EPA-542-R-95-001 
 March 1995 
 
 ERA- 
 S42-R- 
 95 - 00 . 1 . 
 
 Abstracts of Remediation 
 Case Studies 
 
 Ni' 
 
 & DSl ^ 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 
 & 
 
 0 
 
 T 
 
 
 Federa/ ^ SQL 
 Remediation 
 Technologies 
 Roundtable 
 
 Prepared by the 
 
 *\r 
 
 o^ - ' 
 
 Member Agencies of the 
 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
 
 
 Recycled/Recyclable 
 
 Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that 
 contains at least 50% recycled fiber 
 g:\graphics\covers\casestds cdr 
 
ERA • ABSTRACTS OF 
 542-R- EEMED l ATION CASE 
 9 5 ■■00:1. STUDIES 
 
 '"L5 I ABSTRACTS of 
 
 9^001 STUD? 1 " 110 " CAS£ 
 
 Hazardous Waste Research 
 and Information Center 
 Library 
 
 One East Hazelwood Drive 
 Champaign, IL 61820 
 217/333-8957 
 
 DEMCO 
 
Abstracts of Remediation 
 Case Studies 
 
 Prepared by Member Agencies of the 
 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
 
 U.S. 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 
 
 March 1995 
 
NOTICE 
 
 This document has been subjected to administrative review by Agencies participating in the 
 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, and has been approved for publication. 
 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 
 recommendation for use. Further information on the Roundtable may be obtained from the 
 Chairman at EPA’s Technology Innovation Office at (703) 308-8800. 
 
 1 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 37 case studies of site 
 remediation projects prepared by Federal agencies. The case studies were undertaken to 
 document the results and lessons learned from early 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 case studies were collected under the 
 auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable as part of a larger effort to 
 improve future project documentation and information transfer. 
 
 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 themselves are organized by technology in a four- 
 volume set listed below. In the future, the set will grow through periodic supplements 
 tracking additional progress with site remediation. 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation (PB95-182911); 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment (PB95-182929); 
 Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction (PB95-182937); and 
 Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ 
 Vitrification (PB95-182945). 
 
 Four Volume Set: Remediation Case Studies (PB95-182903). 
 
 To order, call the National Technical Information Service at (703) 487-4650 or write them at 
 the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
 Virginia 22161. 
 
 Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. 
 
 Chairman 
 
 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
 
 n 
 
Ordering Instructions 
 
 The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and 
 Information (NCEP1). To order, mail or fax the completedform below to: U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications 
 and Information, PO. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, or FAX requests to (513) 489-8695. 
 
 Title Number Price Please Send 
 
 Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies EPA-542-R-95-001 Free _ 
 
 Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects [64pp] EPA-542-B-95-003 Free _ 
 
 Name_Date_ 
 
 Organization_ 
 
 Address_ 
 
 City/State/Zip 
 
 Telephone 
 
 The following documents are available by calling the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4650 or writing 
 them at: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 
 
 Title 
 
 Number 
 
 Price* 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 PB95-182911 
 
 $17.50 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 PB95-182929 
 
 $17.50 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, 
 
 PB95-182937 
 
 $25.50 
 
 and In Situ Vitrification 
 
 PB95-182945 
 
 $17.50 
 
 Remediation Case Studies: Four Document Set 
 
 PB95-182903 
 
 $67.00 
 
 Other Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) documents available from NTIS: 
 
 Title 
 
 Number 
 
 Price* 
 
 Accessing Federal Databases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies (3rd Edition) 
 Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for 
 
 PB94-144540 
 
 $17.50 
 
 Corrective Action and Site Remediation (3rd Edition) 
 
 Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies 
 
 PB94-144557 
 
 $17.50 
 
 (3rd Edition) 
 
 PB94-144565 
 
 $36.50 
 
 Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (2nd Edition) 
 
 PB95-104782 
 
 $45.00 
 
 * Additional fee for shipping and handling; next day delivery also available. Major credit cards accepted. 
 
 ill 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 1.0 INTRODUCTION. 1 
 
 2.0 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: BIOREMEDIATION. 17 
 
 3.0 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: GROUNDWATER 
 
 TREATMENT . 37 
 
 4.0 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: SOIL VAPOR 
 
 EXTRACTION. 61 
 
 5.0 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: THERMAL DESORPTION, 
 
 SOIL WASHING, AND IN SITU VITRIFICATION. 83 
 
 IV 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 v 
 
1.0 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The purpose of this report is to provide summary information for site 
 remediation projects, and to serve as a reference for identifying case study reports, available 
 under separate cover (see Foreword). The case studies are the first in a series of studies 
 being prepared by Federal agencies to improve future remedy selection at contaminated sites 
 and to allow a comparison of technologies in support of broader analyses, such as the 
 consideration of presumptive remedies. 
 
 Case Studies 
 
 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). 
 The studies present cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts and 
 several large-scale demonstration projects and were prepared retrospectively, based on 
 available information and interviews with project personnel. The case studies are meant to 
 serve as primary reference sources, and contain information on the site, contaminants and 
 media treated, technology, technology vendor, a summary of cost and performance data, and 
 points of contact for the technology application. The case studies contain varying levels of 
 detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and information on cost and 
 performance. Also, full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the purpose of 
 technology evaluation; therefore, data collection is usually limited to establishing compliance 
 with contractual requirements or regulatory levels. 
 
 EPA has documented 17 completed full-scale remediation efforts using 
 innovative technologies. DoD and DOE have prepared 20 case studies of both innovative 
 technologies and conventional groundwater pump-and-treat technologies. Twenty-two projects 
 are completed. For projects that are ongoing, interim findings will be updated in future 
 publications, when the final data are available. 
 
 Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects 
 
 During the preparation of the case studies, a work group of the Federal 
 Remediation Technologies Roundtable met to coordinate documentation of future site 
 remediation efforts. The resulting Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for 
 Remediation Projects presents recommended procedures for documenting site matrix 
 characteristics and technology operation, performance, and cost. Recommendations include 
 specific parameters to measure and report for 13 conventional and innovative cleanup 
 technologies. 
 
 Abstracts Contained in This Report 
 
 The abstracts summarize key project information in a consistent format, to 
 allow the reader to easily assess potential interest in specific case studies. If the reader 
 desires more information, the complete copies of the case studies may be obtained under 
 
 1 
 
separate cover. The abstracts are based on recommended terminology and procedures from 
 the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects . Roundtable 
 agencies are investigating strategies for future electronic search and distribution. 
 
 The 37 case studies in this series are grouped by technology, and summarized 
 in Tables 1 through 4, listed below: 
 
 • Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation; 
 
 • Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater 
 Treatment; 
 
 • Table 3. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor 
 Extraction; and 
 
 • Table 4. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, 
 Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification. 
 
 These tables include information on technology used, contaminants and media treated, and 
 project duration. The tables also note highlights of the technology applications. 
 
 The bioremediation volume contains reports on nine projects that include 
 bioventing and land treatment technologies, as well as a unique, large-scale slurry-phase 
 project. In these projects, petroleum hydrocarbons are the most frequent contaminants of 
 concern. Two land treatment projects in this volume are completed cleanups at creosote sites. 
 
 The groundwater treatment volume describes 11 groundwater treatment 
 projects, eight of which are still ongoing. Most of the projects address petroleum 
 hydrocarbons and chlorinated aliphatics, such as trichloroethylene (TCE). The eight ongoing 
 projects are using pump-and-treat technologies, while two of the three completed efforts 
 utilized air sparging. One report in this volume describes a project that used in situ steam 
 injection/electrical heating of subsurface soils (referred to as dynamic underground stripping). 
 
 The soil vapor extraction report describes 10 projects. Various chlorinated 
 aliphatic contaminants were treated at eight of the locations. One report in this volume 
 describes a project that used soil vapor extraction (SVE) followed by bioventing. (Note: this 
 one project, completed at Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, is described in both the SVE and 
 Bioremediation case study volumes.) One of the projects described in the SVE volume used 
 horizontal wells with remote monitoring of equipment. 
 
 The last volume primarily describes projects using thermal desorption , 
 including six completed applications at sites contaminated with PCBs, pesticides, or 
 chlorinated aliphatics. Two projects in this volume used soil washing and in situ vitrification 
 technologies, respectively. 
 
 2 
 
Cost Analysis 
 
 Table 5 summarizes cost data for 35 of the 37 case studies, including 
 information on quantity of media treated and contaminant removed. In addition, Table 5 
 shows a calculated unit cost for some projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting 
 project cost. While a summary of project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for 
 different projects because of site-specific factors and differences in level of detail. 
 
 Cost data are shown on Table 5 as reported in the case studies, and have not 
 been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The dollar values shown in Table 5 
 should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the project was in progress (shown 
 on Tables 1 through 4 as project duration). 
 
 The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled 
 consistently. However, the case studies themselves vary in terms of the level of detail and 
 format of the available cost data. Where possible, project costs were categorized according to 
 an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS specifies costs as 1) before- 
 treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment costs. (Table 5 provides information 
 on which activities fall under each category.) • In many cases, however, the available 
 information was not sufficiently detailed to be broken down in this way. 
 
 The column for the calculated cost for treatment provides a dollar value per 
 unit of soil or groundwater treated and, if possible, per pound of contaminant removed. Note 
 that comparisons using the information in this column are complicated by the fact that 
 calculated costs may only be available on a per cubic yard or per ton basis, and cannot be 
 converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk density data. 
 
 Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale, 
 concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules, 
 and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in the case study 
 series represent early applications, and that the costs of these technologies are likely to 
 decrease in the future as firms gain experience with design and operation. 
 
 On-Line Access 
 
 The case study abstracts contained in this report are available on-line through 
 EPA’s Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-EN). To access CLU-IN by modem, 
 call (301) 589-8366, or to contact the CLU-IN help desk, call (301) 589-8368. CLU-IN is 
 available on the Internet; the telnet address is clu-in.epa.gov or 134.67.99.13. 
 
 3 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 4 
 
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene 
 TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 
Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 GAC - Granular Activated Carbon BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene 
 
 SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 
Table 3. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 GAC - Granular Activated Carbon BTEX - Benzene, toluene. Ethylbenzene, and Xylene 
 
 SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 
Table 4. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification 
 
 BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene 
 TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 T5 
 
 £•3 
 
 <2 g 
 
 JB n 
 
 O 
 
 ° =o 
 
 4 > w 
 
 •o «2 
 
 •§ 1 
 
 81 
 
 ■2 * 
 
 ■? g 
 
 •£3 ? 
 y o 
 
 tn j- 
 
 4-» 5/3 
 
 g a 
 
 6 S 
 
 a O 
 
 * 2 
 
 S£ 
 
 £ a 
 
 « S5 
 
 V o 
 
 u u 
 
 t § 
 
 <2 ^ 
 
 w Vi 
 
 s .2 
 
 w -o 
 
 <D 
 
 w «-» 
 
 o> n 
 
 i -3 
 g -3 
 
 ■3 u 
 
 u * 
 
 -a 
 
 <u 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 •fi 
 
 •B 
 
 o 
 
 g 
 
 |3 
 
 | £ 
 
 < S 
 
 .o ,o 
 
 ll II II ll 
 m < u O 
 
 ON 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 
 
 'a 
 
 s 
 
 ■a 
 
 § 
 
 60 
 
 a 
 
 I § 
 
 G 
 
 <v 
 
 6 
 
 .a 
 
 & 
 
 t> 
 
 3 
 
 f 
 
 O 
 
 &£ 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 a. 
 
 60 
 
 .3 
 
 -o 
 
 J3 
 
 C 
 
 ■a 
 
 > 
 
 s 
 
 (« 
 
 w 
 
 c 
 
 | 
 
 * u 
 
 « g 
 
 <n 
 
 © 
 
 u 
 
 a © 
 
 11 
 
 •N M 
 
 II 
 
 50 
 
 u 7J 
 e 3 
 
 g 3 
 
 •rt 50 
 
 1 K 
 
 8-^ 
 al 
 | 8. 
 60 TS 
 
 •S M 
 *2 -S 
 
 2 ^ 
 73 G 
 
 • s . a 
 
 50 ‘ ^ 
 
 | s 
 £ :s 
 
 tS -S 
 
 CTJ y 
 C ^ 
 
 6 8 
 i g 
 a « 
 v a 
 3 ■ 
 
 a « 
 
 J5 ‘i 
 
 .o ,S 
 
 a 
 
 co 
 
 8 
 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 co co co 
 
 *3 S « 
 
 T3 
 
 3 
 
 O O 
 S U 
 
 T " 
 
 £ H 
 
 o o 
 
 u u 
 
 II II 
 CQ < 
 
 3 
 
 u ^ 
 
 II II 
 
 u o 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 , 8 
 
 ^ O 
 
 C 
 
 ci <D 
 
 £ 
 
 & 
 
 E a 
 •2 1 
 Jj 1 
 
 5/5 T2 
 
 O ~ 
 
 ° *b 
 
 CO 4 ) 
 <D w 
 
 "O 
 
 II 
 
 £ 3 
 
 61 
 
 .§ 
 
 •s 3 
 
 •? P 
 
 | 
 
 cd 
 
 «-» 
 
 s 
 
 E 
 £ 
 
 2 
 
 S 5 
 
 1 a 
 
 9 B 
 v o 
 
 u u 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 TD 
 
 <L> 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 <£ 
 
 ■a 
 
 3 
 
 a a -a 
 
 c« 
 
 8 g 
 u « 
 
 « 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 U 
 
 IS II 
 
 B -§ 
 1 
 
 /^s cd 
 
 < s 
 
 I § 
 
 a 
 
 v 
 
 I 
 
 E 
 
 ■o 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 v 
 
 £ 
 a- 
 • ^ 
 
 g< 
 
 <D 
 
 > 
 
 00 
 
 <u 
 
 1 
 
 a. 
 
