, and contain information on site background and setting, contaminants and media

treated, technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The

studies contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and

information. Because full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the purpose of

technology evaluation, data on technology cost and performance may be limited.

The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of ex situ and in situ treatment

technologies for both soil and groundwater. Contaminants treated include chlorinated solvents;

petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons; pesticides and herbicides; and metals; and radioactive materials. Many of the

applications described in the case study reports are ongoing and interim reports are provided

documenting their current status. 
2

Tables 1-7 provides summary information about technology used, contaminants and media treated, and

project duration for the 86 technology applications in this volume (these tables correspond with the case

study reports provided in Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, respectively). These tables also

provide highlights about each application. Table 8 summarizes cost data, including information on

quantity of media treated and quantity of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 8 shows a calculated

unit cost for some projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology costs. (The

column showing the calculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of media

treated and contaminant removed, if available.) Cost data are shown as reported in the case studies and

have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to be dollars

for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Tables 1-7 as project duration).

While a summary of project costs is useful, it may be difficult to compare costs for different projects

because of unique site-specific factors. However, by including a recommended reporting format, the

Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of costs to make data comparable across projects. In

addition, the Roundtable is working to capture information in case study reports that identify and

describe the primary factors that affect the cost and performance of a given technology. Factors that may

affect project costs include economies of scale, concentration levels in contaminated media, required

cleanup levels, completion schedules, and matrix characteristics and operating conditions for the

technology.
3

Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Techn

(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

BioremediationBonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, q Soil (2,300 yd ) 11/94 - 1/96 Combination Operable Unit A, WA (Land Treatment) enhancements 

3

contaminated 

Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK (Land Treatment) q Soil (9,800 yd ) 9/94 - 8/97 Application o

3

gasoline and dsitu

Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada (Land Treatment) q Soil (200 tons) 3/96 - 9/97 Demonstrated 

DARAMEND Metolachlor-c

Solvent ExtractionSparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, AK Soil (288 yd ) 6/96 - 8/96 Application o(Solvent Extraction) to treat PCB-

3

remote site in 

Thermal DesorptionFCX Washington Superfund Site, NC q Soil (13,591 yd ) 3/95 - 3/96 Vacuum-enha(Thermal Desorption) thermal desor

3

pesticide-con

Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant q Soil (104,366 tons) 8/96 - 12/96 Thermal deso(SRCPP), WA (Thermal Desorption) amount of soi
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Techn

(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

4

Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2, FL q q Soil ( 11,768 tons) 6/95 - 9/25/95 Mobile therm(Thermal Desorption) treat soil cont

solvents

Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK (Thermal

q Soil (9,500 yd ) 6/95 - 8/95 Application o

Desorption) treat sandy so

3

fuel at a remo

Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA Soil (36,200 yd ) 6/93 - 12/94 Thermal deso(Thermal Desorption) contaminated 

3

Waldick Aerospaces Devices Superfund Site, NJ qq q Soil (3,450 yd ) 6/93 - 10/93 LTTD of soil (Thermal Desorption) range of orga

3

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
5

Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Techn

(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

Soil Vapor ExtractionCamp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, q Soil (17,500 yd ) 4/7/95 - SVE applicaArea A, NC (Soil Vapor Extraction) 12/21/95 vertical and 

3

Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ q Soil (63,000 yd ) 9/95 - 7/97 SVE applica(Soil Vapor Extraction) soil; extracte

3

internal com

Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5, VA q Soil (1,000 yd ) 12/1/92 - Pilot study o(Soil Vapor Extraction) 12/11/92 contaminate

3

Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK (Air Sparging, q Soil (6,300 yd ) 2/94 - 2/96 Combination In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction) Groundwater to treat DRO

3

groundwater 

Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA q q Soil - saturated and Status: Ongoing Application (Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging) unsaturated (volume Report Covers: innovative te

not determined) 12/5/94 - halogenated 

10/31/97 soil and grou

Fort Richardson, Building 908 South, AK q Soil (4,600 yd ) Status: Ongoing Application (Soil Vapor Extraction) Report Covers: soil contami

3

2/95 - 3/96

Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM q Soil (9,500 yd ) 4/94 - Ongoing Treatment sy(Soil Vapor Extraction) successfully 

3

maintenance 
Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Techn

(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

6

Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA 

q Soil (280,000 yd ) 5/88 - 8/23/93 SVE applica

(Soil Vapor Extraction) one shallow 

3

contaminant 

NAS North Island, Site 9, CA 

q Soil Vapor 10/12/97 - Demonstrate 

(Photolytic Destruction) (estimated 1,151 lbs 2/6/98 photolytic d

of VOCs) VOC-contam

system

Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site,

q Soil (200,000 yd ) Status: Ongoing SVE system 

IN (Soil Vapor Extraction) Report Covers: under a mult

3

6/92 - 1996

Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC (Soil Vapor Extraction and

q Soil (30,000 ft , SVE system - SVE system 

Groundwater Containment) confining clay layer 12/95 - ongoing interim respo

2

at 70 to 80 ft bgs) Groundwater - contain grouGroundwater 2/92 - 9/97

Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site, PA

q Soil (30,000 yd ) 11/88 - 9/96 SVE applica

(Soil Vapor Extraction) 14 enhancem

3
Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Techn

(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

7

Thermal ProcessesBrodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA q q Free Product - coal 7/95 - 6/96 Recover free (Contained Recovery of Oily Waste) tar (1,500 gallons) the CROW 

T

Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, MO Soil (52 yd ) 4/21/97 - 6/1/97 Demonstrate (In Situ Thermal Desorption) thermal deso

3

contaminate

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
8

Table 3. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlor

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media 

(Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1, IA q Groundwater (4,900 Status: Ongoing Met goals fo(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) million gallons) Report Covers: years of ope

12/87 - 10/96 gallons treat

Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site, CA q Groundwater (1,800 2/86 - 11/92 Met goals w(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon million gallons) operation; siAdsorption, and Oil/Water Separation) hydraulic co

near high-vo

JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Black & q Groundwater (50.1 Status: Ongoing RCRA correDecker RCRA Site), NY million gallons) Report Covers: relatively lo(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) 5/88 - 12/97 greater than 

concentratio

Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site, NH q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Performed o(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and (46 million gallons) Report Covers: years of opeCoagulation/Flocculation) 4/93 - 5/97 groundwater Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) q Groundwater (93.8 Status: Ongoing Combined uSite 300 - General Services Area (GSA) Operable million gallons) Report Covers: and treat and Unit, CA (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and 6/91 - 7/97 and DNAPLCarbon Adsorption; Soil Vapor Extraction)Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site, q Groundwater (192.8 Status: Ongoing Remedial strDow/DSI Facility - Volatile Halogenated Organic million gallons) Report Covers: and treat for (VHO) Plume, WY (Pump and Treat with Air 3/94 - 10/97 natural attenStripping; Soil Vapor Extraction) plumeOffutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE q Groundwater Not Available; Containmen(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) (quantity not System was active pump

provided) operating in

1/97
Table 3. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and T

(Chlorinated Solvents) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media 

(Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

9

Old Mill Superfund Site, OH (Pump and Treat

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Remediation 

with Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption) (13 million gallons) Report Covers: groundwater 

9/89 - 7/97 quantity of g

SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC 

q Groundwater (20.6 Status: Ongoing Remediation 

(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) million gallons) Report Covers: hydrogeolog

8/92 - 3/97 distinct hydr

Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC

q Groundwater and 2/95 - 12/96 Groundwate

(Hydraulic Containment Through Active Pumping) Free Product chlorinated s

pumping

Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC q q Groundwater and 3/95 - 2/96 Interim actio(Free Product Recovery with Air Stripping) Free Product from groundSolid State Circuits Superfund Site, MO

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Groundwate

(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) (257 million gallons) Report Covers: artesian syst

1993 - 3/97 formation
Table 3. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and T

(Chlorinated Solvents) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media 

(Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

10

Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Contaminati

TX (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon (13 million gallons) Report Covers: the siteAdsorption, and Filtration) 10/93 - 10/96Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. q q Groundwater (32.5 Status: Ongoing UV/oxidatioSuperfund Site, CT (Pump and Treat with Carbon million gallons) Report Covers: treating wateAdsorption, Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and 7/95 - 6/98 phase contamUV/Oxidation; Vertical Barrier Wall) VOCs, PCB

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.** Quantity treated is the amount of groundwater extracted and treated above ground. 
11

Table 4. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and T

(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media (Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, MA qqq q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Groundwate(Pump and Treat with Aeration, Air Stripping, (80 million gallons) Report Covers: variety of coChemical Treatment, Clarification, and Filtration) 4/93 - 2/97 expensive re

capital costs 

Bofors Nobel Superfund Site - OU 1, MI q Groundwater Status: Ongoing The extracti(Pump and-Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon (700 million gallons) Report Covers: contaminant Adsorption, Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and 9/94 - 10/97 system has c

UV/Oxidation) requirement

1994

City Industries Superfund Site, FL q q Groundwater (151.7 Status: Ongoing The hydroge(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) million gallons) Report Covers: relatively sim

5/94 - 5/97 conductivity 

King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund qq q Groundwater (151.5 Status: Ongoing Treatment sySite, NJ million gallons) Report Covers: treatment tra(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon 4/95 - 12/97 metals and oAdsorption, and Electrochemical Treatment)LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL q Groundwater Status: Ongoing System cons(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon (23 million gallons) Report Covers: instead of exAdsorption, and Oil/Water Separation) 12/92 - 5/97 low groundw

include PCB

Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site, AR q q Groundwater (100.6 Status: Ongoing Groundwate(Pump and Treat with Carbon Adsorption, million gallons) Report Covers: treating chemFiltration, and Oil/Water Separation) 9/89 - 12/97 performed a

operation; ghad been redof concern
Table 4. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and T

(Nonchlorinated Contaminants) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media (Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

12

Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2, TX

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Includes on-

(Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment, (125 million gallons) Report Covers: chromium; rFlocculation, Multimedia Filtration, 11/93 - 1/98 flow; contampH Adjustment, and Precipitation)Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2, TX

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Includes on-

(Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment, (121 million gallons) Report Covers: chromium; rFlocculation, Multimedia and Cartridge Filtration, 11/93 - 12/97 flow; contampH Adjustment, and Precipitation)Pope AFB, Site FT-01, NC

q Groundwater and Status: Ongoing Recovery of 

(Free Product Recovery) Free Product Report Covers: groundwater

11/93 - 11/96

Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill Site, NC

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Recovery of 

(Free Product Recovery) Report Covers: pumping

11/93 - 11/96

Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, NH q q Groundwater (1,200 Status: Ongoing A combinati(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Biological million gallons) Report Covers: used to remeTreatment, Chemical Treatment, Clarification, 1982 - 12/95 goals were mFlocculation, and Mixed-media Pressure Filtration; with one excCap; Soil Vapor Extraction; Vertical Barrier Wall) was reported 

limit 

United Chrome Superfund Site, OR

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Extracted gr

(Pump and Treat with Reduction and Precipitation) (62 million gallons) Report Covers: site at the be

8/88 - 3/97 however, be

dropped ovewas disconti
Table 4. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and T

(Nonchlorinated Contaminants) (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Treated**) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media (Quantity Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

13

U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Performed m

(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) (329 million gallons) Report Covers: optimization 

7/93 - 12/96 Randomwalk

diethyl ether 

Western Processing Superfund Site, WA qq q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Met goals fo(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and Filtration; (974 million gallons) Report Covers: eight years oVertical Barrier Wall) 10/88 - 12/96 points recen

wells to prov

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.** Quantity treated is the amount of groundwater extracted and treated above ground.
14

Table 5. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment 

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

Balfour Road Site, CA; Fourth Plain Service q Groundwater Balfour Road: Evaluate the Station Site, WA; Steve’s Standard and Golden (estimated 20,400 ft Status: Ongoing ORC to remBelt 66 Site, KS for Fourth Plain) Report Covers: three sites(Enhanced Bioremediation of Groundwater) 12/95 - 10/97

2

Fourth Plainand Steve’sStandard:Status: OngoingReport Covers:7/96 - 10/97

R

Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL q q Wastewater 8/97 Demonstrate (Chemical Reaction and Flocculation, and (126,400 gallons) (Demonstration CRF/DAF aDissolved Air Flotation) conducted for a treating TPH 

total of 448 from a full-shours)

Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA q Groundwater: P&T Status: Used P&T f

(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping; Permeable (38 million gallons) PRB Ongoing technology wReactive Barrier) PRB (2 million Report Covers: three years 

gallons) P&T (11/87 -

2/95) PRB (2/95 - 11/97)

French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Regulatory r(Pump and Treat with Activated Sludge for (306 million gallons, Report Covers: based on use Extracted Groundwater; In Situ Bioremediation) ex situ) 1/92 - 12/95 show effects 

site boundartreat comple
Table 5. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Trea

Technologies (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

15

Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL

q Groundwater 7/90 - 3/94: Met goals w

(Pump and Treat with Air Sparging) (80 million gallons) pump and treat operation; in

11/94 - 2/95: air spargingair sparging

Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, MT

q Groundwater (15.1 Status: Ongoing Combination 

(Pump and Treat; In Situ Bioremediation) million gallons) Report Covers: situ bioreme

9/91 - 12/96 LNAPL, DN

contaminant

Moffett Federal Airfield, CA

q Groundwater (0.284 Status: Ongoing Use of PRB 

(Permeable Reactive Barrier) million gallons) Report Covers: for treatmen

4/96 - 7/97 included ext

at locations 

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL 

q Soil (2,000 yd ) 12/96 - 4/97 Demonstrati

(In Situ Air and Steam Stripping -Dual Auger Groundwater stripping tecRotary Steam Stripping) supplement 

3

and treat wit

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL

q Groundwater 2/7/97 - 6/30/97 Demonstrati

(In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation) (250,000 gallons) bioremediati

supplement and treat wit

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL

q Groundwater 6/14/95 - 3/2/96 Demonstrati

(Membrane Filtration - PerVap) (6,200 gallons) technology f

contaminate
Table 5. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Trea

Technologies (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Metals

16

Site A (actual name confidential), NY (Pump and

q Groundwater Status: Ongoing System inclu

Treat with Air Stripping; In Situ Bioremediation; (8.4 million gallons) Report Covers: extraction, aAir Sparging; Soil Vapor Extraction) 7/95 - 10/96U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC q q Groundwater Status: Ongoing Use of PRB (Permeable Reactive Barrier) (2.6 million gallons) Report Covers: contaminate

7/96 - 7/97 chromium; e

conducted to 

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
17

Table 6. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Metals

Dioxin and/or PCBs 

Baird and McGuire, MA (rotary kiln incinerator) qqqq Soil (210,000 tons) 3/95 - 3/97 Successfully 

Sediment (1,500 including dicubic yards) pesticides.

contaminant

Bayou Bonfouca, LA (rotary kiln incinerator) q Sediment (250,000 11/93 - 7/95 Project comp

tons) schedule for 

quantity of w

Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services, NJ (rotary q qq Lagoon sediment and 12/91 - 1/96 Inadequate dkiln incinerator) sludge (138,350 mechanical 

tons) treatment of Debris (13,000 tons) including sluLevee material and soil, con(12,550 tons) PCBs. HowLagoon oil (3,850 standards antons) were met duSoil (4,250 tons) operation.

Celanese Corporation Shelby Fiber Operations, NC qqq Soil and sludge 4/91 - 12/91 The project (rotary kiln incinerator) (4,660 tons) months.Coal Creek, WA (rotary kiln incinerator) q q Soil (9,715 tons) 1/94 - 5/94 Incineration 

permit; thereDRE requiredemonstrate
Table 6. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration (contin

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Metals

Dioxin and/or PCBs 

18

FMC Corporation - Yakima, WA (rotary kiln q q Soil (5,600 cubic 1/93 - 5/93 Frigid ambieincinerator) yards or 7,840 tons) delays in set

shakedown athe winter mtesting origifor spring an

Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - OU 1, NE Soil and debris 9/97 - 12/97 Primary con(rotary kiln incinerator) (16,449 tons) and propella

DNT, DNB, m-NT); projextremely shall permittin

MOTCO, TX (rotary kiln incinerator) q qq Soil (4,699 tons) 5/90 - 12/91 Mechanical 

Sludge (283 tons) the lack of aOrganic liquids characteriza(7,568 tons) On-site incinAqueous waste December 1(10,471 tons) between the 

responsible changed to obecause of thproblems.

Old Midland Products, AR (rotary kiln incinerator)

q Soils, sludges, and 6/92 - 5/93 According to 

sediments (102,000 incineration tons) problems be

characteriza
Table 6. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration (contin

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Metals

Dioxin and/or PCBs 

19

Petro Processors, LA (horizontal liquid injection qqq q Organic liquids and (Ongoing report Incineration incinerator) fumes (213,376 covers 11/94 product and 

gallons, as of June through 5/97) groundwater 1997)

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO (submerged quench q q Liquids (10.9 million 7/93 - 7/95 Submerged incinerator) gallons) treat liquid p

Innovative dmetal particu

Rose Disposal Pit, MA (rotary kiln incinerator) q q Soil (51,000 tons) 2/94 - 7/94 Incinerator u

50,000 tons high levels o

Rose Township Dump, MI (infrared incinerator) q q Soils and debris 9/92 - 10/93 Infrared inci

(34,000 tons) contaminate

related operadelays in the 

Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (rotary kiln incinerator) q q Soil and debris 2/92 - 6/94 Two SCCs i

(496,000 tons) maximize thContaminated water Steam gener(350 million gallons) caused overp

Times Beach, MO (rotary kiln incinerator)

q Soil and debris 3/96 - 6/97 The incinera

(265,000 tons) treatment fac

state of Misscontaminate
Table 6. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration (contin

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Metals

Dioxin and/or PCBs 

20

Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR (rotary kiln q q Still bottom waste 1/92 - 9/94 Two temporincinerator) and soil in drums filed to stop 

(9,804 tons) light of publ

incineration site incineradioxin waste

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
21

Table 7. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technolo

Miscellaneous Technologies

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Radioactivity

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL q Explosives: 12/4/95 - Demonstrati(Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination) contaminated piping 3/15/96 determine ef

and debris explosives-c

using the HoSystem

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne q Concrete floor 1/28/97 - 2/4/97 Demonstrate 

National Laboratory, IL covered with shot blast un(Centrifugal Shot Blast) radioactive - scabbing

contaminated paint(800 ft )2

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne q Concrete floor 1/28/97 - 2/4/97 Demonstrate 

National Laboratory, IL covered with shot compar(Rotary Peening with Captive Shot) radioactive -

contaminated paint(425 ft )2

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne q Concrete floor 12/9/96 - Demonstrate 

National Laboratory, IL covered with 12/12/96 VAC-PAC (Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC System) radioactive - mechanical 

R

contaminated paint(650 ft )2

R

Envirocare of Utah, UT q lead bricks: Fiscal Year Determine p(Polyethylene Macroencapsulation) radioactive - 1996 of this techn

contaminated(500,000 lb) 
Table 7. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technolo

Miscellaneous Technologies (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) (Quantity Treated) Duration 

Principal Contaminants*

Media Project

Chlorinated Solvents

BTEX and/or TPH

PAHs

Pesticides/Herbicides

Explosives

Radioactivity

22

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) q q 2.4 acre multilayer Installed Multilayer cSite 300 - Pit 6 Landfill OU, CA (Cap) cap over a landfill Summer 1997

* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
23

Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)

BioremediationBonneville Power Administration Total: 1,082,859 2,300 yd Not applicable $470/yd Costs were Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, WA project inv(Land Treatment) degradation 

3 3

enhanceme

Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK (Land Total: $290,288 9,800 yd Not applicable $29.62/yd Costs were Treatment) because tre

3 3

as anticipat

Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada (Land Not provided 200 tons Not applicable Projected as $186/ton Factors for Treatment) (Canadian dollars) for a location (d

full-scale application at climate), qu

this site concentrati

applicable soil pretrea

Solvent ExtractionSparrevohn Long Range Radar Total: $828,179 288 yd Not applicable $780/yd High transpStation, AK (Solvent Extraction) incurred be

3 3

remote locaonly by air

Thermal DesorptionFCX Washington Superfund Site, NC Total: $1,696,800 13,591 yd Not applicable $125/yd One of the (Thermal Desorption) vendor’s te

3 3

required seoperation a

Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Total (for entire 104,366 tons Not provided $68/ton (for entire RA) Unit costs wPilot Plant (SRCPP), WA (Thermal RA): $7,100,000 $34/ton (for treatment of economiDesorption) Total (for only)

treatment only):

$tbd
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

24

Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, Total: $1,946,122 11,768 tons Not applicable $165/ton Site work aOU 2, FL (Thermal Desorption) extensive s

lead to incrapplication

Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK Total: $3,325,000 9,500 yd Not applicable $350/yd Mobilizatio(Thermal Desorption) for this app

3 3

high becaulocation

ReSolve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA Total: $6,800,000 44,000 tons Not applicable $155/ton Treatment (Thermal Desorption) desorber to 

limits requion-site was

Waldick Aerospaces Devices Total (for entire 3,450 yd Not provided $585/yd Costs were 

Superfund Site, NJ (Thermal RA): $4,995,159 temporarily 

Desorption) Total (for compliance 

treatment only):

$2,017,361

3 3

In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)

Soil Vapor ExtractionCamp LeJeune Military Reservation, Total: $469,949 17,500 yd Not provided $27/yd Costs were Site 82, Area A, NC C: $222,455 because som

(Soil Vapor Extraction) O: $247,485 costs were 

3 3

ongoing at of a pump on-site labo

Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ Total: $207,000 63,000 yd 585,700 lbs $3.30/yd Costs were (Soil Vapor Extraction) C: $162,000 (14,700-67,800 $0.35/lb vapors wer

O: $45,000 (total) lbs/month) O: $0.06/lb internal com

$1,818-2,602 extraction s

(monthly)

3 3
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

25

Defense Supply Center Richmond, Total: $76,099 1,000 yd Not provided $76/yd Costs were OU 5, VA C: $18,225 goals for th(Soil Vapor Extraction) O: $57,874 during a 10

3 3

one extract

Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK Total: $295,760 6,300 yd Not provided $47/yd Because th(Air Sparging, In Situ C: $178,530 USACE repBioremediation, and Soil Vapor O: $117,230 transportatiExtraction) and setup a

3 3

portion of tcosts were system rem

Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA (Soil Total: $1,710,303 Not provided 60 lbs Not calculated Unit costs cVapor Extraction and Air Sparging) (negotiated cost to only prelim

date) this time; te

and groundrelatively locontaminanincluded exoperating c

Fort Richardson, Building 908 South, Total (for entire 4,600 yd Not provided $55/yd No supplemAK RA): $305,053 needed for (Soil Vapor Extraction) Total (for

technology):

$252,200

3 3

Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM Total: $610,000 9,500 yd 44,000 lbs $64/yd Use of fibe(Soil Vapor Extraction) $14/lb increase in 

3 3

Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA Total: $770,000 280,000 yd 3,000 lbs $3/yd Unit cost p(Soil Vapor Extraction) C: $550,000 $260/lb was kept lo

O: $220,000 scale in tre

3 3

also cleanutime frame 
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

26

NAS North Island, Site 9, CA Total: $93,726 1,151 lbs of VOCs Not provided Full-scale projected as Projected c(Photolytic Destruction) (for $3.77/lb demonstrat

demonstration) (only for treatment of

extracted vapors)

Seymour Recycling Corporation Total: Not 200,000 yd 30,000 lbs Not calculated Unit costs cSuperfund Site, IN (Soil Vapor provided separate coExtraction) C: $1,200,000 complex ac

3

combinatioother remed

Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC (Soil Vapor O: $568,500 30,000 ft 518,000 lbs (2,560- O: $1.09/lb Use of pulsExtraction and Groundwater (total) 94,800 lbs/month) operating cContainment) $18,000-57,500 only for op

(monthly)

2

Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site, PA Total: 30,000 yd 200,000 lbs $1,400/yd Several con(Soil Vapor Extraction) $43,400,000 $220/lb the diffusio

3 3

geology), aimplementeimprove sy

Thermal ProcessesBrodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA Total: $1,200,000 Not provided 1,500 gals $800/gal Elevated co(Contained Recovery of Oily Waste) contaminan

methodologof coal tar rbeing requi

Missouri Electric Works Superfund Not provided 52 yd Not provided Full-scale projected as Factors affeSite, MO $120-200/yd for “most include the (In Situ Thermal Desorption) standard sites” soil, and th

3

3 

contaminatnumber and for treatme
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

27

Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents)

Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU Total: $2,596,000 4,900 million 30,000 lbs $0.53/1,000 gals GW Unit cost re1, IA C: $1,587,000 gallons $80/lb of cont. for treatme(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) O: $1,009,000 extracted gFormer Firestone Facility Superfund Total: 1,800 million 496 lbs $7/1,000 gals GW Site operatSite, CA $12,884,813 gallons $26,000/lb of cont. operation o(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, C: $4,133,543 maximize cCarbon Adsorption, and Oil/Water O: $8,751,270 had compleSeparation)JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Total: $2,163,000 50.1 million 842 lbs $47/1,000 gals GW Two modifBlack & Decker RCRA Site), NY C: $879,000 gallons $2,569/lb of cont. (including (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) O: $1,284,000 system) inc

over origin

Keefe Environmental Services Total: $2,408,000 46 million gallons 68 lbs $52/1,000 gals GW As a result Superfund Site, NH C: $1,582,539 $35,000/lb of cont. replaced tw(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping O: $826,000 increase remand Coagulation/Flocculation)Lawrence Livermore National Total: 93.8 million 22 lbs (P&T) Not calculated Costs relatiLaboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - $36,600,000 gallons GW 67 lbs (SVE) three systemGeneral Services Area (GSA) (costs not 399,000 ft soil one soil) to Operable Unit, CA (Pump and Treat provided vaporwith Air Stripping and Carbon separately forAdsorption; Soil Vapor Extraction) P&T and SVE)

3

Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Total: $918,000 192.8 million 21 lbs $5.65/1,000 gals GW Relatively Site, Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile C: $305,000 gallons $44,000/lb of cont. groundwateHalogenated Organic (VHO) Plume, O: $613,000 relatively hWY (Pump and Treat with Air contaminanStripping; Soil Vapor Extraction)
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

28

Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE Total (not Not provided 12.81 gals Not calculated Information (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) provided)

C: $540,000

O: $20,000/year

(average)

Old Mill Superfund Site, OH (Pump Total: $3,236,000 13 million gallons 124 lbs $250/1,000 gals GW Modificatioand Treat with Air Stripping and C: $1,596,000 $26,100/lb of cont. containmenCarbon Adsorption) O: $1,640,000 22% SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC Total: $1,439,700 20.6 million 7 lbs $464/1,000 gals GW Complex h(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) (EPA-lead gallons $200,000/lb of cont. modificatio

portion) modify sys

C: $1,189,700 portion of a

O: $250,000

Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC Total: $2,010,000 Not provided 40.5 gals Total: $50,000/gal of Containme(Hydraulic Containment Through C: $1,960,000 cont. efficiently Active Pumping) O: $50,000 O&M (average): operational 

$15.12/gal of cont.

Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Total (not Not provided 102 gals O&M (average): To reduce oSC provided) $166/gal of cont. skimmer ba(Free Product Recovery with Air C: $394,000 (for recovery wStripping) SD-29)

O: $17,000 (cum.

for SD-29 and

ST-30) 

Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, Total: $2,510,400 257 million 2,754 lbs $10/1,000 gals GW Capital cosMO C: $893,700 gallons $913/lb of cont. installation (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) O: $1,616,700 which were 

RI/FS and cost elemen
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

29

Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Total: $2,547,387 13 million gallons 4,960 lbs $196/1,000 gals GW Site characSuperfund Site, TX (Pump and Treat C: $2,104,910 $514/lb of cont. RI did not with Air Stripping, Carbon O: $442,477 contaminatAdsorption, and Filtration) modified af

completed

Solvent Recovery Services of New Total: $5,556,900 32.5 million 4,344 lbs $265/1,000 gals GW Presence of England, Inc. Superfund Site, CT C: $4,339,600 gallons $1,280/lb of cont. elevated co(Pump and Treat with Carbon O: $1,217,300Adsorption, Chemical Treatment,Filtration, and UV/Oxidation;Vertical Barrier Wall)

Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants)

Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, Total: 80 million gallons 2,100 lbs $284/1,000 gals GW Operating cMA $22,726,000 $10,822/lb of cont. relatively h(Pump and Treat with Aeration, Air C: $14,958,000 large numbStripping, Chemical Treatment, O: $7,768,000Clarification, and Filtration)Bofors Nobel Superfund Site - OU 1, Total: 700 million 7,500 lbs $19.61/1,000 gals GW There is a cMI $13,726,000 gallons $1,830/lb of cont. contaminat(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, C: $12,200,000 focused on Carbon Adsorption, Chemical O: $763,000Treatment, Filtration, and

UV/Oxidation)City Industries Superfund Site, FL Total: $1,674,800 151.7 million 2,700 lbs $10.60/1,000 gals GW Biological (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) C: $1,094,800 gallons $590/lb of cont. equalizatio

O: $580,000 degraded sy

addition, opto optimize 

King of Prussia Technical Total: $2,816,000 151.5 million 5,420 lbs $19/1,000 gals GW Use of an oCorporation Superfund Site, NJ C: $2,031,000 gallons $520/lb of cont. treatment s(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, O: $785,000 from grounCarbon Adsorption, andElectrochemical Treatment)
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

30

LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL Total: $6,138,576 23 million gallons 127 lbs $266/1,000 gals GW Contamina(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, C: $5,314,576 $48,000/lb of cont. PCBs, later Carbon Adsorption, and Oil/Water O: $824,000 chlorinated Separation) at site Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Total: $1,212,600 100.6 million 800 lbs $13/1,000 gals GW Initial use oSite, AR (Pump and Treat with C: $465,300 gallons $1,500/lb of cont. groundwateCarbon Adsorption, Filtration, and O: $747,300 bedrock prOil/Water Separation) than use of Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, Total: $2,742,000 125 million 1,143 lbs $30/1,000 gals GW The ROD rOU 2, TX (Pump and Treat with C: $1,954,000 gallons $2,400/lb of cont. iron be proChemical Treatment, Flocculation, O: $728,000 electrochemMultimedia Filtration, of system vpH Adjustment, and Precipitation) the cost of Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Total: $2,487,700 121 million 131 lbs $26/1,000 gals GW There were Site, OU 2, TX (Pump and Treat with C: $1,927,500 gallons $19,000/lb of cont. including cChemical Treatment, Flocculation, O: $560,200 and encrusMultimedia and Cartridge Filtration, requiremenpH Adjustment, and Precipitation) site increasPope AFB, Site FT-01, NC Total: $355,600 Not provided 5,163 gals O (average): $12.90/gal Containme(Free Product Recovery) C: $289,000 of free product efficiently 

O: $66,600 operational 

Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Total: $490,200 Not provided 3,516 gals O (average): $27.36/gal ContainmeSpill Site, NC C: $394,000 of free product efficiently (Free Product Recovery) O: $96,200 operational Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Total: 1,200 million 427,000 lbs $23/1,000 gals GW An ESD reSite, NH $27,600,000 gallons $64/lb of cont. system (add(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, C: $9,100,000 SVE for toBiological Treatment, Chemical O: $18,500,000 resulted in Treatment, Clarification, costsFlocculation, and Mixed-mediaPressure Filtration; Cap; Soil VaporExtraction; Vertical Barrier Wall)
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

31

United Chrome Superfund Site, OR Total: $4,637,160 62 million gallons 31,459 lbs $75/1,000 gals GW Initially us(Pump and Treat with Reduction & C: $3,329,840 $140/lb of cont. system rathPrecipitation) O: $1,307,320 permanent 

discontinue operational magnitude

U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI Total: $1,942,000 329 million 664 lbs $5/1,000 gals GW Operation o(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping) C: $1,332,000 gallons $2,925/lb of cont. treat system 

O: $610,000 system redu

Western Processing Superfund Site, Total: 974 million 102,000 lbs $50/1,000 gals GW Initial goal WA $48,730,112 gallons $478/lb of cont. pump and t(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, C: $16,032,629 containmenand Filtration; Vertical Barrier Wall) O: $32,697,483 use of a slu

Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies

Balfour Road Site, CA; Fourth Plain Balfour Road: Not provided Not provided Not provided Amount of Service Station Site, WA; Steve’s $33,500; Fourth ORC sourStandard and Golden Belt 66 Site, KS Plain Service to apply OR(Enhanced Bioremediation of Station: $35,700Groundwater) Steve’s Standard

and Golden Belt

66: $93,400

R

Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL Monthly lease and 126,400 gallons Not provided Not provided Operating c(Chemical Reaction and Flocculation, operation costs: twice as higand Dissolved Air Flotation) CRF/DAF: primarily d

$7,580 however, th

Oleofiltration: higher rem

$3,650 contaminan

Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA Total (P&T): Total: 38 million Total: 140 lbs P&T: $38/1,000 gals P&T replac(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping; $1,343,800 gallons P&T: 124 lbs GW operating cPermeable Reactive Barrier) Total (PRB) P&T: 36 million PRB: 16 lbs $10,900/lb of cont. increasing 

$762,000 gallons PRB: $38/1,000 gals

PRB: 2 million GWgallons $49,400/lb of cont.
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

32

French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX Total: 306 million 517,000 lbs $110/1,000 gals GW Use of thre(Pump and Treat with Activated $33,689,000 gallons $15/lb of cont. situ bioremSludge for Extracted Groundwater; In C: $15,487,000 walls to coSitu Bioremediation) O: $18,202,000Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL Total: $694,325 80 million gallons 1,961 lbs $9/1,000 gals GW Optimizatio(Pump and Treat with Air Sparging) C: $249,005 $354/lb of cont. focus on pr

O: $445,320 achieved w

Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, Total: $5,628,600 15.1 million 37,570 lbs $374/1,000 gals GW Use of ProtMT C: $3,101,000 gallons $150/lb of cont. increased b(Pump and Treat; In Situ O: $2,618,600 costs (pumBioremediation) extended pMoffett Federal Airfield, CA Total: $405,000 0.284 million Not provided $1,400/1,000 gals GW Increased p(Permeable Reactive Barrier) C: $373,000 gallons conducted 

O: $32,000 and validat

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL Total: $981,251 2,000 yd of soil 1,200 lbs Projected for full-scale Factors for (In Situ Air and Steam Stripping - (for O: $50-400/yd design and Dual Auger Rotary Steam Stripping) demonstration) $300-500/lb of cont. systems (dr

3

3

gas scrubbeeffective op

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL Total: $397,074 0.25 million Not provided Projected for full-scale Limiting fa(In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation) (for gallons O: $0.12/gal GW ability to d

demonstration) to all conta

hydrogeolosite which 

Pinellas Northeast Site, FL Total: $88,728 6,200 gallons Not provided Projected for full-scale Costs for fu(Membrane Filtration - PerVap) (for $0.01-0.015/gal GW desired trea

demonstration) unit costs f

comparable operation 
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

33

Site A (actual name confidential), NY Total: $1,941,560 8.4 million gallons 5,315 lbs $200/1,000 gals GW Use of skid(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping; C: $1,503,133 $365/lb of cont. equipment In Situ Bioremediation; Air Sparging; O: $358,427Soil Vapor Extraction)U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC Total: $585,000 2.6 million gallons Not provided $225/1,000 gals GW Use of a PR(Permeable Reactive Barrier) C: $500,000 nearly $4,0

O: $85,000 long-term m

compared wtreat system

On-Site Incineration

Baird & McGuire, MA Total: 248,000 tons of NA $540/ton No comme

$133,000,000 soil and

Treatment: NA sediment

Bayou Bonfouca, LA Total: 250,000 tons of $288/ton $440/ton EPA paid f

$110,000,000 sediment basis of dry 

Treatment: of the weig

$72,000,000 therefore w

contractor train and guunnecessar

Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services, Total: NA 172,000 tons of NA NA SCC suppoNJ Treatment: NA sediment, sludge, repair loss 

debris, oil, and falling into 

soil to ash and 

numerous r

Celanese Corporation, NC Total: $5,300,000 4,660 tons of soil $410/ton $1,000/ton The site op

Treatment: and sludge incineration 

$1,900,000 compared w

because a rwaste was t

Coal Creek, WA $8,100,000 9,715 tons of soil NA $830/ton No comme

Treatment: NA
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

34

FMC Corporation-Yakima, WA Total: $6,000,000 7,840 tons of soil* NA $770/ton Statistical m

Treatment: NA (5,600 cubic minimize th

yards) excavated.

Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - Total: 16,449 tons of soil $394/ton $650/ton Project cosOU 1, NE $10,700,000 and debris expected du

Treatment: of contamin

$6,479,245 encountere

Additional due to shuta period of 

MOTCO, TX Total: 23,021 tons of $1,346/ton $3,300/ton Inaccurate 

$76,000,000 soil, sludge, the waste s

Treatment: organic liquid, and mechanical 

$31,000,000 aqueous waste incineration 

Old Midland, AR Total: 102,000 tons of $220/ton (excavate, $264/ton The criterio

$27,100,000 soil, sludge, and incinerate, backfill) ash was rai

Treatment: sediment reducing re

$22,500,000 throughput

(excavate, soil undere

incinerate,

backfill)

Petro Processors, LA Total: 213,376 gallons of $21/gal $280/gal No comme

$59,220,000 organic liquid and

through 5/97 fumes (as of June

Treatment: 1997)

$4,800,000

through 5/97

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO Total: 10.9 million $5/gal $9/gal Heavy rain

$93,000,000 gallons of liquid liquid requ

Treatment: constructio

$58,000,000 was require

treatment” treatment cafter treatm$18,900,00
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

35

Rose Disposal Pit, MA Total: 51,000 tons of soil NA NA Operating i

NA weather-rel

Treatment: NA in suspensi

spring.

Rose Township Dump, MI Total: 34,000 tons of soil NA $350/ton An estimat

$12,000,000 and debris ash require

Treatment: NA did not mee

disposal.

Sikes Disposal Pits, TX Total: 496,000 tons of $160/ton $230/ton Completed 

$115,000,000 soil and debris schedule be

(total includes supplied a 

$11,000,000 in treatment c

miscellaneous after treatm

O&M costs)

Treatment: 

$81,000,000

Times Beach, MO Total: 265,000 tons of Confidential $800/ton An estimat

$110,000,000 soil and debris ash require

Treatment: did not mee

Confidential

Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR Total: 9,804 tons waste NA $3,200/ton The mixed 

$31,700,000 and soil stream had 

Treatment: NA creating dif

optimal temBecause of issues relatsafety arosedisposed of under RCRincreasing 

Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous Technologies

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, C: $689,500 Not provided Not provided Not calculated Cost for fuAL O: $3,337 sites will v(Transportable Hot-Gas equipment Decontamination) selected op
Table 8. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)

Site Name, State (Technology) Cost ($)* Media Treated Removed for Treatment** Te

Technology Quantity of Contaminant Calculated Unit Cost Key Fact

Quantity of

36

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Total: $23,000 800 ft Not provided Not calculated The centrifReactor, Argonne National incrementa

Laboratory, IL mechanical (Centrifugal Shot Blast) savings for 

2

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Total: $4,500 425 ft Not provided Not calculated Cost for thiReactor, Argonne National than mecha

Laboratory, IL temporary (Rotary Peening with Captive Shot) airborne co

2

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Total: $6,500 650 ft Not provided Not calculated Cost for thiReactor, Argonne National than mecha

Laboratory, IL temporary (Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC airborne co

R

System)

2

Envirocare of Utah, UT Not provided Not provided Not provided Total: $90-100/ft Costs for fu(Polyethylene Macroencapsulation) O: $800/55-gal drum depends on 

3

(average) recycled po

index needcharacteris

Lawrence Livermore National Construction: 2.4 acres Not applicable Not applicable SubstitutinLaboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6 $1,500,000 natural matLandfill OU, CA (Cap) saved over 

Technology Cost* Calculated Cost for Treatment**C = Capital costs Calculated based on sum of capital and O&M costs, divO = Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs removed. Calculated costs shown as “Not Calculated” 

quantity treated or removed was not available. Unit coquantity of media treated and quantity of contaminant r

*** For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual technology costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies gene

costs for a future application using this technology.
37

EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 

(BIOREMEDIATION, SOLVENT EXTRACTION, THERMAL DESORPTION)

ABSTRACTS
38

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
39

BIOREMEDIATION ABSTRACTS
40

Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration

Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area

Vancouver, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Bonneville Power Administration

Ross Complex, Operable Unit A,

Wood Pole Storage Area

High molecular weight polycyclic November 1994 - January 1996

aromatic hydrocarbons (HPAHs)

and pentachlorophenol (PCP)

- HPAHs in soils during RI at levels

up to 150 mg/kg (1,500 mg/kg in

hot spots)

- PCP in soils during RI at levels up

to 62 mg/kg (5,00 mg/kg in hot

spots)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Vancouver, Washington Full-scale

(EPRI also used this application for

research)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Information not provided Land Treatment CERCLA

- Four treatment beds (housed in a - ROD signed: May 6, 1993

temporary tent); soil pretreated

using a 0.25-inch vibrating screen

- Total of four treatment series -

each series involved the four

treatment beds used concurrently to

test different combinations of

enhancements (UV oxidation,

peroxide addition, and ethanol

addition) and bioremediation

(nutrient addition) 

- Mixing rate - weekly during

treatment series 1; beds changed

once every 84 days

- Residence time - average of 84

days

- Depths of lifts - 6 to 12 inches

PRP Representative: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Tony Morrell Nancy Harney 

BPA Ross Complex U.S. EPA Region 10

5411 Northeast Highway 99 1200 6th Avenue

Vancouver, WA 98663 Seattle, WA 98101

(360) 418-2884 (206) 553-6635

EPRI Representative:

Dr. Benjamin J. Mason

ETHURA

Electric Power Research Institute

9671 Monument Drive

Grants Pass, OR 97526-8782

(541) 471-1869

Waste Source: Drips and spills Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

from wood preserving operations Soil - 2,300 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Combination of

bioremediation and enhancements

used to land treat contaminated soil

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD specified primary target goals of 1 mg/kg for HPAH and 8 mg/kg for PCP.

- Because of concern about the ability to achieve the primary goal, the ROD included three alternatives (tiers) of

cleanup goals. Tier 1: Enhanced land treatment - 1 mg/kg for HPAH; 8 mg/kg for PCP; Tier 2: Enhanced land

treatment with installation of gravel cap on soil and institutional controls - 23 mg/kg for HPAH; 126 mg/kg for

PCP; and Tier 3: Enhanced land treatment, with installation of multilayered cap on soil and institutional controls,

greater than 23 mg/kg HPAH, greater than 126 mg/kg PCP.
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration

Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area

Vancouver, Washington (continued)

41

Results:

- HPAH and PCP levels in soil were reduced by approximately 80 percent after treatment, and all soils met Tier 2

levels, at a minimum.

- Concentrations for the four treatment series ranged from 6.76 to 21.83 mg/kg for HPAHs and from 6.8 to 20.7

mg/kg for PCP.

- EPRI concluded that land treatment could not meet Tier 1 cleanup goals for all soil at the site.

Cost:

- Actual total cost of the project through November 1995 - $1,082,859 ($532,859 paid by BPA and $550,000 paid

by EPRI). Includes costs for excavation, capital equipment, and operation and maintenance (O&M). Does not

include cost for a gravel cap that was not completed until January 1996.

- The total cost of $1,082,859 corresponds to a unit cost of $470 per yd for 2,300 yd of soil treated. 3 3 

Description:

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns and operates a power distribution center in Vancouver,

Washington, known as the Ross Complex. The site, an active facility that BPA has operated since 1939 to

distribute hydroelectric power throughout the Pacific Northwest, also has been used for research and testing,

maintenance construction operations, and storage and handling of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Operable

Unit A (OU A) at the Ross complex consists of 21 contaminated areas, including the Wood Pole Storage Area. 

The Wood Pole Storage Area had been used to dry transmission line poles treated off site with pentachlorophenol

(PCP) and creosote. The treated poles were transported to the site and placed on cross poles to dry. 

Contamination occurred when chemicals dripped from the poles onto the ground. A remedial investigation (RI)

identified HPAHs (the sum of eight carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in creosote) and PCP as

the contaminants of concern. Under a ROD signed May 6, 1993, land treatment was selected as the remedy for the

Wood Pole Storage Area. EPRI agreed to split the cost of the remediation in exchange for use of the project as a

research tool to evaluate the rates of degradation under various bioremediation enhancement techniques.

The land treatment system consisted of a temporary treatment tent that housed four treatment beds. Contaminated

soil first was passed through a 0.25-inch vibrating screen and then was placed in a treatment bed. Four treatment

beds were used to concurrently test different bioremediation enhancement techniques including UV oxidation,

peroxide addition, and ethanol addition, well as biodegradation (nutrient addition). Several combinations

(configurations) of enhancements and biodegradation with nutrient addition were tested with the four test beds

operated concurrently over a total of four different treatment series. All soils met Tier 2 levels; however, EPRI

concluded that land treatment could not meet Tier 1 cleanup goals for all soil at the site. For this application, the

performance of bioremediation with nutrient addition was found to be comparable to land treatment enhanced with

hydrogen peroxide, ethanol, or UV light or with combinations of these enhancements. EPRI identified factors that

could improve performance of UV-enhanced bioremediation for future applications, including: (1) using a higherintensity UV light, (2) mixing soil more frequently, and (3) increasing the dissolution of contaminants to increase

exposure to the UV rays. Initially, the nutrient solution was based on Alaska fish meal. However, test results

showed that the microorganisms consumed the fish meal but did not degrade the contaminants of concern. A

change was made to a new nutrient solution based of Miracle GroTM, a fertilizer containing nitrogen. EPRI noted

that results improved when a relatively large volume of nutrient solution was maintained in the soils and that the

treatment efficiency was relatively consistent throughout the year, independent of ambient temperature and

precipitation.
42

Land Treatment of

the UST Soil Piles at

Fort Greely, Alaska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

UST Soil Piles Semivolatile and volatile Status: Complete

nonhalogenated hydrocarbons - Report covers: 9/94 through 8/97

gasoline, diesel fuel, and BTEX

components. Maximum

contaminant concentrations of

3,000 mg/kg gasoline range

organics, 1,200 mg/kg diesel range

organics, and 20.2 mg/kg BTEX. 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Fort Greely, Alaska Remedial Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

John Terwilliger Land Treatment Remedial Action under Alaska

Nugget Construction, Inc. - Stockpiled soil was washed and Department of Environmental

8726 Corbin Drive screened into stockpiles by Conservation UST Regulations

Anchorage, AK 99507 particle size.

(907) 344-8365 - The small diameter soil was

placed into windrows and tilled USACE Contact: Regulatory Point of Contact: during summer months. Bernard T. Gagnon Rielle Markey

USACE - Alaska District Alaska Department of

P.O. Box 898 Environmental Conservation

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 University Avenue

(907) 753-5718 Fairbanks, AK 99709

(907) 451-2117

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaks from USTs and/or Soil

overfilling of USTs or ASTs - 11,939 yd screened and washed 3

- 9,800 yd land treated 3

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Application of land treatment to

treat gasoline and diesel

contaminated soil ex situ

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The goal of this remedial objective was to meet the ADEC Level A standards for UST-contaminated soils (as

cited at 18 AAC 78.315) so that the soil could be used as final cover material for Landfill 7. The Level A

standards are: DRO - 100 mg/kg, GRO - 50 mg/kg, benzene - 0.1 mg/kg, total BTEX - 10 mg/kg, and RRO -

2,000 mg/kg.
Land Treatment of

the UST Soil Piles at

Fort Greely, Alaska (continued)

43

Results:

- The concentrations of hydrocarbons in the contaminated UST soil stockpiles was reduced to below the ADEC

Level A standards in two summers (with the exception of two samples that still contained DRO above the

cleanup standard). The soil was used in the capping of the landfill.

- The average concentrations of contaminants indicate that the mass of DRO in the contaminated soil was

reduced from 4,641 kg to 719 kg (approximately 85 percent), and the mass of GRO in the contaminated soil

was reduced from 175 kg to nondetectable levels (approximately 100 percent) during the land treatment.

- Initial estimates, based on oxygen uptake measurements taken during a treatabililty study, showed that the

remediation of the soil would take approximately 60 days of summer temperatures. The actual remediation

took more than twice that long (July 1995 through July 1997).

Cost:

- The total cost of this remedial action was $696,171, consisting of $405,883 Phase I, soil screening and

washing (including site preparation and mobilization) and $290,288 for Phase II, land treatment of soil.

- A total of 11,939 yd of gasoline- and diesel-contaminated soil were processed in Phase I and 9,800 yd 3 3

(approximately 82 percent of the total volume) were treated in Phase II. The unit cost breakdown is: $34/yd3

for Phase I, $29.62/yd for Phase II, and $58.29/yd for the total treatment. 3 3

Description:

The UST soil stockpiles are located at the 1970s landfill or “Landfill 7,” located in the southeast sector of the

U.S. Army Ft. Greely military facility. Ft. Greely is located approximately five miles south of Delta Junction,

Alaska. The contaminated soil stockpiles were generated from the excavation of contaminated soil during a

facility upgrade and site restoration activities at the Black Rapids Ski Area during the Summers of 1992 and

1993 and from the excavation of contaminated areas near buildings 602 and 606 at Ft. Greely in August 1991.

In the Fall of 1994 and Summer of 1995, Phase I of the remedial action was conducted, involving the screening

and washing of the contaminated soil stockpiles and the completion of a biotreatability study on samples of the

contaminated soil. The biotreatability study determined that the contaminated soil could be effectively treated via

land treatment. In the Summer of 1995, the contaminated soil stockpiles were separated into windrows, to which

nutrients and water were added. The windrows were tilled on a regular schedule during the summers of 1995

and 1996. Samples of the contaminated soil were collected at the end of each summer. In June 1997, closure

samples were collected, which showed that the levels of contaminants in the soil had been reduced to below

ADEC Level A cleanup standards in all but two of the samples. The soil was then used in the capping of

Landfill 7.
44

Ex Situ Bioremediation at

Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Novartis Semivolatiles - halogenated 3/96 - 9/97

- organic pesticides/herbicides,

including Metolachlor, 2,4-D,

Dinoseb, Atrizine

- Metolachlor - initial

concentrations as high as 170

mg/kg

Location: Cleanup Type:

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

David Raymond, Project Manager

Grace Bioremediation

Technologies

3465 Semenyk Court

Mississauga, Ontario

Canada

(905) 273-5374

Ex situ bioremediation of soils Information not provided

using the DARAMEND process

- main treatment area, high

Metolachlor test cell and static

control cell

- alternated aerobic and anaerobic

conditions (10 cycles)

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Information not provided Information not provided

Waste Source: Contamination Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

resulting from formulating and Soil - 200 tons. Excavated from the site and stockpiled for treatment.

warehousing pesticides and

herbicides

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate the

performance of the DARAMEND

process for treating Metolachlorcontaminated soils

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

Information on specific cleanup objectives was not included in this report. Performance and results are described

in terms of reductions in concentrations of contaminants.

Results:

- Concentrations of Metolachlor in the main treatment cell were reduced from initial levels ranging from 48 to 84

mg/kg to below a detection level of 1.0 mg/kg. Concentrations in the high Metolachlor (HM) test cell were

reduced from initial concentrations of 170 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg.

- Within the HM test cell, only the top 30 cm of a 60 cm deep cell were tilled during the demonstration. 

According to the vendor, effective treatment may not have occurred throughout the cell. A sample of the top 30

cm only of the HM test cell showed Metolachlor concentrations of 11.8 mg/kg.

Cost:

- No costs were reported for the demonstration.

- The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for treating the estimated 600 tons of

contaminated soil that remained at the Novartis site would be $111,600 or $186/ton (in Canadian dollars).
Ex Situ Bioremediation at

Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario (continued)

45

Description:

The Novartis site (formerly Ciba-Geigy), located in Cambridge, Ontario, has been used for the formulation and

warehousing of agricultural chemicals since 1972. The site was contaminated with organochlorine pesticides and

herbicides, with Metolachlor being the primary contaminant at the site. In 1996, Grace Bioremediation

Technologies (Grace) conducted a pilot-scale demonstration of an ex situ bioremediation technology as part of a

grant to complete the development of the DARAMEND bioremediation process. The grant was funded by the

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy’s Environmental Technologies Program, Environment Canada’s

Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation Technologies Program, and by Grace. The demonstration,

conducted from March 1996 to September 1997, involved 200 tons of soil from the Novartis site that had been

excavated and stockpiled. The soil was contaminated with Metolachlor, Dinoseb, Atrizine, and 2,4-D. 

The ex situ treatment area included three cells - the main treatment cell (180 tons), the high Metolachlor (HM)

test cell (10 tons), and a static control cell (10 tons). Soils were placed in the cells which were located within a

greenhouse enclosure. The demonstration was designed to cycle between aerobic conditions and anaerobic

conditions to promote the degradation of the contaminants. During the demonstration, the soil was subjected to a

total of ten cycles. DARAMEND amendments and inorganic amendments (for example multivalent metal) were

added to the soil. The soil was covered with a tarp during the anaerobic cycle and was tilled during the aerobic

cycle. Data from the treated soil in the main treatment cell showed that concentrations of contaminants were

reduced to below detection levels. Metolachlor was reduced from initial concentrations ranging from 48 to 84

mg/kg to below the detection limit of 1.0 mg/kg. Levels of Metolachlor within the HM cell were reduced from

170 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg. However, according to Grace, only the top 30 cm of the 60 cm deep cell were tilled

during the demonstration such that the treatment was not effective throughout the entire cell. Data from the top

30 cm only of the HM cell showed that Metolachlor levels had been reduced to 11.8 mg/kg.

The projected cost to treat the remaining 600 tons of soil at the Novartis site using this technology was $111,600

or $186/ton in Canadian dollars. Grace noted that because these costs were based on the demonstration, which

included extensive process monitoring and waste analysis costs, the projected cost for a full-scale application

would be significantly less.
46

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
47

SOLVENT EXTRACTION ABSTRACTS
48

Solvent Extraction at

the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,

Alaska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Semivolatile (halogenated) - PCBs. Status: Complete

Station PCB concentrations in untreated Report covers: 6/96 through 8/96

soil analyzed during the treatability

study ranged from 13 to 346 mg/kg,

with an average concentration of 80

mg/kg.

Location: Cleanup Type:

Alaska Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial

Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Prime Contractor: Solvent extraction Air Force Installation Restoration

Linder Construction - Stockpiled soil was treated in 85 Program. The cleanup was

8220 Petersburg Street yd batches using solvent negotiated by the Alaska

Anchorage, AK 99507 extraction in specially-constructed Department of Environmental

(907) 349-6222 lined treatment cells. Conservation (ADEC) and target

Treatment Vendor: and-drain mode, with 1 by the Air Force and ADEC.

Terra Kleen Response Group day/treatment cycle and 8

Lanny D. Weimer treatment cycles/batch.

3630 Cornus Lane - The solvent was reclaimed on site

Ellicott City, MD 21042 through a molecular sieve, and

(410) 750-0626 burned on site after the treatment

3

- The system was operated in a fill- levels were agreed upon mutually

was completed.

- Solvent extraction was chosen

over thermal desorption and soil

washing on the basis of costeffectiveness and the relative

logistics of mobilizing treatment

equipment to the isolated site.

Additional Contacts: State Point of Contact:

Bernard T. Gagnon Ray Burger

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Alaska Department of

Alaska District Environmental Conservation

P.O. Box 898 Contaminated Sites Remediation

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Program

(907) 753-5718 555 Cordova Street

Air Force Project Manager: (907) 563-6529

Patricia Striebich

611 CES/CEVR th

Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK

99506

(907) 552-4506

Anchorage, AK 99501

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Transformer storage, transformer Soil

maintenance, and drum storage - 288 yd3

- Gravel with fines and likely little or no clay Purpose/Significance of - Moisture content 9%

Application:

Application of an innovative

technology to treat PCBcontaminated soil at a remote site

in Alaska.
Solvent Extraction at

the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,

Alaska (continued)

49

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- A target cleanup level of 15 mg/kg for PCBs in soil was established for this application.

- The contractor was required to perform sampling of the soil at the surface and the bottom of each treatment

cell.

- Concentrations of PCBs in the reclaimed solvent were required to be less than 2 mg/L before the solvent could

be burned on site.

Results:

- Average concentrations of PCBs were reduced from 80 mg/kg in the untreated soil to 3.27 mg/kg after

treatment.

- Concentrations of PCBs measured in samples from the tops and bottoms of each of the five batches of treated

soil were reduced to below the 15 mg/kg target cleanup level.

- The concentrations of PCBs in treated soil varied among the batches by one order of magnitude. This variation

was attributed to the variations in the concentrations of PCBs in the untreated soil.

- PCBs were not detected at concentrations above detection limits (0.1 mg/L) in the reclaimed solvent.

- Based on a mass balance, approximately 33.8 pounds of PCBs were transferred from the 441,000 kg of

contaminated soil to 4,772 pounds of molecular sieve (used to reclaim the solvent), resulting in a contaminated

material mass reduction of almost 100 to 1.

Cost:

- The total cost of this application was $828,179, including $602,530 for mobilization and demobilization, and

$225,649 for the solvent extraction. This was less than one-half of the estimated cost of $1,908,545 to transfer

all of the contaminated soil to the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office.

- The cost for solvent extraction corresponds to a unit cost of $780 per cubic yard of soil treated.

- Because of its remote location, the site was only accessible by air. Therefore, transportation costs for both

mobilization and demobilization were a major factor in the overall cost of the project.

Description:

The Sparrevohn LRRS was constructed in 1952, and is one of ten Aircraft Control and Warning sites constructed

as part of the air defense system in Alaska. The site is located approximately 200 miles west of Anchorage and

is accessible only by air. It is currently operated by the Air Force as a Minimally Attended Radar facility and

consists of a lower camp (elevation 1,700 feet) that includes support facilities and an upper camp (elevation

3,300 feet that houses radar equipment.

In 1986, PCB contamination was delineated at the site. In 1989, approximately 450 tons of PCB-contaminated

soil from the lower camp were excavated and transported off site for disposal, and approximately 600 tons of

PCB-contaminated soil from the upper camp were transported to the lower camp and stockpiled.

A treatability study was conducted on the stockpiled soil in 1995, and as a result of the study, the stockpiled soil

was treated in batches using solvent extraction between June and August of 1996. Closure and site restoration

activities at the site were completed in September 1996.
50

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
51

THERMAL DESORPTION ABSTRACTS
52

Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the FCX

Washington Superfund Site 

Washington, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

FCX Washington Superfund Site Pesticides March 1995 - March 1996

- Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, DDE,

DDD, dieldrin, heptachlor,

heptachlor epoxide, methoxychlor,

benzene hexachlorides

Location: Cleanup Type:

Washington, North Carolina Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Nanette Orr Thermal Desorption CERCLA Removal

McLaren/Hart Environmental - IRHV-200 vacuum-enhanced low - Action memorandum date:

Engineering Corporation temperature thermal desportion 9/29/88

Great Woods Park system

800 South Main Street - Four treatment chambers each

Mansfield, MA 02048 equipped with 8 infrared heaters. 

(508) 261-1515 At 1100(F, each heater produced

137,000 BTU/hr

- Liquid seal vacuum pump used to

create vacuum of 50 mmHg

- High flow recirculation blower

(6,000 acfm)

- Air draw off recirculation stream

(300 acfm) directed to air

emissions control

- Dry particulate filters,

condensors, and carbon adsorption

units

- Residence time - 4 hr (batch

process)

- Soil temperatire - 350(F for a

minimum of 5 minutes

State Contact: On-Scene Coordinator (OSC):

Randy McElveen Paul Peronard

North Carolina DEHNR EPA Region 4

P.O. Box 27687 345 Cortland Street, N.E.

Raleigh, NC 27611 Atlanta, GA 30365

(919) 733-2801 (404) 562-8767

Waste Source: Buried waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

pesticides Soil - 13,591 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Vacuum-enhanced

low-temperature thermal desorption

used to treat pesticidecontaminated soil 

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Total pesticides - 1.0 mg/kg

- For the demonstration, air emissions were to meet the EPA Region 4 Air Compliance Section standards for

vented air emissions; no air emission standards were set for the full-scale operation.

Results:

- Treated soil met the cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total pesticides.

- A one-time stack air monitoring test was performed during the demonstration; all standards were met.
Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the FCX

Washington Superfund Site 

Washington, North Carolina (continued)

53

Cost:

- Total cost of $1,844,600 including $1,696,800 in costs directly associated with treatment.

- Based on 13,591 cubic yards of soil treated, the unit cost was $125 per cubic yard.

Description:

From 1945 to 1982, the Farmers Cooperative Exchange (FCX) operated a pesticide blending facility and

warehouse where it packaged pesticides. The pesticides most frequently handled at the site were chlorinated

organic pesticides including chlordane, methoxychlor, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and 1,1-

dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl) ethene (DDE). Various other chlorinated and nonchlorinated organic chemicals

were used in mixing and blending of pesticides. Outdated or out-of-specification materials were buried in

trenches on the FCX property. In 1985, the company filed for bankruptcy, and the building and warehouses were

cleaned out. In 1986, the Fred Webb Grain Company (FWGC) purchased approximately 15 acres of the FCX

property to be used to store grain under the federal government grain subsidy program. Subsequent

investigations of the site performed by EPA and the state indicated that the site was contaminated with pesticides. 

The site was listed on the NPL in March 1989. The removal site investigation, performed in 1992, identified

pesticide contamination in trenches at the site. Approximately 14,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil (total

chlorinated pesticides above 1 ppm) were excavated and stock piled for on-site incineration. As a result of

objections by the city to on-site incineration and in response to state issues regarding off-site disposal, EPA

identified on-site thermal desorption as the remedy for the excavated contaminated soil at FCX.

Vacuum-enhanced, low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) was used to treat the contaminated soil at the

FCX site. The system operated under a vacuum of about 50 mm Hg and used an infrared heat source to desorb

contaminants from the soil. By operating under a vacuum, the temperature required to desorb contaminants from

the soil and the amount of oxygen present in the treatment chamber are lower than if the unit were operated under

atmospheric conditions, helping to reduce the potential for formation of dioxins and furans. The model IRHV200 mobile LTTD system used at the site included a treatment chamber, and emission control equipment

including a dry particulate filter, condenser, and carbon adsorption unit. McLaren/Hart conducted two site

demonstrations before full-scale operations began. The initial demonstration, conducted with a batch of clean

soil, failed to heat the soil throughout. Several modification were made to the full-scale system to improve heat

transfer. Samples of treated soil were collected for each 500-ton lot of soil (total of three lots). The results of

the full-scale operation showed that the LTTD met the cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total pesticides in each of the

three lots. Data also showed that concentrations of dioxins and furans in the treated soil were less than in the

untreated soil. McLaren/Hart used the results of the FCX application to identify a number of modifications and

improvements to the LTTD system to further improve heat transfer rates and to decrease the overall length of the

treatment cycles for other applications. A detailed summary of these improvements is included in the report.
54

Thermal Desorption at

the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant,

Ft. Lewis, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant Semivolatile (nonhalogenated) - Status: Complete

(SRCPP) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Report covers: August through

(PAHs). PAHs were detected December 1996

throughout the SRCPP, with

individual PAH concentrations as

high as 410 mg/kg, and typically

not exceeding 2 mg/kg.

Location: Cleanup Type:

Ft. Lewis, Washington Remedial Action

ROD Date: October 15, 1993

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Melody Allen Thermal Desorption Conducted under a federal facilities

Dames & Moore, Inc. - Soil was pre-screened using a1 1⁄2 agreement among the EPA, the

2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 -inch bar screen. U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, and the State

Seattle, Washington 98121 - Pre-screened soil was fed to the of Washington Department of

(206)728-0744 direct-fired, rotary kiln-type Ecology

thermal desorption unit.

- Soil was treated at nominally

700-750 F with a throughput of o

50-150 tons per hour.

- Off-gas was treated with a

baghouse and recycled to the

desorber or thermally oxidized

and discharged to the

atmosphere.

USACE Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Bill Goss Bob Kievit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Remedial Project Manager

Seattle District U.S. EPA, Region 10

CENWS-PM-HW Washington Operations Office

P.O. Box 3755 300 Desmend Street, Suite 102

Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Lacey, Washington 98503

(206) 764-3267 Telephone: (360) 753-9014

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaks and spills Soil

- 104,336 tons of soil were treated during this application, including

2,200 tons during the field demonstration.

- Soil was classified as various sand and gravel.

- Moisture content was 4%.

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Thermal desorption of a relativelylarge amount of soil contaminated

with PAHs.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup levels for this application were 1 mg/kg for the sum of the concentrations for seven carcinogenic

PAHs (based on the Record of Decision) and 200 mg/kg for both diesel range and oil range fuel hydrocarbons

(based on the Ft. Lewis base management).

- The PAH cleanup level was derived from Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Method B cleanup

levels for ingestion of soil containing carcinogenic PAHs.

- Air emission limits for this application were established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency as

performance standards limiting the acceptable physical operating parameters for the baghouse and thermal

oxidizer. 
Thermal Desorption at

the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant,

Ft. Lewis, Washington (continued)

55

Results:

- The LTTD system used at the SRCPP achieved soil cleanup levels and air emission standards during the

treatment of the contaminated soil at a desorber temperature generally between 700 and 750°F.

- During the field demonstration test, the system treated soil contaminated with total carcinogenic PAHs at

levels ranging from 0.6 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg to less than the 1.0 mg/kg cleanup level established for this

application.

- During full operation of the LTTD system, samples of treated soil had concentrations of total carcinogenic

PAHs ranging from below detection limit to 0.44 mg/kg.

Cost:

- The total cost for this application was approximately $7,100,000. The unit cost for thermal desorption

treatment of contaminated soil was approximately $34 per ton treated, and for the entire RA was approximately

$68 per ton treated.

- The original bid for this application was approximately $3,500,000. There were 23 modifications to the bid,

resulting in a final cost that was approximately twice the original. Modifications included such items as an

increase in the quantity of soil requiring treatment and additional site work.

Description:

The SRCPP occupies approximately 25 acres between Sequalitchew Lake and Hammer Marsh on North Ft.

Lewis, approximately 12 miles south of the city of Tacoma, Washington. It was operated from 1974 to 1981 as a

production and research facility that worked to develop a solvent extraction process to derive petroleum

hydrocarbon products from coal via operations such as heat extraction and thermal cracking. Soil at the SRCPP

was contaminated by leaks and spills of process materials that occurred during operations at the plant.

On the basis of the remedial investigation and pre-remediation surface soil chemistry survey, 17 areas were

identified for excavation of contaminated soil. The thermal desorption system used to treat the soil consisted of a

rotary thermal desorber with a baghouse and a thermal oxidizer for off-gas treatment. 

Approximately 104,000 tons of contaminated soil were treated during a field demonstration test and full-scale

operation of the system. Samples of treated soil had total concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs ranging from

below detection limits to 0.44 mg/kg.
56

Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2

Jacksonville, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site

17, OU 2

Petroleum products and chlorinated June 19 to September 25, 1995

solvents

- BTEX

- 1,2-dichlorobenzene as high as 

 18 mg/kg

- Napthalene as high as 19 mg/kg

- 2-methylnapthalene as high as 47

mg/kg

Location: Cleanup Type:

Jacksonville, Florida Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Dustcoating, Inc. Thermal Desorption: CERCLA

Maple Plain, Minnesota - Mobile propane-fired Gencor - Interim ROD dated September 30,

Model 232 rotary drum dryer 1994

modified to thermally process

contaminated soil

- 60-inch-diameter-by-20-foot-long

rotary dryer with burner (directfired), a primary collector

baghouse, and an afterburner

system

- Nominal system throughput - 25-

50 tons/hour; actual system

throughput - 17 tons/hour. 

- Soil temperature - 825(F

- Average residence time - 3.5

minutes

- Afterburner temperature -

1,500(F with a retention time of

approximately two seconds

Navy Point of Contact: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Mark Davidson Debbie Vaughn-Wright 

Southern Division, Naval Facilities U.S. EPA Region 4

Engineering Command 61 Forsyth Street, SW

North Charleston, SC 29419-9010 Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

(843) 820-5526 (404) 562-8539

Waste Source: Disposal of waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

fuel and oil Soil - 11,768 tons

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Mobile thermal

desorption unit used to treat soil

contaminated with fuel and

solvents

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH) level of 50 mg/kg provided that total polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH) were less than 1 mg/kg and total volatile organic hydrocarbons were less than 50 mg/kg.

- Particulate emissions of 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) 

Results:

- 110 of 115 post-treatment samples met the cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg TRPH after one pass.

- For the five post-treatment samples that did not meet the cleanup goal, the five batches of soil (724.5 tons, or

approximately 6% of the total) were re-treated. All samples of the re-treated soil met the cleanup goals.
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2

Jacksonville, Florida (continued)

57

Cost:

- The total cost for the application was $1,946,122.

- This represents a unit cost of $165 per ton of soil treated for treatment of 11,768 tons of contaminated soil.

Description:

Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field, established in 1941, provides facilities, services, and material support for

the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft, and other units of the operating forces. NAS Cecil

Field includes several operable units (OU) and contaminated sites, including Site 17 in OU2. Site 17 reportedly

was used for two or three years during the late 1960s and early 1970s for the disposal of waste fuel and oil,

possibly including oil contaminated with solvents and paints. Soil at Site 17 was found to be contaminated with

petroleum products and chlorinated solvents. In September 1994, EPA signed an interim Record of Decision

(ROD) for Site 17 specifying that soil be excavated and treated by thermal desorption.

The thermal desorption unit used at Site 17 was a mobile unit provided by Dustcoating, Inc. of Maple Plain,

Minnesota. The unit, a propane-fired Gencor Model 232 rotary drum dryer modified to thermally process

contaminated soil, consisted of a 60-inch-diameter-by-20-foot-long rotary dryer with burner (direct-fired), a

primary collector baghouse, and an afterburner system. The nominal system throughput for this unit was 25-50

tons/hour; the actual system throughput during this application was 17 tons/hour. The desorber treated

contaminated soil at approximately 825(F with an average residence time of 3.5 minutes. An afterburner

operated at a temperature of at least 1,500(F with a retention time of approximately two seconds to destroy

organic compounds in the off-gas. A total of 115 post-treatment soil samples were collected and analyzed. All

but five of these samples met the cleanup goal after the first pass. The five samples were retreated and all met

the cleanup goal. According to the EPA RPM, no specific operational problems were identified as causing the

failure to meet the cleanup goals on the first pass; however, the contractor suspects that this was caused by

elevated levels of moisture in the soil.
58

Thermal Desorption at

the Port Moller Radio Relay Station,

Port Moller, Alaska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Port Moller Radio Relay Station Volatiles (nonhalogenated) - BTEX Status: Complete

and Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Report covers: 6/95 through 8/95

GRO, DRO, and total recoverable

petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). 

Maximum contaminant

concentrations were 300,000 mg/kg

TRPH and 11,000 mg/kg DRO.

Location: Cleanup Type:

Port Moller, Alaska Remedial Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Frederick Paine, Anderson Thermal Desorption Managed under the Formerly Used

Excavating and Wrecking Co. 1824 - Soil was pre-screened using a Defense Sites Program and the

South 20 Street two-inch bar screen. Installation Restoration Program, th

Omaha, NE 68108 - Pre-screened soil was fed to the with USACE serving as lead

(402)345-8811 on-site, direct-fired thermal agency. USACE solicited review

desorption unit. comments, as appropriate, from the

- Soil was treated at nominally U.S. Air Force and ADEC

500 F with a throughput of 40-60 o

tons per hour.

- Off-gas was treated with a

baghouse and afterburner.

- Treated soil was used as backfill

on site.

USACE Contact: State Point of Contact:

Bernard T. Gagnon John Halverson, State of Alaska

USACE, Alaska District Department of Environmental

P.O. Box 898 Conservation, Contaminated Site

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Program

(907)753-5718 555 Cordova Street

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907)563-6529

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Oil spills (contamination was Soil

located primarily in an outfall ditch - 9,500 yd of soil was treated

connected to a floor drain inside a - Approximately 10% of soil was clayey silt; remainder was sand or sand

building, near USTs and ASTs, and with gravel

at drum and warehouse areas) - Moisture content 11%

3

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Application of thermal desorption

to treat sandy soil contaminated

with diesel fuel at a remote site in

Alaska.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals for this application were based on the results of negotiations with ADEC. They consisted of the

following cleanup goals: DRO (200 mg/kg), GRO (200 mg/kg), TRPH (200 mg/kg), BTEX (15 mg/kg).

- An air quality permit issued by the State of Alaska required air emissions to meet the following limits:

particulate matter (<0.05 gr/dscf), and carbon monoxide (< 100 ppmv and 2.39 lbs/hr).
Thermal Desorption at

the Port Moller Radio Relay Station,

Port Moller, Alaska (continued)

59

Results:

- The thermal desorption unit at Port Moller achieved the cleanup goals after three months of operation. 

- Of the 118 treated soil samples analyzed, 115 (97 percent) achieved the cleanup goals after one pass through

the desorption unit. The three samples that did not achieve the cleanup goals after one pass were treated at

relatively low soil temperatures (less than 400 F). Those soil samples were retreated and subsequently o

achieved the cleanup goals.

- Air emissions testing was conducted at the site, but no data were available for review. However, analytical

data from an application similar to that at Port Moller met the state’s requirements for air emissions.

Cost:

- USACE Alaska Division used an innovative approach to procuring a remediation contractor for this

application. That approach was based on the use of unit prices established by the government for specific

activities associated with the remediation and solicitation of bids as a percentage of the unit prices.

- The actual cost of thermal desorption of contaminated soil at Port Moller was $3,325,000 (for activities

directly attributed to treatment), or $350 per yd of soil treated (9,500 yd treated). 3 3

Description:

The Port Moller Radio Relay Station (RRS) was constructed in the late 1950s and served as a communication

link between Cold Bay and Port Heiden, Alaska. Until 1969, a Defense Early Warning line facility and the

White Alice Communication System facility were co-located at the site. From 1969 to 1978, the site functioned

as a RRS, and the site was abandoned in 1978. The site consists of the White Alice facility (buildings and

antenna) located on a plateau at an elevation of 1,000 feet, and a fuel storage and supply facility located on the

shoreline at the foot of the slope leading to the plateau.

In 1994, the USACE demolished the buildings, removed the fuel tanks, constructed a landfill for the disposal of

debris, installed monitoring wells, identified areas of soil contamination, and seeded the landfill and other

disturbed areas. In addition, a treatability study was conducted on contaminated soil from the site to determine

the relative effectiveness of treatment using thermal desorption, soil washing, and bioremediation. Thermal

desorption was chosen for the full-scale site remediation based on the results of the treatability study.

The contractor mobilized the remediation equipment to Port Moller in May 1994. Approximately 9,500 yd of 3

contaminated soil were treated using an oil-fired portable thermal desorption unit, which had a rated capacity of

70 tons per hour. The soil was treated in three months of operation and the treated soil was used as backfill to

grade the site.

The total cost for treatment of contaminated soil at Port Moller was $3,919,736, which includes $3,325,000 for

treatment and almost $600,000 for mobilization and demobilization, due to the remote location of the site.
60

Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site 

North Dartmouth, Massachusetts

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site PCBs and Volatile Organic June 1993 - December 1994

Compounds (VOCs)

Location: Cleanup Type:

North Dartmouth, Massachusetts Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Gary Duke Thermal Desorption CERCLA

RUST Remedial Services, Inc. - X*TRAXTM Model 200 - thermal - ROD date: 9/24/87

200 Horizon Center Blvd. separation system, gas treatment - ESD date: 6/11/93

Trenton, New Jersey 08691-1904 system, and liquid storage and

(609) 588-6373 processing system

- Dryer feed rate - 120 tons/day

- Dryer temperature - 500 to 

 1100(F

- Treated soil temperature - 700 to

750(F (average 732(F)

- Residence time - 2 hours

- Condensate water generated by

the system was treated in the onsite multi-stage treatment system

(oxidation; flocculation and

sedimentation; filtration; air

stripping; liquid-phase carbon

adsorption; vapor-phase carbon

adsorption)

State Contact: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Nikki Korkatti Joseph LeMay

Project Manager EPA Region 1

Massachusetts Department of John F. Kennedy Federal Building,

Environmental Protection Room 2203

Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Boston, Massachusetts 02203

One Winter Street, 5 Floor (617) 573-9622 th

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Telephone: (617) 574-6840

Waste Source: Disposal of waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

in lagoons Soil - 36,200 cubic yards (44,000 tons)

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Thermal desorption

of PCB-contaminated soil

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD specified a cleanup level of 25 mg/kg for PCBs in soil.

- Process vent emission rate was limited to 0.38 lb/hr of total hydrocarbons (THC).

- Perimeter air monitoring was required for VOCs and dust during excavation; if action levels were exceeded,

excavation was to be stopped and control measures implemented.

- Effluent was required to meet daily and monthly limits for VOCs, PCBs, and metals.

Results:

- The treated soil met the cleanup goal of 25 mg/kg PCBs, with concentrations ranging from 0.59 mg/kg to 

21 mg/kg.

- Greater than 99% of the soil met the cleanup goal after one pass through the treatment system; only 0.5 percent

required retreatment.

- The process vent emissions met the air emission standard; THC emissions ranged from 0.002 to 0.296 lb/hr.

- Treated water generally met the effluent standards. For the few exceedances, the vendor determined that the

concentrations would not be higher than the concentration used in developing a discharge permit; however,

information was not provided on any actions by the state as a result of the exceedances. 
Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site 

North Dartmouth, Massachusetts (continued)

61

Cost:

- Total cost to treat the soil - $6,800,000; corresponding to a unit cost of $155/ton (44,000 tons treated).

Description:

Re-Solve operated a waste chemical reclamation facility in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts from 1956 until

1980. Hazardous materials handled at the site included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), solvents, waste oils,

organic liquids and solids, acids, alkalies, and inorganic liquids and solids. On December 23, 1980, the state

accepted Re-Solve’s offer to surrender its disposal license, on the condition that all hazardous waste be removed

from the site. In late 1981, Re-Solve removed drums and other debris, including buildings, from the site;

however, contents of four on-site lagoons and a cooling pond and the residue from an oil spreading operation

were not removed. The site was placed on the the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983. The results

of the Remedial Investigation indicated that soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated with PCBs and

other compounds. In response to a 1983 ROD, soil contaminated with PCBs was excavated and shipped off-site

for disposal. However, the results of additional investigations conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the

remedial action indicated that extensive PCB contamination remained in areas beyond the remediated lagoons,

cooling pond, and oil spreading area. A second ROD for the site, signed in September 1987, called for

excavation of additional contaminated soil and treatment by thermal desorption and dechlorination (DECHLOR). 

However, the results of a pilot-scale demonstration of the DECHLOR process indicated that the process would

not be cost-effective or economically feasible on a full-scale basis. In June 1993, EPA issued an ESD to remove

the DECHLOR process from the full-scale treatment system and specify the treatment of the concentrated oil

contaminated with PCBs that was recovered in the X*TRAXTM system at an off-site incinerator permitted under

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The X*TRAXTM Model 200 system consisted of three main components - thermal separation system, gas

treatment system, and liquid storage and processing system. In the thermal separation system, contaminated

solids were fed into a propane-fired rotary dryer, and heated indirectly to volatilize the moisture and organic

contaminants; the dryer consisted of a long steel cylinder rotating inside of a furnace. The moisture,

contaminants, and a small amount of dust were swept continuously from the dryer to the gas treatment system by

a nitrogen carrier gas. The gas treatment system removed moisture and contaminants from the carrier gas and

reconditioned the gas before recycling it to the dryer. Materials that accumulated within and later exited the

system were considered residues of treatment. All treated soil met the cleanup goal of 25 mg/kg for PCBs. 

Greater than 99 percent of the soil met the cleanup goal after the first pass, with only 0.5 percent of the soil

requiring retreatment.
62

Thermal Desorption at the 

Waldick Aerospace Devices Site

Wall Township, New Jersey

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Waldick Aerospace Devices

Superfund Site

- BTEX June - October 1993

- Total petroleum hydrocarbons

(PHC)

- Volatile organic compounds

(VOC) - toluene, tetrachloroethane,

tetrachloroethene 

- Metals (cadmium, chromium,

nickel, zinc)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Wall Township (Monmouth Full-scale cleanup

County), New Jersey

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

RUST Remediation Services Low Temperature Volatilization CERCLA

System (LTVS) - Original ROD date: 9/29/87

- Primary treatment unit - rotary - Second ROD date: 3/29/91 

drum; external Hauck dual (replaced in situ air stripping with

propane/fuel oil burner used to low temperature thermal desorption

force heated air into the primary followed by stabilization and

treatment unit solidification)

- Secondary treatment unit -

refractory-lined horizontal cylinder

with a burner 

- Design capacity of 35 tons/hr;

actual average system throughput

was 20 tons/hr at a soil temperature

of 450 to 500(F

USACE Project Lead: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Ron Ackerman Daniel Weissman 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. EPA Region 2, EERD

New Jersey Area Office 290 Broadway, 19 Floor

1 Main St. (Suite 416) New York, NY 10007

Eatontown, NJ 07724 (212) 637-4384

(908) 389-3040

th

Waste Source: Contaminated Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

wastewater discharged directly to Soil - 3,450 yd

the ground; leaking drums of spent

machine oil 

3

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Thermal desorption

of soil contaminated with a wide

range of organics

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Total VOCs - 1.0 mg/kg; total PHCs - 100 mg/kg; cadmium - 3.0 mg/kg; chromium - 100 mg/kg; nickel - 100

mg/kg; zinc - 350 mg/kg

- Air emissions standards were specified in the NJDEPE air permit for the unit for particulates, sulfur oxides,

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, VOCs and metals.

Results:

- The soil treated by the thermal desorber met the cleanup goals for total VOCs and total PHCs.

- The results of the July 1993 testing indicated that the emissions failed to meet air permit requirements, and the

unit was shut down on August 26, 1993. On September 8, 1993, NJDEPE approved restarting operations after

corrective measures had been implemented and the unit was reported to have met the emission standards.

- No results were provided with regard to concentrations of metals; treated soil was disposed offsite in a RCRA

Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill.
Thermal Desorption at the 

Waldick Aerospace Devices Site

Wall Township, New Jersey (continued)

63

Cost:

- Total cost of $4,995,159 including $3,610,086 for activities related to the remediation of contaminated soil and

$1,385,073 for such other activities as demolition of two buildings and off-site disposal of debris, removal of

three underground storage tanks and off-site disposal of equipment and debris, and abandonment of 17 wells at

the site.

- The cost of $3,610,086 for activities related to the soil remediation includes $2,017,361 for the sum of costs

for capital and O&M elements; this corresponds to a unit cost of $585 per yd of soil treated (3,450 yd treated) 3 3

Description:

The Waldick Aerospace Devices Superfund Site is a 1.7-acre hazardous waste site located in Wall Township

(Monmouth County), New Jersey. The site was used primarily as a manufacturing facility that included

degreasing and metal-plating operations. Wastewaters containing heavy metals and solvents were discharged

directly to the ground surrounding the main building for a period of at least three years, and spent machine oil

leaked onto the ground from perforated drums located near the main building. In 1982, the state ordered

Waldick to conduct cleanup activities; however, sampling following these activities indicated that the soil and

groundwater at the site were still contaminated with volatile organics and metals. Contaminants included VOCs;

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC); other nonhalogenated

volatile organic compounds; and metals. While the initial Record of Decision (ROD) for this site specified in

situ air stripping for contaminated soil, a second ROD, signed in March 1991, revised the remedy to replace in

situ air stripping with low temperature thermal desorption followed by stabilization/solidification. At the

Waldick site, contaminated soils were treated on site using low temperature thermal desorption and residuals

were sent off-site for stabilization and solidification and disposal at a RCRA-permitted landfill. 

A Low Temperature Volatilization System (LTVS) designed by Rust Remedial Services (Rust) was used to treat

an estimated 3,450 yd of soil at this site. The unit was trailer-mounted and included feed hoppers/conveyors, a 3

primary treatment unit (rotary drum), a discharge conveyor with pugmill, cyclones, a secondary treatment unit

(thermal oxidizer), a quench tower, a baghouse, packed-bed scrubbers with stacks, and a power generator

operated with fuel oil. The unit had a design capacity of 35 tons/hr; the actual average system throughput was 20

tons/hr at a soil temperature of 450 to 500(F. The unit operated from June 1993 until the results of stack testing,

performed in July 1993, indicated that the emissions failed to meet air permit requirements. The unit was shut

down on August 26, 1993. On September 8, 1993, NJDEPE approved restarting operations after corrective

measures had been implemented. Operations were restarted at the end of September to treat the remaining soil. 

The soil treated by the thermal desorber met the cleanup goals for total VOCs and total PHCs. 

The costs for excavation of soil and disposal of residuals were relatively high compared with the capital and

O&M costs for this application. Approximately $1,000,000 was spent on commercial disposal of treated soil,

which may be attributed to the disposal of treated soil as a RCRA hazardous waste. In addition, the RPM

indicated that the cost of the project was higher than originally estimated because the total amount of soil treated

was greater than had been anticipated.
64

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
65

IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

(SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION, THERMAL PROCESSES)

 ABSTRACTS
66

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
67

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION ABSTRACTS
68

Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation,

Site 82, Area A, Onslow County, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Camp LeJeune Military

Reservation,

Site 82, Area A

Volatile Organic Compounds:

- Trichloroethene (TCE) 

- Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

- Benzene

April 7 - December 21, 1995

(March 29 - April 7, 1995 - system

startup and optimization

performed)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Onslow County, North Carolina Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Jim Dunn Soil Vapor Extraction: CERCLA

Project Manager, - Eight vertical vapor extraction - ROD signed: September 24, 1993

MCB Camp LeJeune wells and one horizontal air

OHM Remediation Services, Inc. injection well

5445 Triangle Parkway, Suite 400 - 32 soil probe clusters

Norcross, GA 30092 - Vapor-liquid separator; vapor-

(770) 734-8072 phase carbon vessel

- One positive displacement

vacuum blower for extraction wells

- Range of total system flow rates -

268 to 499 cfm, with an average of

409 cfm; range of flow rates at the

well heads - 22 to 132 cfm. 

- Well head vacuums ranged from

3.9 inches to 7.0 inches Hg, with an

average of 5.8 inches Hg.

Naval Facilities Engineering EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Command Remedial Project

Manager:

Katherine H. Landman 61 Forsyth Street

MCB Camp LeJeune Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Atlantic Division, Code 1823 Phone: (404) 562-8538

LANTDIV

1510 Gilbert Street

Norfolk, VA 23511-2699

(757) 322-4818

Gena Townsend

U.S. EPA Region 4

Waste Source: Disposal of waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

drums and debris Soil - 17,500 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE application

using a combination of vertical

extraction and horizontal injection

wells

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD identified the following cleanup goals for soil: TCE - 32.2 μg/kg, PCE - 10.5 μg/kg, 

benzene - 5.4 μg/kg.

- No air emission standards were specified for this application, however the State of North Carolina required the

facility to provide documentation about potential air emissions for this application and to include carbon

treatment for air emissions.
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation,

Site 82, Area A, Onslow County, North Carolina (continued)

69

Results:

- Results of confirmation soil boring samples showed TCE and benzene at nondetectable levels in all soil boring

samples. PCE was reported at levels below the cleanup goal of 10.5 )g/kg in all but one sample.

- According to LANTDIV, EPA approved shutdown of the system because the single exception was slightly

above the soil remedial goals and the contaminated groundwater under the area of concern was being addressed

by a pump-and-treat system.

- For the discharge stack, concentrations ranged as follows: TCE - ND to 2.2 )g/L; PCE - ND to 147.4 )g/L;

benzene - ND to 10.2 )g/L; and ethylbenzene - ND to 7.4 )g/L.

Cost:

- Total cost of $469,949 was expended for remedial activities at Area A including $222,455 for capital costs and

$247,485 for operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. 

- The total cost of $469,940 corresponds to a unit cost of $27 per cubic yard (yd ) for 17,500 yd of soil treated. 3 3

Description:

Camp LeJeune Military Reservation (also known as Marine Corps Base Camp LeJeune), established in 1941, is a

170-square-mile installation near Jacksonville, North Carolina, that provides housing, training, logistical, and

administrative support for Fleet Marine Force Units. Site 82 is was used for waste disposal and, in 1994, drums

and debris were removed from the site. Area A was a portion of Site 82 at which residual soil and groundwater

contamination remained after removal of drums and debris. Soil at Area A was contaminated with volatile

organic compounds (VOC), primarily TCE, PCE, and benzene. The ROD specified SVE for remediation of

contaminated soil.

The SVE system used at Area A included eight vertical vapor extraction wells (installed to a depth of 15 to 16

feet bgs), one horizontal air injection well (horizontal displacement of 330 feet; total depth of 15 feet bgs), 32

soil probe clusters (for measurement of subsurface vapors; each cluster consisted of one shallow and one deep

probe at approximately 6 feet and 12 feet bgs, respectively), a vapor phase separator, a vapor-phase carbon vessel

(granular activated carbon), and a vacuum extraction unit (VEU) that included a positive displacement blower

that was used to apply vacuum to the extraction wells. The results of confirmation sampling showed that TCE

and benzene met the cleanup goals in all soil boring samples. For 23 of 24 soil boring samples, PCE was

reported at levels below the cleanup goal of 10.5 )g/kg. For one soil boring sample, PCE was reported at 29

)g/kg compared to the cleanup goal of 10.5 )g/kg. According to LANTDIV, EPA approved shutdown of the

system because the single exception was slightly above the soil remedial goals and the contaminated groundwater

under the area of concern was being addressed by a pump-and-treat system.

According to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Remedial Project Manager, the SVE system at Area A

was cost-effective. Significant other work was being performed at the site, including the construction and

operation of a 500-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pump-and-treat plant to treat groundwater contaminated with VOCs,

and helped to keep costs down because overhead and operations costs were shared. In addition, an on-site

laboratory was being used for other analytical work on the base, and the shared cost of the use of that facility also

helped to keep the cost of the SVE application low.
70

Soil Vapor Extraction at

the Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB Petroleum Hydrocarbons September 1995 - July 1997

- Total petroleum hydrocarbon

(TPH) was detected in soil at levels

up to 320,000 ppm

- Benzene was detected in soil at

levels up to 110 ppm

Location: Cleanup Type:

Arizona Full-scale cleanup

Vendor/Consultant: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Montgomery Watson Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Installation Restoration Program

JMM, Consulting Engineers - Six vapor extraction wells, a

blower system, moisture separator,

thermal oxidizer, and air treatment

system

- Two 460 cubic inch internal

combustion engines (ICE) were

used to create the vacuum. The

extracted vapors were burned as

fuel in the ICEs, with supplemental

fuel added as contaminant

concentrations were reduced.

- System operated at an average

flow rate of 123 scfm

- System removed about 1,200

lb/day of contaminant

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat Information not provided

Command

Waste Source: Fuel Spill Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Soil

- 63,000 cubic yards 

- Contamination extended to a depth of about 260 feet (ft) below ground

surface (bgs)

- Sandy clay with interbedded gravels and sands in upper 260 ft

- Caliche (cemented silts and clays) layer at about 240 ft bgs impeded

vertical migration of contamination 

Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE application to

remove TPH from soil; extracted

vapors used as fuel for ICEs.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The objective of the SVE system was to remove contamination in the soil as cost-effectively as possible to

prevent contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.

Results:

- Performance results for the system were reported for the first 16 months of operation (through December

1996)

- After 16 months of operations, the system had removed 585,700 pounds (lbs) of total volatile hydrocarbons

(TVH); monthly contaminant removal rates ranged from 14,700 to 67,800 lbs.

- No concentration data for contaminants was reported.
Soil Vapor Extraction at

the Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (continued)

71

Cost:

- Total capital cost (estimated) - $162,000

- Total O&M cost after 22 months of operation - September 1995 through July 1997 - $45,000 

- Report also includes monthly O&M costs for the first 16 months of operation - ranged from $1,818 to

$2,602/month for a total of $32,700 through December 1996

- Data on cumulative O&M costs versus cumulative total volatile hydrocarbons removed showed that the cost

per unit of contaminant began to increase in October 1996. The ICE engine was reconfigured with a smaller

engine to reduce the need for supplemental fuel and thereby reduced the overall operating costs.

- The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed after 16 months of operation was $0.06/lb.

Description:

Site ST-35 at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), located in Arizona, was the site of a spill of JP-4 fuel. 

An estimated 63,000 cubic yards of soil were contaminated to a depth of about 260 ft bgs. TPH and benzene

were detected in the soils at levels as high as 320,000 ppm and 110 ppm, respectively. In addition, benzene was

detected in groundwater at levels as high as 510 ppb, and there was a 1 to 3 inch layer of free product floating on

the groundwater. An SVE system was used to remediate the soil contamination at the site. The SVE operational

objectives were to remove contamination at the site as cost-effectively as possible to prevent contamination of

the surrounding soil and groundwater. No specific contaminant goals were identified in the report. 

The SVE system consisted of six vapor extraction wells, a blower system, moisture separator, thermal oxidizer,

and air treatment system. Vacuum was created using two 460 cubic inch ICEs. Extracted soil gas was burned as

fuel in the ICEs; when contaminant concentrations in the soil gas were reduced, supplemental fuel was used to

operate the ICEs. The SVE system was operated from September 1995 through July 1997. Performance data on

amount of contaminant removed were available through December 1996. After 16 months of operation, a total

of 585,700 lbs of TVH were removed. Monthly TVH removal rates ranged from 14,700 lbs to 67,800 lbs. In

October 1996, the contaminant removal rate began to level off. The ICE was then reconfigured to reduce the

need for supplemental fuel. System performance was reported to have improved following the reconfiguration,

and the system was reported to be meeting its operational objectives.