 2i 
 
 Q. 
 
 00 
 
 .3 
 
 •a 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 4) 
 
 •a 
 
 •p 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 oo 
 
 a 
 
 3 c- 
 
 8*8 
 
 I I 
 
 3 ° 
 S 8 
 
 H 
 
 C <L> 
 O .3 
 
 g ^ 
 
 § § 
 
 K jo 
 
 o I 
 
 •rt co 
 
 I 8 
 
 2-3 
 
 4) 
 
 al 
 
 .a 8. 
 
 S3 
 
 00 ^ 
 .3 op 
 T 3 .s 
 
 s -o 
 
 o a 
 
 • S . c 
 
 V> *"* 
 
 :| 8* 
 .E :s 
 rs .| 
 
 «o y 
 a * 
 
 U e 
 
 8 
 
 .o 
 
 tL •- 
 
 « ,0 
 
 V 2 
 
 * 
 
 o o 
 S U 
 
 £*" 
 
 £ H 
 
 8 J5 'i 
 
 ,o ,o 
 
 c« so 
 
 o o 
 
 2 
 
 Cfl 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 3 1 
 
 ‘I 
 
 u u u < 
 
 II II II II 
 CQ < U O 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 , s 
 
 u CJ 
 
 a ~ 
 
 13 g 
 
 •3 H 
 
 s « 
 ^ K 
 
 k a 
 
 O <3 
 
 .8 
 
 s 
 
 •5 
 
 co 72 
 
 H 
 •8 1 
 If 
 
 s 3 
 
 I! 
 1 
 
 g 
 
 1 
 
 i s 
 
 I a 
 
 «« s 
 
 v o 
 
 u o 
 
 u S 
 
 •2 -g 
 
 1J 
 
 U T3 
 
 X) a 
 1> cS 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 .8 
 
 *4 W) 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 U 
 
 ■a 
 
 u 
 
 2 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 *T3 
 
 e3 
 
 13 
 
 U 
 
 I 
 1 
 «-» 
 
 g 
 
 £ 3 
 § 1 
 .< s 
 
 u 
 
 •i 
 
 6 
 
 -o 
 
 J 
 
 H 
 
 oo 
 
 s 
 
 t § 
 
 11 
 
 g w ^ 
 
 ui 
 
 *- s _ 
 
 U* 
 
 <*5 
 
 © 
 
 u 
 
 8 n 
 g J 
 
 •rj co 
 
 H a 
 8-*8 
 S.1 
 .s 8. 
 
 00 ^ 
 .3 2P 
 ■2 .3 
 2 ^ 
 o p 
 
 • S 1 
 
 •* .2 
 
 co 
 
 4> yT 
 
 I | 
 
 2* 
 | 2 
 
 S fi 
 
 I § 
 | § 
 E E 2 
 
 3 £ o 
 
 S .8 'S 
 
 o o S 
 
 <45 <*i "*" 
 
 a a a 
 
 o o o 
 0 U U 
 
 00 
 
 (X 
 
 22 
 
 D- 
 
 oo 
 
 .3 
 
 -o 
 
 3 
 
 C 
 
 6 
 
 '3 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 <u 
 
 N 
 
 O II || II || II 
 
 £ E- OQ C U O 
 
 <N 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 o 
 
 'S 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 e a 
 
 O § 
 
 .8 -5 
 
 a ” 
 S * 
 
 ° T3 
 
 CO rt> 
 11 
 •i 3 
 
 • • «—» 
 
 •g <3 
 
 ■? p 
 •« 
 
 0 
 
 E 
 
 $ 
 
 S a 
 
 t- - 
 
 I a 
 S 8 
 t 8 
 
 <S 
 
 ^ <u 
 
 •+* co 
 
 8 .2 
 u T> 
 
 ■o S 
 
 etf 
 
 II 
 
 g T3 
 
 ■a 
 
 u * 
 
 O 
 
 ■d 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 •o 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 U 
 
 4> 
 
 ■a 
 
 •d 
 o 
 
 c$ 
 
 4—» 
 
 d 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 /-n 
 
 <. s 
 
 v 
 
 5 ,p £ 
 
 a *? a 
 
 cn 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 8 
 
 O 
 
 41 
 
 g 
 
 •o S 
 
 b-S 
 
 a a 
 •2 I 
 £ I 
 
 - J! 
 
 O ~ 
 
 ° = -o 
 
 co D 
 
 •8 3 
 
 ■SI 
 s 3 
 
 • • w 
 
 6? 
 
 t/i 
 
 ;| p 
 
 § I 
 
 w 
 § 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 S 5 
 
 i 2 
 
 ft £ 
 o> O 
 
 u o 
 
 t 8 
 
 «£ "S 
 
 1J 
 
 U T> 
 
 ■S S 
 
 11 
 
 u I" 1 
 
 ■a t 
 u * 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 "O 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 U 
 
 <u 
 
 ’C 
 
 1 
 
 w 
 
 S 
 
 Ilia 
 
 Ctf * H 
 
 <U «3 
 
 4 S 
 
 
Table 5. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 M o 
 u * 
 
 ■5 g 
 
 © 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 k « 
 
 ctf 
 
 E 
 
 •3 
 
 5/5 
 
 T3 3 
 
 I! 
 
 51 3 
 
 Gz 
 
 «—* 
 g 
 E 
 13 
 2 
 
 | a 
 
 a b 
 
 o> o 
 
 u u 
 
 s 
 
 ^ <L> 
 
 •W V) 
 
 S „g 
 
 U T3 
 
 7S Si 
 
 V ct3 
 
 « 3 
 
 o 
 
 -c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 •o 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 Q 
 
 3 
 
 <D 
 
 *C 
 
 *? 
 
 •a 
 
 o 
 
 S _sS c 3 
 {5 3 S j2 
 
 a 7 \ rtl !"9 
 
 1 3 
 u * 
 
 _ ■§ 
 11 
 < s 
 
 »o 
 
 t, 1. 
 
 3 1 
 
 n ii ii n 
 CQ < U O 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 16 
 
2.0 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: BIOREMEDIATION 
 
 Land Treatment at the Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site 
 
 Live Oak, Florida . 18 
 
 Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 Bioventing Treatment at 
 
 Eielson Air Force Base Alaska. 20 
 
 Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the French Limited Superfund 
 
 Site Crosby, Texas . 22 
 
 Low-Intensity Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at 
 
 Site 280 Hill Air Force Base Ogden, Utah. 24 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 
 
 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah. 26 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Bioventing Treatment at 
 
 Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) Denver, Colorado. 28 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Land Treatment at Lowry 
 
 Air Force Base (AFB) Denver, Colorado. 30 
 
 Land Treatment at the Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site, 
 
 Alton, Missouri. 32 
 
 Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at 
 
 Umatilla Army Depot Activity Hermiston, Oregon . 34 
 
 t 
 
 17 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Land Treatment at the 
 Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site 
 Live Oak, Florida 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Brown Wood Preserving Superfund 
 
 Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
 
 - Primary constituents in creosote 
 
 - Total PAH concentrations in stockpiled soil 
 ranged from 100 to 208 mg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 January 1989 to July 1990 
 
 Location: 
 
 Live Oak, Florida 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 John Ryan 
 
 Remediation Technologies, Inc, 
 
 (ReTeC) 
 
 1011 Southwest Klickitat Way, 
 
 Suite 207 
 
 Seattle, WA 98134 
 (206) 624-9349 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Land Treatment 
 
 - Construction of the land treatment area 
 (LTA) included installation of a clay liner, 
 berm, run-on swales, and a subsurface 
 drainage system 
 
 - Retention pond for run-off control; portable 
 irrigation system 
 
 - Treatment performed using three lifts of soil; 
 first lift inoculated with PAH - degrading 
 microorganisms 
 
 - Lifts cultivated once every two weeks; soil 
 moisture content maintained at 10% 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 - ROD Date: 4/8/88 
 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 249IB (Wood Preserving using 
 Creosote) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Martha Berry 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 4 
 
 345 Courtland Street, N.E. 
 
 Atlanta, GA 30365 
 (404) 347-3016 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Manufacturing Process; Lagoon 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 8,100 cubic yards of soil treated in three lifts 
 
 - Mixture of lagoon contents; lagoon had a clay bottom and sandy contents, which 
 ranged from silty clay to fine sand 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 This was one of the early applications 
 of land treatment of creosote- 
 contaminated soil at a Superfund site. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - ROD specified cleanup goals for PAHs in terms of Total Carcinogenic Indicator Chemicals (TCICs) 
 
 - TCICs defined as the sum of the concentrations of six constituents: benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; 
 benzo(b)fluoranthene; chrysene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 
 
 - ROD required reduction of TCIC concentration to 100 mg/kg within two years of initial seeding 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The cleanup goal was achieved within 18 months 
 
 - TCIC concentrations at 18 months ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg 
 
 18 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Land Treatment at the 
 Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site 
 Live Oak, Florida (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total costs for treatment activities at this site were approximately $565,400 (including solids preparation and handling; 
 mobilization/setup; and short-term (up to 3 years) and long-term (over 3 years) operation costs) 
 
 - Over half of total costs (about $312,000) were for short-term operation 
 
 - Before treatment costs were approximately $58,000 (including mobilization and preparatory work, site work, and solids 
 collection and containment) 
 
 - After treatment costs were approximately $9,800 for demobilization 
 
 Description: 
 
 From 1948 to 1978, the Brown Wood Preserving site was used to pressure treat lumber products with creosote. While 
 pentachlorophenol was occasionally used, creosote was the primary wood preservative. Lumber was pressure treated in two 
 cylinders and wastewaters from these cylinders were discharged to a lagoon. The lagoon and soils at the site were 
 determined to be contaminated with high levels of organics (primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in 
 creosote) and the site was placed on the NPL in December 1982. In April 1988, following the completion of several interim 
 removal activities, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed specifying land treatment for contaminated soils stockpiled 
 during the interim removal activities. 
 
 Land treatment of the PAH-contaminated soils was performed from January 1989 to July 1990. Approximately 8,100 cubic 
 yards of stockpiled soil were treated in three lifts. The cleanup goal specified in the ROD was 100 mg/kg for Total 
 Carcinogenic Indicator Chemicals (TCICs - the sum of the concentrations of six PAHs selected by EPA based on the results 
 of a risk assessment) to be achieved within two years of operation. The cleanup goal was achieved within 18 months using 
 land treatment, 6 months ahead of the 2-year timeframe specified in the ROD. The concentrations of TCICs measured 
 during verification sampling (July 1990) ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg. The LTA was revegetated in October 1991 and 
 approximately 90% of the former LTA was covered with native grasses by March 1992. 
 
 The total treatment cost for this application at the Brown Wood site was approximately $565,400. The treatment costs 
 included solids preparation and handling, mobilization and setup, and operation costs. In addition, there were before¬ 
 treatment costs (mobilization and preparatory work, site work, and solids collection and containment) of approximately 
 $58,000 and after-treatment costs (demobilization) of approximately $9,800. This application is notable for being one of the 
 early applications of land treatment of creosote-contaminated soil at a Superfund site. 
 
 19 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 
 Bioventing Treatment at 
 Eielson Air Force Base 
 Alaska 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Eielson Air Force Base Source Area 
 ST20 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes 
 (BTEX) 
 
 - Soil TPH levels averaged 1,500 mg/kg 
 
 - Contamination is concentrated in areas 
 greater than 5.25 feet below ground surface 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status - Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 7/91 to 7/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Fairbanks, Alaska 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Field Demonstration 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Ronald M. Smith 
 
 Battelle-Pacific Northwest Labs 
 Richland, WA 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Bioventing 
 
 - Bioventing conducted in conjunction with 
 several soil warming techniques 
 
 - Four experimental plots tested: passive 
 warming, active warming, surface warming, 
 and control 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and State: Alaska 
 - Federal Facilities Agreement 
 -ROD Date: 9/92 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Capt. Timothy Merrymon 
 
 354 CES/CEVR 
 
 2258 Central Ave., Suite 1 
 
 Eielson AFB, Alaska 99702 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Spills and Leaks of JP-4 Jet Fuel 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Thickness of contamination in saturated zone - 6.1 meters 
 
 - Soil consists of interbedded layers of loose to medium dense gravel and sands 
 with varying amounts of silt to 6-9 feet 
 
 - Underlain by 600 feet of medium dense to dense sandy gravel 
 
 - No permafrost encountered at site 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Bioventing with various soil warming 
 techniques to demonstrate technology 
 effectiveness in a subarctic 
 environment. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - TPH - 200 mg/kg in soil 
 
 - Benzene - 2 lbs/day in extracted soil gas 
 
 - Remedial activities to be conducted in accordance with a Federal Facilities Agreement between U.S. Air Force, U.S. EPA, 
 and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Bioventing project not complete at time of this report 
 
 - Preliminary results indicate that bioventing with soil warming stimulates in situ biodegradation year round in a subarctic 
 environment 
 
 - Active warming achieved higher biodegradation rates than passive or surface warming 
 
 - Ambient air samples showed no detectable concentrations of benzene 4 feet and 6 feet above ground level 
 
 20 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 
 Bioventing Treatment at 
 Eielson Air Force Base 
 Alaska (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Estimated Capital Costs - $758,077 (including floating fuel collection devices, soil bioventing equipment, composting site 
 development, mobilization, groundwater remediation and engineering design) 
 
 - Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs - $177,160 (O&M of three components - floating fuel (5 
 year duration), soil bioventing (10 year duration), groundwater monitoring (30 year duration), including sample analysis 
 and monitoring of each component) 
 
 Description: 
 
 As a result of spills and leaks of JP-4 jet fuel at a refueling complex at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) in Fairbanks, Alaska, 
 soil was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). 
 