The total capital cost for the system was $162,000. O&M costs through July 1997 were $45,000. Monthly

O&M data were provided for the first 16 months of operation (through December 1996) and ranged from $1,818

to $2,602/month for a total of $32,700. Monthly O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed ranged from about

$0.03/lb to $0.16/lb. From July to October 1996, there was a steady decrease in the O&M cost per lb of

contaminant removed. However, the O&M cost began to increase in October 1996 at which time the ICE engine

was reconfigured to reduce the need for supplemental fuel. The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant

removed after 16 months of operation was $0.06/lb.
72

Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5

Chesterfield County, Virginia

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Defense Supply Center Richmond,

OU 5

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and December 1 - 11, 1992

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Maximum concentrations measured

for soil during the RI were PCE -

Location: Cleanup Type: 1.5 mg/kg and TCE - 0.036 mg/kg

Chesterfield County, Virginia Pilot-scale

USACE Point of Contact: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Suzanne Murdock Soil Vapor Extraction: CERCLA

Engineering and Support Center - One extraction well (12 ft deep) - ROD dated March 25, 1992

Directorate of Engineering - Vacuum - 35 inches of water - ESD dated March 8, 1996

Civil-Structures Division - Air flow rate - 40 standard cubic

PO Box 1600 feet per minute (scfm). 

Huntsville, AL 35816-1822

(205) 895-1635

DSCR Remedial Project EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Manager:

Bill Saddington U.S. EPA Region 3

Defense Supply Center Richmond 1650 Arch Street (MC 3HS50)

8000 Jefferson Davis Highway Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Richmond, VA 23297-5000 (215) 814-5264

(804) 279-3781

Todd Richardson 

Waste Source: Disposal of wastes Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

in open pits Soil - 1,000 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Pilot study of SVE

for VOC contaminated soil

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Soil action levels of PCE - 0.58 mg/kg and TCE - 0.20 mg/kg 

Results:

- Results of soil samples collected following completion of the pilot study showed that the soil action levels had

been achieved during the 10-day pilot test.

- Maximum concentrations reported for PCE - 0.18 mg/kg and for TCE - 0.11 mg/kg

Cost:

- Total actual cost of the pilot study was $76,099, consisting of $18,225 for capital equipment and $57,874 for

operation and maintenance. 

- Unit cost of the pilot study treatment activities was $76/yd (1,000 yd treated). 3 3
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5

Chesterfield County, Virginia (continued)

73

Description:

The Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) is a 565-acre installation located in Chesterfield County,

Virginia, on property owned by the Department of the Army. The mission of DSCR, built in the early 1940s, is

to manage and furnish general military supplies to the Armed Forces and several civilian federal agencies. In

August 1987, the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). A remedial investigation (RI), conducted

in November 1988, identified volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of a

pit area. While solvents or other organics were not used in these metal cleaning operations, the pits were open

and may have been used for undocumented disposal of organics from other operations at DSCR. In September

1990, DSCR entered into a federal facilities agreement (FFA) with EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia to

address contamination at operable units (OU) at the site. OU 5, the Acid Neutralization Pits source area, is the

focus of this report. The record of decision (ROD), signed on March 25, 1992, specified soil vapor extraction

(SVE) as the remedy for OU 5 and identified cleanup goals for PCE of 0.58 mg/kg and TCE of 0.20 mg/kg.

A pilot study of SVE was conducted from December 1 to December 11, 1992, to identify additional design

parameters for a full-scale system. The study consisted of two tests, a hydraulic influence test conducted over a

24-hour period, followed by a 10-day hydrocarbon removal test. For the hydrocarbon removal test, one

extraction well was used along with a carbon adsorption unit for the treatment of the off-gas. The results of soil

samples collected following completion of the pilot study showed that the soil action levels had been achieved

during the study. The maximum concentration reported for PCE was 0.18 mg/kg and 0.11 mg/kg for TCE. An

ESD was signed in March 1996 indicating that a full-scale system was not required. Covers were installed on the

pits, as required in the ROD. According to the ESD, several factors contributed to the success of the pilot test,

including: the actual area of contamination was smaller than originally estimated; natural attenuation may have

contributed to decreased contaminant levels; and PCE concentrations in the untreated soil were only slightly

higher than the cleanup goals.
74

Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at

the Texas Tower Site,

Ft. Greely, Alaska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Texas Tower Site Petroleum hydrocarbons - diesel Status: Complete

range organics (DRO). Average Report covers: February 1994 to

concentrations of DRO in soil were February 1996

500 mg/kg, and diesel range

petroleum hydrocarbons in

groundwater ranged from 0.085 to

18.6 mg/L.

Location: Cleanup Type:

Ft. Greely, Alaska Corrective Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

James J. Landry Air Sparging, In Situ State of Alaska Underground

Senior Project Geologist Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Storage Tank Regulations

AGRA Earth and Extraction [18AAC78]

Environmental, Inc. - System consisted of two air

711 H Street, Suite 450 sparging wells drilled to 55 ft

Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3442 bgs, three SVE wells drilled to

(907) 276-6480 52 ft bgs, and associated

equipment.

- No air pollution control devices

were included in this system.

- Air sparging provided 23-60 cfm

of air to the saturated zone; SVE

removed 400 cfm (average) from

the vadose zone, at 50 inches

water across the blower.

- After 18 months of operation,

nutrient solution was injected

into the SVE wells.

Additional Contacts: USACE Point of Contact:

Cristal Fosbrook, Chief, Bernard T. Gagnon

Environmental Restoration/ Environmental Engineering and

Compliance Branch Innovative Technology Advocate

U.S. Army - Alaska, Directorate of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -

Public Works Alaska District

730 Quartermaster Road P.O. Box 898

Ft. Richardson, Alaska 99505 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898

(907) 384-3044 Telephone: (907) 753-5718

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leak from fuel line Soil (in situ) and Groundwater

- Approximately 6,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil (a portion of the

soil was in the saturated zone; this portion was not quantified).

- Soils consisted mainly of sand, gravel, cobble, and silt. 

- Groundwater was encountered between 23 and 50 ft bgs, with a

saturated zone approximately 27 ft thick and a hydraulic gradient of

approximately 0.008 ft per ft.

- Subsurface materials encountered in all soil borings were generally

uniform throughout the site, from ground surface to 65 ft bgs.

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Combination of three technologies

used to treat DRO-contaminated

soil and groundwater in situ.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The following remedial goals were specified for soil and groundwater at the Texas Tower site: soil (total

BTEX - 10 mg/kg, benzene - 0.1 mg/kg, and DRO - 100 mg/kg); groundwater (benzene - 0.005 mg/L, toluene -

1 mg/L, ethylbenzene - 0.7 mg/L, xylenes - 10 mg/L, and diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons - 0.1 mg/L) as

set forth in the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation UST regulations. 
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at

the Texas Tower Site,

Ft. Greely, Alaska (continued)

75

Results:

- Over two years of system operation, approximately 1,300 lbs of contaminants were extracted through the SVE

wells. Those contaminants consisted of 829 lbs of DRO, 418 lbs of GRO, and 55 lbs of total BTEX

compounds. The estimate above does not include contaminants removed through biodegradation, which was

not measured.

- Concentrations of contaminants in treated soil and groundwater met the remedial goals in all samples with the

exception of three soil sample locations and three groundwater sample locations. Because the soil samples

were from locations that had not been sampled prior to the design of the treatment system, the USACE

concluded that the results suggested an additional “hot spot” outside of the original treatment area. Based on

the results of a “mini-risk assessment” performed by the USACE, no additional remedial activities were

identified. The State of Alaska accepted the closure report for this application.

- The operations contractor cited the following reasons for why no additional remedial activities were necessary:

the leaking fuel lines that had been the source of the release had been removed; highly contaminated soil had

been excavated and treated off site; no compounds for which maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been

established had been detected at concentrations above MCLs during more than two years of monitoring; and

the potential for exposure from residual hydrocarbons was negligible.

Cost:

- The total proposed cost for the air sparging, in situ bioremediation, and SVE system at the Texas Tower site

was $295,760, including $145,420 for construction, $117,230 for operation, and $33,110 for work plan

preparation.

- A unit cost of treatment of $47 per cubic yard was calculated from the total cost of $295,760 to remediate

6,300 cubic yards of soil (in situ); a portion of this soil was in the saturated zone.

- Because the site is isolated, the USACE reported that the cost of transportation of the equipment to the site and

setup at the site was a significant portion of the total cost of the project.

- Costs of operation were kept low by monitoring the operation of the remediation system remotely. The system

was not staffed, except for monthly sampling events. This savings in operating cost was not quantified for this

application.

Description:

The Texas Tower site consists of four buildings surrounded by a chain-link fence at the U.S. Army’s Ft. Greely

military facility, located approximately five miles south of Delta Junction, Alaska, near Fairbanks. During

demolition of one of the buildings in 1990, a release of petroleum hydrocarbons was discovered, reportedly

originating from an underground heating oil supply line. Site investigations determined that the release had

impacted both subsurface soil and groundwater. In 1990, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil

were excavated and transported off site for thermal treatment, and in 1993 the excavation was backfilled with

clean soil.

In August 1993, the USACE contractor conducted a pilot test of an SVE and air sparging system, and a

biotreatability test. On the basis of the results from these tests, the contractor concluded that the site was

amenable to remediation by a combination of the three technologies. The full-scale system was installed between

November 1993 and January 1994 and was operated from February 1994 to February 1996. Closure samples

were collected in April 1996 and, based on the data from these samples and a “mini risk assessment”, the State of

Alaska accepted the closure report for this application.
76

Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction

at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Fort Lewis Landfill 4 Volatiles (halogenated), and metals Status: Ongoing

(manganese). Maximum Report covers: 12/5/94 through

concentrations of halogenated 10/31/97

constituents in soil gas were: 4.1

mg/m dichloroethene, 1.6 mg/m 3 3

trichloroethene, and 0.2 mg/m3

vinyl chloride. Maximum

concentrations of halogenated

constituents in groundwater were 7

μg/L dichloroethene, 79 μg/L

trichloroethene, and 7.8 μg/L vinyl

chloride. Manganese was detected

in groundwater at concentrations up

to 13 mg/L.

Location: Cleanup Type:

Tacoma, Washington Remedial Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Fred Luck, P.E. Soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air The cleanup at Landfill 4 is being

Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. sparging (AS): performed in accordance with a

3150 Richards Road, Suite 100 - A pilot test of three SVE wells Federal Facilities Agreement

Bellevue, WA 98005-4446 and one AS well was operated between the Department of the

(206) 519-0300 from December 5 through 15, Army, EPA, and the Washington

1994. Department of Ecology, and a

- The full system consisted of six ROD signed October 15, 1993.

SVE, five AS wells, ten vadose

zone piezometers, three

dissolved oxygen sensor wells,

and four passive air injection

wells.

- The SVE wells were piped

through a set of parallel

treatment systems each

consisting of a vapor/water

separator, a blower, and two

GAC canisters connected in

series.

- Operations included various

combinations of extraction and

sparge flow rates, and use of

injection wells.

USACE Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Kira Lynch and Bill Goss Bob Kievit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA Remedial Project Manager,

Seattle District Region 10

CENWS-TB-ET (Lynch) 300 Desmend Drive Suite 102

CENWS-PM-HW (Goss) Lacey, Washington 98503

P.O. Box 3755 (360) 753-9014

Seattle, Washington 98124

(206) 764-6918 (Lynch)

(206) 764-6682 (Goss)
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction

at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington (continued)

77

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaks and spills of solvent waste to In situ soil (both saturated and unsaturated) - volume not determined

soil surfaces on and near Landfill - Sandy gravel to sandy silty gravel

4; unlined liquid waste disposal - Moisture content (unsaturated soil) - 9 - 12 %

pits

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Application of a combination of

innovative technologies to treat

halogenated organic contamination

in situ in both soil and

groundwater.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD specified four objectives for the remedy: to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater, to

restore the contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use, to minimize movement of contaminants from soil

to groundwater, and to prevent exposure to the contents of the landfill.

- No soil cleanup levels were identified in the available reference material.

- The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the upper aquifer beneath the site were: TCE - 5 μg/L and

vinyl chloride - 1 μg/L.

- Monitoring for manganese in groundwater also was required for areas of the site.

Results:

- Pilot test and startup phases of the remediation were used to determine the optimum system parameters for the

treatment system.

- It was estimated that approximately 60 pounds of TCE were removed from as of October 30, 1997.

- Although the impact of the AS system on the degradation of TCE was not conclusively determined, it was

recommended that the AS system be operated until an impact/benefit analysis for the system is completed.

- It was concluded that an additional hot spot of TCE contamination may be located upgradient and out of the

area of influence of the remediation system.

Cost:

- The total cost of the pilot study for this application was $241,000.

- The negotiated cost for the full-scale remediation system was $1,710,303.

Description:

Ft. Lewis began operation in 1917. The Landfill 4 area consists of approximately 52 acres, which is divided into

three cells located adjacent to a former gravel pit. These cells were used from the early 1950s to the late 1960s,

reportedly, for the disposal of refuse, including domestic and light industrial solid waste and construction debris. 

After disposal activities was ceased, the landfill was covered with native material and has since been overgrown

with vegetation.

Site investigations beginning in 1988 identified chlorinated hydrocarbon and metal contamination in the

groundwater beneath the landfill. An RI/FS, conducted in 1993, led to the ROD for the site signed on October

15, 1993, which prescribed a remedy consisting of SVE and AS and monitoring of groundwater for manganese.

An SVE/AS pilot test was conducted at the site in December 1994 and the full-scale SVE/AS system was put on

line in October 1996. The system had removed approximately 60 pounds of TCE (in soil gas) from the

subsurface as of October 31, 1997, and currently continues to operate.
78

Soil Vapor Extraction at

Fort Richardson Building 908 South,

Anchorage, Alaska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Fort Richardson Building 908 Volatile - nonhalogenated: BTEX; Status: Ongoing

South volatile - halogenated: Report covers: 2/95 through 3/96

chlorobenzenes; and Petroleum (closure planned for Spring of

Hydrocarbons: GRO and DRO. 1999)

Maximum contaminant

concentrations were DRO (17,000

mg/kg), total BTEX (2.28 mg/kg),

and total chlorobenzenes (11.93

mg/kg).

Location: Cleanup Type:

Anchorage, Alaska Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial

Action; voluntary cleanup

Vendors: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Linder Construction Soil vapor extraction Alaska Department of

8220 Petersburg Street - Two SVE wells screened from 7 Environmental Conservation UST

Anchorage, AK 99507 to 50 ft bgs were installed to a Regulations (18 AAC 78)

(907) 349-6222 total depth of 55 ft bgs.

AGRA Earth & Environmental blower was discharged to the

711 H Street, Suite 450 ambient air after passing through

Anchorage, AK 99501 a knockout drum and a

(907) 276-6480 particulate filter.

- Soil gas extracted by a rotary

- The system was operated at an

air flow rate of 205-220 scfm,

with a vacuum at the wells of 2-

7.5 inches water.

USACE Contact: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Deirdre M. Ginter Information not provided

USACE - Alaska District

P.O. Box 898

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898

(907) 753-2805

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaking underground storage tank Soil

- Estimated as 4,600 yd3.

- Primarily consisted of gravel with either sand or clay.

- Geology consists of surface deposits of glacial till, outwash, and silt.

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Application of SVE to treat

gravelly-soil contaminated with

diesel fuel.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- ADEC Matrix Level B cleanup levels were identified for this application. These levels are as follows: DRO

(200 mg/kg), GRO (100 mg/kg), Benzene (0.5 mg/kg), Total BTEX (15 mg/kg).

- No performance objectives were established for air emissions from the blower for the application.
Soil Vapor Extraction at

Fort Richardson Building 908 South,

Anchorage, Alaska (continued)

79

Results:

- In a soil boring collected in March 1996 (after approximately one year of operation), the concentrations of

DRO, GRO, benzene, and total BTEX were lower than their respective cleanup goals at all depths sampled. 

- Analytical data from March 1995 to February 1996 indicate that DRO emissions from the blower were reduced

by approximately 90 percent, and that GRO emissions were reduced by approximately 95 percent, over that

time period.

- The system is planned for shutdown in the Spring of 1999, after evaluation of analytical results from

confirmation samples.

Cost:

- The award cost for this application was $305,053, with $252,200 being directly attributed to construction and

operation of the treatment system. This corresponds to $55 per yd of soil treated. 3

- Since the application has not yet been completed, information about actual costs were not available, and it was

not known how the actual costs will compare with the award costs.

Description:

Ft. Richardson, constructed in 1950, is located adjacent to Elmendorf Air Force Base and is eight miles from

Anchorage, Alaska. Four USTs were removed in 1989 and 1990. One of these tanks, a 1,000-gallon fuel oil

tank removed in September 1989 from an area adjacent to Building 908 South, was found to be leaking. 

Contaminated soil was excavated to 26 ft bgs, but remained at the bottom of the excavation. ADEC allowed the

backfilling of the excavation with the understanding that the contamination would be remediated at a later date.

In the initial remedy selection process, low-impact bioventing was selected over aggressive bioventing and

natural attenuation with or without the installation of a protective cap. However, SVE was eventually selected

for implementation at Ft. Richardson because it did not require the nutrient addition or monitoring of biological

activity parameters that would have been needed for bioventing. The SVE system was installed in February

1995.

An interim soil boring was drilled between the two SVE wells in March 1996, and samples from the boring

showed that cleanup goals were being met in that area. The system was operating as of July 1998 and is

currently slated for shutdown in the Spring of 1999 if additional sampling confirms that cleanup goals have been

met throughout the area.
80

Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5

Holloman AFB, New Mexico

Site Name: Contaminants:

Sites 2 and 5 - Petroleum Oils Volatiles (nonhalogenated)

and Lubricants Area & BTEX and TPH

& Maximum concentrations – Benzene (48,000 ug/kg), Toluene (210,000

ug/kg), Xylene (500,000 ug/kg), Ethylbenzene (180,000 ug/kg) and TPH

(17,500 mg/kg)

Location: Technology: Cleanup Type:

Holloman AFB, New Mexico In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Remedial Action

& Network of 22 extraction wells

(varying combinations are used)

& 2 Horsepower SVE blower

motor

& Knockout tank to separate

vapor and liquid phases.

Project Management: Vendor:

U.S. Air Force IT Corporation (Construction)

Drew Lessard Foster Wheeler (Current O&M)

Restoration Program Manager Ronald Versaw, P.E.

49 CES/CEVR Delivery Order Manager

550 Tabosa Avenue 143 Union Boulevard

Holloman AFB, New Mexico Suite 1010

88330 Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1824

(505) 475-5395

SIC Code: Period of Operation: Cleanup Authority:

9711 (National Security)

& April 1995 to present

& Treatment system currently in

operation

State and EPA

Waste Sources: Type/Quantity of Media Regulatory Point of Contact:

Chronic and acute surface Cornelius Amindyas

releases of JP-4 jet fuel, AVGAS NMED

and diesel fuel from aboveground 2044 Galisteo

storage tanks Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502

Treated:

Soil 

& Estimated 9,500 cubic yards of

soil (in-situ)

& Estimated 44,000 pounds of

TPH removed from the soil

(505) 827-1561

Purpose/Significance of Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

Application:

Treatment system has operated

successfully with minimal

downtime or maintenance

requirements

NMED has set the following soil cleanup criteria for POL sites at Holloman

AFB: 

& 1000 mg/kg TPH

& 25 mg/kg Benzene

& Removal of all floating free-phase hydrocarbons
Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5

Holloman AFB, New Mexico (continued)

81

Costs: Results:

The total cost for this project Confirmatory soil samples collected in 1997 indicate that soil TPH

(through August 1997) was concentrations have been reduced below the regulatory guideline of 1,000

$610,000. This translates to a mg/kg. Previous sampling has indicated that benzene concentrations are

cost of $64 per cubic yard of soil below 25 mg/kg. Floating free-phase hydrocarbons have never been

treated. observed in the subsurface at the site.

Description:

During the 1960s and 1970s, several releases of JP-4 jet fuel, AVGAS and diesel fuel occurred in a POL storage

area at Holloman AFB. Releases included chronic leaks and a 30,000-gallon spill that occurred in 1978. The site

previously contained 14 aboveground POL storage tanks. All 14 tanks were removed from the site in 1987.

The site of the releases was investigated as part of the IRP program and two sites (Sites 2 and 5) were identified in

the vicinity of the POL storage area. Because the two sites were similar in nature and in close proximity to each

other, they were ultimately combined into one site (Site 2/5). Subsequent investigations at Site 2/5 identified an

area requiring soil remediation. This area was selected based on soil cleanup criteria developed for POL sites at

Holloman AFB. This area is 80 feet wide by 200 feet long. Soil borings indicated that soil contamination

extended 16 below the ground surface at the site. It was determined that groundwater remediation was not

required based on the quality of the groundwater and the lack of floating free-phase hydrocarbons at the site.

In 1994 and 1995, an SVE system was constructed at the site. The system includes 22 extraction wells, a 2-

horsepower blower and a knockout tank to separate vapor and liquid phases in the extraction stream. The system

was started in April 1995 and is currently still in operation (as of October 1998). It is estimated that 44,000

pounds of TPH have been removed from the soil at the site. Since 1995, several different extraction well

configurations have been used. For a period in 1997, all 22 wells were in use simultaneously.

On several occasions since system start up, soil borings have performed at the site to determine if cleanup goals

have been met at the site. The most recent sampling event (October 1997) indicated that the goals had been met.

In March 1998, a Final Characterization Study was submitted to NMED for review. This study recommended that

no further remedial action be conducted at Site 2/5. Approval of this recommendation was pending at the time of

this report.

In addition to meeting soil cleanup criteria at Site 2/5, the SVE system has consistently operated below limits set

by NMED for allowable air emissions of organic compounds.
82

Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site

Cupertino, California

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site Trichloroethene (TCE) May 1988 to August 23, 1993

Location: Cleanup Type:

Cupertino, California Full-scale

Vendor/Consultant: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Susan Colman Soil Vapor Extraction: CERCLA

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. - Seven extraction wells (six - ROD date: September 1990

100 Pine Street, 10th Floor installed in pairs - one in the

San Francisco, CA 94111 shallow vadose zone the other in

(415) 743-7031 the deep vadose zone 

- Three carbon bins to adsorb

contaminants from the extracted

soil vapor

- Air flow rates in individual wells

ranged from 3 to 38 scfm (data on

total system flow was not available)

Additional Contacts: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Information not provided Richard Procunier

U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-2219

State Contact:

Habte Kifle*

California Regional Water Quality

Control Board

1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 622-2371

Waste Source: Waste from the Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

manufacture of semiconductors and Soil - 280,000 cubic yards

related wafer fabrication

Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE application

using paired wells

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD identified the following remedial goals for soil: total VOCs - 1 mg/kg and total SVOCs - 10 mg/kg.

- Air emissions standards for the SVE system, identified as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,

allowed an annual average of 2 pounds per day (lbs/day) of organics to be emitted.

Results:

- Total VOCs were below the remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for 79 of 80 soil boring confirmatory samples. For one

sample, total VOCs was reported as 1.1 mg/kg. However, the results of an assessment of the significance of the

single exceedance indicated that, with a confidence level of greater than 95 percent, the soil remedial goal was

met. 

- According to Geomatrix, SVOCs were not detected in any samples.

- From May 1988 to December 1992, the removal rate for TCE decreased from approximately 15.5 lbs/day to

less than 0.5 lbs/day and approximately 3,000 lbs of TCE were extracted.
Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site

Cupertino, California (continued)

83

Cost:

- Total cost of $770,000, including $550,000 in capital and $220,000 in O&M costs.

- Corresponds to a unit cost of $3 per cubic yard for 280,000 cubic yards of soil treated, and $260 per pound of

contaminant removed (3,000 lbs removed).

Description:

The 12-acre Intersil/Siemens Superfund site, located in suburban Cupertino, California, includes two industrial

properties used for the manufacture of semiconductors and related wafer fabrication - the Intersil facility, which

operated from 1967 to 1988, and the Siemens facility, which has manufactured semiconductors at the site since

1978 and is an operating facility. The facilities used a variety of chemicals and chemical solutions in their

manufacturing operations, including etching solutions, organic solvents and chemical mixtures. Soils and

groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic comounds

(SVOCs) were discovered on each of the sites, and several interim actions, including SVE, were implemented at

the site. The site was listed on the NPL in August 1990. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in September

1990 that incorporated the interim remedies including SVE. This report focuses on the completed SVE

application at the Intersil property. The ROD identified the following remedial goals for soil: total VOCs - 1

mg/kg and total SVOCs - 10 mg/kg. Air emissions standards for the SVE system, identified as the Bay Area Air

Quality Management District, allowed an annual average of 2 pounds per day (lbs/day) of organics to be emitted.

The interim SVE system, which began operating in May 1988, included four vertical vapor extraction wells. As

part of the final remedy, the SVE system was expanded in May 1991 to include three additional extraction wells. 

Six of the wells were installed in pairs along the eastern portion of the Intersil building - one well in the shallow

vadose zone (about 10 to 50 feet deep) and the other in the deep vadose zone (about 60 to 100 feet deep). The

sixth well was located along the western portion of the building. Three carbon bins were used to adsorb

contaminants from the extracted soil vapor. Air flow rates in individual wells ranged from 3 to 38 scfm.

According to the vendor (Geomatrix), total system flow and TCE concentrations for the total system were not

available and the SVE system generally operated continuously until it was shut down (August 23, 1993). Based

on the results of confirmatory soil samples, total VOCs were below the remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for 79 of 80 of

the samples. For one sample, total VOCs was reported as 1.1 mg/kg. However, the results of an assessment of 

the significance of the single exceedance indicated that, with a confidence level of greater than 95 percent, the soil

remedial goal was met. According to Geomatrix, SVOCs were not detected in any samples. From May 1988 to

December 1992, the removal rate for TCE decreased from approximately 15.5 lbs/day to less than 0.5 lbs/day and

approximately 3,000 lbs of TCE were extracted.

The total cost of $770,000 for this application included $550,000 in capital costs and $220,000 in O&M costs. 

This corresponds to a unit cost of $3 per cubic yard for 280,000 cubic yards of soil treated, and $260 per pound

of contaminant removed (3,000 lbs removed).
84

Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at

NAS North Island, Site 9

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

NAS North Island, Site 9 Volatile Organic Compounds 10/12/97 - 10/18/97 - startup

(VOCs) 10/24/97 - 1/8/98 - parametric tests

- Halogenated and non-halogenated 1/17/98 - 2/6/98 - steady-state tests

VOCs, including 1,2-

dichloroethene, trichloroethene,

tetrachloroethene, toluene

Location: Cleanup Type:

San Diego, CA Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Process Technologies Inc (PTI) Photolytic Destruction CERCLA

- Fluidized bed concentration unit,

including an absorber, desorber,

and chilled-water condenser 

- Photolytic destruction unit (PDU),

consisting of photolytic reactors

and a wet scrubber

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Naval Facilities Engineering Information not provided

Service

1100 23rd Avenue

Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301

Waste Source: Disposal of liquid Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

chemical waste Soil vapor - estimated 1,151 lbs of VOCs

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate the

effectiveness of PTI’s photolytic

destruction units in treating VOCcontaminated vapor from an SVE

system

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The goal of the demonstration was to obtain cost and performance data on PTI’s system and to make comparisons

to other treatment technologies demonstrated at the site. The objectives included determining the total average

destruction and removal efficiencies of the system, developing cost data for a 3000 scfm PTI system, and

characterizing and quantifying secondary waste streams and residuals.

Results:

- The PTI system removed VOCs in the SVE off-gas to levels below the maximum allowable emissions of 25

ppmv. The average total DRE for VOCs was 95%.

- The report provides more detailed information comparing PTI’s technology performance to other treatment

technologies.

Cost:

- The total demonstration cost was $93,726, including work plan, moblilization/demobilization, site work, liquids

collection and containment, treatment, monitoring, sampling and analysis, and residuals disposal. The report

included a detailed cost breakout.

- The estimated unit cost to treat the SVE off-gas at NAS North Island’s Site 9, using a 3000 scfm system, is

$3.77 per lb of VOC.
Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at

NAS North Island, Site 9 (continued)

85

Description:

NAS North Island Site 9, the Chemical Disposal Area, was used for the disposal of liquid chemical wastes from

the 1940s to the 1970s. A wide range of contaminants were detected in soils at the site including VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and metals. As part of a non-time-critical

removal action, an SVE system has been installed at the site in Areas 1 and 3 to remove and treat VOCs. As part

of the Navy Environmental Leadership Program, PTI was selected to demonstrate their Photolytic Destruction

Technology for NAS North Island, Site 9 and to make comparisons with other commercially-available treatment

technologies. The PTI system was demonstrated with the existing SVE system at the site, specifically treating soil

vapor from Area 3 wells. The demonstration was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved parametric testing

to establish the optimal process configuration, and Phase 2 which involved Steady-State Testing using the system

configuration from Phase 1.

The PTI system consisted of a fluidized bed concentration unit and a PDU. The three main components of the

concentration unit were: an adsorber to develop a fluidized bed of adsorbent beads to extract organic vapors from

the SVE vapor stream; a desorber containing a steam-heated heat exchanger that warms the adsorbent to 300 (F

to evaporate the VOCs from the loaded adsorbent beads; and a chilled-water condenser to remove the water vapor

and non-halogenated organics from the concentrated vapor. The PDU consisted of two main components: two

photolytic reactors capable of treating up to 5 acfm each of concentrated VOC vapor and a wet scrubber to

remove any trace amounts of acidic by-products from the photolytic reactor stream. The PTI system used for the

demonstration was designed to treat 500 scfm of vapor from the SVE system (which was rated at 3000 scfm) and

to remove a minimum of 3.6 lbs/hr of VOCs. The maximum flow rate during the demonstration was 440 scfm

and the average amount of VOCs removed was 1.22 lbs/hr. The results of the Steady-State operations showed an

average DRE for the PTI system of 95.44%, with the PDU alone achieving an overall DRE of 97%. In addition,

the PTI system was found to be relatively quick to install and was operational 89% of the time. As a result of the

demonstration, PTI recommended several design modifications to enhance system performance including

redesigning the weather seals in the concentration unit to prevent rainwater and humidity from entering the

adsorber, which was the primary operational problem encountered with this component during the demonstration. 

In addition, PTI recommended evaluating the performance of different adsorbent materials to determine which

offers the most cost effective removal efficiencies. The report also presents detailed information on secondary

wastes and residuals generated during the demonstration as well as a detailed discussion of operational problems

encountered during the demonstration. 

The total demonstration cost was $93,726, including work plan, mobilization/demobilization, site work, liquids

collection and containment, treatment, monitoring, sampling and analysis, and residuals disposal. The report

included a detailed cost breakout. The data from the demonstration were used to estimate the cost of

implementing a 3000 scfm PTI system at NAS North Island Site 9. The estimated unit cost for such a system was

$3.77 per lb of VOC treated. According to PTI, the commercialization of the technology over the next few years

will lower the treatment costs further.
86

Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site

Seymour, Indiana

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Seymour Recycling Corporation

Superfund Site

Volatile and Semivolatile Organic June 1992 to Present (Report

Compounds (VOCs) and (SVOCs) covers period of June 1992 through

- More than 35 compounds 1996)

identified including tricholorethane

(TCA), tetracholroethane (PCA),

trichloroethene (TCE),

tetracholroethene (PCE), carbon

tetrachloride, and benzene

Location: Cleanup Type:

Seymour, Indiana Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Information not provided Soil Vapor Extraction CERCLA

- 19 horizontal vapor extraction - ROD date: September 30, 1987 

wells, 11 horizontal air inlet wells

(passive), a vacuum blower, a

moisture separator, and an

activated carbon adsorption system

- Air flow rate - 52.9 to 122.6 cfm

(average per quarter); 80 cfm

(average over 2.8 years of

operation)

- Operating vacuum 27 - 40 inches

of water

 Multimedia Cap 

- Constructed over the horizontal

SVE wells (24-inch vegetative

cover, geotextile fabric, 12-inch

thick drainage layer, 60 mil thick

synthetic liner, 2-ft thick clay/till

layer)

In Situ Bioremediation

- Nutrient addition - 8/86-10/86;

1/97-2/97; and 8/90

- Mechanical injection of nutrient

solution (nitrogen, phosphorus,

potassium, and sulfur)

State Contact: Remedial Project Manager:

Prabhakar Kasarabada

IDEM

100 N. Senate Avenue, 

12 Fl. North th

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

(317) 308-3117

PRP Lead Contractor:

Victoria Kramer

Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

88 Duryea Road

Melville, NY 11747

(516) 391-5268

Jeff Gore

EPA Region 5

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 886-6552

Waste Source: Improper waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

management practices Soil - 200,000 cubic yards of soil, based on an area of 12 acres and a

depth of 10 ft. Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE system using

horizontal wells, in combination

with in situ bioremediation, under a

multimedia cap.
Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site

Seymour, Indiana (continued)

87

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Chemical-specific soil cleanup levels were not specified for this application. Instead, requirements were

specified in terms of a system design goal.

- The design goal for the SVE system was to extract a total volume of soil vapor equal to 500 pore volumes from

beneath the site within 30 years. The system was to be operated to extract between 2 and 35 pore volumes per

year. After 500 pore volumes of soil vapor had been extracted, the system was to be operated as a passive

system.

Results:

- As of 1997, 430 pore volumes and about 30,000 pounds of VOCs had been extracted by the SVE system.

Cost:

- Capital cost for the SVE system - $1.2 million

- O&M data were provided only as a aggregate for all remediation activities at the site; therefore, O&M costs

specific to the SVE system were not available.

Description:

From 1970 to early 1980, the Seymour Recycling Corporation (SRC) and its corporate predecessor, Seymour

Manufacturing Company, processed, stored, and incinerated chemical wastes at the Seymour site. The site,

which occupies about 14 acres, was closed when SRC failed to meet a 1978 agreement with the State of Indiana

to cease receiving wastes and to institute better waste management practices. In 1980, the site was placed under

receivership by a state court. In 1982, EPA signed a Consent Decree with a small group of Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs) to complete “surface cleanup” at the site. On September 9, 1983, the site was listed

on the NPL. A ROD signed in September 1986 specified an interim groundwater pump-and-treat system remedy. 

A second ROD, signed in September 1987, specified more comprehensive remediation of the site, including the

use of SVE. 

The SVE system included 19 horizontal vapor extraction wells, 11 horizontal air inlet wells (passive), a vacuum

blower, a moisture separator, and an activated carbon adsorption system. Approximately 12,700 linear feet of

horizontal vapor extraction piping (laterals) were installed about 30 inches below grade. Wells were spaced

approximately 50 ft apart and a multimedia cap was constructed above the wells. During installation of the SVE

system, five lateral extraction wells were damaged. Repair of these wells was not feasible because of possible

cap damage; therefore, the damaged wells were converted to fresh-air inlet wells. Air inlet wells were

maintained at atmospheric pressure and extraction wells maintained at less than atmospheric pressure. This

configuration resulted in ambient air entering the inlet wells at atmospheric pressure, being drawn through the

unsaturated zone, and then being exhausted through the sub-atmospheric-pressure extraction wells. With the

exception of the five damaged wells described above, all wells were designed to be able to operate as either

extraction or inlet wells. In situ bioremediation was included in the remedy because it was believed that not all

of the compounds detected at the site would be amenable to SVE treatment. As of 1997, 430 pore volumes and

about 30,000 pounds of VOCs had been extracted by the SVE system. Remedial activities at the site were

ongoing at the time of this report.
88

Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at

OU1, Shaw AFB, South Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

OU1, Shaw AFB

 - POL yard 

 - Interim Response Area A Interim Response Area A -

 - Interim Response Area C February 1992 - November 1996

BTEX, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

Free Product (JP-4 fuel)

- 400,000 gallons of JP-4 in the

groundwater; the size of the

dissolved phase plume was

approximately 47 acres.

POL SVE system - December

1995 - ongoing (as of April 1998)

Interim Response Area C - April

1995 - September 1997

Location: Cleanup Type:

South Carolina Full-scale cleanup

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

IT Corporation Installation Restoration Program POL Yard - Soil Vapor

Extraction (SVE)

- vacuum extraction wells, blowers,

an oil/water separator, and

thermal/catalytic oxidation units.

Interim Groundwater

Containment System - Area A

- Fuel recovery and a groundwater

treatment system. Recovery wells,

iron pretreatment, entrained oil

removal, solids removal, packed air

stripper. System upgraded in May

1997 with dual-phase recovery

pumps, oil/water separator,

equalization tank, and shallow-tray

air stripper units.

Interim Groundwater

Containment System - Area C

- Passive free product recovery

using one recovery well

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Fuel Spill Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Soil

- 30,000 square feet (areal extent); sands and silts; confining clay layer at

70 to 80 feet below ground surface (bgs)

Groundwater 

- 47 acre plume (dissolved JP-4 fuel)

Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE system to

remediate soil and two interim

response action systems to contain

groundwater
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at

OU1, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)

89

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The operational objective of the SVE system was to remove contamination from the soil as cost-effectively as

possible to prevent contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.

- The operational objectives of the Interim Response for Area A was to contain the plume by removing free

product as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and

groundwater; the objective of dissolved phase containment was to operate efficiently over a relatively long period

of time.

- The operational objective of the Interim Response for Area C, free product source removal, was to remove

liquid-phase contamination as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of

surrounding soil and groundwater.

Results:

- SVE at POL Yard - Total contaminant removed through 19 months of operation (July 1997) was 518,000 lbs of

JP-4 fuel, with removal rates ranging from 2,560 to 94,800 lbs/month. The system is still operating.

- Groundwater Containment Area A - Data on whether containment was achieved is not available. Total

contaminant removed after 4 years of operation (through January 1996) was 114,340 gallons of JP-4 free product

(monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 9,980 gallons) and 171 gallons of dissolved phase JP-4 (monthly

removal rates ranged from 0 to 10.7 gallons). 

- Groundwater Containment Area C - Total contaminant removal after 1.4 years (through August 1996) was

12,766 gallons of JP-4 free product (monthly removal rates ranged from 266 to 2,145 gallons).

Cost:

The report includes detailed data on O&M costs versus amount of contaminant removed and the effects of system

modifications on these costs. 

- SVE system at POL Yard - Total O&M costs after 19 months of operation was $568,500 (monthly ranged from

$18,000 to $57,500). The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $1.09/lb

- Groundwater Containment Area A - Total O&M costs after 4 years of operation was $995,500 (monthly ranged

from $674 to $90,100). The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $8.69/gallon of JP-4. 

Groundwater Containment Area C - Total O&M cost was $33,000 (monthly ranged from $437 to $6,187). The

average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $2.59/gallon of JP-4.

Description:

OU1 at Shaw AFB, located in South Carolina, includes four IRP sites. This report focuses on the OU1 POL yard

SVE system, the OU1 Area A Interim Response groundwater containment/treatment system, and the Interim

Response Area C groundwater containment system (free product recovery). Contamination at OU1 included JP-4

fuel and BTEX, with an estimated 400,000 gallons of free product present in the groundwater. 

The SVE system at the POL yard included 30 vacuum extraction wells, four vacuum monitoring wells, three SVE

vacuum blowers, an oil/water separator, and two thermal/catalytic oxidation (CatOx) units. (Thermal oxidation

was used until December 1997; replaced by CatOx). In December 1996, five VEP wells from OU1 Area B were

connected to the system. The system was operated under 18 in of Hg and data are provided through July 1997. 

The Interim Groundwater Containment System at Area A included nine recovery wells, iron pretreatment,

entrained oil removal, solids removal, packed air stripper. Treated effluent was discharged to a sewer and data

are provided through November 1996. The Interim Groundwater Containment System at Area C included one

recovery well for free product recovery and data are provided through August 1996. In September 1997, the Area

C system was modified to a full-scale system. 
90

Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site 

Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site Volatile Organic Compounds: November 1988 - September 1996

- 1,2,3-trichloropropane

- Benzene

- Trichloroethene

- Tetrachloroethene

Location: Cleanup Type:

Upper Merion Township, Full-scale

Pennsylvania

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

John S. Miller Soil Vapor Extraction CERCLA

On-Site Coordinator - 80 vapor extraction (VE) wells, 9 - ROD date: 12/21/84

Terra Vac dual extraction (RD) wells, and 7 - Revised ROD: 3/31/88

P.O. Box 2199 bedrock extraction wells connected - Revised ROD: 7/20/96 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2199 to a central processing plant

(215) 354-8611 - Depth of VE wells- <10 feet

(approximate depth to bedrock)

- Vapors treated using activated

carbon adsorption 

- Water extracted using the RD

wells was treated by air stripping

and carbon polishing

- Design air flow rate- 15,000 scfm

at 13 inches of mercury (Hg)

vacuum

- More than 14 enhancements were

made to the system including

varying the number and types of

wells, heating the soil using several

techniques, destroying

contaminants in situ, and physically

creating new flow paths 

PRP Contact: Remedial Project Manager:

Kenneth Dupuis Eugene Dennis

Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. SARA Special Site Section

P.O. Box 71 U.S. EPA Region 3

Toms River, NJ 08754 841 Chestnut Building

(732) 914-2810 Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 566-3202

Waste Source: Spills and waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

disposal in lagoons Soil - 30,000 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: SVE application

involving more than 14

enhancements

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD specified cleanup goals of 0.05 mg/kg each for 1,2,3-trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and

tetrachloroethene.

- In addition, the cleanup goals were to be achieved within 26 months after startup of the SVE system. If cleanup

goals had not been met within the first year of operation of the SVE system, supplemental measures were to

implemented to improve the vacuum extraction process.
Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site 

Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania (continued)

91

Results:

- The system initially removed about 10,000 lbs/month of VOC. However, between September and December

1989, extraction rates decreased to 2,000 lb/month. In response, Terra Vac implemented 14 enhancements in an

attempt to improve system performance.

- While many of the SVE system enhancements (varying the number and types of wells in the system, heating the

soil, destroying contaminants in situ, and physically creating new flow paths as a means to improve the diffusion

rate) produced short-term improvements in the extraction rate, in all cases, the results were only temporary. (The

report includes a detailed summary of all enhancements and the results of each).

- Results of soil borings taken after 32 months of operation showed that concentrations of 1,2,3-

trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene remained above the cleanup goals. In a number

of cases, the constituent concentrations reported were higher than pre-remediation concentrations.

- EPA subsequently determined that the SVE system was incapable of meeting the cleanup goals in a timely and

cost effective manner, and amended the ROD to change the remedy to a wet soil cover.

Cost:

- The total actual cost for the SVE system was $43.4 million, including approximately $3.5 million for design

and pilot studies, and $39.9 million in treatment costs, including construction and operation and maintenance

costs. 

Description:

Tyson’s Dump Superfund site is a four-acre, abandoned septic waste and chemical waste disposal site reported to

have operated from 1960 to 1970 in a sandstone quarry. Franklin P. Tyson and Fast Pollution Treatment, Inc.

used lagoons on the eastern and western portions of the site to dispose of industrial, municipal, and chemical

wastes. Results of soil samples from the lagoons taken during the Remedial Investigation indicated the presence

of VOCs at concentrations that exceeded 500 mg/kg. A ROD was issued in 1984, specifying excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils. In response to the results of a study submitted by the RPs, EPA negotiated a

partial consent decree to implement SVE and issued a revised ROD in 1988.

The initial design of the SVE system at Tyson’s Dump included 80 vapor extraction wells, nine dual extraction

wells, and seven bedrock extraction wells connected to a manifold that led to a central processing plant. Most of

the VE wells were drilled to a depth of less than 10 feet (approximate depth to bedrock). Extracted vapors were

treated by activated carbon adsorption, with regeneration and solvent recovery on site. Water extracted using the

dual extraction wells was treated by air stripping and carbon polishing. VOC extraction rates for the system

initally were about 10,000 lb/month. However, by December of 1989 the extraction rate decreased to about

2,000 lbs/month. The results of additional investigations performed by Terra Vac identified several conditions at

the site that were limiting the diffusion rate of VOCs and adversely impacting the performance of the SVE

system, including greater variation in the permeability, porosity, particle size, and moisture content of the soils

than identified during previous investigations. In addition, DNAPL was found to be present over a larger area of

the site than had previously been identified. In response, Terra Vac implemented 14 enhancements in an attempt

to improve system performance. Many of the SVE system enhancements produced short-term improvements in

the extraction rate. However, in all cases, the results were only temporary. After 32 months of operation, sample

results showed that concentrations of 1,2,3-trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene

remained above the cleanup goals. EPA subsequently determined that the SVE system was incapable of meeting

the cleanup goals in a timely and cost effective manner, and amended the ROD to change the remedy to a wet

soil cover.
92

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
93

THERMAL PROCESSES ABSTRACTS
94

Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)TM Process at Brodhead Creek

Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Brodhead Creek Superfund Site Coal tar and coal tar residual July 1995 - June 1996

containing:

- PAHs - benzo(a)pyrene and

naphthalene

- Nonhalogenated semivolatile

organic compounds (SVOCs)

- Volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) - benzene

- Metals - arsenic

Location: Cleanup Type:

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Mark Moeller CROWTM process CERCLA

RETEC - Hot water injected into - ROD date: 3/29/91

9 Pond Lane, Suite 3A subsurface; water and coal tar - ESD date: 7/19/94

Concord, MA 07142 extracted and treated using a tar-

(508) 371-1422 water separator

Lyle Johnson production wells (used for

Western Research Institute extraction)

365 North 9 Street - Water from separator treated th

Laramie, WY 82070 using carbon adsorption; recovered

(307) 721-2281 tar sent off site for treatment

- Six injection wells and two

- Injection pressure - 20 psig

- Extraction rate - design of 100

gpm; actual of 40 gpm 

PRP Lead: EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Jim Villaume John Banks

Senior Project Manager U.S. EPA Region 3

Pennsylvania Power and Light 841 Chestnut Street

(PP&L) Philadelphia, PA 19107

Two North Ninth Street (215) 566-3214

Allentown, PA 18101

(610) 774-5094

Waste Source: Disposal of waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

in open pit Free product (coal tar) - 1,500 gallons of coal tar

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Recover free and

residual coal tar using the 

CROW TM process

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The ROD specified removal of 60 percent of the total free-phase coal tar from the subsurface soils. However,

the results of the preremedial design investigation found that an accurate measurement of the amount of freephase coal tar was not possible.

- An ESD was issued to change the standard. The system was required to operate until the amount of free-phase

coal tar recovered was minimal.
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)TM Process at Brodhead Creek

Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (continued)

95

Results:

- Initial estimate of total volume of coal tar removed - 1,500 gallons (based on estimate of amount removed for

each pore volume of water flushed through the recovery zone). In addition, no measurable material had been

recovered during the last three months of operation.

- However, EPA determined that the method used for this estimate was inaccurate and therefore could not be

used to determine whether the performance standard had been met. In response, the PRPs were required to

collect three additional pore volumes and perform quantitative analyses per EPA requirements. 

- The results showed that the recovered process water did not contain free or separable coal tar; EPA agreed that

the performance standard had been met and allowed the system to be shut down. 

Cost:

- Total cost - $1.9 million, including $1.2 million for treatment costs. 

- Costs for this application were shared among DOE, the Gas Research Institute, and PP&L.

Description:

Citizen Gas and Electric operated a coal gasification plant at this site from 1888 until 1944. Coal tar from these

operations was disposed of in open pits at the site. In October 1980, coal tar was observed to be seeping into

Brodhead Creek. In December 1982, the site was placed on the National Priorities List. The results of the

Remedial Investigation identified free-phase coal tar at the site. In addition, the soil and groundwater at the site

were contaminated with PAHs, other SVOCs, VOCs, and metals. The ROD signed in 1991 specified the use of

an enhanced recovery technology to remove free-phase coal tar from subsurface soils. The Contained Recovery

of Oily Waste (CROW)TM process was selected for use at the site.

The CROWTM process involved injecting hot water into the subsurface through six wells to decrease the

viscosity of the coal tar and facilitate recovery, then extracting the water and coal tar using two production wells. 

The extracted water and coal tar were treated using a tar-water separator. Water from the separator was treated

using carbon adsorption; recovered tar was sent off site for treatment. While the design called for the system to

be operated at a rate of 100 gpm, the actual rate was 40 gpm. A reason for the reduced rate included iron fouling

problems in the well screens. Initial results indicated that the CROWTM process had removed 1,500 gallons of

coal tar and that no measurable coal tar had been recovered during the last three months of operation. In March

1996, samples of the recovered material were taken from the storage tank. The results indicated that the contents

were primarily water, and raised concerns about the method that was being used to calculate the volume of tar

recovered. EPA determined that the method was not accurate, and therefore could not be used to determine

whether the performance standard had been met. Additional pore volumes were collected and the results of

quantitative analyses performed per EPA requirements showed that the cleanup goals had been met.
96

In Situ Thermal Desorption at the 

Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Missouri Electric Works Superfund

Site

PCBs April 21 - June 1, 1997

- Detected in surface and

subsurface soils at levels as high as

58,000 mg/kg

- Areal extent of PCB

contamination at levels greater than

10 mg/kg was estimated to be 6.8

acres

Location: Cleanup Type:

Cape Girardeau, Missouri Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

John Reed In situ thermal desorption CERCLA

Terra Therm Environmental - 12 heater/vacuum wells installed - ROD date: 9/28/90

Services in a triangular pattern to a depth of - Demonstration Test Plan

1077 Grogan’s Mill Road 12 feet approved 1/97

The Woodlands, TX 77380 - Each well equipped with an

(281) 296-1000 insulated heating element; capacity

to inject 350 to 700 watts/square

foot at heater temperatures of 1600

to 1800(F

- Small surface heating pads placed

at the center of each triangle; vapor

seal constructed over entire test

area 

- Particulate cyclone, Thermatrix

ES-125 flameless thermal oxidizer,

and carbon canisters

Additional Contacts: EPA Point of Contact:

Information not provided Remedial Project Manager

Pauletta France-Isetts

U.S. EPA Region 7

726 Minnesota Ave

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7701

Waste Source: Leaks and spills Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

from storage of PCB waste oils Soil - 52 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate the

performance of in situ thermal

desorption to treat PCBcontaminated soil

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

Soil cleanup goal for PCBs - 2 mg/kg

DRE - 99.9999%

Results:

- PCB concentrations in all 94 soil samples taken during the demonstration were below the 2 mg/kg cleanup goal; 

83 of the samples were reported below the detection limit

- Results of stack testing showed that the DRE for PCBs was 99.9999998%, meeting the goal of 99.9999%

Cost:

- No costs were reported for the demonstration.

- The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for a full-scale application is between

$120 and $200 per cubic yard for “most standard sites.” 
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the 

Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri (continued)

97

Description:

From 1953 until 1992, the Missouri Electric Works Inc. (MEW) operated a 6.4 acre site, located in an industrial

area in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. MEW sold, serviced, and maintained electric motors, transformers, and

transformer controls at this facility. Historical operations included salvaging transformer oil and materials from

old equipment; copper wire was sold and the transformer oil was filtered and reused. It was estimated that 28,000

gallons of oil were released at the site. The results of a Remedial Investigation (RI), conducted between

September 1989 and March 1990, showed PCBs in the surface and subsurface soils (as high as 58,000 mg/kg in

soils found on site and 2,030 mg/kg in off-site soils). The areal extent of PCB concentrations in the soil that were

greater than 10 mg/kg was estimated to be 295,000 square feet (ft ) or 6.8 acres. A Record of Decision (ROD), 2

signed in 1990, specified excavation of PCB-contaminated soil followed by incineration, and extraction and

treatment of groundwater. However, the MEW PRP Steering Committee proposed in situ thermal desorption of

the soil, and an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was issued for this site in January 1995 which

included thermal desorption as an acceptable process for treating site soils. In January 1997, EPA and MDNR

accepted a Demonstration Test Plan for this technology.

TerraTherm’s in situ thermal desorption (ISTD) technology was demonstrated at MEW to treat subsurface soil

contamination in an area near a former PCB storage pad. The objectives of the demonstration were to clean soils

to below cleanup levels and achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of greater than 99.9999% for

PCBs. Twelve heater/vacuum wells were installed in a triangular pattern, spaced 5 ft apart. A vapor seal was

constructed over the entire test area to insulate and reduce heat loss, and to seal the surface of the test area against

vapor emissions. The MU-125 mobile process unit used for the demonstration was equipped with a particulate

cyclone, a Thermatrix ES-125 flameless thermal oxidizer, and two carbon canisters in series. Three distinct

temperature phases were recorded during the heating process. During the third (superheating) phase soil

temperatures rose to over 1000(F. The vendor used this data to estimate that about 50% of the total soil volume

reached a temperature of over 1100(F. The results of soil samples taken after completion of the 42-day

demonstration showed that the concentration of PCBs in all samples was below the 2 mg/kg cleanup goal and that

PCB concentrations were below the detection limit in the majority of samples. Results of stack testing showed

that the DRE for PCBs was 99.9999998%, meeting the goal of 99.9999%.

The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for a full-scale application is between $120

and $200 per cubic yard for “most standard sites.” According to the RPM, the Missouri Electric Works Steering

Committee has retained another experienced vendor to perform the full-scale work at the Missouri Electric Works

site. The vendor submitted a lower cost proposal than TerraTherm.
98

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
99

GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT (CHLORINATED SOLVENTS)

ABSTRACTS
100

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,

Des Moines, Iowa

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) - Maximum concentrations Report covers: 12/87 - 10/96

detected during 1985 RI included

TCE (8,467 ug/L), 1,2-DCE (2,000

ug/L), and vinyl chloride (95 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Des Moines, Iowa Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Tonka Equipment Company Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using 7 - ROD Date: 7/21/86

wells, located on site, at an average

total pumping rate of 1,041 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with air stripping and discharged to

a surface water under a NPDES

permit

Additional Contacts: EPA Point of Contact:

None Mary Peterson, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 7

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7882

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Land application of waste sludges, Groundwater

including use of waste sludges on - 4,900 million gallons treated as of December 1996

road surfaces for dust control - DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site

- Groundwater is found at 10-25 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by a nearby

surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity reported as 535 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Met goals for off-site plume within

two years of operation; nearly five

billion gallons treated.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The cleanup goal for this site is to reduce the TCE concentration in groundwater on the west side of the

Raccoon River to 5 ug/L or less for four consecutive months. At this time, on-site goals have not been

specified.

- As a secondary goal, the remedial system is designed to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain

and treat the on-site plume.

Results:

- The pump and treat system met the cleanup goal for TCE within two years of system operation, and an inward

hydraulic gradient appears to have been achieved within the first month of operation that encompasses the

entire contaminant plume. Pumping continued after that time to maintain containment and provide for

potential reductions in contaminant concentrations in on-site wells. However, on-site wells continue to show

concentrations of TCE at greater than 5 ug/L. 

- By February 1997, the pump and treat system had removed nearly 30,000 pounds of contaminants from the

groundwater.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $2,596,000 ($1,587,000 in capital and $1,009,000 in O&M), which

correspond to $0.53 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $80 per pound of contaminant removed.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,

Des Moines, Iowa (continued)

101

Description:

An iron foundry operated on this property from approximately 1910 until Dico Corporation purchased the

property in the early 1940s. Dico manufactured metal wheels and brakes at the site from 1961 through 1993. In

September 1976, testing by the DMWW and EPA detected TCE in the city’s north gallery groundwater

infiltration system, which served as a source of drinking water for the city. Investigations by EPA suggested that

solvent sludges used on road and parking lot surfaces could be the cause of the subsurface contamination. The

site was placed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in July 1986.

The groundwater extraction system consists of seven wells installed in the plume east of the Raccoon River on

the Dico property to a depth of 40 ft. These wells were designed for full containment and partial aquifer

restoration (to achieve off-site groundwater goals). Extracted groundwater is treated using an air stripper and

discharged under a NPDES permit. The pump and treat system met the off-site cleanup goal for TCE within two

years of system operation, and plume containment appears to have been achieved. 
102

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,

Salinas, California

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Former Firestone Facility Chlorinated solvents and 2/86 - 11/92

Superfund Site volatiles - nonhalogenated 

- Contaminants included 1,1-DCE,

TCE, PCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA,

benzene, toluene, and xylene

- Maximum concentration for 1,1-

DCE detected in 1983-1984 was

120 ug/L 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Salinas, California Full-scale cleanup

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Construction: Monterey

Mechanical; Woodward/Clyde

Operations: International

Technology Corporation (ITC)

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 9/30/89

25 wells, located on- and off-site,

at an average total pumping rate of

480 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with oil/water separation, air

stripping, and carbon adsorption,

and discharged to a surface water

under a NPDES permit 

State Point of Contact:

Dr. Wei Lui

CA RWQCB

Central Coast Region

81 Higuera St., Ste. 200

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427

(805) 542-4648

EPA Point of Contact:

Elizabeth Adams, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-2261

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Accidental releases of chemicals to Groundwater

soil and groundwater from a - 1,800 million gallons treated

RCRA-permitted facility. - Groundwater is found at near ground surface at the site

- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by

production wells in the area

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 100 to 1,200 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Met goals within seven years of

operation; site had relatively high

hydraulic conductivity and was

located near high-volume

agricultural wells.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remedial goals were identified based on chemical-specific ARARs that included maximum contaminant levels

(MCLs) and health-based restrictions. Remedial goals were established for 1,1-DCE (6 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5

ug/L), TCE (3.2 ug/L), PCE (0.7 ug/L), benzene (0.7 ug/L), toluene (20 ug/L), and xylene (70 ug/L).

- A secondary goal of the system was to prevent migration of contaminants into the adjoining property.

Results:

- 1,1-DCE was identified as the index contaminant to identify compliance with remedial goals for this site. 

Monitoring results showed that concentrations of this contaminant decreased from as high as 120 ug/L in 1986

to 4.8 ug/L in 1994 and 6 ug/L in 1995. From 1986 to 1992, 496 pounds of total VOCs had been removed

from the groundwater.

- By 1987, monitoring data indicated that plume containment had been achieved. There had been some

migration of contaminants noted in 1986, but an addition of five off-site wells in the deep aquifer in 1987

prevented further migration.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,

Salinas, California (continued)

103

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $12,884,813 ($4,133,543 in capital and $8,751,270 in O&M), which

correspond to $7 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $26,000 per pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

The former Firestone facility operated as a tire manufacturing plant from 1963 until 1980. During pre-closure

investigations of the facility’s solid waste management units in 1983, 11 areas were investigated, and results

showed that soil and groundwater were contaminated. A plume of VOCs was identified in the groundwater that

extended 2.5 miles down-gradient. The site was placed on the NPL in July 1987 and a ROD was signed in

September 1989.

The extraction system originally consisted of 25 wells installed both on- and off-site. In July 1987, five

additional wells were installed off-site in the deep aquifer to prevent plume migration, and in October 1989, five

additional wells were installed off-site in the intermediate zone to treat contamination in that area. The system

design was performed using a computer model. The remedial goals at this site were met within approximately

seven years of treatment. Site operators frequently adjusted the extraction system to maximize the removal of

contaminants from the groundwater and maintain the highest possible level of contaminants in the influent stream

to the treatment system.
104

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the JMT Facility RCRA Site,

Brockport, New York

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

Black & Decker RCRA Site) - Maximum concentrations Report covers: 5/88 - 12/97

detected in March 1988 were TCE

(70,000 ug/L) and 1,2-DCE

(23,000 ug/L) 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Brockport, New York Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Hydro Group, Inc. (1988-1997) Pump and Treat RCRA 

1011 Route 22 - Groundwater is extracted using 1 - Corrective Action

Bridgewater, NJ 08807 well, located on site, at an average

(908) 704-8882 total pumping rate of 11.2 gpm

O’Brien & Gere Operations, Inc. - Extracted groundwater is treated

(1997-Present) with air stripping and discharged to

5000 Brittonfield Parkway a surface water under a SPDES

Syracuse, NY 13221 permit 

(315) 437-8800 - An interceptor drain was

artificially created in the bedrock

around the extraction well using

controlled blasting techniques

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Larry Thomas Michael Infurna

New York State Department of U.S. EPA Region 2

Environmental Conservation 290 Broadway

(NYSDEC) New York, NY 10007-1866

50 Wolf Road (212) 264-6150

Albany, NY 12233-7252

(518) 457-9253

Site Contact:

Paul William Hare

Corporate Environmental Programs

General Electric Company

One Computer Drive South

Albany, NY 12205

(518) 458-6613

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaks from surface impoundments/ Groundwater

drying beds - 50.1 million gallons treated as of December 1997

- DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site

- Groundwater is found at 10 ft bgs

- The extraction well is located in 1 aquifer; the geology at this site was

reported as very complex

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.65 to 0.93 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

RCRA corrective action site with

relatively low groundwater flow;

greater than 90% reduction in

average concentrations of

contaminants.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the JMT Facility RCRA Site,

Brockport, New York (continued)

105

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals were set at state groundwater standards as follows: TCE (5 ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE (5 ug/L), TCA

(5 ug/L), and vinyl chloride (2 ug/L).

- The cleanup goals must be met in the single recovery well at the site and in point-of-exposure wells, of which

there are currently 17.

- A goal of the recovery system is to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume.

Results:

- Concentrations of contaminants decreased by more than 80% from 1987 to 1997, but remain above cleanup

goals. 

- Although contaminants have been detected in off-site wells, NYSDEC and the owner/operator have concluded

that the plume had been contained and the off-site contamination was believed to be residual contamination

prior to pump and treat. The addition of a new extraction well and a treatment system is currently being

evaluated.

- From 1988 to 1996, the system removed 842 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $2,163,000 ($879,000 in capital and $1,284,000 in O&M), which

correspond to $47 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,569 per pound of contaminant removed.

- Building an enclosure for the treatment system was a substantial cost (about 23% of capital); however, the

efficiency of the overall system has improved, especially in the winter months, and less time is needed for

shutdown due to inclement weather.

Description:

The JMT Facility was operated as an appliance manufacturing facility by G.E. Company from 1949 to 1984 and

by Black and Decker from 1984 to 1986. JMT Properties, Inc., is the current owner of the site and leases the

facility to Kleen-Brite. Kleen-Brite uses the facility for packaging and distributing household products such as

laundry detergent and bleach. G.E. and Black and Decker operated an on-site RCRA treatment, storage, and

disposal facility (TSDF) under interim status. In 1984, routine sampling revealed elevated levels of halogenated

VOCs in the groundwater at the site. In August 1987, Black and Decker closed the regulated units and, in early

1988, initiated a corrective measures program for groundwater. In 1987, Black and Decker submitted a RCRA

Post-Closure Permit application to NYSDEC; the permit was issued in April 1994.

The groundwater extraction system consists of one recovery well installed in 1987 as an interceptor well at the

leading edge of the plume; the well placement was designed to prevent additional contaminants from migrating

off site. To increase the degree of hydraulic conductivity and the interconnection in the bedrock fractures in the

extraction well area, an interceptor drain was artificially created in the bedrock around the extraction well. The

drain was created using controlled blasting techniques and rubblizing the upper portion of the bedrock. Data

indicate that the pump and treat system has reduced the contaminant concentrations in the plume, however

concentrations in much of the plume remain above the cleanup goals.
106

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site,

Epping, New Hampshire

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Keefe Environmental Services Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

Superfund Site - Maximum concentrations Report covers: 4/93 - 5/97

included PCE (140 ug/L), TCE

(210 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (1,200 ug/L)

Volatiles- nonhalogenated 

- Maximum concentrations

included benzene (160 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Epping, New Hampshire Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

David Didian Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Woodward & Curran, Inc. (W&C) - Groundwater is extracted using 5 - ROD Date: 3/21/88

41 Hutchins Drive wells, located off site, and 1 trench, - ESD Date: 6/90

Portland, ME 04101 located on site, at an average total

(207) 774-2112 pumping rate of 23.4 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with coagulation/flocculation and

air stripping

- Treated groundwater is

discharged to the groundwater

through an infiltration trench and

spray irrigation system 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Tom Andrews Darryl Luce, RPM

NHDES U.S. EPA Region 1

6 Hazen Drive JFK Federal Building

Concord, NH 03301 One Congress Street

(603) 271-2910 Boston, MA 02203

(617) 573-5767

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Storage of drums and containers, Groundwater

unauthorized dumping, leaking - 46 million gallons treated as of May 1997

lagoon - Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are not influenced by a

nearby surface water Purpose/Significance of - Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.025 to 42.5 ft/day Application:

Performed optimization study after

two years of operation; relatively

low groundwater flow

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup standards were established for the upper overburden and bedrock aquifers on site and the sand and

gravel aquifer off site. These standards were required to have been met in all monitoring wells in the

respective aquifers for two consecutive sampling rounds.

- Cleanup standards were identified for 1,2-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,2-DCE (7 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L), and

benzene (5 ug/L).

- The treatment system was required to meet the cleanup goals for groundwater re-injected into the aquifer.

- The extraction system must capture and contain the contaminant plume. 

Results:

- Average contaminant concentrations at the site have decreased 76% from April 1993 to October 1996. 

However, individual contaminant concentrations have not been reduced to below the cleanup goals.

- The P&T system has removed approximately 68 pounds of contaminants through February 1997.

- The treatment system has consistently met the performance standards established for this application.

- Plume containment has been achieved.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site,

Epping, New Hampshire (continued)

107

Cost:

- Actual cost data for this application show that approximately $2,408,000 ($1,582,539 in capital costs and

$826,000 in O&M) were expended through May 1997, which correspond to $52 per 1,000 gallons of

groundwater extracted and $35,000 per pound of contaminant removed.

- The mass removed through the treatment system may be significantly lower than the total mass extracted from

the groundwater because of volatilization and other loses prior to the treatment plant; therefore, the cost per

pound removed may be less than shown above.

Description:

Keefe Environmental Services operated from 1978 until 1981 as a spent solvent bulking, recovery, and

reclamation facility. The facility consisted of drum storage areas, large bulk storage tanks, equipment shelters, a

bulking area, and a 700,000-gallon, synthetically-lined waste lagoon. In 1979, a groundwater monitoring

program began, and chlorinated solvents were detected. The site was added to the NPL in 1983 and a ROD was

signed in March 1988. An ESD was issued in June 1990.

The current extraction system consists of four wells in the upper overburden aquifer, one well in the bedrock

aquifer, and a collection trench. This extraction system was modified in 1995 (two years after startup) to

optimize performance. Two wells were added and two others removed; locations for the new wells were selected

to increase extraction rates. The treatment system consists of a coagulation/flocculation unit, an air stripping

tower, and a vapor-phase carbon adsorption unit; the maximum design flow rate is 60 gpm. After four years of

operation, the P&T system has reduced average contaminant concentrations within the plume and contained the

plume from further migration. The site has not, however, met cleanup goals.
108

Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE’s

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Lawrence Livermore National Volatile Organic Compounds: 6/91 - ongoing

Laboratory (LLNL)Site 300 - - Trichloroethene (TCE) (Data reported through July 1997)

General Services Area (GSA) - DNAPLs

Operable Unit (OU) 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Livermore, CA Full-scale

Vendor/Consultants: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems CERCLA

Inc. (P&T) - Removal action - 1991

Oak Ridge, TN - ROD date: not provided

Weiss Associates

Emeryville, CA

Eastern GSA pump and treat

- Three extraction wells

- Treatment includes 5-micron

particulate filter and three aqueous

phase GAC units in series with a 50

gpm capacity

Central GSA pump and treat

(P&T)

- 19 extraction wells - extract

groundwater and soil vapor

simultaneously

- Treatment includes shallow tray

air stripper (50 gpm); 5-micron

particulate filter; two vapor-phase

GAC units; air emissions stack

housed in a portable treatment unit

Central GSA Soil Vapor

Extraction (SVE)

- Seven extraction wells

- 2-hp vacuum pump

- Four vapor-phase GAC units in

series

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Michael G. Brown Information not provided

Deputy Director

DOE/OAK Operations Office

L-574

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

Lawrence, CA 94551

(510) 423-7061

John P. Ziagos

Site 300 Program Leader

L-544

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

Lawrence, CA 94551

(510) 422-5479

Waste Source: Waste buried in Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

shallow trenches; disposal of Through July 1997:

wastewater in dry wells; leaks and Groundwater - a total of 93.8 million gallons of groundwater; 9.9 kg of

spills VOC mass removed

Soil - 399,000 cubic feet of soil vapor; 30.5 kg of VOC mass removed Purpose/Significance of

Application: Combined use of

groundwater pump and treat and

SVE to remediate TCE and

DNAPLs
Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE’s

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU (continued)

109

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Groundwater - reduce VOC concentrations to MCLs in all contaminated groundwater including a cleanup goal

of 5 ug/L for TCE. The discharge limit is 0.5 ug/L for total VOCs.

- Soil - soil vapor of 0.36 ppmv; soil vapor remediation will continue until: 1) it is demonstrated that VOC

removal from the vadose zone is no longer technically or economically feasible and 2) the VOC inhalation risk

inside Building 875 is adequately managed. 

Results:

- Maximum TCE groundwater concentrations had been reduced from pre-remediation levels ranging from as high

as 240,000 ug/L at the site to levels of 13 ug/L (eastern GSA) and 33 ug/L (central GSA) as of May 1997. These

levels are above the cleanup goal of 5 ug/L. 

- Maximum TCE soil vapor concentrations had been reduced from a pre-remediation level of 450 ppmv to 2

ppmv as of May 1997, above the cleanup goal of 0.36 ppmv.

- The discharge limits have been met while the system was operating.

Cost:

- Total cost for GSA OU - $36.6 million, including $6.2 million for the Eastern GSA P&T and $32.4 million for

the Total Central GSA P&T and SVE systems. The costs include preconstruction and construction activities and

post-construction O&M.

Description:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 is a DOE experimental test facility located near Livermore

California. Craft shops and equipment fabrication and repair facilities in the General Services Area (GSA) used

solvents as degreasing agents. In the eastern portion of the GSA, craft shop debris was buried in shallow

trenches. In the central portion, rinse waters from operations were disposed of in dry wells. The results of site

investigations, begun in 1982, identified VOC contamination in the soil and groundwater. Groundwater TCE

concentrations have been detected as high as 74 ug/L in the eastern GSA and 240,000 ug/L in the central GSA.

Groundwater TCE plumes have been identified in both areas. The highest pre-remediation concentration of TCE

in soil in the central GSA were 360,000 ug/L. Remediation began in 1991 as a removal action. A Record of

Decision was signed moving the cleanup to the remedial phase. 

The remedy at the eastern portion of the GSA, begun in 1991, involves groundwater extraction using three wells

and treatment using carbon adsorption. The system originally used air sparging; however, as VOC concentrations

in the groundwater decreased, air sparging was replaced with carbon adsorption. After six years of operation, the

system has removed 5.1 kg of VOC mass, treated 93 million gallons of groundwater and reduced the maximum

TCE concentration in groundwater to 13 ug/L. The remedy for the central portion of the GSA included both

groundwater extraction and treatment and SVE. The groundwater system, operated since 1993, had 19 extraction

wells and includes air stripping for vapors and carbon adsorption for treatment of groundwater. After four years

of operation, the system has removed 4.8 kg of VOC mass, treated 787,000 gallons of groundwater, and reduced

maximum TCE levels to 33 ug/L. The SVE system, operated since 1993, has removed 30.5 kg of VOC mass and

reduced TCE concentrations in the soil vapor to 2 ppmv. Levels of VOC remained above the cleanup goals as of

1997. Cyclic pumping is used to maximize VOC mass removal efficiency from all three systems. Results of

modeling used to predict the timeframe for cleanup indicated that the SVE system would require 10 years and

groundwater extraction and treatment 55 years. 

The total cost for the three technologies at the GSA OU as of 1997 is $36.6 million. This includes

preconstruction and construction activities and post-construction O&M. The costs for the Eastern GSA P&T

system is $6.2 million. The cost for the Central GSA P&T and SVE systems is $32.4 million.
110

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,

Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

Superfund Site, Dow/DSI Facility - - Maximum concentrations Report covers: March 1994

Volatile Halogenated Organic detected in September 1989 were through October 1997

(VHO) Plume trans-1,2-DCE (500 ug/L), TCE

(430 ug/L), PCE (540 ug/L), and Location: Cleanup Type: 1,1,1-TCA (500 ug/L) Evansville, Wyoming Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Thomas J. Mueller, P.E.

Western Water Consultants, Inc.

611 Skyline Road

P.O. Box 4128

Laramie, WY 82071

(307) 742-0031

Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor CERCLA Remedial

Extraction - ROD Date: 9/24/90

- Groundwater is extracted using 3

wells, located on site, at an average

total pumping rate of 103 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with air stripping and reinjected

using an infiltration trench with

600 ft of surface area

- SVE is used as a source control

activity

State Point of Contact:

Don Fisher

Solid and Haz. Waste Div.

Wyoming Dept. of Environmental

Quality

1222 W. 25th Street

Cheyenne, WY 82002

(307) 672-6457

EPA Point of Contact:

Lisa Reed Lloyd, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 8

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2466

(303) 312-6537

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Various contaminant releases, Groundwater

spills, and leaks - 192.8 million gallons treated as of December 1997

- Groundwater is found at 14-42 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer at the site

- Hydraulic conductivity was reported as 340 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Remedial strategy includes use of

pump and treat for the on-site

plume and natural attenuation for

the off-site plume.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The remedial goal is to reduce the levels of contaminants in the on-site, up-gradient portion of the groundwater

plume to below MCLs such that the remainder of the plume off site meets MCLs through natural attenuation

within a reasonable time limit. 

- Remedial goals were established for TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (100 ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE (70

ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), and 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L).
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,

Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming (continued)

111

Results:

- Contaminant concentrations in all wells have declined significantly, yet remain above MCLs. Concentrations

of contaminants in three out of four source area wells fell below their respective MCLs in the last two

sampling events in 1996; in the fourth well, the total contaminant concentration was 9.4 ug/L.

- Wells in the down-gradient portion of the plume declined from March 1993 to December 1996, but in at least

one well (225 ft down-gradient of the site boundary) individual contaminant concentrations remain

significantly above their respective MCLs.

- Approximately 21 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater at this site.

Cost:

- Actual costs for groundwater remediation were $918,000 ($305,000 in capital and $613,000 in O&M), which

correspond to $5.65 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $44,000 per pound of contaminant

removed.

Description:

Since 1958, the Dow/DSI facility was used as a base for oil field service operations. Dow/DSI used mobile

pumps, tanks, and other equipment to perform services for the oil and gas industry. It is believed that wash water

from equipment cleaning operations contained chlorinated solvents. In addition, a tank at the site was used to

store large volumes of toluene, which was used for cleaning purposes and oil well servicing activities. In 1986,

residents complained of poor water and air quality. In response, EPA conducted an Expanded Site Investigation,

which led to the discovery of contaminants in the groundwater. The site was placed on the NPL in August 1990

and a ROD was issued in September 1990.

The remedial strategy at this site was to actively treat the on-site groundwater plume using pump and treat with

air stripping, and to allow natural attenuation to reduce contaminant levels in the off-site portion of the plume to

levels below the MCLs. In four years of operation, contaminant concentrations in all wells have declined

significantly, yet remain above MCLs. 
112

Groundwater Containment at

Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site LF-12, Offutt AFB Volatile Organic Compounds Not available; system was operating

(VOCs) in January 1997

- Levels of VOCs in soil vapor

included 18 ppm acetone, 0.077

ppm toluene, and 0.031 ppm xylene

- Contaminants in groundwater

included 500 ppb TCE, 16,000 ppb

DCE, 3.3 ppb chloroform, and

7 ppb bromodichloromethane

Location: Cleanup Type:

Nebraska Full-scale cleanup

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Information not provided Hydrualic containment consists of Installation Restoration Program

three recovery wells. The system

operates at an average flow rate of

105 gpm. Groundwater is treated

with air stripping and effluent is

discharged to a local POTW.

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Disposal of refuse, Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

waste solvents, and sewage sludge. Groundwater - Quantity treated not provided. Groundwater is

encountered between 9 and 18 feet below ground surface. Purpose/Significance of

Application: Containment of

groundwater using active pumping

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

Information on cleanup objectives was not included in this report.

Results:

Limited performance data are available for this application. The volume of contaminant removed as of January

1997 was 12.81 gallons. The average concentration of TCE in the extracted groundwater was 151 ppb.

Cost:

The capital cost for the system was $540,000. The O&M costs average $20,000 per year. Monthly O&M data

were not provided.
Groundwater Containment at

Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska (continued)

113

Description:

Site LF-12 is located at Landfill 4 at Offutt AFB in Nebraska. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards of refuse, waste

solvents, and sewage sludge were disposed at Landfill 4, resulting in contamination of soil and groundwater at the

site. Low levels of VOCs, including acetone, toluene, and xylene, were detected in the soil vapor. TCE (500

ppb), DCE (16,000 ppb), chloroform (3.3 ppb), and bromodichloromethane (7 ppb) were detected in the

groundwater.

A hydraulic containment system was installed at the site, and was operating as of January 1997. Information on

the start date for the system was not provided. The system consists of three recovery wells, and operates at an

average flow rate of 105 gpm. Groundwater is treated with air stripping and effluent is discharged to a local

POTW. Only limited cost and performance data are available for this application. The volume of contaminant

removed as of January 1997 was 12.81 gallons. The average concentration of TCE in extracted groundwater was

151 ppb. 

The capital cost for the system was $540,000, including design, labor, equipment, materials, and startup. O&M

costs average $20,000 per year and include electrical, monitoring, equipment and materials, and operations. No

data on actual monthly O&M costs were provided.
114

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Old Mill Superfund Site, Rock Creek, Ohio

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Old Mill Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

(this site consists of two parcels of and volatiles - nonhalogenated Report covers: 9/89 - 7/97

land - the Henfield property and the - Maximum concentrations

Kraus property) detected in one plume (Henfield)

were TCE (6,100 ug/L), PCE (300

ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (460 ug/L0,

and VC (14 ug/L)

- Maximum concentrations

detected in other plume (Kraus)

were ethylbenzene (19,000 ug/L)

and xylenes (43,000 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Rock Creek, Ohio Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Construction: Aptus Environmental Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Services, Inc. - Groundwater is extracted using 3 - ROD Date: 8/7/85

Coffeyville, KS 67337 wells and 5 trenches at an average

Operation & Maintenance: total pumping rate of 3.1 gpm

Omprakash Patel - Extracted groundwater is treated

Roy F. Weston, Inc. with air stripping and carbon

3 Hawthorn Pkwy, Suite 400 adsorption

Vernon Hills, IL 60061-1450 - Treated groundwater is

(847) 918-4051 discharged to a surface water under

a NPDES permit State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Mike Eberle Ron Muraawski, RPM

Ohio EPA U.S. EPA Region 5

(216) 963-1126 77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 886-2940

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Illegal waste disposal Groundwater

- 13 million gallons treated as of 1997

- Groundwater is found at 5 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.22 to 1.25 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Relatively high unit cost, due to

small quantity of groundwater

extracted and low groundwater

flow.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remedial goals were established for contaminants of concern that must be met throughout the site. These

goals were based on achieving a carcinogenic risk level of 1 x 10 , and consist of 1,2-DCE (1.9 ug/L), TCE -5

(15 ug/L), PCE (8.2 ug/L), and ethylbenzene (8,000 ug/L).

- Treatment system performance standards were established to meet NPDES permit requirements.

- The system was required to contain the plume and prevent off-site migration of contaminants.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Old Mill Superfund Site, Rock Creek, Ohio (continued)

115

Results:

- The 1997 annual sampling data indicate that the P&T system has contained the plume, but that contaminant

concentrations in much of the plume remain above remedial goals. In addition, two hot spots remain

problematic at this site, with TCE concentrations of 1,700 and 1,400 ug/L as of March 1997.

- The P&T system removed approximately 124 pounds of contaminants from 1990 to 1997.

- Treatment performance standards have been met consistently during this application.

Cost:

- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $3,236,000 ($1,596,000 in capital and $1,640,000 in

O&M), which correspond to $250 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $26,100 per pound of

contaminant removed.

- The actual capital cost was approximately 22% higher than the original bid cost, due to a need to add collection

trenches.

Description:

The Old Mill Superfund site includes two parcels of land, the Henfield and Kraus properties. The site was used

for illegal disposal of drummed wastes for an undetermined number of years. In 1979, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA

found approximately 1,200 drums of waste including oils, resins, and PCBs on the Old Mill site. Drum and soil

removal were completed in 1982 as a Superfund emergency removal action. Limited information is provided

about site investigation activities, however, data are presented showing VOCs in the groundwater based on 1984

sampling data. The site was listed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in August 1985.

The P&T system has been designed to remediate plumes from both the Henfield and Kraus properties. The

system consists of three deep recovery wells and five collection trenches. Extracted groundwater from both

plumes is treated in one treatment plant, which consists of an 18-inch diameter air stripping tower and a granular

activated carbon unit. In 1989 and 1994, the collection system was modified by adding collection trenches at the

Kraus property needed to maintain containment. After eight years of P&T operation, the cleanup goals for this

site have not been met. According to the RPM, the P&T system at this site does not appear to have the typical

effect on groundwater contamination. New contaminants have been identified after the initial investigation and

contaminant concentrations have increased at times during operations. The reasons for these events is not known

at this time.
116

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,

Cayce, South Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

- Maximum concentrations Report covers: 8/92 - 3/97

detected during intial investigations

were PCE (600 ug/L), TCE (130

ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (560 ug/L), 1,1-

DCE (470 ug/L), and 1,1,1,2-PCA

(25 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Cayce, South Carolina Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

EPA Contractor: Ebasco Services,

Inc.

PRP Project Coordinator: de

maximis, Inc.

PRP contractor: S&ME, Inc.

PRP Operations Contractor: O&M,

Inc.

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 9/26/86

15 wells and a 300-ft shallow

extraction trench, at an average

total pumping rate of 40 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with air stripping and discharged to

a POTW 

State Point of Contact:

Yanqing Mo

South Carolina DHEC

Bureau of Hazardous and Solid

Waste

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

EPA Point of Contact:

Yvonne Jones, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 4

345 Courtland St., N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 562-8793

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated

Spills from poor waste handling

practices, leaking drums

Groundwater

- 20.6 million gallons treated as of March 1997

- Groundwater is found at 14 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 4 aquifers, and all 4 aquifers are

contaminated

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 5 to 45 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Remediation at a site with complex

hydrogeology, consisting of eight

distinct hydrogeological units.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Reduce the concentration of contaminants in the groundwater to primary drinking water standards or maximum

contaminant levels (MCLs).

- Cleanup goals were established for 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L),TCE (5 ug/L), 1,1,2-TCA (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L),

1,1,2,2-TCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), chloroform (100 ug/L), carbon tetrachloride (5 ug/L), benzene (5

ug/L), and dichloromethane (5 ug/L)

- A secondary goal is to hydraulically contain the migration of contaminants in the groundwater.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,

Cayce, South Carolina (continued)

117

Results:

- Groundwater monitoring results indicate that contaminant concentrations have not been reduced to below

cleanup goals. Concentrations in the well with the highest concentration, however, have been reduced by

approximately 81% since 1992.

- The plume was not contained from 1992 until November 1995. Hydrodynamic control of the plume has been

maintained since November 1995.

- The P&T system has removed approximately 7 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater from 1992 to

1996.

Cost:

- Actual costs during the EPA-lead portion of the P&T system operation were approximately $1,439,700

($1,189,700 in capital and $250,000 in O&M), which correspond to $464 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater

extracted and $200,000 per pound of contaminant removed.

- Costs for the PRP-lead portion of the operation were $294,000 for capital and $180,000 for O&M.

Description:

South Carolina Recycling and Disposal Inc (SCRDI) operated this site as an industrial waste storage facility until

1978. The starting date of operations at this facility is not known. Waste materials stored on site included

solvents, phenols, specialty chemicals, hydrogen peroxide, and pyridine. In 1978, SCRDI applied for a waste

management permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 

After a site visit, the permit was denied because of poor waste management practices, such as materials stored in

leaking containers, drums stored in exposed conditions, and improper waste handling procedures. In June 1980,

SCDHEC implemented a preliminary groundwater study to determine the extent of subsurface contamination. 

Analytical results from this study indicated that halogenated organic and metal contamination was found on site. 

The site was placed on the NPL in August 1982 and a ROD was signed in September 1986.

Two distinct remedial systems have operated at this site; one operated from August 1992 to June 1994 (EPA-lead

portion), and the other from November 1995 to present (PRP-lead portion). A Supplemental Site Investigation

(SSI) was performed in 1994 and a remedial system optimization study was performed in 1995; as a result the

system was modified to include 15 extraction wells, a 300 ft shallow collection trench, and a shallow stacked tray

air stripper.

The EPA portion of this application was based on RI results which did not accurately characterize the site. 

Based on these results, wells were screened in two lower groundwater units, but not in an upper, contaminated

unit. In addition, during the EPA portion, wells were screened across two units, which allowed contaminants to

migrate from one unit to the other, previously uncontaminated unit. 
118

Groundwater Containment at

Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB Organic Compounds - Chlorinated 2/95 - 12/96

Solvents:

- Trichloroethene (TCE)

- Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

- one plume contains PCE and

TCE; one plume contains TCE only

Location: Cleanup Type:

South Carolina Full-scale cleanup

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

IT Corporation Hydrualic containment through Installation Restoration Program

active pumping. One recovery

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact: well.

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Fuel Spill Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Groundwater and free product - A total of 40.5 gallons of PCE and TCE

were removed during this interim action. Purpose/Significance of

Application: Groundwater

containment of chlorinated solvents

using active pumping.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The operational objective of the interim action was to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume and to operate

as efficiently as possible over a relatively long period of time. 

Results:

- Data on whether plume containment was achieved was not available. Therefore, the report presents results in

terms of the efficiency of the contaminant that has been removed by the system through August 1997.

- A total of 40.5 gallons of TCE and PCE (14.2 gallons TCE and 26.3 gallons PCE) were removed during the

interim action. Monthly removal rates ranged from 0.16 gallons to 4.85 gallons of contaminant. 

Cost:

The capital cost for the interim groundwater containment system was $1,960,000. The total cumulative O&M

costs from February 1995 through August 1997 were about $50,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged up to $10,436. 

The average O&M cost per gallon of contaminant removed was $1,512.
Groundwater Containment at

Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)

119

Description:

Site OT-16B , located at the Shaw AFB in South Carolina, is part of Operable Unit 2 at the site. The groundwater

at Site OT-16B is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and two contaminant plumes were

identified in the Upper Black Creek Aquifer at the site. One plume contained TCE and PCE ; the other contained

TCE only. As part of an interim action at the site, a system was installed to provide hydraulic containment of

these contaminant plumes through active pumping. The interim action system consisted of one recovery well

which was operated from February 1995 through December 1996. 

Data on whether the plumes had been contained was not available. Therefore, the performance data presented in

the report focuses on the efficiency of contaminant removal by the system. Performance and cost data were

provided from system startup in February 1995 through August 1997. During this time, a total of 40.5 gallons of

TCE and PCE were removed from the groundwater, with monthly removal rates ranging from 0.16 gallons to 4.85

gallons. The total O&M costs through August 1997 was about $50,000. The average O&M cost per unit of

contaminant removed was $1,512.
120

Groundwater Containment at

Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Free 3/95 - 2/96

Product (JP-4 fuel), Chlorinated

Solvents

- estimated 60 gallons of JP-4 fuel

spilled at SD-29; total petroleum

hydrocarbon levels up to 592 ppm

in soil at ST-30

- Free product in groundwater at

both sites

Location: Cleanup Type:

South Carolina Full-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

IT Corporation Interim action free product Installation Restoration Program

recovery systems at SD-29 and ST30. The systems used pneumatic

products skimmer pumps until 1/96. 

At that time, passive skimmer

bailers were placed in the wells to

reduce operating costs.

Contaminated groundwater was

treated using an air stripper.

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Fuel spill and Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

leaking supply line Groundwater and free product - A total of 102 gallons of free product were

recovered

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Interim action to

recover free product from

groundwater 

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The operational objective of the interim action free product source removal was to remove liquid-phase

contamination as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil

and groundwater.

Results:

- A total of 102 gallons of free-phase JP-4 fuel was recovered during the year the system was operated (97 gallons

from ST-30 and 5 gallons from SD-29). Monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 50 gallons of free product. By

October 1995, the removal rates had decreased to below 5 gallons/month. By February 1996, the removal rate

had become negligible and the system was shut down.

Cost:

The capital cost for the SD-29 groundwater containment system was $394,000. Data on the capital cost for the

ST-30 system were not available.

Data on O&M costs were reported as a total for both systems. The total cumulative cost for the SD-29 and ST-30

was $17,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged from $0 to $6,021. In January 1996, after removal rates had decreased,

passive bailers were installed in the wells to reduce operating costs. The operating cost for February 1996 was

$500.

The average O&M cost was $166/gallon of JP-4 recovered.
Groundwater Containment at

Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)

121

Description:

Sites SD-29 and ST-30 at Shaw AFB, located in South Carolina, were the locations of soil and groundwater

contamination as a result of leaks and spills of JP-4 fuel. An estimated 60 gallons of JP-4 fuel were spilled at site

SD-29 when an oil/water separator pump failed. Eighty tons of soil were excavated from the site. In addition, the

groundwater was determined to be contaminated with free phase JP-4 fuel, dissolved fuel components, and

dissolved chlorinated solvents. A leaking jet fuel supply line was the source of contamination at the ST-30 site. 

Free phase JP-4 fuel was identified in the groundwater. Interim action groundwater containment systems were

installed to remove free product and prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater. The

systems were operated from March 1995 through February 1996. 

The groundwater containment systems included pneumatic product skimmer pumps to recover free product. 

These pumps were used until January 1996, when the removal rate has decreased and the system was evaluated to

determine if operating costs could be reduced. Passive skimmer bailers were then installed to reduce operating

costs. The system was shut down in February 1996, after the removal rates had remained negligible for several

months. During the year of operation, a total of 102 gallons of JP-4 was recovered - 97 gallons from ST-30 and 5

gallons from SD-29. Monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 50 gallons per month. 

The total capital cost for the SD-29 system was $394,000. No data on capital costs were available for the ST-30

system. Data on O&M costs were reported as a total for the SD-29 and ST-30 systems. The total cumulative

costs for the year of operation was $17,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged from $0 to $6,021. The operating cost

for February 1996 was $500. The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $166/gallon of JP-4.
122

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,

Republic, Missouri

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Solid State Circuits Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

- Contaminants of greatest concern Report covers: 1993 - 3/97

at this site are TCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-

DCE, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-

TCA, and vinyl chloride

- Maximum concentration of TCE

was 290,000 ug/L

Location: Cleanup Type:

Republic, Missouri Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Steve Chatman Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Chatman & Associates - Groundwater is extracted using 7 - ROD Date: 9/27/89

647 Massachusetts Ave., Ste. 211 wells, 4 located on site and 3

Lawrence, KS 66044-2250 located off site, at an average total

(785) 843-1006 pumping rate of 34 gpm

- Three wells have depths of 90 ft

bgs, two wells of approximately

300 ft bgs, one of 600 ft bgs, and

one of 985 ft bgs

- Groundwater extracted from onsite wells is treated with air

stripping and discharged to a

POTW 

- Groundwater extracted from offsite wells is discharged without

treatment to a POTW 

EPA Point of Contact:

Steve Auchterlonie, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 7

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7778

State Point of Contact: Facility Engineer:

Candice Hamil Greg Vierkant

Missouri Dept. Of Nat. Resources Lucent Technologies

205 Jefferson Ave., P.O. Box 176 2101 West Chesterfield Blvd.

Jefferson City, MO 65101 Suite C100-110

(314) 751-3176 or (800) 334-6946 Springfield, MO 65807-8672

(417) 882-2211

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Storage of stripper and plating Groundwater

wastes in sump pit - 257 million gallons treated as of March 1997

- DNAPL suspected in groundwater on site

- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by a

nearby surface water

- Groundwater is characterized as a leaky artesian system occurring in

karst formations, with three units identified at the site

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from <0.01 to 1.62 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Groundwater characterized as a

leaky artesian system occurring in a

karst formation.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The remedial goals for this site are to reduce the TCE concentration in groundwater to 5 ug/L and maintain

hydraulic control over the groundwater contaminant plume.

- Performance goals were that TCE levels in individual discharge points to the POTW were below 200 ug/L, and

that average water levels and pump rates from specific wells be within specified ranges; these latter

requirements were to ensure hydraulic containment.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,

Republic, Missouri (continued)

123

Results:

- TCE concentrations in some of the wells have decreased from 1987 to 1996, and are below the cleanup goal in

one well, however, TCE concentrations in most wells remain well above the cleanup goal.

- From March 1988 through March 1997, 2,754 pounds of TCE were removed from the groundwater.

- Plume containment has been achieved for this site.

Cost:

- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $2,510,400 ($893,700 in capital and $1,616,700 in

O&M), which correspond to $10 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $913 per pound of

contaminant removed.

- The capital costs do not include the costs for installation of the four deeper wells; these costs were accounted

for as part of the RI/FS and are not included in the total cost shown above.

Description:

From 1968 through November 1973, Solid State Circuits manufactured circuit boards and used TCE as a

cleaning solvent in portions of its manufacturing process. Since 1973, the site was occupied by a number of

tenants, including Micrographics, Inc., a photographic processing firm. In November 1979, a fire partially

destroyed the building, and the debris was pushed into the basement under the remaining portion of the building. 

In June 1982, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources collected samples of water from the city’s three

municipal wells and detected elevated concentrations of TCE in one well located 500 ft from the site. In 1984,

MDNR investigated the site and found elevated levels of TCE in the fill dirt and rubble from the basement, in a

540 ft deep well in the basement, and in shallow groundwater outside the building. The site was placed on the

NPL in June 1986 and a ROD was signed in September 1989.