 In November 1989, Eielson AFB was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) with the fuel-saturated area within the 
 Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 designated as CERCLA Operable Unit 1. A field demonstration of bioventing and 
 three soil warming techniques began in July 1991 including active warming, passive warming, and surface warming. 
 
 Specific cleanup goals include TPH (200 mg/kg in soil), and benzene (2 lbs/day in extracted soil gas). 
 
 The field demonstration of the bioventing system was on-going as of July 1994. Available respiration test data for oxygen 
 consumption rates confirmed the occurrence of biological degradation processes. Preliminary results indicate that bioventing 
 with soil warming achieves biodegradation year round in a subarctic environment. Active warming was found to achieve a 
 higher biodegradation rate than passive or surface warming. It was noted that biodegradation is enhanced by adequate soil 
 oxygen, moisture, and nutrient levels; that injection wells are impractical at source areas with a naturally high concentration 
 of iron in the groundwater; and that high soil moisture content interferes with soil gas monitoring and reduces the number of 
 soil gas monitoring points that can be sampled. 
 
 The estimated capital cost of this application was approximately $758,000 and the estimated annual operations and 
 maintenance costs are $177,160. Full-scale remedial activities at the site will be conducted in accordance with a Federal 
 Facilities Agreement between the U.S. Air Force, U.S. EPA, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 
 
 21 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the 
 French Limited Superfund Site 
 Crosby, Texas 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 French Limited Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
 
 and Chlorinated Aliphatics; 
 
 - Primary constituents included benzene, vinyl 
 chloride, and benzo(a)pyrene 
 
 - Site contaminants included volatile organics 
 (up to 400 mg/kg); pentachlorophenol (up to 
 750 mg/kg); semivolatiles (up to 5,000 
 mg/kg); metals (up to 5,000 mg/kg); PCBs 
 (up to 616 mg/kg) and arsenic 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 January 1992 to November 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Crosby, Texas 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendors: 
 
 Jonathan Greene 
 
 ENSR 
 
 3000 Richmond Avenue 
 
 Houston, TX 77098 
 (713) 520-9900 
 
 Gary Storms 
 
 Praxair, Inc. 
 
 39 Old Ridgebury Road 
 
 Danbury, CT 06810 
 (203) 837-2174 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Slurry-Phase Bioremediation 
 
 - Two treatment cells designed to hold 17 
 million gallons each 
 
 - Mixflo™ aeration system used to maintain 
 dissolved oxygen concentration at 2.0 mg/L 
 
 - Tarry sludge dredged and treated separately 
 from subsoil in lagoon 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 - ROD Date: 3/24/88 
 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 4953E (Waste management-refuse 
 systems; sand and gravel pit disposal) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Judith Black 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 6 
 
 1445 Ross Avenue 
 
 Dallas, TX 75202 
 (214) 665-6739 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Disposal pit 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil and Sludge 
 
 - Approximately 300,000 tons 
 
 - Soils varied from fine grained silts to coarse sand 
 
 - Sludges - tar-like consisting of a mixture of petrochemical sludges, kiln dust, and 
 tars (styrene and oils) 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 A large full-scale application of 
 slurry-phase bioremediation of a 
 lagoon at a Superfund site. An 
 innovative system was used to 
 minimize air emissions during the 
 remediation. 
 
 22 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the 
 French Limited Superfund Site 
 Crosby, Texas (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - The ROD specified maximum allowable concentrations in the lagoon subsoils and sludges for 5 contaminants: 
 benzo(a)pyrene (9 mg/kg), total PCBs (23 mg/kg), vinyl chloride (43 mg/kg), arsenic (7 mg/kg), and benzene (14 mg/kg) 
 
 - The ROD specified an action level for total VOCs of 11 ppm for 5 minutes at the site boundary at any time during 
 treatment 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The specified cleanup criteria were met within 10 months treatment for Cell E and 11 months treatment for Cell F 
 
 - There were no exceedances of the established criteria for VOC air emissions 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total costs were approximately $49,000,000 (including project management, pilot studies, technology development, EPA 
 oversight, and backfill of the lagoon) 
 
 - $26,900,000 of total costs were for activities directly attributed to treatment (including solids, liquid, and vapor/gas 
 preparation and handling, pads/foundations/spill control, mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, training, and operation) 
 
 - $16,500,000 were for before-treatment activities (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring sampling, 
 testing, and analysis, site work, surface water, groundwater, and air pollution/gas collection and control, solids and 
 liquids/sediments/sludges collection and containment, and drums/tanks/structures/misceilaneous demolition and removal) 
 
 - $5,600,000 were for after-treatment activities (including decontamination and decommissioning, commercial and non¬ 
 commercial disposal, site restoration, non-treatment unit demobilization, topsoil, and revegetation) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The French Ltd. Superfund site in Crosby, Texas, is a former industrial waste disposal facility where an estimated 70 million 
 gallons of petrochemical wastes were disposed in an unlined lagoon at the site between 1966 and 1971. The primary 
 contaminants at the site included benzo(a)pyrene, vinyl chloride, and benzene, as well as arsenic and PCBs. 
 
 In 1983, the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) formed the French Limited Task Group (FLTG) to lead the remediation 
 at the site. The ROD, signed in March 1988, specified bioremediation of the lagoon. In addition, the ROD specified soil 
 cleanup goals for five target contaminants (benzo(a)pyrene, total PCBs, vinyl chloride, arsenic, and benzene). Slurry-phase 
 bioremediation of the lagoon was performed from January 1992 through November 1993. An innovative system (the MixFlo 
 system) was used for aeration in this application that minimized air emissions while supplying oxygen to the biomass. This 
 system used pure oxygen and a series of eductors to oxygenate the mixed liquor while minimizing air emissions. During 
 this time, approximately 300,000 tons of contaminated sludge and soil in the lagoon were treated to levels below those 
 specified in the ROD. In addition, air emission limits specified in the ROD were not exceeded during treatment. Total costs 
 for the system were approximately $49,000,000, including approximately $26,000,000 for activities directly attributed to 
 treatment. 
 
 This application is notable as being the first application of slurry-phase bioremediation at a Superfund site, and included 
 approximately $12,000,000 in technology development and pilot-scale testing work. According to FLTG, the costs for future 
 applications of slurry-phase bioremediation depend on site-specific chemical and physical conditions with oxygen and 
 nutrient supply being key factors affecting the cost of bioremediation systems. 
 
 23 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Low-Intensity Bioventing for 
 Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 280 
 Hill Air Force Base 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Hill Air Force Base, Site 280 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes 
 (BTEX) 
 
 - Soil TPH concentrations measured as high 
 as 5,040 mg/kg 
 
 - Soil gas TPH concentrations measured as 
 high as 11,200 ppm 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status - Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 12/90 to 6/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Bioventing 
 
 - System consists of 1 injection well and 10 
 monitoring wells 
 
 - Air flow rate on blower discharge ranged 
 from 20 to 117 acfm; operated since 11/93 
 at 20 acfm 
 
 - Blower discharge pressure of 2 in. of Hg 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Utah 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 William James 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Hill Air Force Base 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Spills and other releases of JP-4 jet 
 fuel 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Soil-gas permeability value - 0.057 darcy 
 
 - Porosity 30 to 50%; moisture content 1.4 to 18%; air conductivity 4.7 to 7.8 
 darcies; particle density 0.3 to 0.5 gm/cm 3 and particle diameter 0.8 to 10 mm; 
 soil bulk density 0.37 to 0.48 gm/cm 3 ; soil organic content 0.08 to 0.86% 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Bioventing to remediate soils 
 contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - No specific cleanup goals established at this time 
 
 - Cleanup assessment will be conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for Petroleum 
 Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites," which are established by Utah Department of Health 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Bioventing project was not complete at time of this report 
 
 - Respiration rate tests from 4/91 to 11/93 indicate hydrocarbon degradation is occurring 
 
 - As of 11/92, soil gas TPH concentration reduced to less than or equal to 2,600 ppm 
 
 - Estimates of the mass of contaminants removed have not yet been reported 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Cost (estimated) - $115,000 (including construction of piping system, buildings, process equipment, and 
 startup) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Cost (estimated over 4 years) - $24,000 (including labor, electricity, lab charges, maintenance, and 
 monitoring) 
 
 24 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Low-Intensity Bioventing for 
 Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 280 
 Hill Air Force Base 
 Ogden, Utah (Continued) 
 
 Description: 
 
 As a result of spills and other releases of JP-4 jet fuel at the 280 Fuel Storage Lot at Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, soil 
 was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). TPH 
 concentrations were reported as high as 5,000 mg/kg in the soil and 11,200 ppm in the soil gas. A low-intensity bioventing 
 system was installed at the site and has been in operation since December 1990. No specific cleanup goals have been 
 established at this time. The final cleanup assessment will be conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric 
 Cleanup Levels for Petroleum Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites", which are established by the 
 Utah Department of Health. 
 
 The bioventing system includes one injection well (100 ft. depth) and 10 monitoring wells (varying depths). During the 
 operation of this system, the air flow rate of the blower discharge had been varied between 20 and 117 acfm (at a discharge 
 pressure of 2 in. of Hg) in order to optimize air flow rates while eliminating volatilization. Available data from respiration 
 rate tests (4/91 to 11/93) indicate that hydrocarbon degradation is occurring. As of November, 1992, soil gas TPH 
 concentrations had been reduced from 11,200 mg/kg to below 2,600 mg/kg. Estimates of the mass of contaminants removed 
 have not yet been reported. 
 
 The estimated total capital cost for this application is $115,000. The total annual operating cost, estimated over 4 years, is 
 $24,000 exclusive of final site characterization. During this application, it was noted that biodegradation is enhanced by 
 maintaining adequate soil oxygen, moisture, and nutrient levels and that estimates of biodegradation are more accurate if 
 oxygen depletion is used instead of carbon dioxide formation. In addition, it was noted that air flow rates can be optimized to 
 low levels ranging from 40 to 67 acfm. 
 
 25 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing 
 for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill 
 at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Hill Air Force Base, Site 914 
 
 Location: 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 
 
 - TPH concentrations in untreated soil ranged 
 from <20 to 10,200 mg/kg with average soil 
 TPH concentration of 411 mg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 October 1988 - December 1990 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Spill of JP-4 Jet Fuel 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 Application: 
 
 One of the early applications 
 involving sequential use of SVE and 
 bioventing technology. 
 
 Technology: Bioventing Preceded by SVE 
 
 Bioventing 
 
 - 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15) located on the 
 southern perimeter of the spill area; 31 
 monitoring wells; 3 neutron access probes 
 (for soil moisture monitoring) 
 
 - Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with 
 4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from 
 10 to 50 feet below ground surface 
 
 - Monitoring wells - ranged in depth from 6 to 
 55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casings, 
 screened from 10 to 50 feet below ground 
 surface 
 
 - No treatment of .extracted vapors required 
 (hydrocarbon concentrations <50 mg/L; use 
 of catalytic incinerator not required) 
 
 - Air flow - 250 acfm 
 
 - Soil moisture - 6 to 12% 
 
 - Nutrients added - C:N:P ratio of 100:10:10 
 
 SVE 
 
 - 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11 located in areas 
 of highest contamination), 31 monitoring 
 wells, 3 neutron access probes (soil moisture 
 monitoring) 
 
 - Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with 
 4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from 
 10 to 50 feet below ground surface 
 
 - Plastic liner installed over part of spill area 
 surface to prevent local air infiltration and 
 bypassing of air flow to the vent well 
 directly from the surface 
 
 - Monitoring wells - range in depth from 6 to 
 55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casing and 
 a 2-foot screened interval to the bottom of 
 the well 
 
 - Catalytic incinerator for extracted vapor 
 
 - Air flow - 1,500 acfm (maximum), 700 acfm 
 (typical) 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Utah 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 Robert Elliot 
 OO-ACC/EMR 
 7274 Wardleigh Road 
 HillAFB, Utah 84055 
 
 26 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing 
 for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill 
 at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah (Continued) 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 5,000 yds 3 contaminated by spill (surface area of 13,500 ft 2 ) 
 
 - Approximate extent of 10,000 mg/kg JP-4 contour covered area 100 by 150 feet 
 
 - Formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses 
 
 - Air permeability ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 darcies 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - 38.1 mg/kg TPH 
 
 - Cleanup conducted under Utah Department of Health’s "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for Petroleum- 
 Contaminated Soil at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites" 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Achieved specified TPH levels 
 
 - Average TPH soil concentrations in treated soil reduced to less than 6 mg/kg; 
 
 - 211,000 lbs of TPH removed in approximately 2 years of operation; 
 
 - Removal rate ranged from 20 to 400 lbs/day 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total costs of $599,000, including capital and 2 years of operating costs 
 
 - Capital costs - $335,000 (including construction of piping and wells, other equipment, and startup costs) 
 
 - Annual operating costs - $132,000 (including electricity, fuel, labor, laboratory charges, and lease of equipment for 2 year 
 operation) 
 
 Description: 
 
 In January 1985, an estimated 27,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel were spilled at the Hill Air Force Base Site 914 when an 
 automatic overflow device failed. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil ranged from <20 mg/kg 
 to over 10,000 mg/kg, with an average concentration of about 400 mg/kg. The spill area covered approximately 13,500 ft 2 . 
 