The groundwater is characterized as a leaky artesian system occurring in karst formations, with three units

identified at the site, with shallow and deep bedrock zones extending up to 1,500 ft bgs. The groundwater

extraction system consists of seven wells, one of which is a municipal well. Extracted groundwater is treated

using air stripping. After nine years of operation, cleanup goals for TCE have not been achieved. Site operators

are evaluating innovative technologies to enhance the remedial effort, such as air sparging using a horizontal

well. 
124

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,

Houston, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

Superfund Site - Maximum concentration of TCE Report covers: 10/93 - 10/96

detected in 1988 was 1,200 mg/L Location: Cleanup Type:

Houston, Texas Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Clearwater Systems, Inc. Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

P.O. Box 822 - Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 9/23/88

New Caney, TX 77357 12 wells at an average total

(713) 399-1980 pumping rate of 8 gpm

Installation, Startup, and

Operation Subcontractor:

Maxim Technologies, Inc. adsorption, and filtration

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with filtration (for iron), pH

adjustment, air stripping, carbon

- Treated groundwater is reinjected

through 14 wells State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

James Sher Ernest R. Franke, RPM

TNRCC, Mail Code 144 U.S. EPA Region 6

12100 Park Circle 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, TX 78753 Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(512) 239-2444 (214) 665-8521

Site Management: 

John Kovski 

Radian International LLC

9801 Westheimer, Suite 500

Houston, TX 77042

(713) 914-6426

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal of punctured Groundwater

trichloroethene drums on the - 13 million gallons treated as of October 1996

ground surface - DNAPL was suspected in groundwater at this site

- Groundwater is found at 20-25 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.14 to 25.5 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Relatively high unit cost for

treatment, due to high capital costs

and small quantity of groundwater

extracted.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- A remedial goal was established for TCE of 5 ug/L, based on the maximum contaminant level, that must be

met throughout all affected aquifers.

- A goal for the extraction system is hydraulic containment of the plume.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,

Houston, Texas (continued)

125

Results:

- From 1994 to 1996, concentrations of contaminants were reduced in some wells, but remain above the cleanup

goal in the silty, shallow, and intermediate zone wells. In some shallow zone wells, concentrations have

increased to higher than 1,000 ug/L over this period. Through 1996, approximately 4,960 pounds of

contaminants have been removed from the groundwater. Further plume delineation was being performed at the

time of this report. 

- Hydraulic containment of the plume has not been achieved, according to the TNRCC manager.

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $2,547,387 ($2,104,910 in capital and $442,477 in O&M), which

correspond to $196 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $514 per pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

Sol Lynn owned and operated this site as Industrial Transformers, a scrap metal and electrical transformer

reclamation facility, from 1971 through 1978. Sol Lynn then leased the property to Ken James, who operated the

site as Sila King, Inc., a chemical supply business, in 1979 and 1980. During the fall of 1971, the city of

Houston Water Pollution Control Division discovered that workers at Industrial Transformers poured oil out of

electrical transformers onto the ground during transformer dismantling. In 1981, reports of strong odors

originating from the site were brought to the attention of the Texas Department of Water Resources. Upon

inspection, approximately 75 punctured drums were found scattered about the property. A remedial investigation

conducted from 1984 through 1991 showed elevated levels of PCBs in surficial soils and TCE in shallow soils

and groundwater, and that the plume had migrated off site. The Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer site was listed

on the NPL in March 1989 and a ROD was signed in September 1988.

The extraction system used at this site consists of 12 wells - five wells in the silty zone, six wells in the shallow

sand zone, and one well in a lower, intermediate aquifer. Eight of the 12 wells are located across the centerline

of the plume along the site’s northern boundary. This placement serves to intercept contaminated groundwater as

it moves across the site and to draw back the off-site plume. As of 1996, concentrations of contaminants were

reduced in some wells, but remain above the cleanup goal in the silty, shallow, and intermediate zone wells. 

Although remediation is not complete, the site engineers shut down the extraction system in October 1996. 

Extraction well pipes were leaking and fouled, and the extraction system lost plume containment. Currently, the

site is being reevaluated. Aquifer usage, alternative remedial actions, and plume boundaries are being examined. 
126

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater with Containment Wall at

the Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site

Southington, Connecticut

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Solvent Recovery Services of New Chlorinated solvents; semivolatiles Status: Ongoing

England, Inc. Superfund Site - nonhalogenated; PCBs; and heavy Report covers: July 1995 through

metals June 1998

- Maximum concentrations

detected in 1991 included TCE

(41,000 ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE

(110,000 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA

(320,000 ug/L), PCBs (85 ug/L),

barium (3,510 ug/L), cadmium

(76.9 ug/L), chromium (111 ug/L),

lead (175 ug/L), and manganese

(37,200 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Southington, Connecticut Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

NTCRA 1 Design Contractor: Pump and Treat and Vertical CERCLA Removal

Blasland, Bouck, & Lee, Inc (BBL) Barrier Wall - Non-Time Critical Removal

Syracuse, NY - Groundwater is extracted using Action Memorandum: 4/1/93

NTCRA 1 Const. Contractor: 12 wells at an average total

BBL Environmental Services pumping rate of 20 gpm

NTCRA 1 Operations Contractor: - Extracted groundwater is treated

Handex of New England with addition of chemical (caustic),

PRP Oversight Contractor: clarification, filtration,

de maximis, Inc. UV/oxidation, and activated carbon

Bruce Thompson - Treated groundwater is

PRP Project Manager discharged to a surface water

37 Carver Circle - A sheet pile wall, 700 ft long, is

Simsbury, CT 06070 located at the downgradient portion

(860) 651-1196 of the plume 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Mark Beskind Karen Lumino, RPM

Connecticut Department of U.S. EPA Region 1

Environmental Protection JFK Federal Building

79 Elm Street One Congress Street

Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Boston, MA 02203

(860) 424-3018 (617) 573-9635

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Waste lagoons, open pit Groundwater

incineration, incineration residuals - 32.5 million gallons treated as of June 1998

handling, drum storage - DNAPL was observed in several monitoring wells on site

- Depth to groundwater was not provided for this site

- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are both heterogeneous

and anisotropic

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.023 to 300 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

UV/oxidation has been effective at

treating water contaminated with

pure phase contaminants, including

a mix of VOCs, PCBs, and metals.
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site

Southington, Connecticut (continued)

127

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- No cleanup goals or standards have been established as of the time of this report. A ROD is expected to be

finalized in 1999, at which time cleanup standards will be set. The ROD is expected to incorporate a waiver of

groundwater standards within the NAPL zone due to technical impracticability. 

- A primary goal of the extraction system is to prevent migration of all contaminated overburden groundwater

from the operations area at the site.

Results:

- Contaminant levels within the containment wall have not been reduced as DNAPL continues to dissolve into

the aqueous phase.

- During the past three years, containment of the plume has been maintained the majority of the time, and wells

down-gradient of the plume have not had increased contaminant levels. Containment was lost less than four

days over the three years of operation.

- From July 1995 to July 1997, approximately 4,344 pounds of VOCs have been removed from the groundwater.

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $5,556,900 ($4,339,600 in capital and $1,217,300 in O&M), which

correspond to $265 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $1,280 per pound of contaminant removed.

- Expedited review of design documents helped to minimize costs for this application.

Description:

Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. (SRS) reclaimed spent industrial solvents for reuse or blending

from 1955 until March 1991. Chemicals from site activities and process sludge were disposed of in two on-site

unlined lagoons from 1955 until 1967, when they were closed. For several years thereafter, wastes were burned

in an open pit incinerator at the southeastern corner of the operations area, and incinerator ash was used as fill at

the facility. Operating practices for handling of spent solvents resulted in spills and leaks to the soils. From

1980 to 1982, EPA conducted numerous investigations of the SRS site. The site was placed on the NPL in

September 1983 and a non-time critical removal action memorandum was signed in April 1993. 

The groundwater containment system consists of 12 extraction wells and a down-gradient steel sheet pile wall

that extends to the bedrock. Eleven wells are located along the interior of the wall, and one well is located in the

center of the containment area. Containment of the plume has been maintained 98% of the time over a three year

period. UV/oxidation has been effective at treating water contaminated with pure phase contaminants, including

a mix of VOCs, PCBs, and metals, to levels that meet state discharge standards.
128

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
129

GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT

(NONCHLORINATED CONTAMINANTS)

 ABSTRACTS
130

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,

Holbrook, Massachusetts

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Baird and McGuire Superfund site Volatiles - nonhalogenated Status: Ongoing

(BTEX); semivolatiles - Report covers: 4/93 - 2/97

nonhalogenated; polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs,

acenaphthene, naphthalene, 2,4- 

dimethylphenol); organic

pesticides/herbicides (dieldrin,

chlordane); heavy metals (lead);

and nonmetallic elements (arsenic)

- Maximum initial concentrations

measured at the site were VOCs

(>1,000 ug/L), SVOCs (>10,000

ug/L); concentrations of specific

contaminants not provided 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Holbrook, Massachusetts Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Metcalf & Eddy Services Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Walsh Contracting - Groundwater is extracted using 6 - ROD Date: 9/30/86

Barletta Engineering wells, located on site, at an average

Treatment System Operator:

Tim Beauchemin with chemical treatment (addition

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of ferric chloride, lime slurry,

696 Virginia Road phosphoric and sulfuric acids, and

Concord, MA 01742-2751 ammonium sulfate), clarification,

(978) 318-8616 aeration, filtration, and carbon

total pumping rate of 60 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

adsorption

- Treated groundwater is reinjected

through infiltration basins 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Harish Panchol Chet Janowski, RPM

Massachusetts DEQE U.S. EPA Region 1

(617) 292-5716 John F. Kennedy Federal Building

One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 573-9623

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Surface impoundment/lagoon, Groundwater

hazardous materials storage, - 80 million gallons treated as of February 1997

discharge to septic system, - LNAPL observed in several monitoring wells on site

discharge to wetlands - Groundwater is found at 10-15 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by a

nearby surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.5 to 45 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Groundwater contaminated with a

wide variety of contaminants;

relatively expensive remediation,

with high capital costs for

treatment system.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,

Holbrook, Massachusetts (continued)

131

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals were established to be maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as defined by the primary

drinking water standards and the state of Massachusetts drinking waster quality criteria. Cleanup goals were

established for benzene (5 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), ethylbenzene (680 ug/L), xylene (440 ug/L), 2,4-

dimethyl phenol (2.12 ug/L), naphthalene (0.62 ug/L), acenaphthene (0.52 ug/L), dieldrin (0.000071 ug/L),

chlordane (0.00046 ug/L), arsenic (0.05 ug/L), and lead (0.05 ug/L). 

- Additional goals were to remediate the contaminated aquifer within a reasonable time to prevent present or

future impacts to groundwater drinking water supplies, and to protect the Cochato River from future

contaminant migration by establishing hydraulic containment of the plume.

Results:

- During the first two years of operation, the pump and treat system reduced average VOC and SVOC

concentrations. From 1994 to 1995, average VOC concentrations decreased by 16% and average SVOC

concentrations by 48%. However, contaminant concentrations in some individual wells did not decline over

this period and concentrations have not been reduced to below treatment goals. As of December 1995, 2,100

pounds of organic contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.

- Contaminants have been detected in down-gradient monitoring wells and plume containment has not been

achieved. A 1995 study made recommendations for achieving plume containment.

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $22,726,000 ($14,958,000 in capital and $7,768,000 in O&M), which

correspond to $284 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $10,822 per pound of contaminant

removed.

- Operating costs are relatively high because of the need to analyze for a large number of contaminants and the

need for an operator to be on-site 24 hours per day. 

Description:

Baird and McGuire Inc. conducted chemical mixing operations at this site from 1912 to 1983. Contamination of

an on-site public drinking water well was first detected in 1982 by the town of Holbrook. Also in 1982, a citizen

complaint of an oily substance in the Conchato River, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site led to an

inspection by DEQE. This inspection revealed that a tank farm was not lined or diked, sewage waste, process

waste, and surface water runoff were collected in an open cesspool; and a black oily substance was being

discharged to on-site wetlands. During emergency removal actions by EPA in 1983 and 1985, a plume of VOCs

and SVOCs was identified in the groundwater beneath the site. The site was added to the NPL in October 1982

and a ROD was signed in September 1986.

The groundwater extraction system consists of six wells placed in the part of the plume where the highest levels

of contamination were detected. Groundwater treatment includes equalization and removal of free floating

product, chemical treatment (with ferric chloride and lime in one stage, and phosphoric and sulfuric acids and

ammonium sulfate in a second stage), flocculation/clarification, aeration, pressure filtration, and carbon

adsorption, prior to discharge to infiltration basins. Above-ground biological treatment (using activated sludge)

was included in the original design for this site, but was found to be not necessary, and deleted from the

treatment system. After three years of operation, the system has not met the cleanup goals established for this

site. In addition, the report discusses the impacts of having concurrent groundwater and soil remediation

activities at this site.
132

UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site

Muskegon, Michigan

Site Name: Contaminants:

Bofors Nobel Superfund Site - VOCs and SVOCs

Operable Unit 1 & Benzene, Benzidine, 2-Chloroaniline,

1,2-Dichloroethene, Trichloroethene,

3,3-Dichlorobenzidine, Aniline, Vinyl

Chloride

& Selected Maximum concentrations in

ug/kg – Benzene (60,000),

2-Chloroaniline (63,000), Aniline

(10,000), 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

(2,600)

Technology:

Groundwater Extraction and OnSite treatment by UV Oxidation

& Groundwater is extracted from

13 wells at the site. 

& Total flow rate from the

network of wells ranges from

390 to 500 gpm.

& Extracted water was initially

sent through a chemical

precipitation step. This step

has since been removed from

the system.

& Treatment steps include: dualmedia filtration, UV

Oxidation, GAC treatment

(polishing), pH adjustment,

stripping for ammonia removal

and neutralization.

& Treated water is discharged to

an-onsite surface water body

(Big Black Creek)

Location:

Muskegon, Michigan

Cleanup Type:

Groundwater Remediation

Project Management: Period of Operation:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & Full-Scale Treatment System

Carl Platz Operation since September 1994.

Grand Haven Area Office & Treatment Currently ongoing and

P.O. Box 629 expected to last 50+ years.

Grand Haven, Michigan 49417

(616) 842-5510

SIC Code: Cleanup Authority:

2869 (Industrial Organic CERCLA and State

Chemicals) ROD date 

– September 17, 1990

Vendor: Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Waste Sources:

Kevin Dulle Groundwater Disposal of process wastes in

Sverdrup Environmental & 700 million gallons extracted since 10 unlined impoundments at the

400 South 4 Street 1994. site th

St. Louis, Missouri 63102 & 7,500 pounds of organic contaminants

(314) 436-7600 removed from extracted groundwater

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Regulatory Points of Contact:

The following list contains current discharge limits for selected John Fagiolo

contaminants. All limits have been established by MDEQ and are maximum USEPA Region V

allowable concentrations, based on weekly effluent sampling. 77 West Jackson Blvd

Purgeable Halocarbons - 5 ug/L (each) Mail Code: SR6J

Purgeable Aromatics - 5 ug/L (each) Chicago, Illinois 60604

Aniline - 5 ug/L (312) 886-0800

2-Chloroaniline - 10 ug/L

Dennis Eagle

MDEQ-ERD

Knapps Centre

P.O. Box 30426

Lansing, Michigan 48909

(517) 373-8195

Purpose/Significance of Application:

The extraction and treatment system has successfully contained migration of contaminants from the site and

consistently met discharge requirements since system startup in 1994. 
UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site

Muskegon, Michigan(continued)

133

Results: Costs:

& The extraction and treatment The total capital cost for construction of the treatment system was

system is containing the $12,200,000. Yearly O&M costs average $763,000. Over three years, the

groundwater contamination capital plus O&M costs translate to $19.61 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater

plume at the site. treated, or $1,830 per pound of organic contaminants removed. Yearly O&M

& Contaminant concentrations costs translate to $3.27 per 1000 gallons of groundwater treated, or $305 per

in the treatment system pound of organic contaminants removed.

effluent have been

consistently below surface

water discharge limitations

for the site.

Description:

For approximately 20 years, chemical process waste liquids and sludge were routinely disposed in 10 unlined

surface impoundments at the site. In addition, impoundment berms occasionally failed, releasing sludge into

nearby surface water bodies. In 1978, thirteen extraction wells were installed at the site to collect contaminated

groundwater down gradient of the impoundments. Collected water was treated in an existing system located at a

nearby facility, and was subsequently sent the local POTW for additional treatment. A Record of Decision

(ROD) was signed in September 1990, specifying construction of a new on-site treatment system with UV

oxidation as the primary treatment technology.

Under direction of the USACE, treatability testing and treatment system design were performed in 1991 and

1992. In 1992 a contract was awarded for construction of the treatment system. In September 1994, construction

of the system was completed and full-scale treatment was begun. The treatment system originally consisted of:

metals precipitation pretreatment, dual media filtration, UV oxidation treatment for removal of organics, GAC

treatment (polishing), pH adjustment, stripping to remove ammonia and neutralization. After one year of

operation, the metals precipitation step was determined to be unnecessary, and was removed from the treatment

train. Treated water is discharged to an on-site surface water body (Big Black Creek).

The treatment system is currently in operation and is successfully containing groundwater contamination at the

site. It is estimated that significant reductions in groundwater contaminant concentrations will not be realized

until the sources of contamination (impoundment soils and sludge) are removed or isolated.
134

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the City Industries Superfund Site

Orlando, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

City Industries Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents and BTEX Status: Ongoing

- Initial contaminants of concern Report covers: May 1994 through

included 1,1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, May 1997

methylene chloride, vinyl chloride,

PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene, acetone,

MEK, MIBK, and phthalates

- Maximum concentrations

detected in 1988 included 1,1-DCE

(6,000 ug/L), acetone (146,000

ug/L), and MIBK (78,000 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Orlando, Florida Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Design: Jerry Peters

PEER Consultants P.C.

12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 410

Rockville, MD 20852

(301) 816-0700

Construction and O&M: ERMEnviroClean, Inc.

250 Phillips Blvd #280

Ewing, NJ 08618

(609) 895-0050

Pump and Treat with Air Stripping CERCLA Remedial

- Extraction system consists of 13 - ROD Date: 3/29/90

recovery wells installed across the

width of the initial contaminant

plume

- Treatment includes an

equalization/neutralization tank

followed by an air stripping tower

- A network of 41 monitoring wells

and 13 recovery wells are used to

monitor quarterly changes in

groundwater quality

- The actual average pumping rate

for the system has been 195 gpm

State Point of Contact:

Don Harris

Florida DEP (FDEP)

Twin Towers Office Bldg.

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(904) 488-0190

EPA Point of Contact:

Pam Scully, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 4

345 Courtland St., N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 562-8898

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Improper disposal practices and Groundwater

unauthorized dumping - 151.7 million gallons treated as of May 1997

- No NAPL have been observed in monitoring wells on site

- Extraction wells are located in one aquifer at the site

- Hydraulic conductivity reported as 6.3936 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

The hydrogeology at this site is

relatively simple and hydraulic

conductivity relatively high,

conditions which should lead to a

successful application for pump

and treat technology.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the City Industries Superfund Site

Orlando, Florida (continued)

135

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals are to remediate groundwater to levels set by the FDEP for the following constituents: acetone

(700 ug/L), benzene (1 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE (70 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (70

ug/L), ethylbenzene (700 ug/L), methylene chloride (5 ug/L), MEK (200 ug/L), MIBK (350 ug/L), PCE (3

ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), TCE (3 ug/L), total phthalates (3 ug/L), and vinyl chloride

(1 ug/L).

- The primary goal of the system is to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume.

Results:

- From May 1994 through May 1997, total concentrations of contaminants have been reduced 86% from 3,121

to 444 ug/L. However, concentrations of all VOCs remain above cleanup goals. In addition, concentrations of

acetone, 1,1-DCE, and MIBK remain at persistently elevated concentrations. Through May 1997,

approximately 2,700 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.

- No contaminants have been detected in down-gradient monitoring wells since the beginning of remedial

operations, and the plume has been contained. 

Cost:

- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $1,674,800 ($1,094,800 in capital and $580,000 in O&M), which

correspond to $10.60 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $590 per pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

The City Industries site operated as a hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) from

1971 until 1983. From 1981 through 1983, EPA and county officials cited the facility for multiple violations of

RCRA. In 1983, EPA, FDEP, and the county ordered the business to close, and the owner of the site abandoned

the property. FDEP completed a multi-phased remedial investigation in May 1986. The site was listed on the

NPL in March 1989 and a ROD was signed in March 1990.

The extraction system used at the site consists of 13 recovery wells installed across the width of the initial

contaminant plume. Treatment includes an equalization/neutralization tank followed by an air stripping tower. 

Total concentrations of VOCs have declined 86% at this site, but remain above cleanup levels. The

hydrogeology at this site is relatively simple and hydraulic conductivity relatively high, conditions which should

lead to a successful application for pump and treat technology. According to the RPM, contaminant levels at the

site in late 1997 and 1998 are lower than shown in the May 1997 monitoring data.
136

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site

Winslow Township, New Jersey

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

King of Prussia Technical Chlorinated solvents, BTEX, Status: Ongoing

Corporation Superfund Site Heavy metals Report covers: April 1995 through

- Contaminants of concern include December 1997

1,1-DCA, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-

TCA, TCE, PCA, PCE, benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene, beryllium,

chromium, copper, and nickel

- Maximum initial concentrations

included PCE (2,500 ug/L), trans1,2-DCE (12 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA

(2,200 ug/L), and chromium (1,040

ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Winslow Township, New Jersey Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Treatment System Vendor: Andco

Environmental Processes, Inc.

Operations: Geraghty and Miller,

Inc.

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 9/9/90

11 wells at an average total

pumping rate of 175 gpm in the

upper aquifer and 25 gpm in the

lower aquifer

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with an electrochemical system for

removal of heavy metals, and air

stripping and granular activated

carbon for removal of organics 

- Treated groundwater is reinjected

through infiltration trenches and

galleries

Additional Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Frank Opet Jon Gorin, RPM

PRP Coordinator U.S. EPA Region 2

Johnson Matthey 290 Broadway, 19th Floor

2001 Nolte Drive New York, NY 10007-1866

West Deptford, NJ 08066 (212) 637-4361

(609) 384-7222

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Discharge of waste to surface Groundwater

impoundment/lagoon; unauthorized - 151.5 million gallons treated as of December 1997

dumping - Groundwater is found at 15-35 ft bgs (shallow aquifer) and from 50-250

ft bgs (deep aquifer)

- Extraction wells are located in two aquifers

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 55 to 100 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Treatment system consists of a

treatment train designed for

removal of metals and organics.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The remedial goal for the site is to reduce contaminant concentrations to below maximum contaminant levels

(MCLs) set by the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act and the primary drinking water standards. Cleanup

goals were established for beryllium (4 ug/L), cadmium (10 ug/L), chromium (50 ug/L), copper (1,000 ug/L),

mercury (2 ug/L), nickel (210 ug/L), zinc (5,000 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (2 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (10 ug/L), 1,1,1-

TCA (26 ug/L), TCE (1 ug/L), PCA (1.4 ug/L), PCE (1 ug/L), benzene (1 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), and

ethylbenzene (50 ug/L).

- The extraction system was designed to create an inward hydraulic gradient to contain the plume.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site

Winslow Township, New Jersey (continued)

137

Results:

- Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs have been met in the deep aquifer and for all but some wells in the

shallow aquifer (two for VOCs and four for metals). Groundwater monitoring data indicate that the plume

appears to have been contained.

- From March 1995 through December 1997, the treatment system removed 1,510 pounds of organics and 3,910

pounds of metals, for a total mass removal of 5,420 pounds.

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were approximately $2,816,000 ($2,031,000 in capital and $785,000 in

O&M), which correspond to $19 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $520 per pound of

contaminant removed.

Description:

The King of Prussia Technical Corporation operated as a waste disposal and recycling facility from January 1971

until early 1974, with six lagoons used to process industrial waste. EPA estimates that the company processed at

least 15 million gallons of acid and alkaline wastes at this site. Drums of VOCs were buried at the site. In

addition, trash and hazardous waste are suspected to have been dumped at the site illegally between 1976 and

1988 after the company stopped operations. Soil and groundwater contamination were detected by the state in

1976, and the site was added to the NPL in September 1983. A ROD was issued for this site in September

1990.

Groundwater is extracted at this site using six wells in the shallow aquifer and five wells in the deep aquifer. 

Extracted groundwater is treated with an electrochemical system for removal of heavy metals, and air stripping

and granular activated carbon for removal of organics. Treated groundwater is reinjected through infiltration

trenches and galleries. Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs have been met in the deep aquifer and for all but

some wells in the shallow aquifer. As of December 1997, groundwater elevations have achieved steady-state

under the current pumping scheme. The groundwater flow and contaminant transport will be reevaluated using

models to evaluate remediation enhancements, including adding or removing extraction wells. In addition, the

site operator is considering pumping changes.
138

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site,

LaSalle, Illinois

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site PCBs and chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

- Maximum concentrations Report covers: 12/92 - 5/97

detected in 1980-1981 were PCBs

(760,000 ug/L), TCE (13,341

ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (7,152 ug/L),

1,1,1-TCA (3,123 ug/L), and vinyl

chloride (500 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

LaSalle, Illinois Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Ecology & Environment, Inc. Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

ThermoCor Kimmons - Groundwater is extracted using 3 - ROD Date: 3/30/88

infiltration trenches, at an average

total extraction rate of 17 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with oil/water separation, air

stripping, and carbon adsorption,

and discharged to a POTW 

Additional Contacts: State Point of Contact:

None Rich Lange

Illinois EPA (IEPA)

2200 Churchill Road

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

(815) 223-1126

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Spills from capacitor cleaning and Groundwater

spreading polychlorinated biphenyl - 23 million gallons treated as of May 1997

(PCB)-laden waste oils as a dust - DNAPL observed in groundwater on site

suppressant - Groundwater is found at 3-5 ft bgs

- Contaminants are primarily found in a shallow aquifer at the site Purpose/Significance of - Hydraulic conductivity ranges from <0.01 to 0.22 ft/day Application:

Relatively high unit cost; system

consists of collection trenches

instead of extraction wells;

relatively low groundwater flow.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The goal of this remedy is to restore the groundwater to primary drinking water standards; these are PCBs (0.5

ug/L), 1,2-DCE (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (100 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), and vinyl

chloride (2 ug/L). 

- Containment was not a specific goal of this remediation.

Results:

- Groundwater monitoring results for the deep aquifer (through March 1996) and shallow aquifer (through May

1997) indicate that total contaminant concentrations have not been reduced below cleanup goals. At specific

monitoring wells, contaminant concentrations fluctuate with precipitation rates.

- From 1993 to September 1997, the system removed approximately 127 pounds of contaminants from the

groundwater; 1,1,1-TCA makes up the majority of the mass removed by the treatment system.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site,

LaSalle, Illinois (continued)

139

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat are approximately $6,138,576 ($5,314,576 in capital and $824,000 in O&M),

which correspond to $266 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $48,000 per pound of contaminant

removed.

Description:

LaSalle Electrical Utilities operated this site as a manufacturing facility for electrical equipment from 1940 to

1978. PCBs and chlorinated solvents were used in the manufacturing process during this time. As a result of

complaints, government agencies issued several orders in 1975 against the company for its manufacturing and

waste handling practices. In 1980 and 1981, Illinois EPA performed sampling at the site which confirmed the

presence of PCB and VOC contamination in soils and groundwater. The site was placed on the NPL in

December 1982 and a ROD was signed in March 1988.

The groundwater collection system is a passive design that uses three infiltration trenches instead of wells. The

three trenches form an H-pattern, and drain to a wet well, which in turn is pumped to the treatment unit. The

trenches were installed horizontally at a depth of approximately 17 to 25 ft bgs. Approximately 127 pounds of

contaminants (primarily 1,1,1-TCA) have been removed from the groundwater over 45 months, however the

system has not achieved the cleanup goals. As of May 1997, no design modifications were being considered for

this site.
140

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,

Mena, Arkansas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Mid-South Wood Products Semivolatiles - halogenated: Status: Ongoing

Superfund Site pentachlorophenol (PCP); PAHs; Report covers: 9/89 - 12/97

heavy metals (chromium); and

nonmetallic elements (arsenic)

- Maximum concentrations

detected during RI include PCP

(10,230 ug/L), fluoranthene (263

ug/L), chrysene (37 ug/L),

benzo(a)anthracene (35 ug/L), Cr

(183 ug/L), and As (18 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Mena, Arkansas Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Bill Fletcher

B&F Engineering, Inc.

928 Airport Road

Hot Springs National Park, AR 

71913

(501) 767-2366

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 11/14/86

15 wells, at an average total

pumping rate of 24 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with oil/water separation, filtration,

and carbon adsorption, and

discharged to a surface water under

a NPDES permit 

State Point of Contact:

Mike Arjmandi

Arkansas Department of Pollution

Control & Ecology

P.O. Box 8913

8001 National Drive

Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

(501) 682-0852

EPA Point of Contact:

Shawn Ghose, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 6 

(6SF-AP)

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6782

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Improper disposal, on-site spills Groundwater

- 100.6 million gallons treated as of December 1997

- DNAPL and LNAPL observed in groundwater at the site

- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers

- Hydraulic conductivities were not provided for this site

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Groundwater contaminated with

wood treating chemicals; system

optimization performed after eight

years of operation; groundwater

contamination had been reduced to

one localized area of concern.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The cleanup goal stated in the ROD was to treat the groundwater contamination to levels that posed no health

or environmental risk. Remedial goals were specified for PCP (0.20 mg/L), benzo(a)anthracene (0.01 mg/L),

benzo(a)pyrene (0.01 mg/L), benzo(b+k)fluoranthene (0.01 mg/L), chrysene (0.01 mg/L), arsenic (0.05 mg/L),

and chromium (0.05 mg/L).

- The performance goal for the recovery system was to provide containment of the plume on site. 
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,

Mena, Arkansas (continued)

141

Results:

- Groundwater contamination has been reduced to one localized area of concern. Between April 1989 and May

1996, average concentrations of total contaminants in the groundwater were reduced 32%, from 0.14 to 0.09

mg/L, with concentrations of contaminants reduced to below cleanup goals in 29 of 35 wells monitored in May

1996. It is estimated that the pump and treat system will operate for a minimum of five more years to reach the

specified goals.

- Monitoring data indicate that the plume has been contained. Because contamination was found along rock

fractures and not in a continuous plume, plume size reduction could not be measured. During the first seven

years of operation, 363 kg of PCP were removed by the system; data were not provided to estimate mass

removal for other contaminants.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $1,212,600 ($465,300 in capital and $747,300 in O&M), which

correspond to $13 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $1,500 per pound of PCP contaminant

removed.

Description:

The Mid-South Wood Products site was originally developed in the late 1930s to produce untreated wood posts. 

In 1955, the facility added pressure treating to its process, and from 1967 to 1977, the site was operated as a PCP

and creosote wood treatment facility. In 1977, the PCP plant was abandoned and a new plant was built to treat

the lumber with a chromated copper arsenate (CCA) wood treating process. From 1978 to 1981, the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control & Environment sampled drinking wells near the site, investigating the source of

a fish kill that occurred in November 1976. The source was ultimately determined to be an unauthorized release

of wastewater from a waste pond at the site. Further contamination of the site resulted when liquids and sludge

from the pond were sprayed on and around land farm areas at the site. The site was placed on the NPL in 1983

and a ROD was signed in November 1986.

An interim extraction system was built in late 1984 and operated from early 1985 until 1989. The system

consisted of three pairs of extraction wells and French drains, and was designed to collect contaminated

groundwater from shallow depths where flow and contamination were expected to be the greatest. An expanded

extraction system, which began operating in the summer of 1989, consisted of nine shallow extraction wells and

six deep extraction wells (drilled into bedrock formations at depths up to 170 ft bgs). In February 1997, three

major changes were made to optimize system operations. Five recovery wells were removed from operation, five

other wells began a period of on-off operation (three months on, three months off), and the sampling frequency

for 12 monitoring wells was decreased. Groundwater contamination at the site has been reduced but has not yet

met all remedial goals. It is estimated that the pump and treat system will operate for a minimum of five more

years to reach the specified goals.
142

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2

Odessa, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Odessa Chromium I Superfund Heavy Metals (Chromium) Status: Ongoing

Site, Operable Unit 2 (OU 2) - Maximum concentration of Cr Report covers: 11/93 - 1/98

detected during 1985 sampling Location: Cleanup Type: event was 72 mg/L Odessa, Texas Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Design and Management: IT Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Corporation (ITC) - Groundwater is extracted using 6 - ROD Date: 9/8/86

Construction and Oversight: wells at an average total pumping

WATEC rate of 60 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

for Cr removal with chemical

treatment (ferrous ion, produced on

site), pH adjustment, flocculation,

precipitation, and multimedia

filtration 

- Treated groundwater is reinjected

through 6 injection wells 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Lel Medford Ernest Franke, RPM

Texas Natural Resources U.S. EPA Region 6

Conservation Commission First Interstate Bank Tower at

P.O. Box 13087 Fountain Place

Austin, TX 78711 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

(512) 239-2440 Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 655-8521

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Improper disposal practices Groundwater

- 125 million gallons treated as of January 1998

- Groundwater is found at 30-45 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by

production wells in the area

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.7 to 5.1 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Includes on-site treatment for

chromium; relatively low

groundwater flow; contamination

in one aquifer

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remediate groundwater so that chromium levels are less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or

primary drinking water standard.

- Prior to 1990, the drinking water standard for chromium was 0.05 mg/L; in 1990, EPA revised the drinking

water standard to 0.10 mg/L.

- Treated effluent that is reinjected into the aquifer must have a chromium level of less than 0.05 mg/L.

- The remedial system was required to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain the plume.

Results:

- Groundwater monitoring results indicate that chromium concentrations have been reduced compared to initial

levels, but not to levels below the cleanup goal of 0.10 mg/L.

- Average chromium concentrations were reduced by 48% from January 1992 to January 1997.

- From December 1993 to 1996, 1,143 pounds of chromium have been removed from the groundwater.

- Treated effluent has met the required performance standard throughout treatment.

- Plume containment has been achieved since 1995; this was achieved after two monitoring wells were

converted to recovery wells, and two other recovery wells were taken off line.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2

Odessa, Texas (continued)

143

Cost:

- Actual costs for the P&T application were approximately $2,742,000 ($1,954,000 in capital and $728,000 in

O&M), which correspond to $30 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,400 per pound of

contaminant removed.

- The ROD specified that the ferrous iron used in the treatment system be produced electrochemically, which

limited the number of vendors to two and potentially increased the cost of the treatment system.

- The costs for design, construction, and operation of the P&T system were split 90:10 by EPA and TNRCC,

respectively.

Description:

Metal plating and chrome plating facilities operated at this site from 1954 to 1977, producing chromium- and

other metals-containing wastewater. In 1977, the TNRCC investigated citizen complaints of poor drinking water

quality in private wells and discovered elevated levels of chromium in the groundwater. The chromium

contamination was attributed to the discharge of chromium-containing wastewater into unlined dirt ponds,

directly to the soils, and into a septic tank drain field; contaminants also are suspected to have migrated to the

aquifer through an abandoned open well bore on the site. The Odessa I site was added to the NPL in September

1984, and a ROD for OU 2 was signed in September 1986. OU 1, not addressed by this case study, concerned

providing for an alternate water supply to replace water previously supplied by contaminated wells.

The extraction system used at this site consisted of six extraction wells constructed in the Trinity Sand Aquifer to

a depth of 138 ft bgs, each with a design yield of 14,400 gpd. Extracted groundwater was treated with ferrous

iron (produced on site in an electrochemical cell), pH adjustment and aeration, clarification, and multi-media

filtration. While chromium concentrations have been reduced to below the MCL in three wells, as of December

1996, groundwater cleanup goals have not been achieved throughout the site.

There were several startup problems that delayed full-scale operation at this site, including clogging of injection

wells and filters by iron and calcium. These problems were solved through system modification and no longer

interfere with operations.
144

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2

Odessa, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Heavy Metals (Chromium) Status: Ongoing

Site, Operable Unit 2 (OU 2) - Maximum concentration of Cr Report covers: 11/93 - 12/97

detected during 1986 sampling

event was 50 mg/L (perched zone

aquifer)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Odessa, Texas Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Design and Management: IT Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

Corporation (ITC) - Groundwater is extracted using - ROD Date: 3/18/88

Construction and Oversight: 10 wells at an average total

WATEC pumping rate of 58.5 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

for Cr removal with chemical

treatment (ferrous ion, produced on

site), pH adjustment, flocculation,

precipitation, and multimedia and

cartridge filtration 

- Treated groundwater is reinjected

through 9 injection wells 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Lel Medford Ernest Franke, RPM

Texas Natural Resources U.S. EPA Region 6

Conservation Commission First Interstate Bank Tower at

P.O. Box 13087 Fountain Place

Austin, TX 78711 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

(512) 239-2440 Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 655-8521

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Unlined wastewater-holding ponds Groundwater

and waste drum burial - 121 million gallons treated as of December 1997

- Groundwater is found at 30-45 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are influenced by

production wells in the area

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.6 to 5.1 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Includes on-site treatment for

chromium; relatively low

groundwater flow; contamination

in two aquifers.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remediate groundwater so that chromium levels are less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or

primary drinking water standard.

- Prior to 1990, the drinking water standard for chromium was 0.05 mg/L; in 1990, EPA revised the drinking

water standard to 0.10 mg/L.

- Treated effluent that is injected into the aquifer must have a chromium level of less than 0.10 mg/L.

- The remedial system was required to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain the plume.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2

Odessa, Texas (continued)

145

Results:

- Groundwater sampling results show that chromium levels have been reduced to less than 0.10 mg/L in the

Trinity Aquifer but not in the Ogallala Aquifer. Results from January 1997 show that concentrations have

been reduced in the Ogallala Aquifer (since startup), but not to levels below 0.10 mg/L.

- The P&T system removed 131 pounds of chromium from the groundwater from 1993 to December 1996.

- Effluent chromium levels have met the required performance standard of 0.10 mg/L throughout system

operation.

- The plume has been contained in both aquifers.

Cost:

- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $2,487,700 ($1,927,500 in capital and $560,200 in

O&M), which correspond to $26 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $19,000 per pound of

contaminant removed.

- The ROD specified that the ferrous iron used in the treatment system be produced electrochemically, which

limited the number of vendors to two and potentially increased the cost of the treatment system.

- The costs for design, construction, and operation of the P&T system were split 90:10 by EPA and TNRCC,

respectively.

Description:

Basin Radiator & Supply operated a radiator repair facility at this site from 1960 to the early 1970s. Wastewater

containing chromium was discharged to unlined ponds, and waste radiator sludge containing chromium corrosion

inhibitors was buried on the site. In 1977, the TNRCC discovered elevated levels of chromium in the

groundwater during investigations conducted in response to citizen complaints of contaminated well water. This

site later became known as the Odessa II South (S) site. The Odessa IIS site was placed on the NPL in June

1986, and a ROD was signed for the site in March 1988. 

The extraction system used at this site consisted of six extraction wells constructed in the Trinity Sand Aquifer

and four extraction wells in the Ogallala Formation. Extracted groundwater was treated with ferrous iron

(produced on site in an electrochemical cell), pH adjustment and aeration, clarification, and multi-media and

cartridge filtration. While chromium concentrations have been reduced to below the MCL in the Trinity Aquifer,

groundwater cleanup goals have not been achieved in the Ogallala Formation.

There were several startup problems that delayed full-scale operation at this site, including clogging of injection

wells and encrustation of the multimedia filter by iron and calcium. These problems were solved through system

modification and no longer interfere with operations.
146

Groundwater Containment at

Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site FT-01, Pope AFB Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 11/93 - ongoing (as of 4/98);

(TPH), free product (JP-4 fuel): projected completion in 2001

- TPH concentrations in soil Data reported through November

reported as high as 44,000 ppm 1996

- 24,000 gallons of free product in Location: Cleanup Type: groundwater North Carolina Full-scale cleanup

Vendor/Consultant: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Parsons Engineering Science Free product recovery system Installation Restoration Program

consisting of four recovery wells

and one trench. JP-4 is recovered

using a pneumatic skimmer pump

and stored in a product recovery

tank.

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Fuel Spill Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Groundwater and free product - the areal extent of the plume was

estimated at 1.5 acres. Groundwater is encountered between 2 and 5 feet

below ground surface. The total amount of free product removed as of

November 1996 was 5,163 gallons of JP-4.

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Recovery of free

product from groundwater

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The operational objective of the free product recovery was to remove liquid-phase contamination as quickly and

cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.

Results:

Data on system performance were available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). The

total amount of JP-4 product recovered during this time was 5,163 gallons. Monthly removal rates ranged from 1

to 650 gallons. 

Cost:

The capital cost for the system was $289,000. The total cumulative O&M costs from November 1993 through

November 1996 was $66,600. According to the report, accurate month-to-month O&M data were not available;

however, the average monthly O&M costs were reported as $1,800. After three years of operation, the average

O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed was $12.90/gallon of JP-4.
Groundwater Containment at

Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina (continued)

147

Description:

Site FT-01 is located at the Pope AFB in North Carolina. Soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated

with JP-4 fuel. TPH concentrations as high as 44,000 ppm were detected in soil at the site. The areal extent of

groundwater contamination was estimated to be 1.5 acres with an estimated 24,000 gallons of free product

floating on the groundwater. In September 1993, 3,175 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the site. In

November 1993, a free product recovery system were installed at the site to recover JP-4 fuel.

The free product recovery system included four recovery wells and one trench. A pneumatic skimmer pump was

used to recover the JP-4, which was then stored in a product recovery tank. The system was operational at the

time of this report (April 1998) and is expected to operate through 2001. Data on cost and performance are

available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). During this time, 5,163 gallons of JP-4

fuel was recovered, with the monthly removal rates ranging from 1 to 650 gallons. The report includes a graph of

JP-4 recovered versus time. As of November 1996, the curve had not flattened, indicating that the operational

objectives of the system were still being met.

The total capital cost for this system was $289,000. The total O&M costs through November 1996 were $66,600. 

Although accurate monthly O&M costs were not available, the average monthly O&M cost was $1,800. The

average O&M cost per unit of JP-4 fuel recovered was $12.90 per gallon.
148

Groundwater Containment at

Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill Site,

Pope AFB

Volatile Organic Compounds 11/93 - ongoing (as of 4/98)

(VOCs), free product (JP-4 fuel) Data reported through November

- VOCs in soil detected as high as 1996

1,000 ppm

- 75,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel

estimated to be floating on

groundwater

Location: Cleanup Type:

North Carolina Full-scale cleanup

Vendor/Consultant: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Parsons Engineering Science Free product recovery system Installation Restoration Program

consisting of a dual pump recovery

system with one free product cutoff trench. JP-4 was recovered

using pneumatic skimmer pumps

and stored in a product recovery

tank. The system operates at an

average flow rate of 1 gallon per

minute (gpm).

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Air Force Air Combat

Command

Information not provided

Waste Source: Fuel Spill Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Groundwater - Groundwater is encountered between 22.5 and 27 feet

Purpose/Significance of below ground surface.

Application: Recovery of free

product using active pumping

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The operational objective of the free product recovery was to remove liquid-phase contamination as quickly and

cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.

Results:

Data on system performance were available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). The

total amount of JP-4 product recovered during this time was 3,516 gallons. Monthly removal rates ranged from

one to 340 gallons. 

Cost:

The capital cost for the system was $394,000. The total cumulative O&M costs from November 1993 through

November 1996 was $96,200. According to the report, accurate month-to-month O&M data were not available;

however, the average monthly O&M costs were reported as $2,600. After three years of operation, the average

O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed was $27.36/gallon of JP-4.
Groundwater Containment at

Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina (continued)

149

Description:

Site SS-07, the Blue Ramp Spill Site, is located at the Pope AFB in North Carolina. Soil and groundwater at the

site were contaminated with JP-4 fuel and VOCs. VOC concentrations as high as 1,000 ppm were detected in the

vadose zone at the site, and the areal extent of the soil vapor plume was estimated to be 25 acres. Dissolved VOCs

were detected in the groundwater and an estimated 75,000 gallons of free product was floating on the

groundwater. In November 1993, a free product recovery system were installed at the site to recover JP-4 fuel. 

The groundwater free product recovery system was a dual pump recovery system with one free product cut-off

trench. JP-4 is recovered with pneumatic pumps and stored in a product recovery tank. The trench was extended

in 1993 and again in 1995. The system was operational at the time of this report (April 1998) and is expected to

operate for 40 years. Data on cost and performance are available for the first three years of operation (through

November 1996). During this time, 3,516 gallons of JP-4 fuel was recovered, with the monthly removal rates

ranging from 1 to 340 gallons. The report includes a graph of JP-4 recovered versus time. After April 1995, the

curve began to flatten, indicating that the removal rate for the system is slowing. According to the report, it is

recommended that the system be evaluated to determine how to increase product removal.

The total capital cost for this system was $394,000. The total O&M costs through November 1996 were $96,200. 

Although accurate monthly O&M costs were not available, the average monthly O&M cost was $2,600. The

average O&M cost per unit of JP-4 fuel recovered was $27.36 per gallon.
150

Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site

Nashua, New Hampshire

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Chlorinated solvents; volatiles - Status: Ongoing

Site nonhalogenated; and heavy metals Report covers: 1982 through

(selenium) December 1995

- Maximum concentrations detected

in 1980 included methylene chloride

(122,500 ug/L), chloroform (81,000

ug/L), tetrahydrofuran (1,000,000

ug/L), methyl ethyl ketone (80,000

ug/L), and toluene (140,000 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Nashua, New Hampshire Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Construction:

Weston

O&M:

Joe Fritsch

Metcalf & Eddy

57 Gilson Road

Nashua, NH 03062

Pump and Treat; Vertical Barrier CERCLA Remedial

Wall; Cap; and Soil Vapor - ROD Dates: 7/29/82 and 9/22/83 

Extraction

- Groundwater was extracted using

14 wells, located on site, at an

average total pumping rate of 265

gpm

- Extracted groundwater was treated

with addition of chemicals (lime

slurry), flocculation, clarification,

mixed-media pressure filtration, air

stripping (at elevated temperature

(175 F), and biological treatment o

(biological treatment was used for

only 50 of the 265 gpm extracted) 

- Treated groundwater was

reinjected on- and off-site through

recharge trenches

- A slurry wall, 4 ft wide, 4,000 ft

long, and as much as 100 ft deep,

encloses the 20-acre site

- A 40-mil HDPE synthetic cap

covers the area inside the slurry wall

- The SVE system included 66 wells

and a boiler/incinerator for

destruction of VOCs

State Point of Contact:

Tom Andrews

NHDES

6 Hazen Drive

Concord, MA 03301

(603) 271-2910

EPA Point of Contact:

Darryl Luce, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 1

JFK Federal Building

1 Congress Street

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 573-5767

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Waste disposal, drum burial, waste Groundwater

storage - 1,200 million gallons treated as of December 1995

- LNAPL (toluene) observed in several monitoring wells on site

- Depth to groundwater was not provided for this site

- Extraction wells are located in 3 hydrogeologic units which are influenced

by a nearby surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity in the upper unit ranges from 30 to 50 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

ACLs have been met for all

contaminants, with one exception. 

The exception has an ACL which is

less than the state standard and

below the analytical detection limit

for that constituent.
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site

Nashua, New Hampshire (continued)

151

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The remedial goal for this site were set as alternate concentration limits (ACLs) within the containment structure. 

ACLs were set at 10% of the maximum concentration detected, and consisted of the following: vinyl chloride (95

ug/L), benzene (340 ug/L), chloroform (1,505 ug/L), 1,1,2-TCA (1.7 ug/L), MEK (8,000 ug/L), chlorobenzene

(110 ug/L), methylene chloride (12,250 ug/L), toluene (2,900 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (1.5 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCA (1,800

ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), methyl methacrylate (350 ug/L), selenium (2.6 ug/L), and phenols (400 ug/L). 

- Risk-based concentration levels were set for groundwater outside of the containment structure.

- A performance goal for the remedial system was to prevent the contaminant plume from further migration.

Results:

- As of December 1995, the remedial action appears to have attained ACLs for all contaminants except 1,1-DCA. 

The levels of 1,1-DCA are less than the state standard of 81 ug/L and below the analytical detection limit; EPA is

reportedly considering adjusting the ACL set for this contaminant. From 1986 through 1995, the system removed

427,000 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater. 

- A net inward flow into the containment structure has been maintained, thus reducing downward migration of

contaminants.

Cost:

- Actual costs for the remedial application at this site were $27,600,000 ($9,100,000 in capital and $18,500,000 in

O&M), which correspond to $23 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $64 per pound of contaminant

removed.

- The high O&M costs for this site were attributed to the 300 gpm treatment system and the number of staff

required to operate it. For many years, the site was staffed with 15 full-time personnel who operated the site 24

hours/day.

Description:

The Sylvester/Gilson Road site is a 2-acre site. Approximately six acres of the site was used as a sand borrow pit

for an undetermined number of years. Illegal dumping was first discovered in 1970. Although the total amount of

hazardous waste disposed at the site had not been determined, documents show that approximately 900,000 gallons

of hazardous waste were discarded at the site during a 10-month period in 1979. It was estimated that the site was

used for hazardous waste disposal for five years. In 1981, initial remedial investigations by the state showed high

concentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds in the groundwater under the site. A ROD for this site was

signed in July 1982 and a supplemental ROD in September 1983. In July 1990, EPA issued a ESD for this

application.

The remedial application at this site consisted of a pump-and-treat system, vertical barrier wall, cap, and soil vapor

extraction system. Groundwater was extracted using 14 wells, located on site, and treated with addition of

chemicals, flocculation, clarification, mixed-media pressure filtration, air stripping, and biological treatment. A

slurry wall encloses the 20-acre site, and a HDPE synthetic cap covers the area inside the slurry wall. To address an

area with LNAPL (toluene) that was identified part-way through the application, a SVE system was installed that

included 66 extraction wells. As of December 1995, the remedial action appears to have attained ACLs for all

contaminants except 1,1-DCA.
152

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the United Chrome Superfund Site

Corvallis, Oregon

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

United Chrome Superfund Site Heavy Metals (Chromium) Status: Ongoing

- Testing in 1983-1984 showed Report covers: August 1988

concentrations of chromium up to through March 1997

3,619 mg/L in the shallow aquifer

and up to 30 mg/L in the deep

aquifer

Location: Cleanup Type:

Corvallis, Oregon Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Operations:

CH2M Hill, Inc.

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Currently, groundwater is - ROD Date: 9/12/86

extracted using 9 wells in the upper

aquifer and one well in the deep

aquifer 

- Pumping rates ranged from 4-11.5

gpm for the upper aquifer and 1.5-

15.8 gpm for the deep aquifer

- Extracted groundwater was 

treated with a reduction and

precipitation system until

November 1994; since that time,

extracted groundwater has been

discharged to a POTW without onsite treatment

State Point of Contact:

Tom Penpraze

Utilities Division Manager

Public Works Dept.

City of Corvallis

P.O. Box 1083

Corvallis, OR 97339-1083

EPA Point of Contact:

Al Goodman, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 10

811 Southwest Sixth Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

(503) 326-3685

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Discharge to unlined disposal pit Groundwater

- 62 million gallons treated as of March 1997

- Groundwater is found at 0-10 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in two aquifers, with flow from the upper to

lower aquifer and lower to upper at times during the year

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.5 to 60 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Extracted groundwater was treated

on-site at the beginning of this

application; however, because

concentrations dropped over time,

on-site treatment was discontinued.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals require a concentration for chromium of 10 mg/L in the upper aquifer and 0.10 mg/L in the deep

aquifer.

- The system is also required to hydraulically contain the contaminant plume.

Results:

- Chromium concentrations in both aquifers have been reduced. In the upper aquifer, average chromium

concentrations have been reduced from 1,923 mg/L in August 1988 to 18 mg/L in March 1997. In the deep

aquifer, average chromium concentrations have been reduced from 1.4 mg/L in August 1991 to 0.11 mg/L in

March 1997. Cleanup goals for chromium have been met in 11 or 23 wells in the upper aquifer and six of

seven wells in the deep aquifer.

- Approximately 31,363 pounds of chromium have been removed from the upper aquifer and 96 pounds from

the deep aquifer, for a total of 31,459 pounds as of March 1997.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the United Chrome Superfund Site

Corvallis, Oregon (continued)

153

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $4,637,160 ($3,329,840 in capital and $1,307,320 in O&M), which

correspond to $75 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $140 per pound of contaminant removed.

- Annual operating costs dropped by an order of magnitude when use of the treatment system was discontinued

in 1992.

Description:

United Chrome products is a former industrial hard chrome plating facility that manufactured and repaired hard

chrome plated parts from 1956 until early 1985. In 1956, a disposal pit for liquid waste was dug in the area west

of the former on-site building, and chromium-laden wastewater was discharged to the pit from 1956 to 1982. In

June 1983, EPA conducted a field investigation at the site, discovering chromium contamination in on-site

surface water and soils. The site was placed on the NPL in September 1984 and a ROD was signed in September

1986. 

Groundwater contamination was addressed in two phases. Phase 1 was directed at remediation of the upper

aquifer and began in August 1988. Phase 2 was directed at remediation of the deep aquifer and began in

September 1991. Currently, groundwater is extracted using nine wells in the upper aquifer and one well in the

deep aquifer. Until November 1994, extracted groundwater was treated on site; since that time, extracted

groundwater has been discharged to a POTW without on-site treatment. Chromium concentrations in both

aquifers have been reduced, but have not yet met cleanup goals. Future operations of the groundwater extraction

systems will be determined following a 1998 investigation of the remaining soil in the area of the former plating

tanks and the disposal pit.
154

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,

Niles, Michigan

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

U.S. Aviex Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents and Status: Ongoing

volatiles - nonhalogenated Report covers: 7/93 - 12/96

- Maximum concentrations

detected in 1985 sampling event

were 1,1,1-TCA (200,000 ug/L),

1,2-DCA (1,600 ug/L), and diethyl

ether (DEE, at 5,700 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Niles, Michigan Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

EPA Contractor:

Jack Brunner

Tetra Tech EM Inc.

200 East Randolph Dr, Suite 4700

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 856-8700

Air Stripping Tower: LANTAC

Construction Subcontractor: ATEC

Associates Inc.

2777 Finley Road, Unit 4

Downers Grove, IL 60515

Pump and Treat CERCLA Remedial

- Groundwater is extracted using 5 - ROD Date: 9/7/88

wells, located on site, at an average

total pumping rate of 232 gpm

- Extracted groundwater is treated

with air stripping and discharged to

a surface water under a NPDES

permit 

State Point of Contact:

Carl Chavez

MDEQ

P.O. Box 30426

Lansing, MI 48909-7926

(517) 373-8174

EPA Point of Contact:

Ken Glatz, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 5

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 886-1434

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Ruptured drums, leaking

underground pipe

Groundwater

- 329 million gallons treated as of December 1996

- DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site

- Groundwater is found at 20 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 9.1 to 45.4 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Performed modeling for system

optimization (MODFLOW and

Randomwalk).

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remediate the groundwater to levels established by MDEQ and the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)

established by the SDWA.

- Cleanup goals include DEE (43 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), 1,2-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), TCE (5

ug/L), PCE (0.88 ug/L), benzene (5 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), ethylbenzene (680 ugL), and xylene (440 ug/L).

- A secondary goal of the system is to create an inward hydraulic gradient to contain the contaminant plume.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,

Niles, Michigan (continued)

155

Results:

- The average concentration of total contaminants has decreased from 158 to 67 ug/L over 3 1/2 years of

operation; however, contaminant concentrations have declined but remain above cleanup goals.

- Approximately 664 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater from September 1993 to

December 1996.

- Plume containment has been maintained in this application; however, additional contamination has been

identified outside of the original plume. This has been attributed to historically elevated levels not discovered

during the RI/FS.

Cost:

- Actual costs for the P&T system from 1993-1996 were approximately $1,942,000 ($1,332,000 in capital and

$610,000 in O&M), which correspond to $5 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,925 per pound

of contaminant removed.

Description:

The site was operated as a non-lubricating automotive fluids manufacturer from the early 1960s until 1978. 

Fluid manufacturing included repackaging of bulk products and formulation of new products from bulk

ingredients. In July 1972, an underground pipe carrying diethyl ether (DEE) broke during excavation activities,

releasing an unknown quantity to the soil and groundwater. In November 1978, a fire ruptured chemical-storing

drums. The water used to extinguish the fire washed unknown amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons onto

unpaved areas. After the 1978 release, U.S. Aviex performed a groundwater investigation. The site was placed

on the NPL in 1983 and a ROD was signed in 1988.

The pump and treat system currently in use at U.S. Aviex consists of five extraction wells installed to 100 ft bgs,

and an air stripper 56 ft tall, 4 ft in diameter, and packed with plastic media. Groundwater monitoring data

indicate that while maximum contaminant concentrations have dropped (up to 99% for 1,1,1-TCA), they remain

above cleanup goals. In addition, contamination has been detected in wells down-gradient of the plume

identified in the RI/FS, and EPA is in the process of further characterizing the plume.
156

Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Western Processing Superfund Site,

Kent, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Western Processing Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents; volatiles - Status: Ongoing

nonhalogenated (toluene); PAHs; Report covers: 10/88 - 12/96

and metals

- Maximum initial concentrations

of chlorinated solvents and metals

were trans-1,2-DCE (390 mg/L),

TCE (250 mg/L), cadmium (2.5

mg/L), nickel (280 mg/L), and zinc

(510 mg/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Kent, Washington Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Contractors: Pump and Treat and Vertical CERCLA Remedial

OHM Remediation Services, Corp. Barrier Wall - ROD Date: 9/85

(Formerly CWM) - Groundwater is extracted on-site

Landau Associates, Inc. using 15 wells at an average total

pumping rate of 190 gpm; this

water is treated with air stripping

and reinjected through an

infiltration system 

- Prior to 1996, groundwater was

extracted using 210 shallow,

vacuum-operated recovery well

points

- A slurry wall (vertical barrier

wall), 40 ft deep, encloses the 13-

acre site 

- Groundwater is extracted off-site

using 3 wells at an average total

pumping rate of 40 gpm; this water

is treated with filtration and air

stripping prior to reinjection or

discharge to a POTW

PRP Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Paul Johansen Lee Marshall, RPM

Western Processing U.S. EPA Region 10

20015 72nd Avenue South 1200 Sixth Avenue(ECL-116)

Kent, Washington 98032 Seattle, WA 98010

(425) 393-2565 (206) 553-2723

State Point of Contact:

Christopher Maurer, P.E.

Washington Department of

Ecology

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Unauthorized dumping, spills, and Groundwater

leaks from surface impoundments - 974 million gallons treated as of December 1996

- LNAPL observed and DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site

- Groundwater is found at 5-10 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers; the aquifers are influenced by

a nearby surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1 to 100 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Met goals for off-site plume within

eight years of operation; shallow

well points replaced recently with

deeper wells to provide for

containment; relatively large and

expensive system.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Western Processing Superfund Site,

Kent, Washington (continued)

157

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Groundwater cleanup goals were established in terms of surface water quality goals for Mill Creek (adjacent to

the site), based on federal ambient water quality criteria. These goals were required to be met within three

years. Surface water goals were established for cadmium (1.1 ug/L), chromium (207 ug/L), copper (11.8

ug/L), lead (3.2 ug/L), mercury (0.012 ug/L), nickel (158 ug/L), silver (0.12 ug/L), zinc (120 ug/L), cyanide

(5.2 ug/L), and hardness (100 ug/L).

- Remedial goals for the off-site aquifer were established for cis-1,2-DCE (70 ug/L) and trans-1,2-DCE (70

ug/L).

- An ESD, issued in 1995, changed the focus of the remediation from site restoration to containment.

Results:

- Monthly monitoring data indicated that the surface water quality in Mill Creek met the established criteria by

mid-1990. Further, concentrations for TCE, vinyl chloride, and zinc decreased in on-site wells by two orders

of magnitude from 1988 to 1995. However, elevated concentrations of contaminants remain in on-site wells. 

As of June 1995, concentrations were reported as high as TCE (55,200 ug/L), DCE (14,600 ug/L), vinyl

chloride (5,490 ug/L), cadmium (1,360 ug/L), and zinc (117,000 ug/L).

- The system achieved the cleanup goal for DCE in all three of the extraction wells located in the off-site plume. 

Concentrations of DCE have decreased in the off-site plume from above 2,000 ug/L in 1988 to less than 70

ug/L in January 1996. In addition, containment for the off-site plume has been achieved.

- A total of 102,000 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater during eight years of

operation. 

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat were $48,730,000 ($16,032,629 in capital, including the slurry wall, and

$32,697,483 in O&M), which correspond to $50 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $478 per

pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

This site operated as a waste processing facility from 1961 to 1983. Over 400 businesses transported industrial

wastes to the site to be stored, reclaimed, or buried. Processes used at the site included recovery of metals from

sludges and liquid wastes, spent solvent recovery, reprocessing of pickle liquor, and waste oil reclamation. In

March 1981, during a RCRA audit, EPA first discovered violations of regulations governing waste storage, drum

management, surface impoundments, and waste piles. Remedial investigations were conducted between 1983

and 1985. An initial ROD was issued in September 1985, and an amended ROD in September 1986.

Groundwater is extracted on-site using 15 well; this water is treated with air stripping and reinjected through an

infiltration system. Prior to 1996, groundwater was extracted using 210 shallow, vacuum-operated recovery well

points. Groundwater is extracted off-site using 3 wells; this water is treated with filtration and air stripping prior

to reinjection or discharge to a POTW. The original approach to this site was an aggressive effort to fully restore

the site to original conditions within seven years. Restoration was a priority and high costs were incurred to

achieve this goal, including high operating costs. After eight years of pump and treat, the goal of restoration was

changed to containment based on the technical impracticability of achieving full restoration.
158

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
159

INNOVATIVE GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

 ABSTRACTS
160

Enhanced Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater - Balfour Road Site,

Brentwood, CA; Fourth Plain Service Station Site, Vancouver, WA; Steve’s

Standard and Golden Belt 66 Site, Great Bend, KS

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Balfour Road Site

Fourth Plain Service Station Site

Steve’s Standard and Golden Belt

66 Site

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, Balfour Road: December 1995 to

and xylenes (BTEX) and total present (report covers the period

petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) through October 1997)

Fourth Plain: July 1996 to present

(report covers the period through

October 1997)

Steve’s Standard: July 1996 to

present (report covers the period

through October 1997)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Brentwood, CA Full-scale (Balfour Road and

Vancouver, WA Fourth Plain)

Great Bend, KS Demonstration (Steve’s Standard)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Steve Koenigsberg Enhanced Bioremediation of State voluntary cleanup

Craig Sandefur Groundwater using ORC

Regenesis Bioremediation - ORC (oxygen release

Products, Inc. compound) is a proprietary

27130A Paseo Espada, Suite 1407 formulation based on magnesium

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 peroxide and is available from

(714) 443-3136 Regenesis 

®

®

- ORC is applied to the ®

groundwater using different

methods and dosages (dosage

based on several factors including

the estimated mass of contaminant

at the site and the specific

properties of the aquifer)

- Details of the application method

and dosage for each site are

included in the report

Construction/Design: State Contacts:

Thomas Morin (Fourth Plain) Joel Weiss

Environmental Partners Inc. California Regional Water Quality

10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 110 Control Board

Bellevue, WA 98004 Central Valley Region

(206) 889-4747 (916) 255-3077 (Balfour Road)

Additional contacts in the report Carol Fleshes

Washington Department of

Ecology

(206) 649-7000 (Fourth Plain)

Emily McGuire

Kansas Department of Health and

Environment

(913) 296-7005 (Steve’s Standard)

Waste Source: Various waste Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

disposal practices, including leaks Groundwater - estimated 20,400 square feet for Fourth Plain; estimates

at service stations were not provided for Balfour Road or Steve’s Standard

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Evaluate the cost and

performance of ORC to remediate ®

groundwater at three petroleumcontaminated sites
Enhanced Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater - Balfour Road Site,

Brentwood, CA; Fourth Plain Service Station Site, Vancouver, WA; Steve’s

Standard and Golden Belt 66 Site, Great Bend, KS

161

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Balfour Road - federal MCLs for groundwater.

- Fourth Plain - benzene - 0.005 mg/L, total BTEX - 0.095 mg/L and TPH -1.0 mg/L.

- Steve’s Standard - no cleanup goals; demonstration project.

Results:

- Balfour Road and Fourth Plain sites - the cleanup goals had not been met at either the Balfour Road or Fourth

Plain sites as of October 1997. The geometric mean concentration and mass of benzene, total BTEX, and TPH

had been reduced by approximately 50 percent.

- Steve’s Standard - over the first seven months of operation, the concentration and mass of benzene, total

BTEX, and TPH had been reduced; however, over the next nine months, concentrations appeared to stabilize or

rise slightly; a continuing source was identified at the site.

Cost:

- Total cost - $41,600 for Bafour Road; $37,300 for Fourth Plain; $96,000 for Steve’s Standard.

- Treatment cost - $33,500 for Bafour Road; $35,700 for Fourth Plain; $93,400 for Steve’s Standard (two service

stations located next to each other).

Description:

Contamination at each site resulted from leaks in underground petroleum storage tanks and supply pipelines at or

near retail dispensing locations. Refined petroleum product was released to the subsurface soil and groundwater

at each site for unknown periods of time, until being detected in the 1990's. The three sites were cleaned up

under their respective state voluntary cleanup programs. Oversight was performed by the respective state agency

without involvement of EPA. Enhanced bioremediation using ORC was selected by the lead contractors for ®

each of the sites because it was expected to reduce the mass of contaminants in the aquifer by more than 50

percent in only six months, thereby reducing risk to human health and the environment from exposure to

contaminated groundwater, and because it required a smaller capital investment and lower operating expenses

than alternative technologies such as pump and treat. Regenesis indicated that enhanced bioremediation using

ORC was not expected to treat the groundwater to the federal maximum contaminant levels (MCL), but that the ®

treatment would reduce substantially the dissolved-phase mass of contaminants present in the aquifer, as well as

reduce sources characterized as moderate smear zones. 

Enhanced bioremediation was performed at the three sites, using application of ORC . ORC is a proprietary ® ®

formulation based on magnesium peroxide and is available from Regenesis Bioremediation Products, Inc. 

According to Regenesis, the quantity of ORC required for a site is based on several factors including the ®

estimated mass of contaminant at the site (dissolved-phase concentration) and the specific properties of the

aquifer such as porosity and thickness. Details on the specific applications of this technology at each of the three

sites in included in the report. As of October 1997, the cleanup goals had not been met at either the Balfour

Road or Fourth Plain sites; however the geometric mean concentration and mass of benzene, total BTEX, and

TPH had been reduced by approximately 50 percent in the aquifers in only 6 months for roughly $50,000 per

site. In addition, at the Steve’s Standard site, the concentration and mass of benzene, total BTEX, and TPH had

been reduced in portions of the aquifer. The report presents a detailed summary of the progress at each site and

the plans for future activities at the sites.
162

Coagulation/Flocculation/Dissolved Air Flotation and OleofiltrationTM at 

the Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, Panama City, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon August 1997

(TPH) (Demonstration conducted for a

- concentrations in the bioslurper total of 448 hours)

process wastewater ranged from

5,000 to 21,000 mg/kg

Metals - copper, lead, zinc

Location: Cleanup Type:

Panama City, FL Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

CRF/DAF: CRF/DAF (Chemical reaction and RCRA

Great Lakes Environmental Inc flocculation and dissolved air

315 S. Stewart Ave flotation):

Addison, IL 60101 - DAF system (Model DAF-5) was

OleofiltrationTM: flotation chamber, including a

North American Technologies skimmer, sump, and air dissolving

Group Inc tank

4719 Bellaire Blvd, Suite 301 - CRF system (Model CRF-15)

Bellaire, TX 77401 included a two-stage chemical

a skid-mounted unit containing a

reaction tank, a polymer mix

preparation tank, pumps, and

mixers

- OleofiltrationTM treatment system

included a conventional oil/water

separator, coalescing unit, and

ceramic granule filtration system

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Naval Facilities Engineering Information not provided

Service

1100 23rd Avenue

Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301

Waste Source: Fire-fighting Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

training using ignitable Wastewater - 126,400 gallons

hydrocarbons

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate the

effectiveness of CRF/DAF and

OleofiltrationTM in treating TPH

and metals from wastewater from a

full-scale bioslurper system

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The objective of the demonstration was to determine the ability of the two water treatment systems to remove

emulsified oil/grease from a bioslurper wastewater stream. A secondary objective was to determine if the

CRF/DAF system could effectively remove metals.

Results:

- The CRF/DAF system removed more than 98% of TPH from the wastewater stream containing an influent

concentration of 5,000 mg/kg TPH as compared to the OleofilterTM which removed between 56% and 90% TPH.

- The CRF/DAF system removed 98.9% of lead and zinc and more than 90% of copper from the wastewater

stream whereas the OleofilterTM removed 75% lead and 71% zinc. In addition, the percent removal of metals by

the OleofilterTM was reported to have varied significantly from sample to sample. Copper concentrations in the

influent to the OleofilterTM were below detection limits; therefore, a percent removal could not be calculated.
Coagulation/Flocculation/Dissolved Air Flotation and OleofiltrationTM at 

the Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, Panama City, Florida (continued)

163

Cost:

- The results of the demonstration were used to estimate full-scale costs. Short-term (6-month) operating costs

were calculated for both systems, assuming that the equipment was leased. The estimated cost per month to lease

and operate each system was $7,580 for the CRF/DAF (for a six-month total of $45,500) and $3,650 for the

OleofilterTM (for a six-month total of $21,900)

- Excluding lease rates, the monthly operating costs for the CRF/DAF and OleofilterTM systems are estimated to

be $3,650 and $1,150, respectively. 

- Based on these estimates, the CRF/DAF system costs about twice as much to lease and operate as the

OleofilterTM system.

Description:

The Coastal Systems Station is located in Panama City, Florida along the St. Andrews Bay. AOC 1 is a former

fire-fighting training area used from 1955 to 1978, where waste oil and other ignitable such as diesel, gasoline,

JP-5 jet fuel, and paint thinner were used during fire training exericse. An estimated 63,000 gallons of flammable

hydrocarbons were in this area and light, nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) was identified during the RCRA

Facility Investigation. The Navy selected bioslurping to remove LNAPL from the subsurface. During a pilotscale test, it was determined that the wastewater generated from the system contained high levels of emulsified

hydrocarbons as well as high concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc; high levels also were expected in the fullscale bioslurping system. To identify a cost-effective treatment technology for the full-scale bioslurping system

wastewater, the Navy selected two technologies, CRF/DAF and OleofiltrationTM, for demonstration. The

concentrations in the bioslurper wastewater during the demonstration were TPH as high as 27,000 ppm, and

copper, lead, and zinc as high as 228 ppm, 1,430 ppm, and 6,210 ppm, respectively.

The CRF system included a two-stage chemical reaction tank, a polymer mix preparation tank, pumps, and

mixers. The skid-mounted DAF system included a flotation chamber, including a skimmer, sump, and air

dissolving tank. The 10 gpm capacity OleofiltrationTM treatment system included a conventional oil/water

separator, coalescing unit, and ceramic granule filtration system. For the CRF/DAF system, the influent water

flow rate was 1.5 to 6.5 gpm. The retention time for the two-stage CRF unit was 37 to 160 minutes for Stage 1

and 22 to 94 minutes for Stage 2. The retention time for the DAF unit was 13 to 55 minutes. For the

OleofiltrationTM treatment system, the influent flow rate ranged from 5 to 7.5 gpm with a retention time of 25 to

37 minutes.
164

Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat

Contaminated Groundwater at the Former Intersil, Inc. Site,

Sunnyvale, California

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Former Intersil, Inc. Site Chlorinated solvents Status: PRB Ongoing

- Maximum concentrations Report covers:

detected in 1986 were TCE (13,000 - P&T: 11/87 - 2/95

ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE (19,000 ug/L), - PRB: 2/95 - 11/97

Vinyl chloride (1,800 ug/L), and Location: Cleanup Type: Freon-113 (16,000 ug/L) Sunnyvale, California Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Construction and Operations: Pump and Treat and Permeable State cleanup

Scott Warner Reactive Barrier - Site cleanup requirements order:

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. - Groundwater was extracted using 10/15/86

100 Pine St., 10 floor three wells and one trench well at th

San Francisco, CA 94111 an average total pumping rate of 8

(415) 434-9400 gpm

P&T: Reidel Environmental - Extracted groundwater was

Services/Delta Cooling Towers treated with air stripping and

PRB: EnviroMetal discharged to an on-site storm

sewer under a NPDES permit

- The permeable reactive barrier

(PRB, treatment wall) is 100%

granular iron, 4 ft thick, 40 ft wide,

and approximately 13 ft deep; 2

slurry walls are used to route

groundwater through the PRB

Additional Contacts: State Point of Contact:

Deborah Hankins, Ph.D. Habte Kifle

Intersil, Inc. CA RWQCB

114 Sansome St., 14 floor 2101 Webster Street, #500 th

San Francisco, CA 94104 Oakland, CA 94612

(415) 274-1904 (510) 286-0467

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leakage from sub-grade Groundwater

neutralization system - 38 million gallons treated as of November 1996 (36 million by pumpand-treat and 2 million by PRB)

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, to a depth of 18 ft (depth to

groundwater not provided)

- Transmissivity reported as 370 ft /day (hydraulic conductivity not 2

provided)

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Used P&T for eight years, and

replaced this technology with PRB;

PRB used for three years.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The cleanup goal for the site is to reduce contaminant concentrations throughout the aquifer to levels below the

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) set by the state of California and primary drinking water standards.

- Remedial goals were identified for vinyl chloride (0.5 ug/L), cis-1,2-DCE (6 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), and Freon113 (1,200 ug/L).

- Effluent from the treatment system was required to meet the remedial goals prior to discharge.

- A secondary goal was identified to create an inward gradient to contain the plume.

- The primary goal for the PRB is to reduce contaminant levels in groundwater passing through the wall to the

cleanup goals for the site.

- The secondary goal for the PRB is to contain the contaminant plume upgradient of the wall.
Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat

Contaminated Groundwater at the Former Intersil, Inc. Site,

Sunnyvale, California (continued)

165

Results:

- The contaminant plume has been reduced in size at this site, however, contamination remains elevated at three

hot spots.

- Average total contaminant concentrations have decreased from 1,609 ug/L in 1986 to 31 ug/L in 1997.

- By 2/95, the P&T system had removed 56 kg of contaminants from the groundwater; from 2/95 to 8/96, the

PRB had removed 7 kg of contaminants from the groundwater.

- The contaminant plume has been contained.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for the P&T system from 1987 to 1995 were approximately $1,343,800 ($325,000 in capital

and $1,018,800 in O&M), which correspond to $38 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $10,900

per pound of contaminant removed.

- Estimated costs for the PRB system through 11/96 were approximately $762,000 ($5955,000 in capital and

$167,000 in O&M), which correspond to $38 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $49,400 per

pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

Intersil operated at the site as a semi-conductor manufacturer from the early 1970s until 1983. The site is

currently owned by Sobrato Development Company, and was released to another tenant in 1995. In 1972,

Intersil installed a concrete, epoxy-lined, in-ground acid neutralization system at the facility to neutralize

wastewater before discharge to a sanitary sewer. In 1982, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB) requested sampling of shallow groundwater and soil near the neutralization holding tank, and Intersil

identified chlorinated solvents in the shallow groundwater and soil. Under a state program, a site cleanup

requirements order was issued in October 1986.

A pump and treat (P&T) system was operated at this site from 1987 until 1995. The system consisted of three

extraction and one trench wells. The wells were installed to a depth of 18 ft and had a design yield of 6 gpm. 

Extracted groundwater was treated with an air stripper designed to handle a maximum of 40 gpm.In 1993, Intersil

examined alternative groundwater remediation technologies based on achievement of two goals. Intersil wanted

to minimize the cost of treatment while increasing treatment effectiveness, given that the mass removal by the

P&T system had asymptotically declined, and to return the site to leasable/sellable conditions. The selected

alternative, approved by the RWQCB, was a PRB. The treatment technologies used at this site have removed

contaminant mass and reduced concentrations in the aquifer; however, site cleanup goals have not yet been met. 
166

Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated

Groundwater at the French Ltd. Superfund Site,

Crosby, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

French Ltd. Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents and Status: Ongoing

Volatiles - nonhalogenated Report covers: January 1992

- Contaminants of concern in the through December 1995

groundwater were benzene,

toluene, chloroform, 1,2-DCA, and

vinyl chloride

- Initial maximum concentrations

were benzene (19,000 ug/L), 1,2-

DCA (920,000 ug/L), and vinyl

chloride (8,200 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Crosby, Texas Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Prime Contractor: 

Jon McLeod

CH2M Hill

(512) 346-2001

Treatment System Vendor:

Mike Day, President

Applied Hydrology Associates, Inc.

Denver, CO

Pump and Treat with activated CERCLA Remedial

sludge for extracted groundwater; - ROD Date: 3/24/88

in situ bioremediation for

contaminated groundwater

- Active remediation conducted

from January 1992 through

December 1995 consisted of

extraction and above-ground

treatment, enhanced aquifer

flushing through pressure injection

of clean water, and accelerated in

situ bioremediation through the

addition of oxygen, phosphorus,

and nitrate.

- Source control was achieved by

installation of cutoff (sheet-pile)

walls around lagoon and DNAPL

source areas.

- Since December 1995, active

pumping was stopped and natural

attenuation has been used to reduce

remaining concentrations of

contaminants. Limited pumping

began in March 1998.

State Point of Contact:

Emmanuel Ndame

TNRCC

(512) 239-2444

PRP: Richard Sloan

ARCO Chemical Company

FLTG Project Coordinator

15010 FM 2100, Ste. 200

Crosby, TX 77532

(713) 328-3541

EPA Point of Contact:

Ernest Franke, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6739

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Unlined disposal pit (lagoon) Groundwater

- 306 million gallons of groundwater and surface treated as of December

1995

- Groundwater is found at 10-12 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in two aquifers

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.283 to 2.835 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Regulatory requirements for this

site based on use of modeling

results to show effects of natural

attenuation at the site boundary 10

years after pump and treat

completed.
Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated

Groundwater at the French Ltd. Superfund Site,

Crosby, Texas (continued)

167

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- According to the 1988 ROD, “groundwater recovery and treatment will continue until modeling shows that a

reduction in the concentration of volatile organics to a level which attains the 10 human health criteria at the -6

site boundary can be achieved through natural attenuation in 10 years or less.” In response, remedial goals

were established for vinyl chloride (2 ug/L), benzene (5 ug/L), toluene (1,000 ug/L), 1,2-DCA (100 ug/L), and

chloroform (100 ug/L).

- A primary goal of the remedial system was plume containment, accompanied by in situ bioremediation and

source control using sheet-pile walls.

Results:

- A modeling study conducted in late 1995 demonstrated that natural attenuation would reduce groundwater

contaminant concentrations below the remedial goals at the site boundary within 10 years after system shut-off. 

As a result, EPA allowed the groundwater recovery and treatment operations to be shut down in December

1995.

- Average concentrations of 1,2-DCA, vinyl chloride, and benzene had been reduced to approximately 1 ug/L in

the twp aquifers at the site by October 1995. As of December 1995, the pump and treat system had removed

517,000 pounds of contaminants (measured as TOC) from the groundwater. No data were available to

quantify the amount of contaminants destroyed through bioremediation.

Cost:

- Actual costs for pump and treat and in situ bioremediation were $33,689,000 ($15,487,000 in capital and

$18,202,000 in O&M), which correspond to $110 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $15 per

pound of contaminant removed. The unit cost does not account for the amount of contaminants destroyed

through bioremediation.

Description:

The French Limited site was used for sand mining in the 1960s and 1970s. During the period from 1966 through

1971, the site was permitted to accept industrial waste material for disposal in a seven-acre lagoon created from

an open sand pit. About 80 million gallons of waste material was disposed of in the main waste lagoon. The

facility’s permit was revoked and the site was closed in 1973. The site was placed on the NPL in 1981, and a

remedial investigation was performed at the site from 1983 to 1986 through a cooperative agreement. A ROD

was signed in May 1987, and amended in March 1988. 

Active remediation was conducted at the site from January 1992 through December 1995 by groundwater

extraction and above-ground treatment, enhanced aquifer flushing through pressure injection of clean water, and

accelerated in situ bioremediation through the addition of oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrate. Source control was

achieved by installation of sheet-pile walls around lagoon and DNAPL source areas. As of December 1995,

active pumping was stopped and natural attenuation has been used to reduce remaining concentrations of

contaminants. Limited pumping began in March 1998.
168

Pump and Treat and Air Sparging of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Gold Coast Superfund Site,

Miami, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Gold Coast Superfund Site Chlorinated solvents and 7/90 - 3/94: pump and treat

volatiles - nonhalogenated 11/94 - 2/95: air sparging

(toluene)

- Maximum initial concentrations

were methylene chloride (100

ug/L), 1,1-DCA (2,000 ug/L),

trans-1,2-DCE (3,000 ug/L), TCE

(48,000 ug/L), PCE (100,000

ug/L), and toluene (545 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Miami, Florida Full-scale cleanup

Vendors: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Construction: Simmons Consulting, Pump and Treat and Air Sparging CERCLA Remedial

Inc. - Groundwater was extracted using - ROD Date: 9/11/87

Treatment System Vendor: Lantec five wells, located on site, at an

Operations: Simmons Consulting, average total pumping rate of 44

Inc., and The Balijet Corp./Edward gpm

E. Clark Engineers-Scientists, Inc. - Extracted groundwater was

treated with air stripping and

reinjected into the aquifer through

three injection wells

- Groundwater was sparged with a

portable sparger and contaminants

were allowed to volatilize 

State Point of Contact: EPA Point of Contact:

Marvin Collins Brad Jackson, RPM

Florida Department of U.S. EPA Region 4

Environmental Protection (FDEP) 3456 Courtland Street, N.E.

Tallahassee, FL Atlanta, GA 30365

(850) 488-0190 (404) 562-8975

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Direct discharge of solvent Groundwater

reclamation blowdown to soil; - 80 million gallons treated as of February 1996

improper storage of waste - DNAPL observed in groundwater on site

- Groundwater is found at 5 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in one aquifer and are influenced by a

nearby surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity was reported as 1,000 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Met goals within four years of

operation; included pump and treat

and air sparging

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The remedial goal was to reduce contaminant concentrations throughout the aquifer to levels below the

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) set by the FDEP, DERM, and primary drinking water standards.

- Remedial goals were identified for 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (70 ug/L), methylene chloride (5 ug/L),

PCE (0.7 ug/L), TCE (3 ug/L), and toluene (340 ug/L).

- Effluent from the treatment system was required to meet the remedial goals prior to re-injection.

- A secondary goal was identified to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain the plume.
Pump and Treat and Air Sparging of Contaminated Groundwater at

the Gold Coast Superfund Site,

Miami, Florida (continued)

169

Results:

- Groundwater monitoring results indicate that contaminant concentrations have been reduced below treatment

goals; from 1991 to 1994, 1,961 lbs of TCE and PCE were removed from the groundwater. 

- Optimization efforts were used to focus cleanup on the problem areas at the site; excavation of soil suspected

to contain DNAPLs and groundwater sparging were performed to complete cleanup of problem areas.

- Performance monitoring results indicate that effluent requirements have been met throughout the operation of

the treatment system.

- No contaminants were detected in downgradient monitoring wells during remedial operations, indicating that

the plume was contained throughout the remedial action.

Cost:

- Actual cost data were provided by the responsible parties for this application.

- Costs for pump and treat were $694,325 ($249,005 in capital and $445,320 in O&M), which correspond to $9

per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $354 per pound of contaminant removed.

Description:

Gold Coast Oil Corporation operated as a spent oil and solvent recovery facility from 1970 to 1982. Recovery

operations at the 2-acre site included distillation of lacquer thinner and mineral spirits; blowdown from these

operations was discharged directly onto the soil. In 1980, the FDEP detected soil and groundwater

contamination in on-site soil (heavy metals and organics) and an off-site groundwater well (VOCs). The site was

placed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in September 1987.

Five extraction wells were constructed in the Biscayne Aquifer at the site. Three wells were installed to a depth

of 15 ft, with a design yield of 10 gpm; two wells were installed to a depth of 30 ft, with a design yield of 35

gpm. Extracted groundwater was treated using two air stripping towers in series, with each tower 36 ft high, 3 ft

diameter, and packed to 26 ft with IMPAC, a material that enhances stripping of VOCs from water. Treated

groundwater was re-injected into the aquifer through three injection wells. 

Cleanup standards were met at this site within approximately four years of operation. Cleanup was achieved

after excavation of soil suspected to contain DNAPLs and groundwater sparging were performed.
170

Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated

Groundwater at the Libby Groundwater Superfund Site,

Libby, Montana

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Libby Groundwater Superfund Site Semivolatiles - halogenated (PCP); Status: Ongoing

and PAHs Report covers: September 1991

- Maximum concentrations through December 1996

detected during 1986 RI/FS were

PCP (3,200 ug/L), acenaphthene

(100 ug/L), acenaphthylene (200

ug/L), benzo(a)anthracene(1 ug/L),

and naphthalene (500 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Libby, Montana Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Design: Woodward-Clyde

Consultants

4582 South Ulster Street

Stanford Place 3, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80237

Operations:

Ralph Heinert

Champion Intl. Corp.

Highway 2 South

P.O. Box 1590

Libby, MT 59923

(406) 293-6238

Pump and Treat and In Situ CERCLA Remedial

Bioremediation - ROD Date: 12/30/88

- Groundwater is extracted using 5

wells (3 of which are no longer in

service), at an average total

pumping rate of 16 gpm 

- NAPLs are separated from the

extracted groundwater, and the

groundwater is then routed to 2

fixed-film bioreactors in series

- Nutrients (nitrogen and

phosphorus) are added prior to

bioreactors and oxygen is added

within the bioreactors 

- Treated water is reinjected

through 2 gravity injection systems

(9 wells total)

State Point of Contact:

Neil Marsh

Montana DEQ

Remediation Division

(406) 444-0487

EPA Point of Contact:

Jim Harris, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 8

301 S. Park Drive

P.O. Box 10096

Helena, MT 59626

(406) 441-1150 ext. 260

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Improper storage and disposal of Groundwater

wood preserving products - 15.1 million gallons treated as of December 1996

- DNAPL and LNAPL observed in several monitoring wells on site

- Groundwater is found at 10-20 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by a nearby

surface water and production wells

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 100 to 1,000 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Combination of pump and treat and

in situ bioremediation at site with

LNAPL, DNAPL, and dissolvedphase contaminants.
Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated

Groundwater at the Libby Groundwater Superfund Site,

Libby, Montana (continued)

171

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remedial goals, developed based on a risk assessment and updated MCLs, were established for noncarcinogenic PAHs: naphthalene (1,460 ug/L), acenaphthene (2,100 ug/L), fluorene (1,460 ug/L), anthracene

(11,000 ug/L), pyrene (1,100 ug/L), and fluoranthene (1,460 ug/L); carcinogenic PAHs: benzo(a)anthracene

(0.1 ug/L), chrysene (0.2 ug/L), benzo(b)fluoranthene (0.2 ug/L), benzo(a)pyrene (0.2 ug/L),

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (0.3 ug/L), and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (0.4 ug/L); arsenic (50 ug/L); benzene (5 ug/L);

and PCP (1 ug/L).

- The goal of the source area extraction system is to remove oil-contaminated groundwater and NAPL from the

area of the waste pit and remove as much NAPL as possible.

- The goal of the in situ bioremediation and pump and treat system is to reduce PAH and PCP concentrations in

the upper aquifer to levels below remedial goals.

Results:

- As of December 1996, concentrations in many parts of the plume had declined to either remedial goals or

detection limits. However, there are areas of groundwater contamination in which levels of PAHs and PCP

remain near original levels.

- DO levels have been measured as an indication of the extent of influence on the intermediate injection system

and as an indicator for PAH and PCP in the groundwater.

- The source area treatment system had removed 37,570 pounds of PAHs from the groundwater from 1992 to

1996.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for treatment through 1996 were $5,628,600 ($3,010,000 in capital and $2,618,600 in O&M),

which correspond to $374 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $150 per pound of contaminant

removed. These costs do not account for the volume of groundwater treated or the mass removed through in

situ bioremediation. No estimates have been made for these two items.

Description:

The Libby Montana site has been used as a lumber mill and wood-treating facility since 1946. From 1946 to

1969, the site used various compounds, including creosote and PCP, in their wood-treating operations. The mill

was operated by the St. Regis Company until 1985 when it was purchased by Champion International. In 1979,

homeowners detected a creosote odor in their well water. EPA monitoring in 1981 confirmed groundwater

contamination from the Libby site. The site was placed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in

December 1988.

The remedial strategy at this site was to address the source area by removing NAPL and to stimulate

bioremediation in the down-gradient upper aquifer plume. The three components to the aquifer remedial system

are a source area extraction system, intermediate injection system, and boundary injection system. As of

December 1996, concentrations in many parts of the plume had declined to either remedial goals or detection

limits. However, there are areas of groundwater contamination in which levels of PAHs and PCP remain near

original levels. The site operators believe that no additional modifications could be made to improve the

system’s performance or to reduce the time required to remediate the intermediate injection area.
172

Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat 

Contaminated Groundwater at the Moffett Federal Airfield,

Mountain View, California

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Moffett Federal Airfield Chlorinated solvents Status: Ongoing

- Maximum concentrations Report covers: 4/96 - 7/97

detected during 1991 investigations

include TCE (20,000 ug/L) and

PCE (500 ug/L)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Mountain View, California Voluntary pilot-scale study

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Tim Mower Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Not applicable

Tetra Tech EM Inc. - The PRB is a funnel-and-gate iron

1099 18th Street, Suite 1960 treatment wall system consisting of

Denver, CO 80202 2 sheet pile walls, permeable zones

(303) 312-8874 up- and down-gradient of the wall,

Chuck Reeter and the reactive zone

Naval Facilities Engineering - The PRB is composed of 100%

Service Center granular iron, is 6 ft thick, 10 ft

1100 23rd Ave., Code 411 wide, and 18 ft high beginning 5 ft

 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370 below ground surface

(805) 982-4991 - Average flow rate through the

wall was estimated as 0.5 ft/day EPA Point of Contact: Navy Point of Contact: (alternate estimates also provided) Lynn Suer Stephen Chao (Navy Project

EPA Region 9 Manager)

75 Hawthorne Street Bldg. 210

San Francisco, CA 94105 Department of the Navy

(415) 744-2396 EFA-West

900 Commodore Drive

San Bruno, Ca 94066

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaking underground and Groundwater

aboveground storage tanks, waste - 0.284 million gallons treated as of July 1997

sumps; on-site migration of - DNAPL suspected in groundwater on site

contaminants from Silicon Valley - Groundwater is found at 5 ft bgs

plume - Extraction wells are located in 5 hydrogeologic units, which include

upward hydraulic gradients Purpose/Significance of - Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.3 to 400 ft/day Application:

Use of PRB technology in a pilot

study for treatment of chlorinated

solvents; included extensive

sampling conducted at locations

within the wall.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The objectives of the pilot project are to (1) demonstrate and validate the PRB technology in remediating

groundwater contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons; (2) evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the

barrier from a hydraulic stand point; and (3) develop cost and performance data. 
Permeable Reactive Barrier to Treat 

Contaminated Groundwater at the Moffett Federal Airfield,

Mountain View, California (continued)

173

Results:

- Data from sampling events in January, April, and July 1997 showed that chlorinated solvent concentrations

were being reduced as the groundwater moves through the reactive zone. For example, TCE concentrations

measured in upgradient wells during April 1997 were reduced to below the detection limit within the reactive

zone. PCE and 1.2-DCE also were reduced to below the detection limit within the reactive zone.

- A tracer test performed in July 1997 showed that flow patterns within the wall are complex, with some lateral

flow, and that flow velocities are lower than expected based on previous site characterization and modeling.

Cost:

- Actual costs for PRB use over one year at this site were $405,000 ($373,000 in capital and $32,000 in O&M),

which correspond to $1,400 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated.

Description:

Moffett Federal Airfield is a former Navy facility providing support, training, operation, and maintenance

associated with Navy aircraft. Aircraft engine repairs and aircraft maintenance have been performed on site for

many years. Contaminant identification and cleanup activities have been underway at Moffett since 1987. 

Specific activities that contributed to the source at MFA included dry cleaning operations. The Navy and

Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) are funding this

PRB as a voluntary pilot study for treating a portion of a large plume that crosses the Moffett facility.