 The remediation of this spill area was conducted from October 1988 to December 1990 in two phases: the soil vapor 
 extraction (SVE) phase followed by the bioventing phase. The SVE system included 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11) located in 
 the areas of highest contamination, 31 monitoring wells, and a catalytic incinerator. The typical air flow rate through the 
 vent wells was 700 acfm, with a maximum of 1,500 acfm. In addition, a plastic liner was installed over part of the spill 
 area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow to the vent well directly from the surface. Within a 
 year, the SVE system removed hydrocarbons from the soil to levels ranging from 33 to 101 mg/kg. Further reduction of the 
 hydrocarbon concentration in the soil, to levels below the specified TPH limit, was achieved by using bioventing for 15 
 months. The bioventing system included 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15), located on the southern perimeter of the spill area, 
 and the monitoring wells used for SVE system. Because hydrocarbon concentrations were <50 mg/L in the extracted vapors, 
 the catalytic incinerator was not required for this phase. Biodegradation was enhanced by injecting oxygen, moisture, and 
 nutrients to the soil. Average TPH concentrations in the treated soil were less than 6 mg/kg. 
 
 The total capital cost for this application was $335,000 and the total annual operating costs were $132,000. In monitoring 
 biodegradation rates, oxygen depletion was found to be a more accurate estimator of biodegradation rate than carbon dioxide 
 formation. Carbon dioxide sinks, such as biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with the soil, limited the usefulness of 
 carbon dioxide formation as a process control parameter. 
 
 27 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 
 Bioventing Treatment at 
 Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) 
 Denver, Colorado 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Lowry Air Force Base 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 
 
 - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 (TRPH) concentrations of 15 to 14,000 
 mg/kg were measured in soil samples below 
 the area excavated for landfarming 
 
 - BTEX concentrations in soil samples were 
 lower than cleanup criteria 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status - Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 8/92 to 4/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Denver, Colorado 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Engineering Science, Inc. 
 
 1700 Broadway, Suite 900 
 
 Denver, CO 80290 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Bioventing 
 
 - 6 piping manifolds (each consisting of two 
 
 10 ft, 2 in diameter screens) 
 
 - Placed in excavation at right angles (in a 
 horizontal plane), surrounded with 1 to 2 ft 
 layer of pea gravel 
 
 - Aerated to maintain an oxygen 
 concentration greater than 14% 
 
 - Carbon dioxide concentration maintained at 
 less than 4% 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Colorado 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Lt. Tom Williams 
 
 3415 CES/DEV 
 
 Lowry AFB, CO 80230 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - No estimates have been made of the quantity of soil treated or hydrocarbon 
 product degraded at the time of this report 
 
 - Moist, firm sandy clay in top 10-15 ft 
 
 - Medium to coarse-grained sand in next 15-80 ft 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Bioventing to remediate soils 
 contaminated with heating oil which 
 contained relatively high 
 concentrations of TPH and relatively 
 low concentrations of soluble 
 contaminants (e.g., benzene). 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Treated soil - TPH < 500 mg/kg; TRPH < 500 mg/kg; and BTEX <100 mg/kg 
 
 - Cleanup conducted under EPA and State of Colorado Underground Storage Tank Regulations and the Colorado Department 
 of Health’s Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) action levels 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Bioventing project was not complete at time of this report 
 
 - No TRPH, BTEX, or TPH data are available at this time 
 
 - Bioventing system maintained adequate 0 2 levels in the contaminated soil and removed C0 2 from the soil 
 
 28 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 
 Bioventing Treatment at 
 Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) 
 Denver, Colorado (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Final cost data were not available 
 
 - Total Capital Cost - $28,650 (including equipment, site work, engineering, project management) 
 
 - Annual Operating Costs - $32,875 per year (including electricity, maintenance, laboratory charges) 
 
 Description: 
 
 As a result of a leak of heating oil from an underground storage tank (UST) at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado, 
 soil was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). 
 Following excavation of contaminated soil to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below ground level, soil sampling from the bottom of 
 the excavation indicated that TRPH concentrations of 15 mg/kg to 14,000 mg/kg remained in the soils. A bioventing system, 
 consisting of six bioventing piping manifolds, was installed at the bottom of the excavation and began operating in August 
 1992. The soil was aerated to maintain an oxygen concentration greater than 14% and a C0 2 concentration less than 4%. 
 
 The bioventing of the contaminated soil at this site was ongoing as of April 1994. The target cleanup levels for the soil were 
 TPH to less than 500 mg/kg; Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) to less than 500 mg/kg; and BTEX to less 
 than 100 mg/kg. The cleanup is being conducted under the authority of the Colorado Department of Health Underground 
 Storage Tank Program. While no TPH, TRPH, or BTEX data were available at the time of this report, the bioventing system 
 was found to have maintained adequate 0 2 and C0 2 levels in the soil. 
 
 The total capital cost for this application is $28,650 and the estimated annual operating costs are $32,875. It was noted during 
 this application that key operating parameters for bioventing are soil moisture, oxygen content, and carbon dioxide content; 
 and that more frequent and better reported respiration test results would provide a more complete picture of the progress of 
 the bioventing process, and indicate when final soil samples should be collected. 
 
 29 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 
 Land Treatment at 
 Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) 
 Denver, Colorado 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Lowry Air Force Base 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes 
 (BTEX) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 (TPH) 
 
 - Contaminated soil - BTEX <100 mg/kg; 
 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 (TRPH) up to 11,000 mg/kg; 3,100 mg/kg 
 average 
 
 - Stockpiled soil - average TRPH of 3,983 
 mg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status - Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 7/92 to 9/93 
 
 Location: 
 
 Denver, Colorado 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Engineering Science, Inc. 
 
 1700 Broadway, Suite 900 
 
 Denver, CO 80290 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Land Treatment 
 
 - Soil spread on plastic sheeting to thickness 
 of 14 to 18 inches 
 
 - One-time addition of ammonium nitrate 
 nutrients (C:N:P ratios of 200:10:1) 
 
 - Soil aerated twice a month (April- 
 November) 
 
 - Soil moisture content 10%-15% 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Colorado 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Lt. Tom Williams 
 
 3415 CES/DEV 
 
 Lowry AFB, CO 80230 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Soil type firm sandy clay and medium to coarse-grained sand 
 
 - Soil moisture content ranged from 6% to 11 % 
 
 - 5,400 yd 3 treated plus three additional truckloads of contaminated soil 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Land treatment to remediate soils 
 contaminated with heating oil which 
 contained relatively high 
 concentrations of TPH and relatively 
 low concentrations of soluble 
 contaminants (e.g., benzene). 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Treated soil - TPH < 500 mg/kg; TRPH < 500 mg/kg; and BTEX < 100 mg/kg 
 
 - Cleanup conducted under EPA and State of Colorado Underground Storage Tank Regulations and the Colorado Department 
 of Health’s Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) action levels 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Land treatment project was not complete at time of this report 
 
 - No TRPH, BTEX, or TPH data are available at this time 
 
 - Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon levels as of September 1993 ranged from 1,300-1,700 mg/kg 
 
 30 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 
 Land Treatment at 
 Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) 
 Denver, Colorado (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Cost - $104,257 (including site work, permitting, construction/mobilization/demobilization, pilot testing, 
 project management); pilot testing was $76,000 of the total capital costs 
 
 - Estimated Annual Operating Costs - $18,460 per year (including laboratory charges, maintenance, monitoring) 
 
 Description: 
 
 As a result of a leak of heating oil from an underground storage tank (UST) at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado, 
 soil at the site was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes 
 (BTEX). An estimated 10,500 gallons of fuel oil were released. The USTs in the area were removed and the contaminated 
 soil was excavated. Land treatment was selected for the excavated soil; treatment of about 5,400 cubic yards began in July 
 1992 and is ongoing at the time of this report. For this land treatment application, nutrients (ammonium nitrate) were added 
 in a one-time application, the soil is tilled twice a month, and soil moisture content is kept between 10 to 15% by weight. 
 
 The target cleanup levels for the soil are TPH to less than 500 mg/kg; Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) to 
 less than 500 mg/kg, and BTEX to less than 100 mg/kg. The cleanup is being conducted under the authority of the Colorado 
 Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Program. 
 
 The estimated completion time for the land treatment operation was two years. However, as of September 1993, the treatment 
 had not been completed. While no TPH, TRPH, or BTEX data were available at the time of this report, levels of Total 
 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TEPH) sampled as of September 1993 showed levels in the range of 1,300 to 1,700 
 mg/kg. These data and the results of a pilot test, which showed a general decrease in TEPH over time, appear to indicate that 
 land treatment will be effective, though no projections for a completion date are available at this time. 
 
 The total capital cost for this project is $104,257 including $76,000 for pilot testing, and the estimated annual operating costs 
 are $18,640. Available information to date indicates that the credibility of the land treatment soil assessment would have been 
 improved if an adequate, random sampling program had been used for sample collection. In addition, laboratory analysis 
 should have been consistent throughout the pilot test or an explanation of inconsistencies provided. 
 
 31 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Land Treatment at the 
 Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site 
 Alton, Missouri 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Scott Lumber Company Superfund 
 
 Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
 
 - PAH concentrations were measured as high 
 as 0.326 mg/kg in lagoon water, 12,400 
 mg/kg in sludge, and 63,000 mg/kg in soils 
 
 - Benzo(a)pyrene ranged from 16 to 23 mg/kg 
 at initiation of treatment 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 December 1989 to September 
 
 1991 
 
 Location: 
 
 Alton, Missouri 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Christina Consentini 
 
 Remediation Technologies, Inc. 
 (ReTeC) 
 
 1001 S. 24th Street, W., Suite 105 
 Billings, MT 59102 
 (406) 652-7481 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Land Treatment 
 
 - Construction of land treatment area included 
 a clay liner and berms, run-on swales, and 
 subsurface drainage system 
 
 - Retention pond and irrigation system 
 
 - Treatment performed using two lifts of soil 
 
 - Indigenous microorganisms used to support 
 biodegradation 
 
 - Nutrients added to Lift No. 1; none added to 
 Lift No. 2 
 
 - Cultivated once every two weeks 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA (removal action) 
 
 - Action memorandum date: 
 
 7/10/87 
 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 249IB (Wood Preserving - using 
 Creosote) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Bruce A. Morrison 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA - Region 7 
 
 Emergency Planning and 
 
 Response Branch 
 
 25 Funston Road 
 
 Kansas City, KS 66115 
 (913) 551-7755 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundment/Lagoon; Spill 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 15,961 tons of soil treated in two lifts 
 
 - Classified as sand per USDA system 
 
 - Approximately 4% of soil passes a No. 200 sieve 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 This was one of the early 
 applications of land treatment at a 
 Superfund site contaminated with 
 creosote compounds. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Action levels in soil were established for total PAHs at 500 mg/kg and for benzo(a)pyrene at 14 mg/kg 
 
 - Total PAHs was defined as the sum of 16 specific PAH constituents 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Land treatment achieved specified action levels for PAHs and benzo(a)pyrene 
 
 - Lift No. 1 - Total PAHs reduced from 560 to 130 mg/kg, and BAP from 16 to 8 mg/kg, in 6 months of treatment 
 
 - Lift No. 2 - Total PAHs reduced from 700 to 155 mg/kg and BAP from 23 to 10 mg/kg, in 3 months of treatment 
 
 32 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Land Treatment at the 
 Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site 
 Alton, Missouri (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Costs for Removal Action - approximately $4,047,000 (including $1,292,000 for the land treatment contractor (over 
 3 years), $254,000 for laboratory analyses, EPA contractors and EPA oversight) 
 
 Description: 
 
 From 1973 to 1985, the Scott Lumber Company, located near Alton, Missouri, operated a wood treating facility used to 
 preserve railroad ties with a creosote/diesel fuel mixture. As a result of these operations, soil at the site was found to have 
 been contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations as high as 63,000 mg/kg. An Action 
 Memorandum was signed in July 1987, which specified the construction and operation of a land treatment unit (LTU) as a 
 removal action for treatment of PAH-contaminated soils at the site. Cleanup activities were performed in three phases. The 
 first two phases involved decontamination and removal of surface debris and sludge at the site and excavation and 
 stockpiling of contaminated soil at the site. Phase III involved on-site land treatment of the contaminated stockpiled soil. 
 
 Land treatment was performed from December 1989 through September 1991, and 15,961 tons of soil were treated during 
 this application. Stockpiled soil was placed in the LTU in two lifts. Approximately 200 lbs per acre of ammonium 
 phosphate fertilizer were added to the first lift to adjust the nutrients in the soil. No nutrient adjustments were made to the 
 second lift. Each lift was cultivated once or twice a week and irrigated, as necessary, to maintain a moisture content 
 between 1% and 4%. 
 
 Action levels for the soil at the site, established by EPA, were 14 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and 500 mg/kg for total 
 PAHs. Land treatment at the Scott Lumber site reduced levels of BAP and total PAHs to below action levels. In Lift 1, 
 BAP concentrations were reduced from 16 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg and total PAH concentrations were reduced from 560 mg/kg to 
 130 mg/kg within 6 months. In Lift 2, concentrations were reduced from 23 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg for BAP and from 700 
 mg/kg to 155 mg/kg for total PAHs within 3 months. The total costs for this removal action were $4,047,000, including 
 $1,292,000 for the land treatment contractor and $254,000 for laboratory analyses. Site demobilization was completed in 
 September 1991. 
 
 33 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at 
 
 Umatilla Army Depot Activity 
 Hermiston, Oregon 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Umatilla Army Depot Activity 
 (UMDA), Explosives Washout 
 
 Lagoons, CERCLA Soils Operable 
 
 Unit 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Explosives 
 
 - Primary soil contaminants include 2,4,6- 
 trinitrotoluene (TNT); hexahydro-1,3,5- 
 trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX); and octahydro- 
 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX) 
 
 - Contaminant levels >100 ppm limited to soils 
 in the first 2 to 4 feet below the surface of 
 the lagoons 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 May 1992 to November 1992 
 
 Location: 
 
 Hermiston, Oregon 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Field Demonstration 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Roy F. Weston, Inc. 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Composting 
 
 - Excavated soil screened and mixed with soil 
 amendments 
 
 - Nonaerated and aerated windrows composted 
 for 40 days 
 
 - Treated soil mixed with top soil and 
 
 re vegetated, redeposited in excavated area, or 
 landfilled 
 
 - Windrows contained contaminated soil 
 (30%), cow manure (21%), alfalfa (18%), 
 sawdust (18%), potatoes (10%), and hen 
 manure (3%) 
 
 - Mixed 3 to 7 times per week, temperature 15 
 to 60°C, oxygen up to 21%, moisture 30 to 
 40%, pH 5 to 9 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Umatilla Army Depot Activity 
 Hermiston, OR 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundment/Lagoon 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 244 cubic yards (8 windrows, 28 cubic yards each) 
 
 - Predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine sand 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Field demonstration of windrow 
 composting to biodegrade explosives- 
 contaminated soils. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Concentrations of explosives in soil to be below 30 ppm; target compounds were TNT and RDX 
 
 - Top 5 feet of soil below the lagoons to be excavated, treated, and returned to the excavated area 
 
 34 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation 
 
 Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at 
 
 Umatilla Army Depot Activity 
 Hermiston, Oregon (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Windrow composting performance after 40-day treatment generally reduced the levels of target explosives to below the 
 cleanup goals 
 
 - TNT reduced from 1,600 to 4 ppm (aerated and nonaerated) 
 
 - RDX reduced from 1,000 to 7 ppm (aerated) and 2 ppm (nonaerated) 
 
 - HMX reduced from 200 to 47 ppm (aerated) and 5 ppm (nonaerated) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - No costs were available for the field demonstration 
 Projected cost for full-scale windrow composting: 
 
 - Capital cost for treatment activities - $1,840,000 (including equipment, buildings, structures, mechanical/piping, and 
 electrical) 
 
 - Five-year operating cost - $2,000,000 (including power, amendments, fuel, labor, and maintenance) 
 
 - Full-scale costs assume 20,000 tons of soil, 5-year project duration, nonaerated windrows, mixed daily, 30% soil loading, 
 30-day treatment periods, and compliance with RCRA Waste Pile Facility Standards 
 
 Description: 
 
 From approximately 1955 to 1965, the Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA) operated a munitions washout facility in 
 Hermiston, Oregon, where hot water and steam were used to remove explosives from munitions bodies. About 85 million 
 gallons of heavily-contaminated wash water were discharged to two settling lagoons at the site. The underlying soils and 
 groundwater were determined to be contaminated with explosive compounds, primarily TNT, RDX, and HMX, and the site 
 was placed on the NPL in 1987. 
 
 Windrow composting was used in a field demonstration at UMDA from May to November 1992 to treat 244 cubic yards of 
 contaminated soil. Nonaerated and aerated windrows were treated for 40 days, using several soil amendments, and tested for 
 residual contamination. TNT was reduced from 1600 to 4 ppm (aerated and nonaerated), RDX reduced from 1000 to 7 ppm 
 (nonaerated) and 2 ppm (aerated), and HMX reduced from 200 to 47 ppm (aerated) and 5 ppm (nonaerated) in the 40 day 
 treatment period. With the exception of HMX (aerated), these levels were below the targeted soil cleanup levels of 30 ppm. 
 
 Costs were not available for the field demonstration. The costs for a full-scale application of windrow composting at 
 Umatilla were estimated assuming treatment of 20,000 tons of soil, 5-year project duration, nonaerated windrows, mixed 
 daily, 30% soil loading, 30-day treatment periods, and RCRA Waste Pile facility standards. The capital cost for the full- 
 scale application was estimated as $2,118,000, and the annual operating cost as $527,000. 
 
 35 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 36 
 
3.0 
 
 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: GROUNDWATER TREATMENT 
 
 Density-Driven Groundwater Sparging at Amcor Precast 
 
 Ogden, Utah . 38 
 
 Petroleum Product Recovery and Contaminated 
 
 Groundwater Remediation Amoco Petroleum Pipeline 
 
 Constantine, Michigan . 40 
 
 Recovery of Free Petroleum Product Fort Drum, Fuel 
 
 Dispensing Area 1595 Watertown, New York. 42 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at Langley 
 
 Air Force Base Virginia . 44 
 
 Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstrated at 
 
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Gasoline Spill 
 
 Site, Livermore, California . 46 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at Operable 
 
 Unit B/C McClellan Air Force Base California . 48 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at Operable 
 
 Unit D McClellan Air Force Base California. 50 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at Twin 
 Cities Army Ammunition Plant, New Brighton, 
 
 Minnesota. 52 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at U.S. 
 
 Department of Energy Kansas City Plant Kansas City, 
 
 Missouri. 54 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at U.S. 
 
 Department of Energy Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 
 
 Carolina . 56 
 
 In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site Aiken, 
 
 South Carolina. 58 
 
 37 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Density-Driven Groundwater Sparging at 
 
 Amcor Precast 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Amcor Precast 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Total Xylenes (BTEX), Naphthalene, 
 
 and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - Average groundwater concentrations (mg/L) in plume area/site 
 maximum - TPH (51/190), benzene (1.3/4.7), toluene (2.4/9.4), 
 ethylbenzene (0.78/2.7), total xylenes (2.5/8.0), naphthalene (0.18/0.63) 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Average soil concentrations (mg/kg) in plume area/site maximum - 
 TPH (555/1,600), benzene (2.0/7.8), toluene (1.4/2.5), ethylbenzene 
 (5.7/19), total xylenes (37/110) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 March 1992 to 
 September 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Todd Schrauf 
 
 Wasatch Env., Inc. 
 
 225IB West California 
 Ave. 
 
 Salt Lake City, UT 
 
 84104 
 
 (801) 972-8400 
 
 Technology: 
 
 In situ Density-Driven Groundwater Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - System consists of three main components - groundwater sparging 
 system; groundwater recirculation system; and soil vapor extraction 
 system 
 
 - Groundwater sparging was principal method of remediation; SVE was 
 used locally 
 
 Sparging System 
 
 - Density-driven groundwater sparging - removed petroleum 
 hydrocarbons using (1) aerobic degradation and (2) in situ air stripping; 
 water inside the wellbore was aerated directly by injecting air at the 
 base of the wellbore 
 
 - 12 groundwater sparging wells installed to a depth of 18 feet 
 
 Groundwater Recirculation 
 
 - 3 downgradient extraction (pumping) wells installed to a depth of 20 
 feet and 1 upgradient injection galley (former tank excavation 
 backfilled with pea gravel) 
 
 SVE 
 
 - 3 vertical extraction wells located adjacent to the pumping wells 
 
 - Vapor discharged to atmosphere 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Utah 
 
 Department of 
 Environmental 
 
 Quality, Division of 
 Response and 
 Remediation (DERR) 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Shelly Quick 
 
 Utah DERR 
 
 Waste Source: 
 Underground Storage 
 Tanks 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater and Soil 
 
 - Site stratigraphy - interbedded silty sand and poorly graded fine gravel underlain by a silty clay 
 aquitard at a depth of approximately 18 feet below ground surface 
 
 - Depth to groundwater - 5 to 11 feet; aquifer thickness (7-13 feet) 
 
 - Porosity (20-35%), hydraulic conductivity (190 ft/day) 
 
 - Aerial extent of the plume - approximately 30,000 ft 2 ; vertical extent of contamination - 
 contaminants concentrated in vertical zone from approximately 5 to 11 feet below ground surface 
 
 - Estimated volume of contaminated soil - 7,000 yd 3 
 
 38 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Density-Driven Groundwater Sparging at 
 
 Amcor Precast 
 Ogden, Utah (Continued) 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale remediation of groundwater contaminated with diesel and gasoline fuels using in situ density-driven groundwater 
 sparging and soil vapor extraction. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil - DEQ Recommended Cleanup Levels (RCLs) - TPH - 30 mg/kg; Benzene - 0.2 mg/kg; Toluene - 100 mg/kg; 
 Ethylbenzene - 70 mg/kg; Xylenes - 1,000 mg/kg; Naphthalene - 2.0 mg/kg 
 
 - Groundwater - BTEX and naphthalene to below MCLs; no cleanup goal for TPH in groundwater 
 
 - Air - no air discharge permit was required because air emissions were below de minimis standards of the Utah Division of 
 Air Quality 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The cleanup goals were achieved for all contaminants of concern in both soil and groundwater 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Cost: $156,950 (including drill/install wells and sparging system, start-up, project management) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Cost: $62,750 (including electricity, maintenance, monitoring) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Amcor Precast in Ogden, Utah, stored gasoline and diesel fuel in three underground storage tanks. A release was discovered 
 in 1990. An investigation in 1991 indicated that the areal extent of groundwater contamination was approximately 30,000 ft 2 
 and that an estimated 6,700-7,000 yd 3 of soil had been contaminated. The primary contaminants of concern were benzene, 
 toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), naphthalene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). A density-driven 
 groundwater sparging system and soil vapor extraction (SVE) system were installed in January/February 1992 and operated 
 from March 1992 to September 1993. The sparging system was used as the primary remediation technology. SVE was used 
 locally to treat volatilized hydrocarbons, created by the air stripping process, and prevent contaminants from migrating to 
 nearby office buildings. 
 
 With the density-driven groundwater sparging system at Amcor, water inside the wellbore was aerated by injecting air into the 
 base of the wellbore (rather than injected under pressure) with the resulting injection air bubbles stripping contaminants from 
 the water while increasing the dissolved oxygen content. In addition, the aeration process acted to create groundwater 
 circulation and transport. Therefore, with this system, petroleum hydrocarbons were removed from the subsurface by (1) 
 aerobic biodegradation resulting from the supply of oxygen to the saturated zone; and (2) in situ air stripping. The air 
 stripped vapors are transferred to the vadose zone and are biodegraded in place. The application of density-driven 
 groundwater sparging and SVE achieved the specified cleanup goals for both soil and groundwater. The cleanup goals for 
 soil and for all contaminants except naphthalene in groundwater were achieved within 11 months of system operation. The 
 cleanup goal for naphthalene in groundwater was achieved within 18 months. 
 
 The total capital cost for this application was about $157,000 and total annual operating costs were $62,750. Air sparging is 
 limited to contaminants that can be degraded by indigenous bacteria under aerobic conditions. Maximum sparging well air 
 flow and groundwater wellbore circulation rates are dependent on well diameter, depth to groundwater, and the hydraulic 
 conductivity of the formation. Therefore, longer remediation times or a greater number of sparging wells may be required in 
 lower permeability formations. 
 
 39 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Petroleum Product Recovery and 
 Contaminated Groundwater Remediation 
 Amoco Petroleum Pipeline 
 Constantine, Michigan 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Amoco Petroleum Pipeline 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes 
 
 (BTEX), Methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) 
 
 - An estimated 300,000 to 2 million gallons 
 of gasoline, fuel oil, and kerosene released 
 to subsurface 
 
 - Free product present in an approximate 6- 
 acre area at an average apparent thickness 
 of 2 feet 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 10/88 to 6/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Constantine, Michigan 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Residuals Management Technology, 
 
 Inc. 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by Granular 
 
 Activated Carbon (GAC); In situ Air Sparging 
 
 of saturated zone 
 
 Groundwater Extraction With GAC 
 
 - 4 extraction wells installed in two phases 
 (1988 and 1992); depths up to 28 feet 
 below ground surface (bgs) with extraction 
 rates of 50 and 100 gpm 
 
 - Extracted water treated using two GAC 
 vessels in series; recovered free product 
 sent to storage in aboveground tanks 
 
 In-situ Air Sparging 
 
 - 30 two-inch diameter air sparging wells 
 with 3-foot screens 
 
 - Installed to depths of 25-30 feet 
 
 - Two 300 scfm blowers 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 Other: Voluntary cleanup 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 4612 (crude petroleum piping) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Paul Ressmeyer 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Amoco Corporation 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Petroleum pipeline leak 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 Full-scale pump and treat of petroleum 
 contaminated-groundwater using 
 granular activated carbon to recover 
 free product and treat groundwater. In 
 situ air sparging was subsequently 
 added to treat the saturated zone. 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - 775 million gallons of groundwater between 1988 and 1993 
 
 - Sand and gravel 
 
 - Porosity 30-40% 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity 0.0002 - 0.0004 cm/sec 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - The remediation is being performed as a voluntary action by Amoco; final cleanup criteria will be established in the future 
 with concurrence from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
 
 - Treated water required to meet SPDES permit requirements prior to discharge - benzene (5 pg/L), total BTEX (20 pg/L), 
 MTBE (380 pg/L), pH (6.5-9.0) 
 
 40 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Petroleum Product Recovery and 
 Contaminated Groundwater Remediation 
 Amoco Petroleum Pipeline 
 Constantine, Michigan (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction with GAC 
 
 - 118,000 gallons of free product recovered (10/87-12/93); rate of free product recovery has decreased to 20 to 25 gallons per 
 month as of late 1993 
 
 - Free product has been hydraulically contained and observed apparent thickness of free product has been reduced to <0.01 
 feet 
 
 - Concentrations of BTEX in extracted groundwater have remained relatively constant; MTBE concentrations have decreased 
 
 - Treated effluent from GAC have generally met SPDES discharge limits 
 In-situ Air Sparging 
 
 - Pilot testing indicated a radius of influence of 65-150 feet per single well 
 
 - No additional results were available at the time of this report 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs: about $297,000 for groundwater recovery and treatment system (including well construction, pumps, 
 system installation, engineering); $375,000 for the air sparging system (including 3 months of initial operations, and testing) 
 
 - Annual Operating Costs (approximate): about $475,000 for groundwater recovery and treatment system; not yet defined for 
 air sparging system 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Amoco Corporation owns and operates a liquid petroleum product pipeline that transverses the Constantine site. As a 
 result of a pipeline leak, discovered in June 1987, an estimated 350,000 to 2 million gallons of gasoline, fuel oil, and kerosene 
 were released to the subsurface. Free product was present at an average apparent thickness of 2 feet. Beginning in October 
 1988, a groundwater pump and treat system, consisting of 4 extraction wells and granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels, 
 was used to recover free product and treat the contaminated groundwater. In situ air sparging of the saturated zone was 
 subsequently added and began operating in February 1994. 
 