The PRB installed in 1986 is a funnel and gate iron treatment wall system. Components include two sheet pile

walls, permeability zones up- and down-gradient of the wall, and the reactive zone. Analytical data showed that

chlorinated solvent concentrations were being reduced as the groundwater moves through the reactive zone. A

final technology evaluation report for this pilot study was planned to be completed by August 1998. Proposals

are being presented to continue the sampling process annually or semi-annually.
174

Dual Auger Rotary Steam Stripping

at Pinellas Northeast Site,

Largo, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Pinellas STAR Center - Chlorinated solvents and December 1996 through April 1997 

Northeast Site volatiles - nonhalogenated 

1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-DCE,

benzene, ethylbenzene, 1,2-DCE,

methylene, chloride, toluene,

TCE, tetrachloroethene, vinyl

chloride, total xylenes, and

chloromethane

- Concentrations ranging from

500-5,000 ppm

- DNAPL suspected to occur as an

immiscible phase

Location: Cleanup Type:

Largo, Florida Demonstration (ITRD Technology

Demonstration)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

In-Situ Fixation, Inc. (ISF) In Situ Air and Steam Stripping RCRA 

Chandler, Arizona - ISF dual auger system consists of

a Caterpillar 245D trackhoe

modified to operate two, 35-ft

long, hollow kelly bars with 5-ft

diameter augers

- Air and/or steam injected

through hollow kelly bars while

augers drill into subsurface, to

liberate VOCs 

- Catalytic oxidation unit and acidgas scrubber were used to treat

the extracted VOCs

- 48 treatment holes drilled to a

depth of approximately 32 feet

- Technology focused on treating

saturated silty sands (below the

water table) contaminated with

high concentrations of VOCs

(500-5,000 ppm)

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

David Ingle EPA Region 4 and State:

DOE/GJO Environmental Florida Department of

Restoration Program Manager Environmental Protection

(813) 541-8943 

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leakage of solvents from Soil and Groundwater

drum/container Storage - Water table present approximately 3-4 feet below ground surface

- Soils consist of saturated beach-type silty sands with permeabilities

ranging between 10 to 10 cm/s -3 -5

- Approximately 2,000 yd of soil treated 3

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Demonstration of in situ air

stripping technology used to

supplement an ongoing system of

pump and treat with air stripping

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The objective of this demonstration was to evaluate the performance of the ISF dual auger system in treating

contaminated soil and groundwater.
Dual Auger Rotary Steam Stripping

at Pinellas Northeast Site,

Largo, Florida (continued)

175

Results:

- Demonstrated ability to remove large amounts of contaminants from soil and groundwater in a treatment

column

- Removed an average of 77% of the VOCs in the groundwater and soil, and reduced the maximum

contaminant concentrations by an average of 71%

- Treatment of over 2,000 yd of soil and groundwater and the removal of approximately 1,200 pounds of 3

VOCs

Cost:

Total cost of remediation project was $981,251, including:

- Preproject operation visit - $2,400

- Mobilization and preparatory work - $95,000

- Monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis - $59,000

- Physical treatment - $773,651 (equipment, labor, supplies and materials, and fuel)

- Disposal - $200 (hydraulic oil)

- Demobilization - $51,000

Description:

The Pinellas STAR Center operated from 1956 to 1994, manufacturing neutron generators and other electronic

and mechanical components for nuclear weapons under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its

predecessor agencies. The Northeast Site is associated with the location of a former waste solvent staging and

storage area. In the late 1950s to the late 1960s an existing swampy area at the site was used to dispose drums of

waste and construction debris.

A field demonstration using a dual auger rotary steam stripping technology was conducted at the site from

December 1996 through April 1997. The demonstration was part of a program at the Pinellas STAR Center to

evaluate several innovative remediation technologies that could enhance the cost or performance of the existing

pump and treat system. In the demonstration, air and/or steam was injected through hollow kellys while the

augers drill into the subsurface, liberating VOC contamination during the churning and mixing of the soil. This

study identified operational issues, such as mechanical problems, catalyst overheating, and fugitive emissions

that required system adjustments and operational changes. These issues slowed the progress of the remediation

effort, but the system was overall very effective in liberating large quantities of VOCs from the site soil and

groundwater. During the 3-month operating period, 48 auger holes were drilled to a depth of approximately 32 ft

below land surface, resulting in treatment of approximately 2,000 yd of the planned 10,000 yd treatment 3 3

volume. Overall, approximately 1,200 lbs of VOCs were removed from the soil and groundwater in the holes

treated in this project.

The cost of this remediation project was $981,251, with most of the costs being equipment operating costs. The

operational costs of the ISF system ranged from $50/yd to $400/yd of treated soil and groundwater, or about 3 3

$300/lb to $500/lb of contaminant removed. The ISF system was able to meet many of the performance

evaluation criteria; however, the off-gas treatment capacity of the catalytic oxidation unit along with initial

operational problems slowed the system's expected treatment rates for the site.
176

In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation

at Pinellas Northeast Site,

Largo, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Pinellas STAR Center - Chlorinated solvents, including February 7, 1997 to June 30, 1997

Northeast Site trichloroethene, methylene

chloride, dichloroethene, and

vinyl chloride

- Concentrations ranged from 10-

400 mg/kg

- DNAPL suspected to occur in

localized areas

Location: Cleanup Type:

Largo, Florida Demonstration (ITRD Technology

Demonstration)

Vendor/Consultant: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Lockheed Martin Specialty In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation RCRA

Components - Three, 8-ft deep gravel-filled,

surface infiltration trenches and

two, 240-ft long horizontal wells

with 30-ft screened intervals

- Groundwater extracted from

upper horizontal well and

recirculated via surface trenches

and lower horizontal well at a

rate of about 1.5 gpm

- Benzoate, lactate, and methanol

added to recirculated water to

serve as nutrients for

dechlorinating bacteria

- 250,000 gallons of water

circulated during pilot study over

five month period

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

David Ingle, Site Management EPA Region 4 and State:

DOE/GJO Environmental Florida Department of

Restoration Program Manager Environmental Protection

(813) 541-8943

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leakage of solvents or resins from Groundwater

drum/container storage - Water table present approximately 3-4 feet below ground surface

- Aquifer characterized as sandy

- Hydraulic conductivity of surficial aquifer in study is relatively

heterogeneous; zones of reduced hydraulic conductivity occur at depths

between 10 to 14 feet and 22 to 29 feet

- Approximately 250,000 gallons of water were treated

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Demonstration of in situ anaerobic

bioremediation technology used to

supplement an ongoing system of

pump-and-treat with air stripping

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The objectives of this demonstration included evaluating the use of nutrient injection to enhance in situ

anaerobic biological degradation of chlorinated VOCs in areas of moderate contaminant concentrations and

obtaining operating and performance data on this technology.

Results:

- Evaluated use of nutrient injection to enhance in situ anaerobic biological degradation of chlorinated VOCs in

areas of moderate contaminant concentrations

- Obtained operating and performance data to optimize the design and operation of a full-scale system

- VOC concentrations reduced 60% - 91% within four to eight weeks after nutrient arrival

- Contaminant reduction probably result of groundwater mixing and contaminant redistribution

- Limiting factors for successful, cost effective implementation are ability to deliver appropriate nutrients to all

contaminated areas and hydraulic travel times
In Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation

at Pinellas Northeast Site,

Largo, Florida (continued)

177

Cost:

Total cost of pilot remediation project was $397,074, including:

- Mobilization and preparatory work - $35,000

- Monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis - $238,310

- Groundwater collection and control - $87,536

- Biological treatment - $23,748

- General requirements - $12,480

Description:

The Pinellas STAR Center operated from 1956 to 1994, manufacturing neutron generators and other electronic

and mechanical components for nuclear weapons under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy and its

predecessor agencies. The Northeast site is associated with the location of a former waste solvent staging and

storage area. In the 1950s and 1960s, an existing swampy area at the site was used for staging and burial of

construction debris and drums, some of which contained solvents. The site consists of a shallow groundwater

aquifer contaminated with a variety of VOCs, including chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethene, methylene

chloride, dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride.

From February 7, 1997 to June 30, 1997 a demonstration using in situ anaerobic bioremediation was conducted

at the site. The demonstration was part of a program at the Pinellas STAR Center to evaluate several innovative

remediation technologies that could enhance the cost or performance of an existing pump-and-treat system. The

pilot system was located in an area of the site that had total chlorinated contaminant concentrations in

groundwater generally ranging from 10-400 mg/kg, with one monitoring well having concentrations in excess of

2,900 mg/kg. The bioremediation pilot system consisted of three 8-ft deep gravel-filled, surface infiltration

trenches and two 240-ft long horizontal wells with 30-ft screened intervals. The horizontal wells, directly

underlying and parallel to the middle surface trench, were at 16- and 26-ft depths. The study area was about 45

feet by 45 feet and extended from the surface down to a thick, clay confining layer 30 feet below the surface. 

Groundwater was extracted from the upper horizontal well and recirculated via the surface trenches and the

lower horizontal well while benzoate, lactate, and methanol were added to the recirculated water to serve as

nutrients for the dechlorinating bacteria.

During this period, groundwater was extracted and recirculated at a rate of about 1.5 gpm. Approximately

250,000 gallons of water, based on soil porosity of about two pore volumes, were circulated during the pilot

study. Tracer and nutrient monitoring data indicated that nutrients were delivered to 90% of the central treatment

area during operations. Where nutrient breakthrough was observed, significant declines in total chlorinated VOC

concentrations were generally observed.

The cost of the pilot system totaled approximately $400,000, with over half the costs associated with sampling

and analyses. Most of the sampling and analyses were discretionary and were used to verify the system concept

and design. This level of sampling would not be needed during a full-scale bioremediation project. System

construction costs were about $90,000, while operating costs were about $30,000 or $0.12 per gallon of water

treated. The extensive modeling, hydrogeologic, nutrient transport, and operating cost data developing during

this pilot system operation suggest that the Northeast Site could be remediated using nutrient injection in

approximately 2-3 years at a cost of about $4-6M.
178

PerVap Membrane Separation Groundwater Treatment at TM

Pinellas Northeast Site, Largo, Florida

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Pinellas Northeast Site Volatile Organic Compounds: 6/14/95 - 3/2/96

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Methlyene Chloride

Location: Cleanup Type: 1,2-Dichloroethene

Largo, Florida Demonstration

(ITRD Technology Demonstration)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Membrane Technology and Membrane Filtration: RCRA

Research, Inc. (MTR) and the - Membrane separation

Advanced Technology Group of (pervaporation) using the PerVap

Hoechst Celanese Corp technology.

TM

- organic permeable, hydrophobic

membrane used to remove organic

contaminants from water

- MTR PerVap pilot system was

skid-mounted; capacity of 1-2

gallons/minute on a batch basis

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

DOE Environmental Restoration EPA Region 4 and State: Florida

Program Manager: Department of Environmental

David Ingle Protection

(813) 541-8943

Lockheed Martin Specialty

Components

Barry Rice

(813) 545-6036

Waste Source: Disposal of drums Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

of waste and construction debris Groundwater - 125 batches or 6,200 gallons

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstration of the

PerVap technology for treating TM

VOC-contaminated groundwater at

the Northeast Site

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- The objectives of the demonstration were to achieve greater than 99% removal of VOCs, eliminate the need for

pretreatment of groundwater, and to produce no air emissions. For effluent to the POTW, there was a discharge

limit of 850 ug/L total toxic organics.

- No air permitting or air permit modifications were required for this demonstration because the demonstration

was performed at an existing SWMU.

Results:

- Removal efficiency was highly variable (ranging from 90% when membranes were not clogged to zero when

membranes were clogged). The goal of 99% removal was not maintained during the demonstration.

- The clogging was attributed to oxidation of aqueous iron. Because of persistent clogging problems with the

membranes, groundwater pretreatment was required. Several pretreatment alternatives were tried; however, the

effectiveness and applicability of each was determined to be site-specific.

- The discharge limits were not achieved and water was treated using the existing groundwater treatment system.

- No air emissions were detected; however, a very strong odor was noted during operation.
PerVap Membrane Separation Groundwater Treatment at

Pinellas Northeast Site, Largo, Florida (continued)

179

Cost:

- Total cost for pilot system - $88,728, including pre-demonstration consultation, mobilization and

demobilization, monitoring, sampling and analysis, treatment, and disposal. The total cost includes $29,000 in

costs for MTR who agreed to provide the pilot system and engineering services to Lockheed Martin on a fixedprice basis ($5,000 for the first month and $3,000/month for eight months)

- Cost per unit of groundwater treated during the pilot test - $0.01-0.015/gallon

- Projected cost for full-scale - capital cost of $250,000 and operating cost of $0.01/gallon.

Description:

The Pinellas Northeast site, located at the DOE Pinellas Plant in Largo, Florida, includes the East Pond and was

identified as a Solid Waste Management Unit in a RCRA Facility Assessment conducted by EPA Region 4. The

East Pond was excavated in 1968 and used as a borrow pit. The area was used to store construction debris and

waste, including solvents, in drums and containers. In 1986 shallow groundwater at the site was determined to be

contaminated with a variety of VOCs . The predominant contaminants at the site were TCE, methylene chloride,

and 1,2-dichloroethene, detected at levels as high as 360,000 ppb, 1,200,000 ppb, and 58,000 ppb, respectively. 

Vinyl chloride and toluene were also detected at relatively high concentrations. 

The groundwater pump and treat system at the site includes seven recovery wells connected to an air stripper. 

Effluent is discharged to a POTW. Because the aquifer is anaerobic and contains high levels of dissolved solids

and iron, the extracted groundwater must be pretreated prior to the air stripper. The purpose of the demonstration

was to determine if the pervaporation system would be able to treat the groundwater directly without pretreatment

and would be able to concentrate contaminants in a condensate that could be recycled, thereby reducing waste

disposal costs as well as air emissions. 

The MTR PerVap pilot system was a self-contained, field transportable pervaporation system that had been TM

adapted for use in removing organics from aqueous liquid streams. Contaminated groundwater, pumped into a

surge tank, was passed through a cloth filter into the 50 gallon process feed tank. The pervaporation cycle, begun

when the feed tank was full, consisted of pumping a 50-gallon batch of water across a heater (to raise the

temperature to 50( C), through two membranes modules in series, then back to the feed tank. A vacuum was

applied across the membrane modules creating a pressure gradient to facilitate the transfer of VOCs across the

membranes. The resultant vapor stream or permeate (about 1,500 ml/batch) was then cooled to condense the

liquid which was then sent to a chilled permeate storage container. The treated water was discharged to a POTW.

The capacity of the pilot system was 1-2 gal/min and a typical pervaporation cycle was 1-2 hours. The residuals

produced by the system were filters and permeate, which were disposed of as hazardous waste, and used

membranes, which were returned to MTR.

Optimal operating parameters could not be established during the demonstration. Because of membrane clogging

problems caused by precipitants from the groundwater, the removal efficiencies were highly variable during the

demonstration. Several groundwater pretreatment methods were evaluated an attempt to alleviate the clogging,

including nitrogen blanketing, adding a chelator, adding a dispersant, and changing the pH of the water. The use

of a nitrogen blanketing and the dispersant produced the best results, but were not compatible with the existing

groundwater treatment system. Therefore, while cost effective pretreatment was available, the applicability is

subject to site- specific constraints. In addition, the POTW discharge limit was not achieved and the water was

treated using the existing groundwater treatment system. 
180

Pump and Treat, In Situ Bioremediation, and In Situ

Air Sparging of Contaminated Groundwater at Site A,

Long Island, New York

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Site A (actual name confidential) Volatiles - nonhalogenated (BTEX) Status: Ongoing

- Maximum initial concentrations Report covers: 7/95 - 10/96

were benzene (430 ug/L), toluene

(350,000 ug/L), ethylbenzene

(5,600 ug/L), and xylenes (45,000

ug/L) 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Long Island, New York Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Treatment System Vendor:

RETEC Associates

Site Management: 

RETEC Associates (1993-1997)

Land Tech Remedial, Inc. (1997-

present)

Pump and Treat; In Situ CERCLA Remedial

Bioremediation; Air Sparging, Soil - ROD Date: 6/24/91

Vapor Extraction

- Groundwater was extracted using

5 wells, located on site, at an

average total pumping rate of 18

gpm

- Extracted groundwater was

treated with air stripping and

gravity separation 

- Nutrients were added to the

treated water to adjust nitrogen and

phosphorus levels, and then the

water is reinjected into the aquifer

through a reinjection trench located

upgradient of the plume

- Air was injected through 44

sparging wells at points

approximately 10 ft below the

water table, in a pulsed system

operation, and effluent vapors are

collected with 20 SVE wells (16

vertical and 4 horizontal)

State Point of Contact:

Carl Hoffman

New York State DEC

Bureau of Hazardous Site Control

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 13323-7010

EPA Point of Contact:

Maria Jon, RPM

U.S. EPA Region 2

290 Broadway, 19th Floor

New York, NY 10007-1866

(212) 637-3967

Site Contact:

Stephen Hoelsher

Phillips Petroleum

13 DI Phillips Bldg

Bartlesville, OK 74004

(918) 661-3769

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Leaking drums and spills of Groundwater

petroleum and solvent materials - 8.4 million gallons treated as of October 1996

- LNAPL observed in several monitoring wells on site

- Groundwater is found at 15-18 ft bgs

- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by a nearby

surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity reported as 53.5 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Relatively high unit cost; system

included groundwater extraction,

air sparging, and SVE wells.
Pump and Treat, In Situ Bioremediation, and In Situ

Air Sparging of Contaminated Groundwater at Site A,

Long Island, New York (continued)

181

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Remediate the groundwater to meet maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by the NYSDEC, which

are the primary drinking water standards.

- Cleanup goals were established for benzene (0.0007 mg/L), toluene (0.005 mg/L), ethylbenzene (0.005 mg/L),

and xylene (0.005 mg/L).

- A primary goal of the extraction system is to contain the contaminant plume and prevent it from discharging to

the harbor; the goal is for both horizontal and vertical containment.

- A primary performance goal for in situ bioremediation is to maintain specified levels for pH, nitrogen,

phosphorus, and DO.

Results:

- Maximum BTEX levels have declined from 153 to 27 mg/L; however, cleanup goals have not been met. 

Monitoring data from 1997 indicate that elevated BTEX levels persist in wells along the western portion of the

site.

- Plume containment appears to have been achieved, and performance standards were generally met for nitrogen,

phosphorus, and DO; there were several exceptions where nitrogen, phosphorus, and DO were outside the

specified ranges. 

- From July 1995 to July 1996, the system removed approximately 5,314 pounds of BTEX from the groundwater

(air sparging removed approximately 85% of the BTEX and P&T the remaining 15%).

Cost:

- Actual costs for the treatment system were approximately $1,941,560 ($1,503,133 in capital and $358,427 in

O&M), which correspond to $200 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $365 per pound of

contaminant removed.

Description:

Site A operated as a petroleum bulking facility from 1939 until 1980, and it operated as a petroleum bulking and

chemical mixing facility from 1980 to 1984. In 1984, in response to a toluene spill, EPA and the NYSDEC

investigated the site, and discovered contamination by organics and metals in the soil, and organics in the

groundwater, surface water, and air. The site was placed on the NPL in June 1986 and a ROD was signed in

June 1991.

The groundwater extraction system consists of five wells installed in the areas of highest contamination within

the plume, all screened at depths of approximately 10 ft below the water table. One well was placed in an area

where free-phase BTEX product was observed in the western portion of the site. Extracted groundwater is

treated with air stripping. After stripping, water is treated through pH adjustment and addition of nutrients, and

then re-injected into the aquifer. In addition, oxygen is injected into the aquifer through 44 air sparging points. 

Effluent vapors from the sparging points are collected by 20 SVE wells.

Groundwater cleanup goals for this site have not been met after two years and three months of operation. 

However, the remedy has contained the plume, reduced average BTEX concentrations, and recovered free-phase

product.
182

In Situ Permeable Reactive Barrier for Treatment of

Contaminated Groundwater at the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center,

Elizabeth City, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

U.S. Coast Guard Support Center Chlorinated solvents and heavy Status: Ongoing

metals Report covers: 7/96 - 7/97

- Maximum concentrations

detected during initial

investigations included TCE

(>4,320 ug/L) and hexavalent

chromium (Cr (>3,430 ug/L)) +6

Location: Cleanup Type:

Elizabeth City, North Carolina Full-scale cleanup (interim results)

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Design: University of Waterloo

Contractor: Parsons Engineering

Science, Inc.

Licensing: Environmental

Technologies, Inc.

Installation: Horizontal

Technologies, Inc.

Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) RCRA Corrective Action - part of

- The PRB (treatment wall) is an Interim Corrective Measure

100% granular iron, 2 ft wide, 152

ft long, begins 4-8 ft below ground

surface (bgs) and extends to 24 ft

bgs

- The PRB consists of 450 tons of

granular zero-valent iron USCG Project Manager:

Jim Vardy, P.E.

U.S. Coast Guard

CEU Cleveland Env. Engr.

Building 19

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

(919) 335-6847

U.S. EPA Contact:

Robert Puls

U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr

Environmental Research Center

Nat. Risk Mgmt. Research Lab.

P.O. Box 1198

Ada, OK 74821

(580) 436-8543

State Point of Contact:

Surabhi Shah

North Carolina DENR

Hazardous Waste Section

401 Oberlin Rd., Ste. 150

Raleigh, NC 27605

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Spills and leaks to the subsurface Groundwater

through floor drains and holes in - 2.6 million gallons (estimated) treated

building floor - DNAPL suspected in groundwater at the site

- Groundwater is found at 6 ft bgs

- The PRB is located in 1 aquifer at the site; this aquifer is influenced by a

nearby surface water

- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 11.3 to 25.5 ft/day

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Use of PRB to treat groundwater

contaminated with TCE and

hexavalent chromium; extensive

sampling conducted to evaluate

PRB.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Cleanup goals for this site are primary drinking water standards, with the following specific cleanup goals for

the aquifer down-gradient of the wall: TCE (5 ug/L) and Cr (0.1 ug/L). +6

- A secondary goal of the PRB is to contain the contaminated part of the plume up-gradient of the reactive zone.
Permeable Reactive Barrier for Treatment of

Contaminated Groundwater at the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center,

Elizabeth City, North Carolina (continued)

183

Results:

- Cr concentrations were below the cleanup goal in all down-gradient monitoring wells in November 1996 and +6

September 1997 sampling events. However, TCE concentrations were above the cleanup goal in four of the

six down-gradient wells in September 1997.

- A pilot study performed in 1994 and 1995 was successful at demonstrating the effectiveness of the PRB

technology at this site; these results lead to the selection of PRB as the remedy for this RCRA corrective

action.

- The data indicate that the TCE plume may not be contained; however, the reason for the elevated TCE

concentrations in some down-gradient wells has not been confirmed.

Cost:

- Estimated costs for PRB were $585,000 ($500,000 in capital and $85,000 in O&M), which correspond to $225

per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated.

- According to the USCG site contact, by using a PRB, the USCG will save nearly $4,000,000 in construction

and long-term maintenance costs, when comparing PRB with a typical pump and treat system.

Description:

The Support Center, Elizabeth City (SCEC), is a USCG facility providing support, training, operation, and

maintenance associated with USCG aircraft. The facility included an electroplating shop which operated for

more than 30 years, ceasing operation in 1984. In December 1988, a release was discovered during demolition

of a former plating shop. Soil excavated beneath the floor of the former plating shop was found to contain high

levels of chromium. Subsequent investigations indicated that the groundwater had been impacted by chromium

and chlorinated solvents. Multiple sources were suspected of having contributed to the groundwater

contamination. A full-scale PRB was constructed as part of an Interim Corrective Measures (ICM) associated

with a voluntary RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), with the electroplating shop identified in the facility’s

RCRA Part B permit as a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU).

The PRB used at this site consists of 450 tons of granular zero-valent iron keyed into an underlying low

conductivity layer at a depth of approximately 22 ft bgs. The required residence time in the treatment zone has

been estimated as 21 hours, based on a highest concentration scenario. The average velocity through the wall

was reported as 0.2 to 0.4 ft/day. Analytical data from the first year of full-scale operation show that the cleanup

goal for Cr has been met, but not the goal for TCE. Several possible reasons are provided for the elevated TCE +6

levels.
184

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
185

ON-SITE INCINERATION

 ABSTRACTS
186

Incineration at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site

Holbrook, Massachusetts

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Baird and McGuire Superfund Dioxins, volatile organic March 1995 to March 1997

Site compounds (VOCs),

polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs),

pesticides, and heavy metals,

including lead and arsenic

Location: Cleanup Type:

Holbrook, Massachusetts Remedial action

Site General Contractor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

OHM Remediation Services & Removal of moisture from CERCLA

Corporation soil using rotary dryer & ROD signed in September

16406 U.S. Route 224 East & Combustion of contaminants 1986 (soil)

Findlay, OH 45839 in dry soil using rotary kiln & ROD signed in September

(419) 423-3526 & System designed to treat 25 1989 (sediment)

tons of contaminated soil per & U.S. Corps of Engineers

hour Lead

& Ash and flue gases

discharged from kiln

& Residuals generated from

incinerator returned to

excavated areas on site

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2879 (Pesticides) Chet Janowski

2841 (Soaps) U.S. EPA Region 1

2842 (Floor Wax) John F. Kennedy Building

2869 (Solvents) One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02203

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Land disposal of process Soil (210,000 tons) and sediment (1,500 cubic yards)

wastes

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Treats wide range of

contaminants in soil and

sediment, including dioxin,

VOCs, PAHs, and Pesticides

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for principal organic hazardous constituents

(POHCs) as required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in

40 CFR part 264, subpart O

Results:

Trial burn data indicate that all DRE emission standards were met
Incineration at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site

Holbrook, Massachusetts

(Continued)

187

Description:

Between 1912 and 1983, the site was operated as a chemical mixing and batching company. During

a remedial investigation at the site, dioxin concentrations in the soil were measured as high as 

27.8 )g/kg. A Record of Decision (ROD) signed in 1986 specified on-site incineration as the selected

remedy for the contaminated soils at the site. A second ROD signed in 1989 specified on-site

incineration as the selected remedy for the contaminated sediments of the nearby Cochato River.

The incineration system included a rotary dryer for removal of moisture from the soil. The dried soil

was fed to the rotary kiln where the contaminants in the soil were volatilized and destroyed. From

March 1995 through March 1997, the incinerator processed approximately 210,000 tons of

contaminated soil and 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. All of the residuals generated

from the incineration and subsequent ancillary operations, including ash and wastewater treatment

sludge, were landfilled on site. Treatment performance and emissions data collected during this

application indicated that all required performance standards and emissions requirements were

achieved.

The total cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $133,000,000.
188

Incineration at the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site

Slidell, Louisiana

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Polynuclear aromatic November 1993 - July 1995

Site hydrocarbons:

benzo(a)anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene,

ideno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene, and

chrysene

Location: Cleanup Type:

Slidell, Louisiana Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

IT Corporation & Sediment transported through CERCLA and State: Louisiana

312 Directors Drive a feed system that included & Phase I ROD signed August

Knoxville, TN 37923 dewatering and mixing 1985

(423) 690-3211 & Incineration system & Phase II ROD signed March

consisting of rotary kiln and 1987

secondary combustion & State-lead

chamber (SCC)

& SCC operated between

1,600 (F and 1,800 (F

& Exhaust gases from SCC

directed through gas

cleaning system

& Residual ash was landfilled,

and an engineered cap was

placed over residual ash and

surface soil

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2491 (Wood Preserving) Mark Hansen

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

(214) 665-7548

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Bayou sediments - creosote Sediment (46,500 cubic yards)

waste Contaminated material from waste piles (5,000 cubic yards)

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Underestimated volume of

contaminated soil by a factor of

three, prompting EPA to

reevaluate remedial plans. 

Completed 18 months ahead

of schedule

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for all constituents of concern as required by

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations at 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O

Results:

Monitoring and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met
Incineration at the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site

Slidell, Louisiana

(Continued)

189

Description:

Between 1892 and 1970, the Bayou Bonfouca site operated as a former creosote works facility. 

During this period, numerous creosote releases occurred. In 1970, a fire at the plant released large

amounts of creosote into the environment. Sediment at the Bayou Bonfouca site was contaminated

with PAHs.

In August 1985, a Phase I Record of Decision (ROD) was signed, specifying excavation and off-site

landfilling of creosote waste piles. In March 1987, a Phase II ROD was signed. The remedial actions

for the Phase II ROD included the excavation and on-site incineration of sediment and the contents

of surface waste piles with placement of an engineered cap over residual ash and surface soils. 

During 1988, a detailed design investigation showed that the volume of contaminated sediment was

underestimated by a factor of three. The volume increase resulted in a cost increase and prompted

EPA to issue an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) in February 1990.

The selected incineration system consisted of a feed system, a rotary kiln, a secondary combustion

chamber (SCC) and a gas cleaning system. Sediment was dewatered and then mixed before being

fed to the incinerator. During its operation, the incinerator processed approximately 250,000 tons

(over 170,000 cubic yards) of contaminated sediments. Treatment performance and emissions data

collected during this application indicated that all performance standards and emissions requirements

were met.

The actual cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $84,000,000

including total capital costs of $54,000,000, and total operation and maintenance costs of

$30,000,000.
190

Incineration at the Bridgeport Refinery and 

Oil Services Superfund Site

Logan Township, New Jersey

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Polychlorinated biphenyls December 1991 to January

Services Superfund Site (PCBs), volatile organic 1996

compounds (VOCs), and

metals

• benzene

• cadmium

• methylene chloride

• chromium

• toluene

• barium

• acetone

• zinc

• lead

Location: Cleanup Type:

Logan Township, New Jersey Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

ENSCO, Inc. On-site Incineration CERCLA

• Incineration using direct-fired • ROD signed 1984

rotary kiln • EPA-lead, managed by

• Screening and mixing of U.S. Army Corps of

contaminated sediments prior Engineers

to incineration

• Quenching of kiln ash in

water bath

• Treatment of wastewater from

system on-site and discharge

to nearby creek

• Combustion of remaining

VOCs and PCBs in

secondary combustion

chamber (SCC)

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

NA Don Lynch

U.S. EPA Region 2

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4419

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Lagoon Sediments--waste oil

storage and reprocessing Lagoon sediments and sludges, debris, levee material, lagoon oil,

operations waste and soil (172,000 tons)

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Inadequate design caused in

numerous mechanical

problems; incineration

operation suspended twice

because of mechanical

problems; problems with

demulsifying complicated

dewatering of sediment
Incineration at the Bridgeport Refinery and 

Oil Services Superfund Site

Logan Township, New Jersey

(Continued)

191

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

• Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for VOCs as required by Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O;

The DRE of 99.9999% for PCBs and ash residual as required by Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) regulations in 40 CFR Part 761

Results:

• Emissions and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met

Description:

Between the 1960s and continuing through 1981, an on-site lagoon was used for disposal of wastes

from waste oil reprocessing operations conducted on site. Lagoon sediment was contaminated with

PCBs at concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg, as well as VOCs and metals.

In 1984, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) specifying on-site incineration as the selected

remedy for the sludge, sediment, soil, debris, and lagoon oil at the site. Remedial actions were

managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under the oversight of EPA Region II.

The material to be incinerated was excavated from the lagoon, and screened and mixed before

incineration. The material was then conveyed into a rotary kiln by a screw auger. The PCBs and

VOCs were volatilized and partially destroyed in a direct-fired rotary kiln. The incineration system

also included a secondary combustion chamber (SCC) to provide further destruction of any VOCs

and PCBs. Kiln ash was quenched in a water bath. Wastewater from the incinerator was treated in

an on-site wastewater treatment system and discharged to a nearby creek. Exhaust gas from the

kiln was directed to an air pollution control system (APCS). The APCS consisted of a cyclone

separator for removal of larger particulates; a secondary combustion chamber (SCC) for destruction

of any remaining VOCs and PCBs.

During its 50 months of operation, the incinerator processed over 172,000 tons of sediment, sludge,

debris, oil, and soils. Treatment performance and emissions data collected during this remedial

action indicated that all performance standards and emissions requirements were achieved.

The actual cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $187,000,000

(includes costs associated with treatment of lagoon water and removal of tank farm).
192

Incineration at the Celanese Superfund Site

Shelby, North Carolina

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Celanese Superfund Site Ethylene glycol, volatile organic April 1991 to December 1991

compounds, metals,

polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons, and phenol

& Trichloroethylene, benzene,

phenols, lead, chromium, and

antimony

& Maximum concentrations of

ethylene glycol (12,000

mg/kg) antimony (3,000

mg/kg), lead (2,041 mg/kg)

and chromium (40 mg/kg).

Location: Cleanup Type:

Shelby, North Carolina Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Terry Elmaggar On-Site Incineration CERCLA and State: North

GDC Engineering, Inc. & Solids pretreated with Carolina

822 Neosho Avenue screening and mixing with & ROD Date: 3/28/89

Baton Rouge, LA 70802 sawdust & PRP-Lead

(504) 383-8556 & Incineration system consisting

of rotary kiln and secondary

combustion chamber (SCC)

& Soil residence time of 45

minutes, kiln temperature of

1,500(F; SCC temperature of

1,900(F

& Treated soil and sludge

(incineration ash) discharged

into a wet ash collection

system

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2824 (Manufacturing manmade McKenzie Mallary

organic fibers) U.S. EPA Region 4

Atlanta Federal Center

100 Alabama Street

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

(404) 562-8802

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal of waste sludges Sludge and Soil

& 4,660 tons of sludge and soil Purpose/Significance of & Moisture content: sludge - 25% Application:

Lowest volume incinerated for

all of the case studies

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each constituent of concern as required

by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O

Results:

& Emissions and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards were met

& Analytical data of residuals indicate that cleanup goals were met
Incineration at the Celanese Superfund Site

Shelby, North Carolina

(Continued)

193

Description:

The site began operation in April 1960 and is still operating. Between 1960 and the early 1980s,

plant wastes from the production of polyester raw-material were disposed of in burn pits and sludge

was buried in trenches. Between 1970 and 1978, drums of waste chemicals and solvents were

stored on site. A site investigation was conducted in 1981. A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in

March 1989, specified on-site incineration as the remediation technology for the excavated sludge

and soil. Site cleanup goals and DRE standards of 99.99% for constituents of concern were

specified in the ROD.

On-site incineration began in April 1991. During its period of operation, the incinerator processed

4,660 tons of sludge and soil. The treatment system consisted of a rotary kiln and an SCC. An

enclosed conveyor moved the soil and debris to the kiln for treatment. Treated ash from the

incinerator was discharged to a wet ash collection system. The system used an air pollution control

system that consisted of a baghouse and a packed-bed scrubber. Incineration achieved the soil

cleanup goals specified in the ROD.

The total cost of the remedial action was approximately $5,800,000, including $3,925,000 in capital

costs and $1,875,000 in operation and maintenance costs.
194

Incineration at the Coal Creek Superfund Site

Chehalis, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Coal Creek Superfund Site Polychlorinated biphenyls and January 1994 to May 1994

lead. Also other metals,

including:

• lead

• copper

• barium

• mercury

• cadmium

• zinc

Location: Cleanup Type:

Chehalis, Washington Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Matthew Beatty On-Site Incineration CERCLA

Roy F. Weston, Inc. • Soil screened prior to being • ROD signed October 1990

1 Weston Way fed to incinerator • Consent Decree entered

West Chester, PA 19380-1499 • Incineration system consisting 1992

215-692-3030 of a rotary kiln and a • RP-lead with EPA oversight

secondary combustion

chamber (SCC)

• SCC system temperature of

2,100 F; gas from SCC o

cooled by water sprays before

being sent through air

pollution control system

• Process water was treated by

carbon filtration system then

discharged on-site

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

4953 (Refuse Systems) Bob Kievit

U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

360-753-9014

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal areas - oil containing Soil (9,715 tons)

PCBs

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Because of previous

performance, and because it

had a TSCA permit, the

incinerator was allowed to

demonstrate DRE compliance

without spiking

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

• Destruction and Removal Eficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for PCBs as required by Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) regulations in 40 CFR part 761
Incineration at the Coal Creek Superfund Site

Chehalis, Washington

(Continued)

195

Results:

• Emissions and performance data indicated that all DRE and emission standards were met

Description:

Between 1949 and 1983, the Coal Creek site was used for scrapping, salvaging, and repairing

electrical equipment. During this time, oil containing PCBs was drained on to the ground.

In October 1990, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed, specifying excavation and on-site

incineration of soil with greater than 50 mg/kg PCBs. In 1992, the responsible parties (RP) entered

into a Consent Decree with EPA, agreeing to implement the remedial action described by the ROD.

Remedial Action began in January 1994. The incineration system consisted of a feed system, a

rotary kiln, a secondary combustion chamber (SCC), and an air pollution control system (APCS). 

The soil was screened before being fed to the incinerator. Over a 5-month period, the incinerator

processed approximately 9,700 tons of soil. Treatment performance and emissions data collected

during this application indicated that all performance standards and emissions requirements were

met.

The actual cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $8,100,000.
196

Incineration at the FMC Corporation - Yakima Pit Superfund

Site Yakima, Washington

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

FMC Corporation - Yakima Pit & DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, January 1993 - May 1993

Superfund Site endosulfan, ethion,

malathion, parathion,

cadmium, chromium, and

zinc. 

& DDD concentrations of 76

mg/kg, DDE concentration of

210 mg/kg, and DDT

concentrations of 210 mg/kg

& The maximum concentrations

of contaminants (mg/kg)

detected in soil were DDD

(76), DDE (28), DDT (210),

dieldrin (40), endosulfan

(7,000), ethion (180),

malathion (170,000),

parathion (3,300), cadmium

(6), chromium (320), and zinc

(1,020).

Location: Cleanup Type:

Yakima, Washington Remedial action

Vendor: Cleanup Authority:

VESTA Technology Ltd. CERCLA

1670 West McNab Road & ROD Date: 9/14/90

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 & EPA-lead

Technology:

On Site Incineration

& Solids crushed and mixed

with soil

& Incineration system

consisting of co-concurrent

rotary kiln and secondary

combustion chamber (SCC)

& Enclosed twin screw

conveyor transported soil and

debris to the unit

& Soil had a through part rate

of 60 kg/min with kiln

temperature of 650 C, o

the SCC temperature of

1,107 C. o

& Ash discharged onto

conveyers, sampled and

analyzed, and then landfilled.

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2879 (Pesticides and Lee Marshall

Agricultural Chemicals) U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-2723
Incineration at the FMC Corporation - Yakima Pit Superfund

Site Yakima, Washington

(Continued)

197

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Pesticide production wastes Soil and Debris

disposed of in an unlined pit & 5,600 cubic yards

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Initially, was estimated in the

ROD that between 900 and

4,000 cubic yards of material

were contaminated. However,

contamination extended

deeper than previously

anticipated and, as a result,

over 5,600 cubic yards of

material was excavated for

incineration.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 for all constituents of concern as required by

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O.

Results:

& Monitoring and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met.

& Analytical data of residuals indicate that cleanup goals have been met

Cost Factors:

& The actual cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $6,000,000.

Description:

Between 1952 and 1969, wastes contaminated with pesticides were disposed of on the site in an

unlined waste disposal pit. It was estimated that 2,000 pounds of material was disposed of on the

site in the pit contaminating soil with 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD), 1,1-dichloro2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE), 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), and

dieldrin.

A Record of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1990 specified on-site incineration as the remedial

technology. Site cleanup goals and destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standards were

established for constituents of concern.

On-site incineration began in January 1993 and was completed in May 1993. The treatment system

consisted of a rotary kiln and an SCC. Enclosed twin screws moved the soil to the kiln for treatment. 

Ash was collected and flue gas was completely incinerated. Incineration has achieved the soil

cleanup goals specified in the ROD.

The actual cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $6,000,000.
198

Incineration at the Former Nebraska Ordinance Plant Site

Mead, Nebraska

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Former Nebraska Ordnance Explosives and Propellants • Mini and Trial Burn Operation –

Plant – Operable Unit 1 • TNT, RDX, TNB, DNT, DNB, September 1997

HMX, Tetryl, o-NT and m-NT • Full-Scale Operation – October

• Maximum concentrations in to December 1997

mg/kg – TNT (133,000), RDX

(23,270), TNB (430) and DNT

(119.3)

Project Management: Technology: Cleanup Type:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers On-Site Incineration Remedial Action

Formerly Used Defense Sites • Soil stream was fed through a

Program grizzly screen to remove large

Edwin Louis debris

Kansas City District • Incineration system consisting

700 Federal Building of a co-current, rotary kiln and

Kansas City, Missouri 68144- one secondary combustion

3869 chamber (SCC)

(816) 983-3563 • Kiln operated at an exit gas

temperature of 1150 to 1800

F; SCC operated 1800 F o o

• Hot flue gases exiting the kiln

were quenched using water

spay nozzles

• Solids exiting the kiln were

stockpiled for compliance

sampling

Cleanup Authority:

CERCLA and State

ROD date – August 29, 1995

SIC Code:

9711B (Ordnance Production and

Storage) and 9711C (Ordnance

Testing and Maintenance)

Waste Sources: Type/Quantity of Media Regulatory Points of Contact:

Discharge of contaminated Craig Bernstein

rinse water and burning of USEPA Region VII

explosives 726 Minnesota Avenue

Treated:

Soil and Debris

• 16,449 tons (13,009 cubic

yards) of soil and debris

• Average Moisture Content:

16.82 %

• Average BTU value per pound:

1220

• Average Soil Density - 93.7

pounds per cubic foot

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

(913) 551-7688

Troy Bendenkamp

NDEQ

Suite 400, The Atrium

1200 N. Lincoln Street

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922

(402) 471-2214

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Project completed in

extremely short time period,

including all permitting

requirements
Incineration at the Former Nebraska Ordinance Plant Site

Mead, Nebraska

(Continued)

199

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for POHC

The following limits were set for treated soil after incineration in mg/kg:

- TNT – 17.2

- RDX – 5.8

- TNB – 1.7

- DNT – 0.9

- TNB – 1.7

- HMX – 1,715.2

- Tetryl – 343

- NT – 343

Results:

• Emission and trial burn data indicated that all DRE and emissions standards were met

• Treated soil sampling indicated that all soil cleanup goals were met

Costs:

The total cost for this project was $10,700,001. The technology cost was $6,479,245 ($394 per ton of

contaminated material).

Description:

During several intervals between 1942 and 1959, the Nebraska Ordnance Plant (NOP) site was used

for loading, assembly and testing of bombs, boosters and shells. During site cleaning activities,

explosives-containing wash water was discharged into surface water drainage ditches at the site. In

addition, contamination was observed in soil at the Burning/Proving Grounds at the site. A Record of

Decision (ROD) was signed in August 1995, specifying on-site incineration as the remedial technology

for addressing shallow contaminated soil at the site. Shallow contaminated soil at the former NOP (soil

between 0 and 4 feet below the ground surface) was identified as Operable Unit (OU) 1. Site soil

cleanup goals were specified in the ROD. 

Because the former NOP site was designated as part of the Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS)

program, the USACE was responsible for managing remedial actions at this site. 

Site work for construction of the incinerator was commenced in February 1997. Incinerator start up and

shake down were performed in August and September 1997. Mini burn and trial burn tests were

conducted in September 1997. After receiving approval from EPA and NDEQ of the proposed operating

limits, the incinerator was put into full production in October 1997. Treatment was completed in

December 1997. The incineration system consisted of a co-current, rotary kiln followed by a secondary

combustion chamber (SCC). After confirming that treated soil met the cleanup criteria, the soil was

returned to an excavation at the site. Demobilization of the incinerator from the site was completed in

May 1998.
200

Incineration at the MOTCO Superfund Site

Texas City, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

MOTCO Superfund Site Styrene tars, VOCs, PCBs, and May 1990 to December 1991

metals:

benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1,2-

trichloroethane, lead, cadmium,

mercury, and chromium

Location: Cleanup Type:

Texas City, Texas Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

IT Corporation & Two incineration systems: CERCLA and State: Texas

312 Directors Drive the Hybrid Thermal Treatment & ROD signed 3/15/85

Knoxville, TN 37923 System HTTS-2 and & RP-lead; EPA oversight

(423) 690-3211 HTTS-3; HTTS-2 designed to

®

process solids, sludges, tars,

aqueous wastes, and organic

liquids; and HTTS-3

designed to process aqueous

wastes and organic liquids

& Solids transferred to feed

preparation building where

materials were mixed and

screened

& The HTTS-2 consisted of two

chambers (the kiln and SCC)

and a gas cleaning system

consisting of a quench

system, gas conditioner, wet

scrubber system, and a vane

separator; the HTTS-3

consisted of a combustion

chamber and a gas cleaning

system

& Solids, sludges, and aqueous

wastes fed to the HTTS-2 kiln

by a screw conveyor; organic

liquid wastes used as primary

fuels in the kiln

& Residual ash from kiln

collected, landfilled, and

capped on site

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2865 (Industrial organic Ashby McMullan

chemicals) Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission

(512) 239-1000

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

On site pits - styrene tars and Soil, sludge, organic liquids, and aqueous wastes

chemical wastes - wood & 10,471 tons aqueous wastes

preserving wastes & 7,568 tons organic liquids

& 283 tons sludges and tars

& 4,699 tons soil
Incineration at the MOTCO Superfund Site

Texas City, Texas

(Continued)

201

Purpose/Significance of Application:

Mechanical problems were encountered, caused in part by lack of accurate waste characterization;

onsite incineration halted in December 1991 because of dispute between the contractor and RP;

remedy changed to off-site incineration in part because of dispute and mechanical problems

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous

constituent as required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations

in 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; 99.9999% DRE for PCBs as required by Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA) regulations in 40 CFR part 761

Results:

Emissions and performance data indicate that all DRE and emissions standards have been met

Description:

The MOTCO site was established in 1959 for the recycling of styrene tars. From 1961 to 1968, onsite pits that held styrene tars were used for the disposal of chemical wastes from local industries. In

March 1985, a Record of Decision (ROD) that required source control was signed, and in September

1989, a ROD that addressed off-site migration of contaminants was signed. 

The remedy selected for the first Operable Unit (OU-1) was off-site treatment and disposal of

contaminated material; however, the ROD specified that on-site incineration was a viable alternative

to be evaluated during the design phase. A later Consent Decree required on-site incineration and

established incinerator requirements.

The site operated two incineration systems. The first system was called the Hybrid Thermal

Treatment System 2 (HTTS -2), and the second system was referred to as HTTS-3. The HTTS-2 ® ®

consisted of a rotary kiln, a secondary combustion chamber (SCC), and a gas cleaning system. This

incineration system processed solids, sludges, tars, aqueous wastes, and organic liquids. The

HTTS-3 consisted of a combustion chamber and gas cleaning system identical to the SCC and gas

cleaning system of the HTTS-2. The HTTS-3 processed only aqueous wastes and organic liquids.

In December 1991, the HTTS-3 had passed the trial burn and was performing under interim

operating conditions, and the HTTS-2 was in the process of conducting a trial burn when the

contractors stopped incineration and filed a lawsuit against the responsible party (RP) for breach of

contract. Due to the dispute and several technical problems (including slagging), on-site incineration

did not resume.

In January 1993, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) specified off-site incineration of the

remaining sludges, tars and organic liquid. The remaining soil was to be capped on site.

The cost incurred during the on-site incineration was approximately $76 million consisting of $20

million in capital costs and $56 million in operating costs.
202

Incineration at the Old Midland Products Superfund Site

Ola, Arkansas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Old Midland Products Pentachlorophenol and June 1992 - May 1993

Superfund Site polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons, and VOCs

& Benzo(a)anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene,

chrysene, fluoranthene, 2-

methyl naphthalene,

phenanthrene, benzene,

toluene, trichloroethylene,

xylene, and chloroform.