 Through December 1993, groundwater extraction with GAC had recovered an estimated 118,000 lbs of free product and 
 reduced the observed apparent thickness of the free product layer to <0.01 feet. MTBE concentrations were reduced; 
 however, BTEX concentrations near the source of contamination remained relatively constant. No full-scale performance data 
 were available for the air sparging system at the time of this report. 
 
 The groundwater extraction with GAC system operated > 95% of the time through December 1993. Periodic shutdowns of 1 
 to 3 days were required for carbon changeout and extraction well rehabilitation. Leasing the activated carbon system and 
 carbon provided flexibility to modify the treatment system in response to changing operating conditions. However, GAC 
 proved to be inefficient in removing MTBE when compared to BTEX. 
 
 41 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Recovery of Free Petroleum Product 
 Fort Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595 
 Watertown, New York 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Fort Drum Fuel Dispensing Area 1595 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes 
 (BTEX) 
 
 - Gasoline and #2 fuel oil 
 
 - Free product measured in two wells in 1990 
 and 1994 
 
 - Full extent of contamination not yet defined 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 2/92 to 4/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Watertown, New York 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by Air 
 Stripping and Granular Activated Carbon 
 
 - 2 recovery wells - approximately 25 ft. 
 below ground surface; average rate of 5-6 
 
 gpm 
 
 - Oil/water separator - 575 gallon capacity 
 
 - Air stripper - 750 cfm 
 
 - GAC - 4 55-gallon steel drums; 200 lb 
 
 GAC per drum; operated 2 in series 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 DoD 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Fort Drum Environmental 
 
 Division 
 
 Watertown, NY 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater and Free Product 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer 0.11 to 0.0012 cm/sec 
 
 - Transmissivity 11,787 to 32,518 using Jacob method 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale remediation to recover free- 
 phase petroleum product using 
 groundwater extraction and air stripping 
 and granular activated carbon (GAC). 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Final cleanup criteria have not been established at this time; the project is being conducted as a Rapid Response Interim 
 Remediation 
 
 - Treated water discharged to the POTW must meet the following criteria - benzene (3 pg/L), toluene (35 pg/L), xylenes 
 (190 pg/L), ethylbenzene (8 pg/L) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Information on the total quantity of free product recovered is not available at this time 
 
 - The effluent from the treatment system met all discharge criteria 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs - $958,780 (including system design and construction including site work, equipment, and 
 mobilization/demobilization) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Costs - $129,440 (including carbon changeout/regeneration, maintenance, laboratory analysis, and 
 project management) 
 
 - An estimated cost for completion of the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 42 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Recovery of Free Petroleum Product 
 Fort Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595 
 Watertown, New York (Continued) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Fort Drum in Watertown, New York, established in 1906, serves as a combat skills training area and operations headquarters 
 for light infantry troops. Motor vehicle and aircraft refueling activities are conducted in Area 1595 of the facility. Area 1595 
 includes an underground storage tank (UST) and 10 dispensing units for gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. In 1982, free 
 petroleum product was observed in a spring near this area. Suspected contaminant sources include leaking USTs and 
 wastewaters from vehicle washing operations located adjacent to Area 1595. The primary contaminants of concern are BTEX 
 (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) and free petroleum product. The full extent of the contamination had not been 
 defined at the time of this report. The site remediation is being performed as a Rapid Response Interim Remediation and 
 final cleanup criteria have not been established at this time. 
 
 A pump and treat recovery, consisting of two recovery wells, an oil/water separator, an air stripper, and granular activated 
 carbon vessels, was operated from March 1992 to mid-1993. The system was restarted in February 1994 and was operational 
 at the time of this report. The first year of operation focused on troubleshooting and little data were collected during that 
 time. As such, no information is available at this time on the total quantity of free product recovered or the rate of recovery. 
 Data from the air stripper/GAC system indicated that the concentrations of contaminants in the effluent meet the POTW 
 discharge criteria for BTEX. An air emissions certificate was issued by the State in October 1992; however, information on 
 specific emission limits was not available at the time of this report. 
 
 The total capital costs for this remediation are $958,780 and the estimated total annual operating costs are $129,440. Based 
 on operations to date, it has been observed that free product recovery pumps require frequent maintenance and that activated 
 carbon efficiency was limited because of fouling by iron and biomass. 
 
 43 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 Langley Air Force Base 
 Virginia 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Langley Air Force Base, IRP Site 4 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes 
 
 (BTEX) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 
 (TPH) 
 
 - Primary constituents of JP-4 fuel are 
 alkanes, cycloalkanes, alkylbenzenes, 
 indans/tetralins, naphthalenes 
 
 - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
 - 25 to 4,100 ppb in groundwater; >100 
 ppm in soil 
 
 - Free product floating on groundwater has 
 exceeded 1 ft. in thickness 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 7/92 to 1/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Langley, Virginia 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction using a Vacuum 
 
 Assisted Well Point Extraction System and 
 
 Aboveground Air Stripping 
 
 - Extraction - 16 vacuum extraction wells 
 connected by a header pipe to a central 
 vacuum system; wells extend to 
 approximately 14 ft. below ground surface 
 
 - Extraction network has an average flow rate 
 of 32 gpm (2 gpm per well); vacuum pump 
 provides 24-25 in of Hg 
 
 - Separation - initial oil/water separation 
 occurs in a vacuum decanter followed by a 
 high efficiency oil/water separator; oil 
 phase is sent to a storage tank 
 
 - Treatment of aqueous phase - 2 air 
 stripping columns - Column 1 - air/water 
 ratio of 180 and air flow of 1,440 cfm at 60 
 gpm; Column 2 - air/water ratio of 100 and 
 air flow of 800 cfm at 60 gpm 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 UST Corrective Action and 
 
 State: Virginia 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Vem Bartels 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Langley AFB 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale remediation of groundwater 
 contaminated with fuel oil using a 
 vacuum assisted well point extraction 
 system and aboveground air stripping. 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater and Free Product 
 
 - Area of free product - about 600 ft. x 300 ft.; estimated volume of free product 
 is 12,000 to 31,000 gallons 
 
 - Area of groundwater contamination - about 1,000 ft. x 2,000 ft. 
 
 - Properties of aquifer include pH (6.4 - 7.2), hydraulic conductivity (0.00099 - 
 0.002 ft/day), transmissivity (0.99 - 2.2 ft 2 /day) 
 
 44 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 Langley Air Force Base 
 Virginia (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Groundwater: BTEX - Benzene (1.4 ppb), Toluene (2 ppb), Ethylbenzene (1 ppb). Total Xylenes (3 ppb) 
 
 - Air Stripper Criteria for discharge: BTEX - Benzene (7 ppb), Toluene (50 ppb), Ethylbenzene (4.3 ppb), Total Xylenes (13 
 ppb). Lead (5.6 ppb) and TPH (1,000 ppb) 
 
 - Cleanup conducted under Virginia State Regulations and Federal Underground Storage Tank Regulations 
 
 Results: 
 
 As of 1/94: 
 
 - Floating product - appears to be largely unaffected at this time; no estimates of the amount of free product recovered are 
 available at this time 
 
 - Air Stripper - average concentrations from air stripper are below discharge criteria 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs - $569,739 (1992) (including demolition and excavation, system installation, startup, mobilization and 
 site preparation) 
 
 - Annual Operating Costs - $216,561 (1993), $143,047 (1994) (including labor, materials, and equipment) 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 Description: 
 
 Langley AFB has operated since 1916 as an aviation research and development facility. JP-4 fuel was stored in underground 
 storage tanks and, in 1981, twenty-four 25,000-gallon underground fuel tanks and a fuel pipeline located at IRP Site 4 were 
 determined to be leaking. In 1987, the tanks were abandoned by cleaning and sand-cement backfilling. Subsequent remedial 
 investigation activities detected fuel contamination in soil and groundwater, including free product floating on the groundwater 
 table at up to 1 foot in thickness. Primary contaminants of concern at the site are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 
 xylenes) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). 
 
 A groundwater pump and treat system consisting of a vacuum assisted well point extraction system, oil/water separators, and 
 air strippers, began operating in July 1992 and was operational at the time of this report. Results to date indicate that, on 
 average, the effluent concentration of BTEX, TRPH, and lead from the air stripper are below the discharge criteria. However, 
 the layer of free product floating on the groundwater appears to be largely unaffected at this time. In addition, an estimate of 
 free product recovered to date cannot be made since a sample port was not installed because of vacuum inlet conditions. It 
 was noted that such sampling points are necessary to allow quantification of system performance. 
 
 The total capital costs for this application were about $569,700 and the annual operating costs for years 1993 and 1994 were 
 about $216,600 and $143,000, respectively. Operational difficulties including problems with scaling, oil/water separator icing, 
 and delays in acquiring spare parts have caused the system to be down about 51% of the time. In early 1994, adjustments to 
 the system were made, including the use of chemical additives to prevent fouling of the system. It was noted that a roof over 
 the treatment plant would have prevented weather-related damage and downtime (i.e., icing of oil/water separator). 
 
 45 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Dynamic Underground Stripping 
 Demonstrated at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
 Gasoline Spill Site, Livermore, California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Lawrence Livermore National 
 Laboratory, Gasoline Spill Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Total Xylenes 
 
 (BTEX) 
 
 - Concentrations of fuel hydrocarbons (FHC) 
 in gasoline as high as 5,100 ppm in saturated 
 sediments near center of vadose zone 
 (indicates likely presence of free-phase 
 gasoline) 
 
 - Benzene levels in groundwater greater than 1 
 ppb found within 300 feet of release point 
 
 - Benzene levels in soil greater than 50 ppm 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 November 1992 - December 
 
 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Livermore, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Field demonstration 
 (commercial-scale) 
 
 Technical Information: 
 
 Roger Aines, Principal Investigator, 
 LLNL (510) 423-7184 
 
 Robin Newmark, LLNL 
 (510) 423-3644 
 
 Kent Udell, UC Berkeley 
 (510) 642-2928 
 
 John Mathur, US DOE 
 (301) 903-7922 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) 
 
 - Combination of three technologies: steam 
 injection at periphery of contaminated area to 
 drive contaminants to centrally-located 
 vacuum extraction locations; electrical 
 heating of less permeable soils; and 
 underground imaging to delineate heated 
 areas 
 
 - Six steam injection/electrical heating wells 
 approximately 145 feet deep, 4-inch 
 diameter, screened in upper and lower steam 
 zones 
 
 - Three electrical heating wells approximately 
 120 feet deep, 2-inch diameter 
 
 - One groundwater and vapor extraction well, 
 approximately 155 feet deep, 8-inch diameter 
 
 - Extracted water processed through an air¬ 
 cooled heat exchanger, oil/water separators, 
 filters, UV/H 2 0 2 treatment unit, air stripping, 
 and GAC 
 
 - Extracted vapors processed through heat 
 exchanger, demister, and internal combustion 
 (IC) engines 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and Other: Bay Area 
 
 Air Quality Management District 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 5541 (Gasoline service station) 
 
 Licensing Information: 
 
 Kathy Willis 
 
 University of California Office 
 of Tech Transfer 
 
 1320 Harbor Bay Parkway, 
 
 Suite 150 
 
 Alameda, CA 94501 
 (510) 748-6595 
 
 Kathy Kaufman 
 
 Tech. Transfer Init. Program, 
 
 L-795 
 
 University of California 
 
 Lawrence Livermore Nat’l. 
 Laboratory 
 
 7000 East Avenue 
 
 P.O. Box 808 
 
 Livermore, CA 94550 
 (510) 422-2646 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tanks 
 
 46 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Dynamic Underground Stripping 
 Demonstrated at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
 Gasoline Spill Site, Livermore, California (Continued) 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Commercial-scale demonstration of dynamic underground stripping. Results compared to pump and treat, and pump and 
 treat with vacuum extraction technologies. 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil and Groundwater 
 
 - 100,000 cubic yards heated to at least 200°F 
 
 - 4 hydrogeologic units and 7 hydrostratigraphic layers identified near gas pad 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity ranged from <5 gpd/ft 2 (low permeability) to 1,070 gpd/ft 2 (very high to high permeability) 
 
 - Low groundwater velocities kept contamination confined to a relatively small area 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Groundwater cleanup levels established based on California MCLs: benzene 1 ppb; ethylbenzene 680 ppb; and xylenes 
 1,750 ppb 
 
 - Remediation was required until soil contaminant concentrations were identified as not adversely impacting groundwater 
 
 - Air permits were issued by the BAAQMD for the air stripper, GAC, IC engine, and for site-wide benzene 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Over 7,600 gallons of gasoline removed during demonstration effort 
 
 - Most of the gasoline was recovered in the vapor stream and not from extracted groundwater 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Overall program costs for the field demonstration, including all research and development costs, were $1,700,000 for 
 before-treatment costs (project management, characterization and compliance monitoring), and $5,400,000 for treatment 
 activities (process monitoring, subsurface wells, steam generation and electrical heating surface equipment, aboveground 
 treatment systems, utilities, and labor and material costs) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The 800-acre Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) site was used as a flight training base and aircraft assembly 
 and repair facility by the Navy beginning in 1942. In 1951, the Atomic Energy Commission converted the site into a 
 weapons design and basic physics research laboratory. Initial releases of hazardous materials occurred in the mid- to late- 
 1940s. Between 1952 and 1979, up to 17,000 gallons of leaded gasoline were released from underground storage tanks 
 beneath a gasoline filling station in an area now designated as the Gasoline Spill Area (GSA). Soil and groundwater in the 
 GSA were found to be contaminated with BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) and fuel hydrocarbons. 
 
 A commercial-scale field demonstration of Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) was completed at the GSA from 
 November 1992 to December 1993. DUS is a combination of three technologies: steam injection at the periphery of a 
 contaminated area to drive contaminants to a centrally-located vacuum extraction location; electrical heating of less 
 permeable soils; and underground imaging (primarily Electrical Resistance Tomography) to delineate heated areas. The DUS 
 system used at the GSA employed 6 steam injection/electrical heating wells, 3 electrical heating wells, and 1 vacuum 
 extraction well, as well as above ground water and vapor treatment equipment. 
 
 Over 7,600 gallons of gasoline were removed by the DUS system in the demonstration effort. Most of the gasoline was 
 recovered in the vapor stream and not from the extracted groundwater. Potential cost savings of $4,000,000 were identified 
 for applying DUS at the same site in the future (taking into account the benefits of the lessons learned and without research- 
 oriented activities). 
 
 47 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 at Operable Unit B/C 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 McClellan Air Force Base, Operable 
 
 Unit (OU) B/C 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2- 
 Dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), 
 Tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,2- 
 Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 
 
 - In an area of 7,800 million cubic feet, there 
 is an estimated 33,000 kg of VOCs; percent 
 of total mass for individual constituents is 
 TCE (82.7%), cis-l,2-DCE (0.5%), PCE 
 (16.7%), 1,2-DCA (0.1%) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 1988 to 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Sacramento, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by 
 
 Aboveground Air Stripping 
 
 - 7 extraction wells pump to a main treatment 
 plant 
 
 - Air stripper - design capacity of 1,000 gpm; 
 average flow rate of 250 gpm 
 
 - Supplemental Treatment - thermal oxidizer 
 and caustic scrubber for offgases; two GAC 
 units in series to polish liquid phase prior to 
 discharge 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 DoD 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 McClellan AFB 
 
 Sacramento, CA 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Landfill; Underground Storage Tank; 
 Disposal Pit; Open Bum Area 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - As of 1/94: Over 660 million gallons of groundwater treated since startup in 
 March 1987 
 
 - Groundwater subsurface consists- of 5 distinct monitoring zones (A through E); 
 evidence points to hydraulic link among 5 zones 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 2.8 to 30.7 ft/day 
 
 - Transmissivity ranges from 100-2,000 ft 2 /day 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale remediation of groundwater 
 contaminated with VOCs using 
 groundwater extraction and 
 aboveground air stripping. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Final cleanup criteria have not been established at this time 
 
 - Current target is <0.55 pg/L VOCs for groundwater 
 
 - NPDES permit - acetone, MEK, and MIK to <1 mg/L and VOCs to <0.5 pg/L 
 
 48 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 at Operable Unit B/C 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Influent VOC concentrations have decreased from about 60 ppm in 1987 to about 4 ppm in 1993 
 
 - The effluent from the treatment system has been below the permitted discharge levels since operation began 
 
 - As of 3/94, approximately 44,000 lbs of VOCs have been removed since startup 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Cost in 1987 - $4,000,000 (including over $1,700,000 for the incinerator, air stripper, scrubber, wells, and 
 GAC tanks, and about $1,000,000 for heat exchangers, blowers, pumps, and compressors; control center) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Costs - $1,240,000 (including contractor operations, utilities, sampling and analysis, project 
 management) 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 Description: 
 
 The McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California was established in 1937. Operations at the 3,000-acre facility 
 include aircraft, electronics, and communications equipment maintenance and repair, and a wide variety of hazardous materials 
 have been used at the site. The site was added to the National Priorities List in 1987. Areas of contamination at the site 
 include Operable Unit B (OU B) and Operable Unit C (OU C). Releases from OU B resulted from disposal/release of 
 hazardous substances from landfills, underground storage tanks, storage lots, burial and bum pits. Releases from OU C were 
 attributed to waste disposal activities. Extensive VOC contamination has been identified at the facility. The primary 
 constituents of concern are TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCA. 
 
 A groundwater extraction and treatment system including air stripping was installed with operations beginning in 1988. 
 Offgases from the air stripper are treated by thermal oxidation and caustic scrubbing. The effluent from the air stripper is 
 treated using GAC prior to a NPDES-permitted discharge. The 1993 data on the influent to the air stripper show that the 
 VOC concentrations have decreased to about 4 ppm from concentrations of 60 ppm (1987). An estimated 44,000 pounds of 
 VOCs have been removed as of March 1994. The remediation was ongoing at the time of this report and final performance 
 data are not yet available. In addition, the treatment system has been effective in treating groundwater to below the NPDES 
 discharge limits. 
 
 The total capital costs for this system are $4,000,000 and the total annual operating costs are $1,240,000. The system has 
 been on line 98% of the time. Problems of scaling and deposition in the air stripper from calcium and magnesium salt 
 precipitation were remedied by changing to 2-inch packing from 1-inch packing in the air stripper. Corrosion was minimized 
 through material changes to nickel-based commercial alloys and change in physical layout to improve flow. 
 
 49 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 
 at Operable Unit D 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 McClellan Air Force Base Superfund 
 Site, Operable Unit D 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2- 
 Dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), 
 Tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1-2-Dichloroethane 
 (1,2-DCA) 
 
 - In an area of 7,800 million cubic feet, there 
 is an estimated 33,000 kg of VOCs; percent 
 of total mass for individual constituents - 
 TCE (82.7%), cis-l,2-DCE (0.5%), PCE 
 (16.7%), 1,2-DCA (0.1%) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 1987 to 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Sacramento, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by 
 
 Aboveground Air Stripping 
 
 - 6 extraction wells pump to a main treatment 
 plant 
 
 - Air Stripper - design capacity of 1,000 gpm; 
 average flow rate of 250 gpm 
 
 - Supplemental Treatment - thermal oxidizer 
 and caustic scrubber for offgases; two GAC 
 units in series to polish liquid phase prior to 
 discharge 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 DoD 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 McClellan AFB 
 
 Sacramento, CA 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Disposal Pit; Open Bum Pits 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - As of 1/94: Over 660 million gallons of groundwater treated since startup in 
 
 March 1987 
 
 - Groundwater subsurface consists of 5 distinct monitoring zones (A through E); 
 evidence points to hydraulic link among 5 zones 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 2.8 to 30.7 ft/day 
 
 - Transmissivity ranges from 100-2,000 ft 2 /day 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Full-scale remediation of groundwater 
 contaminated with VOCs using 
 groundwater extraction and 
 aboveground air stripping. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Final cleanup criteria have not been established at this time 
 
 - Current target is <0.55 pg/L VOCs in groundwater 
 
 - NPDES permit limits on acetone, MEK, MIK of 1 mg/L and VOCs of 0.5 pg/L 
 
 50 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 
 at Operable Unit D 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Influent VOC concentrations have decreased from about 60 ppm in 1987 to about 4 ppm in 1993 
 
 - The effluent from the treatment system has been below the permitted discharge levels since operation began 
 
 - Approximately 44,000 lbs of VOCs have been removed since startup 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs - $4,000,000 (including over $1,700,000 for the incinerator, air stripper, scrubber, wells, and GAC 
 tanks, and about $1,000,000 for heat exchangers, blowers, pumps, and compressors; control center) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Costs - $1,240,000 (including contractor operations, utilities, sampling and analysis, project 
 management) 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 Description: 
 
 The McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California was established in 1937. Operations at the 3,000-acre facility 
 include aircraft, electronics, and communications equipment maintenance and repair, and a wide variety of hazardous 
 materials have been used at the site. Operable Unit D (OU D) was primarily a waste disposal area at McClellan from 1956 
 until the last 1970s. Numerous burial and burn pits which had received solid waste, oil, various chemicals, and industrial 
 sludges were closed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Extensive VOC contamination has been identified at the facility with 
 the primary constituents of concern at OU D being TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCA. 
 
 A groundwater extraction and treatment system including air stripping was installed with operations beginning in 1988. 
 Offgases from the air stripper are treated by thermal oxidation and caustic scrubbing. The effluent from the air stripper is 
 treated using GAC prior to a NPDES-permitted discharge. The 1993 data on the influent to the air stripper show that the 
 VOC concentrations have decreased to about 4 ppm from concentrations of 60 ppm (1987). An estimated 44,000 pounds of 
 VOCs have been removed as of March 1994. The remediation was ongoing at the time of this report and final performance 
 data are not yet available. In addition, the treatment system has been effective in treating groundwater to below the NPDES 
 discharge limits. 
 
 The total capital costs for this system are $4,000,000 and the total annual operating costs are $1,240,000. The system has 
 been on line 98% of the time. Problems of scaling and deposition in the air stripper from calcium and magnesium salt 
 precipitation were remedied by changing to 2-inch packing from 1-inch packing in the air stripper. Corrosion was 
 minimized through material changes to nickel-based commercial alloys and change in physical layout to improve flow. 
 
 51 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 
 
 New Brighton, Minnesota 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant 
 (TCAAP) 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Contaminants of greatest concern in the 
 groundwater are: 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,2- 
 DCE, chloroform, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and PCE 
 
 - TCE is the most prevalent VOC on site, with 
 concentrations greater than 10,000 ppb in 
 groundwater 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 10/87 to 9/92 
 
 Location: 
 
 New Brighton, Minnesota 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by Air 
 
 Stripping 
 
 - 12 boundary recovery wells and 5 source 
 area recovery wells 
 
 - Air stripping plant designed to treat 2,900 
 gal/min; 4 towers - 2 @ 7 feet diameter and 
 
 2 @ 8 feet diameter; all 36 feet tall with 
 propylene packing 
 
 - Treated water discharged to a sand and 
 gravel pit, or, alternately to an elevated tank 
 
 - Designed for an operating life of 30 years 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 - ROD Date: 10/88 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
 Plant 
 
 New Brighton, MN 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Variety of Waste Disposal 
 Practices, including Discharges to 
 Sewer, Dumping, and Burning 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - Over 1.4 billion gallons of water pumped from 10/91 to 9/92 
 
 - Complex hydrogeology and heterogeneities in a multilayer aquifer system 
 
 - Fractured bedrock and discontinuous sand, clay, and till layers 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity 0.001 to 137 ft/day; transmissivity 3,160 to 28,724 ftVday 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Pump and treat of large-volume of 
 groundwater contaminated with 
 
 VOCs. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Several RODs apply to overall TCAAP remedial program, including a ROD for groundwater remediation 
 
 - Target cleanup criteria focus on residual levels of contamination in groundwater and containment of existing plume 
 
 - Target cleanup levels in groundwater include: TCE - 5 ppb; PCE - 6.9 ppb; 1,2-DCE - 70 ppb; and 1,1,1-TCA - 200 ppb 
 
 52 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 
 
 New Brighton, Minnesota (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Boundary Groundwater Recovery System (BGRS) recovered an average of 23 pounds of VOCs per day 
 
 - TCAAP Groundwater Recovery System (TGRS) recovered 19,510 pounds of VOCs in one year of operation 
 
 - Historical total of 92,700 pounds of VOCs recovered in 6 years of operation (BGRS and TGRS) 
 
 - Plume containment successful at site 
 
 - VOC plumes changed little after several years of treatment; estimate of remediation time increased to achieve a 
 concentration of 17 ppb TCE in 50 to 70 years 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Capital costs - $8,034,454 (including construction of treatment plant, wells, force main and pump houses, startup, 
 engineering, and project management) 
 
 - Annual operating costs - $588,599 (including power, labor, maintenance, laboratory charges, and replacement of tower 
 packing) 
 
 - Total Life Cycle Costing estimated as $0.30 per 1,000 gallons of water treated 
 
 - Total cost of operation and maintenance calculated as $0.12 per 1,000 gallons of water treated 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, established in 1941, has been used for the production and storage of munitions. 
 The site includes 7 major production buildings and over 300 auxiliary buildings. A series of hydrogeological investigations 
 beginning in 1981 revealed elevated levels of VOCs in groundwater; 14 separate source areas have been identified at the 
 site. Trichloroethene (TCE) has been measured at concentrations over 10,000 ppb in the groundwater. Target groundwater 
 cleanup levels were established for four constituents - TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE, and 1,1,1-TCA. 
 
 Groundwater extraction followed by air stripping has been used at this site since October 1987 to treat contaminated 
 groundwater. The groundwater extraction system includes 12 boundary recovery wells and 5 source area recovery wells. 
 Extracted groundwater is treated using four 36-feet tall air stripping towers. An estimated 92,700 pounds of VOCs have 
 been recovered in 6 years of system operation. Although plume containment has been successful at the site, the plumes have 
 changed little after several years of treatment. 
 
 An estimate of the time required for remediation has been revised from 30 years to 50 to 70 years, based on a review of 
 data collected to date. Capital costs for this application were $8,034,454, and annual operating costs are $588,599. 
 
 53 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 U.S. Department of Energy 
 Kansas City Plant 
 Kansas City, Missouri 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
 Kansas City Plant 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics; includes 
 Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Trichloroethene 
 (TCE), 1,2-Dichloroethenes (1,2-DCEs), and 
 Vinyl Chloride 
 
 PCBs, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, and Metals 
 
 - TCE concentrations of > 10,000 pg/L in 
 groundwater 
 
 - Presence of DNAPLs suspected 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 5/88 to 2/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Kansas City, Missouri 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Allied Signal, Inc. 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction with Advanced 
 
 Oxidation Processes (AOPs) 
 
 - 14 extraction wells and one trench; 
 screened intervals of wells ranged from 27 
 feet to approximately 47 feet below ground 
 surface; flow rates ranged from 0.9 to 5 
 gallons per minute (gpm) based on a design 
 flow rate of 2 gpm 
 
 - Interceptor trench of 250 ft. in length; 
 ranged in depth from about 22 ft. to 31 ft. 
 