& PCP concentrations up to

5,900 mg/kg and PAH

concentrations up to 38,000

mg/kg

Location: Cleanup Type:

Ola, Arkansas Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Chemical Waste Management, On-Site Incineration CERCLA and State: Arkansas

Inc. & Solids pretreated with & ROD Date: 3/24/88

ENRAC South Division shredding, screening, and & State-lead

P.O. Box 579 mixing with cement kiln dust

Ola, AR 72853-0579 & Incineration system

consisting of rotary kiln and

secondary combustion

chamber (SCC)

& Enclosed conveyor

transported contaminated soil

and debris to the unit

& Kiln temperature of 1,425(F,

SCC temperature of 2,091(F

& Treated soil and debris

(incinerator ash) discharged

onto conveyors and taken to

an ash storage area

SIC Code: Points of Contact:

2491 (Wood Preserving) Carlos Sanchez

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

(214) 665-8507

Clark McWilliams

State of Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control

and Ecology

P.O. Box 8913

Little Rock, AR 72219

(501) 682-0850
Incineration at the Old Midland Products Superfund Site

Ola, Arkansas

(Continued)

203

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal lagoons - wood Sludge and Soil

preserving waste & 102,000 tons of sludge and soil

& Moisture content: sludge - 43.6% Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Initially, dioxins and furans

were believed to be present in

the soil. Later, concentrations

of dioxins and furans were

determined to be very low and

none were in the form of

2,3,7,8-TCDD.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for all constituents of concern as required

by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O

Results:

& Monitoring and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met

& Analytical data of residuals indicate that cleanup goals have been met

Description:

Between 1969 and 1979, the site operated as a wood preserving plant. Effluents from the treatment

process containing PCP and PAHs were discharged to seven on-site lagoons. A series of

inspections at the site were performed by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

and the U.S. EPA between 1981 and 1986. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed March 1988,

specified on-site incineration as the remedial technology for the sludge, soil, and sediments. Site

cleanup goals and DRE standards were specified for constituents of concern.

On-site incineration began in June 1992 and was completed in May 1993. The treatment system

consisted of a rotary kiln and an SCC. An enclosed conveyor moved the soil and debris to the kiln for

treatment. Treated ash from the incinerator was discharged to a conveyor and conveyed to a

collection area. During its period of operation, the incinerator processed 102,000 tons of sludge and

soil. Incineration achieved the soil cleanup goals specified in the ROD.

The total cost of the remedial action was approximately $17,114,000.
204

Incineration at the Petro Processors Superfund Site

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Petro Processors Superfund Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, November 1994 to Present

Site Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Heavy

Metals, and Oils

& Hexachlorobutadiene and

hexachlorobenzene

Location: Cleanup Type:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana Remedial action

Site General Contractor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Bill Dawson On-Site Incineration CERCLA and State: Louisiana

NPC Services, Inc. & Combustion of fumes and & ROD Date: No ROD,

3867 Plaza Tower Drive liquids from groundwater Consent Decree took the

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816 treatment system place of the ROD

(504) 778-6206 & Incineration system consisting & RP-lead

of a horizontal, direct-fired kiln

& Air fan delivers fumes and

centrifugal pump delivers

liquids to the unit

& Kiln temperature of 2,000(F

to 2,400(F

& Blowdown from the system is

pH adjusted with lime and

discharged

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

4953 (Refuse Systems) Cynthia Kaleri

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

(214) 665-6772

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal of petrochemical Liquids and Fumes

wastes in on-site lagoons & 213,376 gallons of LNAPLs to date

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Incinerator treats liquid

organics and air stripper fumes

from a groundwater treatment

system

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for organic constituents of concern as

required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR

part 264, subpart O

Results:

& Emissions and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met to date

Cost Factors:

& Total cost of the incinerator is approximately $59,221,500 to date

& Approximate Total Capital Costs: $44,552,600 (including equipment, site preparation,

construction/engineering, startup); Projected Future Capital Costs: $6,971,000

& Approximate Total Operating Costs: $14,668,900 (including maintenance, project management,

sampling and analysis, supplies); Projected Future Monthly Operating Costs: $300,000
Incineration at the Petro Processors Superfund Site

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

(Continued)

205

Description:

Between 1961 and 1980, the Petro Processors Superfund Site operated as a petrochemical waste

disposal area. A remedial investigation determined that soil and groundwater at the site were

contaminated. A Consent Decree entered into Federal Court on February 16, 1984 specified that a

plan of action be developed for the site. The plan included a groundwater treatment system which

utilized an incinerator to treat liquid organics and air stripper fumes. Site cleanup goals and DRE

standards were specified for the organic constituents of concern.

The treatment system began operation in November 1994 and is ongoing at the time of this report.

The incineration system consists of a horizontal, direct-fired incinerator. A centrifugal pump and an

combustion air fan deliver the liquid and fume waste, respectively, to the incinerator. The incinerator

is equipped with an air pollution control system consisting of a quench tank; an HCl absorber/caustic

scrubber tower; a particulate scrubber; and a entrainment separator.

The total cost of the Remedial Action is approximately $59,221,500 to date. Capital costs accounted

for approximately $44,552,600 with a projected future cost of $6,971,000. Operation and

maintenance costs accounted for approximately $14,668,900 with a projected future monthly cost of

$300,000.
206

Incineration at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site

Commerce City, Colorado

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Rocky Mountain Arsenal Organochloric and July 1993 - July 1995

Superfund Site organophosphoric pesticides

and metals

& ardrin

& dieldrin

& vapona

& copper

& zinc

& arsenic

Location: Cleanup Type:

Commerce City, Colorado Interim response

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

T-Thermal Sub-X® Liqui- On-Site SQI Incineration CERCLA and State: Colorado

Datur® Incinerator & High-temperature oxidation in & U.S. Army, PRP, and EPA

manufactured by T-Thermal a down-fired, SQI enter into Federal Facilities

Incorporated and cross- & High-energy venturi scrubber Agreement 2/89 - includes 13

licensed by Nittetu Chemical for particulate emission interim response actions

Engineering, Limited control & ROD signed 12/9/96

& Packed tower caustic & DoD Lead

scrubber for neutralization of

exhaust gases

& Residuals transported to offsite handling facility

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

Colonel Eugene H. Bishop

Program Manager

Rocky Mountain Arsenal

Commerce City, CO 80022-

2180

(303) 289-0467 - Public Affairs

Office

(303) 286-8032 - SQI

Information Hotline

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Evaporation basin used to Liquids

store manufacturing & 10.9 million gallons

wastewaters

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Innovative design used to

capture metal particulates;

recovered enough copper to

recycle it
Incineration at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site

Commerce City, Colorado

(Continued)

207

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for all constituents of concern as required by

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O

Results:

Monitoring and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met

Description:

RMA was established in 1942 and historically has been used for manufacturing and demilitarizating

chemical incendiary weapons. Portions of RMA were leased for the private production of agricultural

chemicals including pesticides from 1947 to 1982. Between 1957 and 1982 an evaporation pond

(Basin F) was used for disposal of various wastewaters from the site’s manufacturing process and

wastes from demilitarization activities.

The Army and the on-site chemical manufacturer were designated as responsible parties in a Federal

Facilities Agreement (FFA) entered into in 1989. The FFA specified 13 interim response actions

(IRAs), including the remediation of Basin F. A Record of Decision (ROD) for all operable units at the

site was signed December 9, 1996.

The Army selected SQI to dispose of Basin F liquids. The SQI system included an atomizing liquid

injection system; an incinerator chamber; a quench chamber; a spray dryer; a venturi scrubber for

particulate matter control; a packed-tower scrubber for neutralization of off-gases; and a residuals

handing facility.

Full-scale operation of the SQI began in July 1993 and incineration of approximately 10.9 million

gallons of Basin F liquid was completed by July 1995. The SQI was decommissioned, dismantled,

and sold for parts, per the FFA, upon completion of the project. All applicable and relevant or

appropriate requirements were met throughout the project.

The actual cost for remediation of Basin F was approximately $93,000,000, including $73,000,000 in

capital costs and $80,000,000 in operation and maintenance costs.
208

Incineration at the Rose Disposal Pit Superfund Site

Lanesborough, Massachusetts

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Rose Disposal Pit Superfund February 1994 - July 1994

Site

Primary Contaminant

Groups: PCBs, volatile

organic compounds (VOCs)

including TCE, benzene, and

vinyl chloride

& PCBs at were detected at

concentrations up to

440,000 mg/kg. The

average PCB

concentration was 500

mg/kg

Location: Cleanup Type:

Lanesborough, Massachusetts Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Mark Phillips On-site incineration CERCLA

Maximillian Technology & Soil was pretreated with & ROD Date: 9/30/96,

Pittsfield, MA crushing and shredding to 11/21/89

(413) 494-3027 achieve a homogenized & EPA-lead

incinerator feed

& Incineration system

consisting of rotary kiln

and secondary

combustion chamber

(SCC)

& SCC temperatures

averaged 2000 Fo

& Ash was discharged, and

returned to the excavated

areas on site

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

NA Pam Shields

U.S. EPA Region 1

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal of manufacturing Soil (51,000 tons)

wastes in an open trench

Purpose/Significance of

Application:
Incineration at the Rose Disposal Pit Superfund Site

Lanesborough, Massachusetts

(Continued)

209

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for PCBs as required by Toxic Substances

Control Act 40 CFR part 76 subpart D

Results:

Treatment performance and air monitoring data collected during this application indicated that all

required performance and standards emissions were achieved.

Description:

Between 1951 and 1959, the 14-acre residential lot received wastes from a nearby manufacturer. 

Soil at the site was contaminated with PCBs as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A

Record of Decision signed September 23, 1988 and November 21, 1989 specified on-site

incineration as the remedial technology for the soil and sediments. Site cleanup goals and DRE

standards were specified for constituents of concern.

On-site incineration began in February 1994 and was completed in July 1994. the treatment system

consisted of a rotary kiln and an SCC. Kiln ash was treated and stored and treated gas was

exhausted to a stack. Incineration has achieved the soil cleanup goals specified in the ROD.

No information was available on costs for the remedial action.
210

Incineration at the Rose Township Dump Superfund Site

Holly, Michigan

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Rose Township Dump PCBs, metals, and volatile and September 1992 - October

Superfund Site semivolatile organic 1993

compounds

& Most common contaminants

(and maximum

concentrations) were toluene

(4,700 mg/kg), ethylbenzene

(430 mg/kg), chlorobenzene

(570 mg/kg), xylene (1,400

mg/kg), naphthalene (31

mg/kg), pentachlorophenol

(32 mg/kg), acetone (76

mg/kg), and total phthalates

(91 mg/kg)

Location: Cleanup Type:

Holly, Michigan Remedial Action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

OHM Remediation Services On-Site Infrared Incineration CERCLA and State: Michigan

Corp. & Excavated material screened & ROD signed 9/30/87

16406 U.S. Route 224 East and blended with fuel oil prior & EPA-lead

Findlay, OH 45840 to incineration

& PCBs and VOCs volatilized

and partially destroyed in

primary combustion chamber

& Kiln ash quenched by watercooled screw

& Exhaust gas from kiln

directed to air pollution

control system, consisting of

secondary combustion

chamber (SCC)

& Wastewater treated on-site

and discharged under

NPDES permit

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

N/A Kevin Addler

US EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL

Phone: 312-886-7078

State Contact:

Brady Boyce

Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality

301 S. Capitol Street

Lansing, MI 48933

Phone: 517-373-4824
Incineration at the Rose Township Dump Superfund Site

Holly, Michigan

(Continued)

211

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Waste disposal areas in Soil

landfills and surface & 34,000 tons of surface and subsurface soil

impoundments — wastes

included spent solvents, paint

sludges, lead battery sludges,

waste oils

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Operating in winter led to

weather-related difficulties

resulting in suspension of the

operation until spring.

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for principal organic hazardous materials

as required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations in 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O; DRE of 99.9999% for PCBs as required by Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

regulations in 40 CFR part 761

Results:

& EPA determined that demonstration of a 99.9999% DRE for PCBs was not necessary during the

trial burn because (1) substantial hazards were associated with transporting and storing

concentrated PCB oils, and (2) the unit had demonstrated the ability to adequately destroy PCBs in

order to obtain its TSCA permit

Description:

From 1966 to 1968 approximately 5,000 drums containing spent solvents, paint sludges, lead battery

sludges, and waste oils were buried in a 12-acre area at the Rose Township Dump site. Bulk wastes

were also discharged to the surface or into shallow lagoons or pits in the area. On September 30,

1987, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) specifying on-site incineration as the selected remedy

for contaminated soil at the site. A consent decree was signed by 12 potentially responsible parties

(PRPs) and EPA in 1988 to remediate the site.

The incinerator used to process soils at the site was the OHM Mobile Infrared Thermal Destruction

Unit (TDU). The PCBs and VOCs were volatilized and partially destroyed in the primary combustion

chamber. Off-gases from the preliminary combustion chamber were routed to a secondary

combustion chamber (SCC) for further destruction of any remaining VOCs and PCBs. Kiln ash was

quenched by a water-cooled screw. During the on-site incineration remedial action, 34,000 tons of

contaminated soil were incinerated. Treatment performance and emissions data collected during this

application indicated that all performance standards and emissions requirements were achieved.

The total cost for remediation using the incineration system was approximately $12 million.
212

Incineration at the Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Site

Crosby, Texas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Organic and Phenolic February 1992 to June 1994

Site Compounds

& Naphthalene, chlorobenzene,

creosote, toluene, xylene,

dichloroethane, and vinyl

chloride

& Maximum concentrations in

mg/kg - naphthalene (58),

chlorobenzene (2.3), toluene

(5), dichloroethane (20), and

vinyl chloride (1).

Location: Cleanup Type:

Crosby, Texas Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Mike Gust On-Site Incineration CERCLA and State: Texas

International Technology & Soil and debris pretreated & ROD Date: 9/18/86

Corporation with shredding and mixing & State-lead

2790 Mosside Boulevard with lime

Monroeville, PA 15146-2792 & Incineration system consisting

(800) 444-9586 of rotary kiln and two

secondary combustion

chambers (SCCs)

& Enclosed conveyor

transported contaminated soil

and debris to the unit

& Soil residence time of 45

minutes, kiln temperature of

1,300(F, SCC temperature of

1,800(F

& Treated soil and debris

(incinerator ash) discharged

into rotary mixer, where it is

sprayed with water

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

Not Applicable Earl Hendrick

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

(214) 665-8519

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Disposal Pits - drummed and Soil and Debris

bulk wastes & 496,000 tons of soil and debris

& Moisture Content: soil - 10 - 12%

& Soil Density (in situ): 1.58 - 1.72 g/cm Purpose/Significance of 3

Application:

Third largest Remedial Action

Contract ever awarded to

incinerate nearly 1/2 million

tons of contaminated soil and

debris
Incineration at the Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Site

Crosby, Texas

(Continued)

213

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for principal organic constituents of concern

as required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations, 40 CFR

part 264, subpart O

Results:

& Emissions and trial burn data indicated that all DRE and emissions standards were met

& Analytical data of residuals indicated that cleanup goals were met

Description:

Between 1961 and 1967, the Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Site was the location of the unpermitted

disposal of drummed and bulk wastes into unlined sand pits. A remedial investigation determined

that soil at the site was contaminated with VOCs and PAHs. A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in

September 1986, specified on-site incineration as the remedial technology for the soil and debris.

Site cleanup goals and DRE standards were specified for the organic constituents of concern.

Remedial Activities began in October 1990 when IT/Davy began clearing the site. On-site

incineration using the IT Corporation Hybrid Thermal Treatment System began in February 1992 ®

and concluded in June 1994. Following demobilization and site cleanup, remedial activities ceased

in December 1994. The treatment system consisted of a rotary kiln and two SCCs. An enclosed

conveyor moved the soil and debris to the kiln for treatment. Ash from the incinerator was

discharged to a rotary mixer where it was quenched with water. Incineration achieved the soil

cleanup goals specified in the ROD.

The total cost of the Remedial Action was approximately $115,000,000. Capital costs accounted for

approximately $20,000,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs accounted for approximately

$24,000,000.
214

Incineration at the Times Beach Superfund Site

Times Beach, Missouri

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Times Beach Superfund Site Dioxins March 1996 to June 1997

& 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 

 dioxin (TCDD) in soil and 

 debris

& TCDD concentrations up to 

 1,800 μg/kg 

Location: Cleanup Type:

Times Beach, Missouri Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Con Murphy On-Site Incineration CERCLA and State: Missouri

International Technology & Solids pretreated by & ROD Date: 9/29/88

Corporation shredding, screening, and & PRP-lead

97 North Outer Road, Suite 8 mixing with lime

Eureka, MO 63025 & Incineration system consisting

(314) 938-9711 of rotary kiln and secondary

combustion chamber (SCC)

& Enclosed conveyor

transported contaminated soil

and debris to the unit

& Soil residence time of 1 hour,

kiln temperature of 1,250(F,

SCC temperature of 1,750(F

& Treated soil and debris

(incinerator ash) discharged

into cooler, where it was

sprayed with water

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2834 (Pharmaceutical Robert W. Feild

Preparations) Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region 7

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7697

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Road Oiling - Application of Soil and Debris

TCDD-containing waste oils to & 240,000 tons of soil and debris

roadways for dust control & Moisture content: soil - geometric mean value of 7.8%

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Incinerator acts as the sole

treatment unit in the State of

Missouri for TCDDcontaminated soil and debris;

system treated soil and debris

from 27 sites
Incineration at the Times Beach Superfund Site

Times Beach, Missouri

(Continued)

215

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& On-site Soil - Background concentrations of 20 μg/kg or less

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for TCDD as required by Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations in 40 CFR part 264, subpart O

Results:

& Emissions and trial burn data indicate that all DRE and emission standards have been met

& 1,900 tons of incinerator ash required re-incineration because it did not meet landfilling criteria

& Analytical data of residuals (including re-incinerated ash) indicate that cleanup goals have been

met thus far

Description:

Between 1970 and 1972, a pharmaceutical and chemical company produced wastes that contained

TCDD from the production of hexachlorophene. A waste oil company mixed this waste with waste oil

and used the mixture to spray roads in Times Beach and the surrounding areas to control dust. A

remedial investigation determined that soil was contaminated at 27 sites in the State of Missouri;

Times Beach served as a central treatment facility for these sites. A Record of Decision (ROD),

signed in September 1988, specified on-site incineration as the remediation technology for the

excavated soil and debris. Site cleanup goals and DRE standards were specified for TCDD.

On-site incineration using the IT Corporation Hybrid Thermal Treatment System began in March ®

1996 and was completed in June 1997. The treatment system consisted of a rotary kiln and an SCC.

An enclosed conveyor moved the soil and debris to the kiln for treatment. Treated ash from the

incinerator was discharged to a cooler where it was quenched with water. During its operation, the

incinerator at Time Beach processed 240,000 tons of soil and debris. Incineration achieved the soil

cleanup goals specified in the ROD, including 1,900 tons of incinerator ash that met soil cleanup

goals only after re-incineration.

The total cost of the Remedial Action was approximately $200,000,000.
216

Incineration at the Vertac Chemical Corporation Superfund Site

Jacksonville, Arkansas

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Vertac Chemical Corporation Dioxins and Volatile Organic January 1992 - September 1994

Superfund Site Compounds

& TCDD; chlorinated benzene;

chlorinated phenols; 2,4-D;

and 2,4,5-T.

& TCDD concentrations up to

50 mg/L

Location: Cleanup Type:

Jacksonville, Arkansas Remedial action

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

MRK Industries CERCLA, SARA, RCRA, and

On-Site Incineration State: Arkansas

& Solids pretreated by triple & ROD Date: NA

rinsing, shredding, and & State-lead

drying

& Incineration System

consisting of rotary kiln an

dsecondary combustion

chamber (SCC)

& Enclosed conveyor

transported contaminated

material to the unit

& Residence time was

approximately 40 minutes,

kiln temperature of 2,000 Fo

and SCC temperature of

2,200 Fo

& Treated materials

(incineration ash and

residual) were collected and

disposed of off site in a

Subtitle C hazardous waste

disposal facility.

SIC Code: Point of Contact:

2879 (Pesticides and Mike Arjmandi

Agricultural Chemicals) Arkansas Department of

Pollution Control & Ecology

P.O. Box 8913

8001 National Drive

Little Rock, AR 

 72219-8913

(501) 682-0852

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Drummed still bottom waste - Storage Drums, Drummed Waste, and Soil

herbicide manufacturing waste & 9,804 tons of waste

& 1,027 tons of soil Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Two temporary restraining

orders were filed to stop the

incineration project over public

concern about the incinerator
Incineration at the Vertac Chemical Corporation Superfund Site

Jacksonville, Arkansas

(Continued)

217

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

& Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for all constituents of concern as required

by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator regulations, 40 CFR part 264,

subpart O.

Results:

& Emissions and trial burn data indicated that all DRE and emissions standards were met.

Cost Factors:

The incineration system at the site consisted of a rotary kiln and a secondary combustion chamber,

followed by an air pollution control system.

Description:

Between 1948 and 1987, the Vertac site operated as a herbicide manufacturer within the city limits of

Jacksonville, Arkansas. The by-product TCDD was placed in drums and stored on-site. 

Investigations at the site conducted by the U.S. EPA and the Arkansas Department of Pollution

Control and Ecology (ADPC&E) as part of Vertac’s participation in the 1978 National Dioxin Survey

revealed TCDD concentrations as high as 40 mg/L in production wastes and eventually resulted in the

site being placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983.

A Consent Decree was entered into by EPA, ADPC&E, and two RPs in January 1982, which required

an independent consultant to assess the management of wastes being stored on the site and to

develop a proposed disposal method. The proposed remedy was implemented in the summer of

1984 by court order over the objection of EPA who deemed the proposal unsatisfactory.

On-site incineration began in January of 1992 and was completed in September 1994.
218

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
219

DEBRIS AND SURFACE CLEANING TECHNOLOGIES, AND OTHER

MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGIES

 ABSTRACTS
220

Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site,

Alpine, Alabama

Site Name: Contaminants: Chlorinated Period of Operation:

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant 12/4/95 - 3/15/96 Explosives contaminated materials

and debris, including TNT-, RDX-,

and Tetryl-contaminated materials Location: Cleanup Type:

Alpine, Alabama Demonstration and validation tests

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

L&L Special Furnace Co., Inc. Transportable Hot-Gas Validation test conducted under

Aston, PA Decontamination (HGD) furnace guidelines for treatability studies.

- Natural gas or propane-fired,

box-type furnace with integrated

ceramic-fiber lining

- Manually loaded and unloaded

batch process

- Furnace components are skid

mounted, approximately 16 ft by

8 ft

- Heated by 1 million Btu per

hour, high velocity nozzle-mix

Eclipse Burner equipped with

UV sensor and Industrial Risk

Insurers (IRI) class gas safety

system

- Combustion air to burner set at a

fixed rate that maintains excess

air capacity to promote lower

furnace chamber temperatures

between 300 and 600 Fo

- Capacity to treat 3,000 lb of

contaminated materials

- Gases directed into thermal

oxidizer combustion chamber

Prime Contractor:

Roy F. Weston, Inc.

1 Weston Way

W. Chester, PA 19380

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

U.S. Army Environmental Center Information not provided

Environmental Technology

Division

Edgewood Area

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

21010-5401

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Contamination of process-related Explosives-contaminated piping and debris

equipment, sewers, piping, and

structures resulting from

manufacture, storage, testing, and

disposal of explosives

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Demonstration and validation

testing to determine effectiveness

of treating explosives-contaminated

materials using the Hot-Gas

Decontamination System

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

No permitted limits for system emissions or operating conditions for this demonstration. 
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site,

Alpine, Alabama (continued)

221

Results:

- Verified effectiveness of HGD system equipment in decontaminating explosives.

- Defined optimum processing times and temperatures for TNT-, RDX-, and Tetryl-contaminated materials.

- Collected air emissions data to support future system permitting efforts.

- Achieved complete removal of TNT, RDX, Tetryl, and their breakdown constituents to levels below method

detection levels (250 F/hour ramp to 600 F treatment temperature with a 1-hour goal). o o

Cost:

- Total capital equipment cost of the HGD system was $689,500.

- Total operating costs were $3,337.

- Total estimated validation costs are approximately $90,000.

Description:

The United States Army Environmental Center (USAEC) has been conducting laboratory investigation and pilotscale studies of the hot-gas decontamination (HGD) process since 1978. The results from these investigations

and studies verified the effectiveness of the HGD technology for treating chemical agents and explosives,

however, post-test recommendations indicated that equipment designed specifically for the HGD concept would

improve system efficiencies and process optimization goals. As a result, USAEC contracted the design and

procurement of system equipment specifically for the treatment of explosives-contaminated materials by the

HGD process. The resultant equipment design was delivered to USAEC’s test site at the Alabama Army

Ammunition Plant (ALAAP) located in Alpine, Alabama for demonstration and validation testing.

The demonstration and validation testing was conducted between December 4, 1995, and March 15, 1996. 

System trials proved the HGD Equipment to be fully functional and capable of maintaining anticipated treatment

temperatures. The HGD Equipment system was optimized to enable the complete destruction of explosives

contamination at a furnace ramp rate of 250 F/hr, treatment temperature of 600 F, and a treatment time of 1 hour. o o

In general, the HGD system is designed to meet all applicable regulatory performance standards contained in

following sections of 40 CFR:

- RCRA incinerator standards (40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart 0)

- Miscellaneous Unit Standards (40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart X)

- Boiler and Industrial Furnaces Standards (40 CFR, Part 266, Subpart H)

- TSCA incinerator standards (40 CFR, Part 761.70 (b))
222

Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research

Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory 

Radioactive-contaminated paint 1/28/97 to 2/4/97

Location: Cleanup Type:

Argonne, Illinois Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Mike Connacher Centrifugal Shot Blast: Project performed as part of DOE’s

Concrete Cleaning, Inc - Shot blast unit manufactured by Large-Scale Demonstration Project,

(509) 226-0315 George Fisher (GOFF®). Unit Office of Science and Technology,

operated with two 1/4 horsepower, Deactivation and Decommissioning

variable speed drives, and has a 13- Focus Area

inch cutting width. The vendor

advertised production rate is 200-

250 ft /hr. 2

- HEPA-filter dust collection

system manufactured by George

Fisher (GOFF®). Six primary

roughing filter cartridges, one

secondary HEPA filter unit; vendor

rated vacuum flow of 850 cubic

ft/min

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Susan C. Madaris Information not provided

Test Engineer

Florida International University

(305) 348-3727

Richard Baker

DOE

(630) 252-2647

Waste Source: Contaminated paint Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

coating on concrete floor Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 800 ft of concrete flooring 2

covered with contaminated paint

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate a

modified centrifugal shot blast unit

and compare results with those for

mechanical scabbing

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of the modified centrifugal shot blast system

to remove contaminated paint coating from 800 ft of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this 2

technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.

Results:

- Use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the

blasting process and has the potential to lead to the use of less respiratory protection and PPE requirements; the

unit is self-propelled and has the potential to reduce operator fatigue; the unit can be adjusted to remove the

coating layer only, specific layers of coating, or coating and up to 1⁄2 inch of concrete; the end-point condition of

the surface in the demonstration was smooth, bare concrete.

- Reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from pre-demonstration levels as high as 

5,300 dpm/100 cm to below background levels (1,500 dpm/100 cm ). 2 2

- Problems were encountered with the dust collection system assembly and disassembly and with steel shot

escaping the unit. According to DOE, additional improvements are needed to make the unit safer and more

efficient for use at a DOE facility. 

- The main advantage of the modified centrifugal shot blast system over the baseline technology is the ability to

simultaneously collect dust and debris using a dust collection system attached to the shot blast unit.
Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)

223

Cost:

- The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.

- Cost analysis results show the total cost for centrifugal shot blast was higher than mechanical scabbing (about

$23,000 versus about $13,000) and had higher costs for mobilization/demobilization and decontamination for the

800 ft demonstration. However, because the incremental cost for centrifugal shot blast is lower, this technology 2

was projected to be less expensive than the baseline for areas greater than 1,900 ft . 2

Description:

Concrete Cleaning, Inc. demonstrated a modified centrifugal shot blast system for removing radioactive

contaminated paint from concrete flooring. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5) LargeScale Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and

Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination

and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uraniumfueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut

down in 1979. 

For this demonstration, Concrete Cleaning modified a standard centrifugal shot blast machine (manufactured by

George Fisher) to increase efficiency and speed of substrate removal. Concrete Cleaning considers the

modifications to be proprietary and has applied for a patent. The shot blast machine was equipped with a HEPA

filter dust collection system that had been modified to replace the refuse pan provided by the manufacturer. The

system was modified with a funnel-drum lid system that directed the waste directly into a standard waste drum. 

This modification reduced the potential for airborne releases by eliminating the need to transfer waste from the

pan into the drum for disposal. As the unit was moved across the floor, the shot and substrate debris were

vacuumed through the shot blast unit, and passed through an abrasive recycling system. The heavier shot was

returned to the unit while the spent shot (too small in size to reuse) was sent to the dust collection system. The

demonstration showed that the main advantage of the Concrete Cleaning centrifugal shot blast technology

compared to mechanical scabbing was the simultaneous collection of dust and debris. The report includes a

detailed comparison of the two technologies. In addition, the results of radiological surveys performed before

and after the demonstration showed that blasting had reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from

pre-demonstration levels as high as 5,300 dpm/100 cm to below background levels (1,500 dpm/100 cm ). 2 2

Several problems were encountered during the demonstration. Steel shot escaping from the unit presented a

potential projectile hazard, the magnetic roller was not effective in collecting steel shot left on the floor, and

there were problems with the dust collection system assembly and disassembly. According to DOE, additional

improvements are needed to make the unit safer and more efficient for use at a DOE facility. The report includes

results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the centrifugal shot blast technology with mechanical scabbing. 

While the baseline technology was less expensive for the scope and conditions of the demonstration, for areas

larger than about 1,900 ft , the centrifugal shot blast technology was projected to be less expensive because of 2

lower incremental costs.
224

Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research

Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory 

Radioactive-contaminated paint 1/28/97 to 2/4/97

Location: Cleanup Type:

Argonne, Illinois Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Peter J. Fritz Rotary Peening with Captive Shot: Project performed as part of DOE’s

Michael W. Lovejoy - 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen Large-Scale Demonstration Project,

3M Abrasive Systems Division (HDRP) flaps supporting tungsten Office of Science and Technology,

(612) 736-3655/(612) 733-7181 carbide shot mounted on a rotating Deactivation and Decommissioning

West Environmental - EDCO CPM-4 concrete planer -

Pentek, Inc cutting width of 5.5 inches and

EDCO capable of rotating the Roto Peen at

hub Focus Area

1,800 rpm

- Pentek VAC-PAC® model 24

vacuum system - 600 ft /min; 3

primary roughing filter cartridges

with 95% efficiency at 1 micron;

secondary HEPA filter with

99.97% efficiency at 0.3 micron

- Pb Sentry vacuum monitor (for

vacuum pressure)

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Ed Wiese Information not provided

Cedric Andres

Argonne National Laboratory

(630) 252-2000

Waste Source: Radioactive- Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

contaminated paint coating on Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 425 ft of concrete flooring

concrete floor covered with contaminated paint

2

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate Rotary

Peening with captive shot and

compare results with those for

mechanical scabbing

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of Rotary Peening with Captive Shot to

remove contaminated paint coating from 425 ft of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this 2

technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.

Results:

- Reduced radiological levels in 5 of 6 areas tested to below background levels. For one location, levels were

reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 dpm/100 cm . A possible reason for the remaining radioactivity was a crack in 2

the floor that trapped contamination (could not be removed superficially).

- Removed paint coatings at a rate of 71 ft /hr with a two-person crew and a 5.5-inch cutting width. 2

- Vacuum system performed sufficiently to maintain airborne radioactivity levels at background levels.

- Removed floor’s paint coating with minimal concrete removal, resulting in minimal waste generation.

- The main advantage of the modified centrifugal shot blast system over the baseline technology is the ability to

simultaneously collect dust and debris using a dust collection system attached to the shot blast unit.
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)

225

Cost:

- The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.

- Cost analysis results show the total cost for Roto Peen with captive shot was 50% lower than the baseline of

mechanical scabbing (about $4,500 versus about $9,500). The major contributor to the savings was that the Roto

Peen with captive shot blast did not require a temporary enclosure (about $2,400).

Description:

3M’s Rotary Peening with Captive Shot system was demonstrated at the Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor

at Argonne National Laboratory. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5) Large-Scale

Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and

Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination

and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uraniumfueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut

down in 1979. 

The 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen (HDRP) flap consists of tungsten carbide shot attached to a flexible, heavy duty

material and mounted on an aluminum rotating hub. As the hub rotates, the shot particles on each flap impact

against the surface and mechanically fracture and remove coatings. A concrete planer (EDCO Model CPM-4),

used to drive the Roto Peen, had a cutting width of 5.5 inches and was capable of rotating the Roto Peen at 1,800

rpm. The dust collection system was a Pentek VAC-PAC® model 24 vacuum system. A Pb Sentry vacuum

monitor (proprietary design by West Environmental) was used to interrupt the electrical supply to the concrete

planer when a variation in vacuum pressure at the CPM-4 was detected. The demonstration showed that the

main advantage of the Roto Peen with captive shot technology compared to mechanical scabbing was the

simultaneous collection of dust and debris. The report includes a detailed comparison of the two technologies. 

In addition, the Roto Peen technology reduced radiological levels to below background levels in all but one area. 

For one location, levels were reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 dpm/100 cm . The elevated readings were 2

attributed to a possible crack in the floor which trapped contamination and could not be removed superficially. 

The technology removed paint coatings at a rate of 71 ft /hr, and removed floor’s paint coating with minimal 2

concrete removal, resulting in minimal waste generation.

The report includes results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the centrifugal shot blast technology with

mechanical scabbing. Cost analysis results show that the total cost for Roto Peen with captive shot was 50%

lower than the baseline of mechanical scabbing. The major contributor to the savings was that the Roto Peen

with captive shot blast did not require a temporary enclosure.
226

Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research

Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory 

Radioactive-contaminated paint 12/9/96 - 12/12/96

Location: Cleanup Type:

Argonne, Illinois Demonstration

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Pentek Inc. Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® Project performed as part of DOE’s

System Large-Scale Demonstration Project,

- Hand-held (6.5 lb) tool with a Office of Science and Technology,

cutting width of 2 inches Deactivation and Decommissioning

- Pneumatically driven Focus Area

- Works with a variety of cutting

media and cutting wheels 

- Dust collection system - portable

Pentek VAC-PAC® System; highefficiency HEPA filter (scaler can

be used with or without this

system)

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Susan C. Madaris Information not provided

Leonel E. Lagos

Test Engineers

Florida International University

(305) 348-3727/1810

Waste Source: Contaminated paint Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

coating on concrete floor Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 650 ft of concrete flooring 2

covered with contaminated paint Purpose/Significance of

Application: Demonstrate Roto

Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC®

System and compare results to

those for mechanical scabbing

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of the Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC®

System to remove contaminated paint coating from 650 ft of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this 2

technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.

Results:

- Removed paint coating at an average rate of 40.6 ft /hr/scaler; capable of removing coatings to within 1⁄2 inch of 2

walls and obstructions - can be used in confined areas.

- Reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from pre-demonstration levels as high as 

13,500 dpm/100 cm (hot spot) to below background levels, with the hot spot reduced to 5,900 dpm/100 cm . 2 2

- Use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the

scaling process and has the potential to lead to the use of less respiratory protection and PPE requirements

Cost:

- The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.

- Cost analysis results show the total cost for Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System was 40% lower than

the baseline of mechanical scabbing (about $6,500 versus about $11,000). The major contributor to the savings

was that the Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System did not require a temporary enclosure.
Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)

227

Description:

The Pentek, Inc. Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System was demonstrated at the Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5)

Research Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5)

Large-Scale Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and

Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination

and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uraniumfueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut

down in 1979. 

The Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System is a hand-held tool weighing 6.5 lbs, with a cutting width of 2

inches. The scaler is designed to work with a variety of cutting media, including cutting wheels and the 3M

Heavy Duty Roto Peen flaps. The unit can be used with or without the Pentek VAC-PAC® System. The VACPAC® is portable and has a patented controlled-seal drum fill system that allows the operator to fill, seal, and

replace the waste drum under vacuum conditions. The demonstration showed that the main advantage of the 

Roto Peen Scaler with the VAC-PAC® System, compared to mechanical scabbing, was the simultaneous

collection of dust and debris. The report includes a detailed comparison of the two technologies. In addition, the

technology removed paint coating at an average rate of 40.6 ft /hr/scaler and was able to remove coatings to 2

within 1⁄2 inch of walls and obstructions. The scaler also reduced radiological levels to below background levels

and use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the

scaling process.

The report includes results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System

with mechanical scabbing. Cost analysis results show that the total cost for Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC®

System was 40% lower than the baseline of mechanical scabbing. The major contributor to the savings was that

the Roto Peen Scaler with VAC-PAC® System did not require a temporary enclosure.
228

Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Envirocare of Utah Radioactive waste Fiscal Year 1996

Location: Cleanup Type:

Salt Lake City, Utah Demonstation

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Polyethylene Macroencapsulation: RCRA

- Davis-Standard 4.5-in single- - Cooperative agreement 

screw extruder feed hopper, twostage rotating augerlike screw, heatcontrolled barrel, and output die

assembly: 

- Extruder equipped with five

electric clamshell-type barrel

heating zones and two die heating

zones with thermocouple

controllers and cooling loop 

- Output capacity of 2000 lb/hr

- Temperature of melted

polyethylene exiting extruder - 300-

350(F 

- Virgin polymer (LDPE) with a

melt index of 2 g/min initially used

for demonstration; changed to

LDPE with melt index of 9 g/min

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Technical Program Officer Information not provided

Thomas E. Williams

DOE-ID

(208) 526-2460

Principal Investigator

Pat Trudel

DOE-ID

(208) 526-0169

Waste Source: Lead bricks Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Radioactively contaminated lead bricks/disposed of 500,000 lb of

macroencapsulated waste Purpose/Significance of

Application: Determine

production-scale feasibility of this

technology for mixed lead waste

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

- Waste must meet the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions for debris (40 CFR 268.2) prior to disposal

(encapsulation).

Results:

- Initial use of an LDPE with a low melt index (2 g/min) and recycled platics proved impractical. The

polyethylene was too viscous (requiring manual assistance to mix with wastes) and the properties of the plastics

varied from batch to batch, making use for production-scale impratical.

- A change to a LDPE with a melt-index of 9 g/min (blend of 2 g/min and 60 g/min) proved to be optimal for

production-scale.
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

Salt Lake City, Utah (continued)

229

Cost:

- Costs were shared between Envirocare and DOE under the terms of the cooperative agreement. Envirocare paid

for equipment and supplies, facility construction and modification, permitting and personnel training, and

provided facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastes. DOE paid for the treatment and disposal of the

encapsuated waste. DOE’s cost for disposal of about $1 million for 500,000 lb or $1.92/lb

- An estimate of current costs for polymer macroencapsulation are $90 to $100/cubic foot. Polyethylene

macroencapsulation operating costs at DOE sites average about $800/55-gal drum. 

Description:

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) located in Salt Lake City, Utah, is licensed and RCRA-permitted to treat

and dispose of low-level radioactive and mixed waste. Under a cooperative agreement between the DOE Idaho

Operations Office (DOE-ID) and Envirocare , a demonstration of a polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion

process, developed by DOE at Brookhaven National Laboratory, was conducted at Envirocare’s Utah facility to

evaluate the technology for mixed waste lead and debris. The company obtained the required RCRA-permit

modification to operate this technology, and, under the cooperative agreement, waste streams from 23 DOE sites

were shipped to Envirocare. 

The polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion process heats, mixes, and extrudes the polyethylene into the

waste container in one operation. The four basic components of the extruder are the feed hopper, rotating augerlike screw, heat-controlled barrel, and output die assembly. The polyethylene is masticated by the rotating screw,

heated gradually, and mixed. The melted polyethylene is conveyed from the extruder at 300-350(F and poured

directly into the waste container where it flows around and into the waste matrix voids to encapsulate the waste. 

The polyethylene melt has sufficient heat capacity to provide a fusion bond at the cold polyethylene interface

resulting in a continuous monolithic pour. For the demonstration, Envirocare used a Davis-Standard 4.5 inch

single-screw extruder with an output capacity of 2000 lb/hr. A virgin polymer (LDPE) with a relatively low melt

index of 2 g/min was chosen for this demonstration because Envirocare planned to augment the polymer feed with

recycled plastics. During the demonstration, Envirocare determined that the use of this polymer was not well

suited for production-scale operations for two reasons: (1) the extrudate was overly viscous and would not flow

around the waste without manual assistance and (2) the recycled plastics had inconsistent properties from batch to

batch, and therefore would not be efficient for production-scale operations. Envirocare experimented with

composite LDPE mixtures with varying melt indexes before determining that LDPE with a melt index of 9 g/min

(blend of materials with melt indexes of 2 and 60 g/min) provided the optimum feed stock for production-scale

operations. (Envirocare found that using LDPE with high melt indexes ranging from 24 to 60 g/min were prone

to cracking.) During the demonstration and throughout the cooperative agreement, Envirocare has continued to

expand its process capabilities; the process has been proven effective for package sizes ranging from 5-gal

buckets to 55-gal drums in 110-gal overpacks. Based on the results of the demonstration, Utah state regulators

have developed specific waste acceptance criteria for the macroencapsulation process. Details of these criteria

are presented in the report, along with an analysis of technology applicability and alternatives.

Through the cooperative agreement, Envirocare paid for equipment and supplies, facility construction and

modification, permitting and personnel training, and provided facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastes. 

DOE paid for the treatment and disposal of approximately 500,00 lb of mixed waste lead and debris (lead bricks)

that had been macroencapsulated using this process. The cost for this disposal was about $1 million or $1.92/lb. 

This amount includes substantial treatability study activities and costs for Envirocare to experiment with scale-up

and process improvements. An estimate of current costs for polymer macroencapsulation are $90 to $100/cubic

foot. Polyethylene macroencapsulation operating costs at DOE sites average about $800/55-gal drum. 
230

Cap at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6

Landfill Operable Unit (OU)

Volatile Organic Compounds: Installed Summer 1997;

- Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater monitoring scheduled

Radionuclides: for 30 years (post-closure care)

- Tritium

Location: Cleanup Type:

Livermore, CA Full-scale

Vendor/Consultants: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems Cap CERCLA - Removal Action

Inc. Multilayer cap that consists of (top Federal Facility Agreement

Oak Ridge, TN to bottom):

Weiss Associates feet)

Emeryville, CA - Geocomposite drainage

- Topsoil and vegetative layer (2-

layer/biotic barrier (high-density

polyethylene (HPDE) netting

between synthetic filter fabric)

- HDPE/geosyntheic clay layer (60-

mil HDPE liner over bonded

bentonite clay layer)

- General fill (compacted native

soil; 2-feet thick)

- Georigid reinforcement (HDPE

flexible grid material; two to three

layers separated by 6-inches of

general fill)

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Point of Contact:

Michael G. Brown Information not provided

Deputy Director

DOE/OAK Operations Office

L-574

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

Lawrence, CA 94551

(510) 423-7061

John P. Ziagos

Site 300 Program Leader

L-544

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

Lawrence, CA 94551

(510) 422-5479

Waste Source: Waste debris and Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

biomedical waste from operations Cap - 2.4 acre multilayer cap over a landfill

at Site 300

Purpose/Significance of

Application: Multilayer capping of

a landfill 

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

The CERCLA compliance criteria analysis for the Pit 6 landfill removal action include overall protection of

human health and the environment; compliance with the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

(ARARs), long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume; short-term

effectiveness; and implementability.
Cap at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU (continued)

231

Results:

- A summary is included in the report comparing the CERCLA objectives to the performance of the landfill. The

cap is meeting the objectives for protection of human health and the environment, reduction of mobility of the

waste, short-term effectiveness and implementability. 

- While the landfill cap construction meets all ARARs, capping alone may not meet State requirements for

protection of beneficial uses of groundwater. In addition, a cap does not reduce the toxicity and volume of

buried waste and contaminated groundwater. At the time of this report, the post-closure monitoring plan was

still being written. 

Cost:

- Total cost of constructing the landfill cap was $1,500,000, including design, mobilization and preparatory work

and site work.

- Total cost of the removal action was $4,100,000, including costs for preliminary/preconstruction activities,

construction activities and projected costs for 30 years of landfill O&M and groundwater monitoring. 

Description:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 is a DOE experimental test facility located near Livermore

California. Pit 6 Landfill OU was the location of buried waste including laboratory and shop debris and

biomedical waste, including radioactive wastes. From 1964 to 1973, approximately 1,900 cubic yards of waste

were disposed of in three unlined debris trenches and six animal pits. The trenches, located near the center of the

landfill, were each about 100 feet long, 10 feet deep, and 12 to 20 feet wide. The animal pits, located in the

northern part of the landfill, were each about 20 to 40 feet long, 16 feet deep, and nine feet wide. VOC and

tritium were detected in soil and groundwater at the site. TCE concentrations in the groundwater have declined

from levels as high as 250 ug/L in 1989 to 15 ug/L in 1997 (slightly above the federal and state MCL of 5 ug/L). 

Trace concentrations of chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene are also present in the

groundwater. The maximum activity of tritium currently detected in groundwater is 1,540 pCi/L, below the MCL

of 20,000 pCi/L.

In the summer of 1997, a 2.4 acre multilayer cap was placed over the three trenches and six animal pits. The cap

extended more than 25 feet beyond the perimeter of the trenches and pits due to uncertainties in the exact location

of the waste and to cover areas where VOCs in the subsurface had potential to cause worker inhalation exposure. 

The cap consists of a vegetative/topsoil layer, a geocomposite drainage layer underlain by a geosynthetic liner

over a bonded bentonite clay layer, and compacted general fill which includes georigid reinforcement. A summary

is included in the report comparing the CERCLA objectives to the performance of the landfill which indicates that

the cap is meeting the objectives for protection of human health and the environment, reduction of mobility of the

waste, short-term effectiveness and implementability. While the landfill cap construction meets all ARARs,

capping alone may not meet State requirements for protection of beneficial uses of groundwater. In addition, a

cap does not reduce the toxicity and volume of buried waste and contaminated groundwater. A Post-Closure

Monitoring Plan was being written at the time of the report and will establish a Detection Monitoring Program

and a Corrective Action Monitoring Program. Several observations and lessons learned from this application

related to implementation are included in the report, along with information on technology advancements. 

Total cost of constructing the landfill cap was $1,500,000, including design, mobilization and preparatory work

and site work. Total cost of the removal action was $4,100,000, including costs for preliminary/preconstruction

activities, construction activities and projected costs for 30 years of landfill O&M and groundwater monitoring.