 - Treatment system - acidification to 
 solubilize inorganic metals, bag filtration, 
 UV/peroxide oxidation, and neutralization 
 
 - Initial AOP - UV/Ozone/Peroxide system 
 replaced in May 1993 with a high intensity 
 UV/Peroxide system 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 RCRA Corrective Action and 
 
 Other: Kansas City Water and 
 Pollution Control Department 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 3724 (aircraft-engine manufacturing) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 G.P. Keary 
 
 Environmental Restoration 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 DOE Kansas City Plant 
 
 Kansas City, MO 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Manufacturing Process 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - 11.2 million gallons treated (1993) 
 
 - Horizontal/Vertical distribution of VOCs in groundwater - up to 4,000 ft. 
 horizontal and over 40 ft. vertical 
 
 - Alluvial deposits underlain by bedrock consisting of sandstone and shale 
 
 - Shale is relatively impermeable 
 
 - Porosity of aquifer is 20% 
 
 - Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of aquifer is 1.1 to 2.3 ft/day; sandstone is 
 
 0.04 to 0.005 ft/day; underlying shale is impermeable in water 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full scale remediation of groundwater contaminated with VOCs using advanced oxidation processes (UV/peroxide). 
 
 54 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 U.S. Department of Energy 
 Kansas City Plant 
 Kansas City, Missouri (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Final cleanup goals for site have not been established at time of report; will be set subsequent to RFI/CMS activities 
 
 - Treated groundwater discharged to municipal sewer system must meet requirements of permit issued by the Kansas City 
 Water and Pollution Control Department; for organics - total organic halogen 0.16 mg/L; metals - 0.69 to 100 mg/L 
 
 Results: 
 
 As of February 1994; 
 
 - Influent VOC concentrations to UV/Peroxide treatment system were 10.6 mg/L with an average influent concentration of 25 
 mg/L; effluent concentrations were 0.01 mg/L 
 
 - The UV/peroxide system destroyed > 99.95% VOCs 
 
 - PCBs were detected at levels up to 0.3 pg/L in influent to UV/peroxide unit; not detected in effluent 
 
 - VOC contaminant plume appears to be contained 
 
 - No significant change in VOC groundwater concentrations at this time 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs: $1,383,400 (including equipment, site preparation, construction/engineering, startup) 
 
 - Annual Operating Costs: $355,200 (including maintenance, project management, laboratory analysis, supplies) 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time. 
 
 Description: 
 
 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Kansas City Plant, constructed in 1942, has been used for aircraft engine 
 manufacturing, production of nuclear weapons components, and defense-related research and manufacturing operations. 
 
 During the 1980s, hydrogeologic investigations identified soil and groundwater contamination at the site which had resulted 
 from releases from the research and manufacturing operations. The primary contaminants detected included chlorinated 
 VOCs, aromatic VOCs, PCBs, and metals. DNAPLs are suspected in the groundwater, but have not been detected at this 
 time. Final cleanup goals have not been established at this time. Treated water from the system is discharged to the 
 municipal sanitary sewer system under the provisions of a Kansas City Water and Pollution Control Department wastewater 
 discharge permit (2/88). 
 
 Operation of a groundwater pump and treat system, which includes an Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP), began in May 
 1988 under RCRA corrective action. The initial system included 14 extraction wells followed by a low intensity Ultraviolet 
 (UV)/Ozone/Peroxide treatment system. This system was replaced in May 1993 by a high intensity UV/Peroxide system to 
 provide additional 30 GPM treatment capacity for groundwater and to correct operational problems with the initial unit 
 (equipment malfunctions and downtime). While the cleanup is ongoing at this time and final performance data are not yet 
 available, interim results indicate that the extraction system appears to be containing the VOC contaminant plume. However, 
 the concentrations of VOC in the groundwater have not changed significantly. 
 
 The total capital costs for this application were $1,383,400 and the annual operating costs were $355,200. With respect to the 
 AOP, the replacement of the low intensity UV/ozone/peroxide system with the high intensity UV/peroxide system resulted in 
 both increased treatment capacity and cost savings while meeting the discharge limits for the treated water. The high intensity 
 UV/peroxide system eliminated the need for GAC polishing and treatment of air emissions and reduced operation and 
 maintenance costs. Although more expensive than alternatives such as air stripping, AOP was selected because it destroys the 
 contaminants rather than transferring contaminants to other media. 
 
 55 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 at U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, 
 
 Aiken, South Carolina 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
 Savannah River Site A/M Area 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Trichloroethene (TCE), Tetrachloroethene 
 (PCE), and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) 
 
 - Concentrations of volatile organic 
 compounds (VOCs) in groundwater reported 
 as high as 500 ppm 
 
 - Groundwater TCE concentrations over 48 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 9/85 to 12/93 
 
 Location: 
 
 Aiken, South Carolina 
 
 ppm 
 
 - Groundwater contains 260,000-450,000 
 pounds of dissolved organic solvents in 
 concentrations greater than 0.01 ppm, 
 estimated to be 75% TCE 
 
 - Soil TCE concentrations over 10 ppm 
 
 - Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) 
 are present in groundwater 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 C.L. Bergen 
 
 Westinghouse Savannah River 
 Company 
 
 Aiken, SC 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction Wells followed by Air 
 
 Stripping 
 
 - 11 recovery wells at depths to over 200 feet 
 below ground surface 
 
 - Production air stripper has a design capacity 
 of 610 gpm; operated at 510 gpm 
 
 - 1993 average flow rate was 479 gpm; 
 average air flow rate was 2,489 cfm 
 
 - In 1993, 19,500 lbs of VOCs removed; 
 average air emission rate of 2 lbs/hr 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 RCRA Corrective Action and 
 
 State: South Carolina Bureau of 
 Air Quality Control 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 3355 (Aluminum forming) 
 
 3471 (Metal finishing) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 G.E. Turner, DOE 
 
 Savannah River Oper. Office 
 Environmental Restoration Div. 
 Aiken, SC 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundment 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - VOC contaminated groundwater has an approximate thickness of 150 ft and 
 covers about 1,200 acres 
 
 - Complex hydrogeology arising from heterogeneities in a multilayer aquifer 
 system with discontinuous sand and clay layers 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity 9-73 ft/day 
 
 - Transmissivity 175 - 12,500 gpd/day 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Full-scale pump and treat remediation 
 of groundwater contaminated with 
 VOCs using aboveground air 
 stripping. 
 
 56 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater 
 at U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, 
 Aiken, South Carolina (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Groundwater: 
 
 TCE - 5 ppb; PCE - 5 ppb; TCA - 200 ppb 
 
 - Adopted in 1990, based on EPA MCLs 
 
 - During initial remediation efforts in 1985, the cleanup goal was 99% removal of VOCs over a 30-year period 
 Air: 
 
 34 tons/yr VOCs or 7.9 lbs/hr 
 
 - Based on South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality Control permit 
 
 Results: 
 
 As of 1993: 
 
 - Influent concentrations to air stripper decreased for TCE (from 25,000 ppb to about 6,000 ppb) and PCE (from 12,000 ppb 
 to 4,000 ppb) 
 
 - The total quantity of VOCs removed from 1985 to 1993 is 273,300 lbs 
 
 - Average VOC removal efficiency for air stripper >99.9% 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Capital Costs (1990 dollars) - $4,103,000 (including design, construction and installation, engineering, site 
 development) 
 
 - Total Annual Operating Costs (1990 dollars) - $149,200 (for years 1985 to 1990) (including electricity, maintenance, 
 operation, well sampling and analysis) 
 
 - Total cost of operation and maintenance is $0.75 per 1,000 gallons treated (198 million gallons per year treated) 
 
 - An estimated total cost for completing the cleanup is not available at this time 
 
 Description: 
 
 At the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, administrative buildings are located within the "A" area and 
 aluminum forming and metal finishing operations have been performed within the "M" area. An estimated 3.5 million 
 pounds of solvents were discharged from these operations between 1958 and 1985, with over 2 million pounds sent to an 
 unlined settling basin. Groundwater contamination beneath the settling basin was discovered in 1981. The primary 
 contaminants were volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at concentrations up to 500 ppm. A pilot groundwater remediation 
 system was operated in 1983, with the full-scale groundwater treatment begun on September 1985. The full-scale 
 technology included groundwater extraction wells and a production air stripper. The design of the production air stripper 
 was based on pilot and prototype air strippers. 
 
 While the remediation was ongoing at the time of this report, reductions in concentrations of both TCE and PCE to the air 
 stripper have been noted and the estimated total historical (1985 to 1993) removal of VOCs is over 273,000 lbs. In addition, 
 the average VOC removal efficiency of the air stripper is greater than 99.9%. Contaminated groundwater in the source areas 
 and the areas of the highest VOC concentrations appears to be contained at this time. However, the areas at the fringes of 
 the plume are not as well contained, due to hydraulic factors. 
 
 The total capital cost for this application is $4,103,000 and the total annual operating costs are $149,200. DNAPLs were 
 discovered in the groundwater in 1991 and pose a significant limitation to the long-term use of pump and treat, since pump 
 and treat is effective for plume restoration only where DNAPL source areas have been contained or removed. A need for 
 supplemental site characterization to fully define the DNAPL contamination and to redirect ongoing remediation activities 
 has been identified. 
 
 57 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 
 U.S. Department of Energy 
 Savannah River Site 
 Aiken, South Carolina 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 
 Savannah River Site A/M Area 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Trichloroethene (TCE), Tetrachloroethene 
 (PCE), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) 
 
 - Concentrations of volatile organic 
 compounds (VOCs) in groundwater reported 
 as high as 500 ppm 
 
 - Groundwater TCE concentrations over 
 
 48 ppm 
 
 - Groundwater contains 260,000-450,000 
 pounds of dissolved organic solvents in 
 concentrations greater than 0.01 ppm, 
 estimated to be 75% TCE 
 
 - Soil TCE concentrations over 10,000 pg/L 
 (1991) 
 
 - Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) 
 are present in groundwater 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 July 1990 to September 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Aiken, South Carolina 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Field Demonstration 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 C.L. Bergen 
 
 Westinghouse Savannah River Co. 
 Aiken, SC 
 
 Technology: 
 
 In Situ Air Stripping 
 
 - 7 horizontal wells installed; only 2 wells 
 used in field demonstration 
 
 - Demonstration wells: 1 installed in saturated 
 zone; 1 installed in vadose zone; targeted 
 contaminated sands 
 
 - Air injected through lower horizontal well, 
 below the water table 
 
 - Demonstration focused on supplementing 
 pump and treat efforts 
 
 - Demonstration did not include offgas 
 treatment 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 RCRA Corrective Action and 
 
 State: South Carolina Dept, of 
 Health and Environmental 
 
 Control, Air Quality Control, and 
 Underground Injection Control 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 3355 (Aluminum forming) 
 
 3471 (Metal finishing) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 G.E. Turner, DOE 
 
 Savannah River Oper. Office 
 Environmental Restoration Div. 
 Aiken, SC 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundment 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater and Soil 
 
 - Area of VOC-contaminated groundwater has an approximate thickness of 150 feet 
 and covers about 1,200 acres 
 
 - Aquifer units characterized to 180 feet below ground surface (9 separate units), 
 showing complex hydrogeology and discontinuous sand and clay layers 
 
 - Hydraulic conductivity 9-73 ft/day 
 
 - Transmissivity 175 - 12,500 gpd/day 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Field demonstration of in situ air stripping using horizontal wells to supplement groundwater pump and treat technology. 
 
 58 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated Groundwater at 
 
 U.S. Department of Energy 
 Savannah River Site 
 Aiken, South Carolina (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - No specific cleanup goals identified for the field demonstration 
 
 - Demonstrations permitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Air Quality 
 Control (AQC) and Underground Injection Control (UIC) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Substantial changes in groundwater VOC concentrations measured during demonstration 
 
 - Increased microbial numbers and metabolic activity exhibited during air injection period 
 
 - 139 day demonstration (July-December 1990) removed nearly 16,000 pounds of VOCs 
 
 - Vacuum extraction removed an estimated 109 lbs VOC/day while air injection resulted in an additional 20 lbs/day VOC 
 removal 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Costs for conducting field demonstration not provided 
 
 Cost study for in situ air stripping provided the following projected costs: 
 
 - Total equipment costs - $253,525 (including design and engineering, well installation, air injection and extraction system, 
 piping, and electrical) 
 
 - Site costs - $5,000 (setup and level area) 
 
 - Total Annual Labor Costs - $62,620 (including mobilization/demobilization, monitoring, and maintenance) 
 
 - Total Annual Consumable Costs $157,761 (including carbon recharge, fuel, and chemical additives) 
 
 Description: 
 
 At the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, administrative buildings are located within the A area and aluminum 
 forming and metal finishing operations have been performed within the "M" area. An estimated 3.5 million pounds of 
 solvents were discharged from these operations between 1958 and 1985, with over 2 million pounds sent to an unlined 
 settling basin. Groundwater contamination beneath the settling basin was discovered in 1981. A pump and treat program 
 has been ongoing since 1985 for removal of VOCs from the groundwater. 
 
 A field demonstration using in situ air stripping with horizontal wells in the A/M Area was conducted from July 1990 to 
 September 1993. The demonstration was part of a program at Savannah River to investigate the use of several technologies 
 to enhance the pump and treat system. In the air stripping demonstration, air was injected into a lower horizontal well in the 
 saturated zone and extracted through the horizontal well in the vadose zone. The demonstration did not include treatment of 
 offgases. The in situ air stripping process increased VOC removal over conventional vacuum extraction from 109 pounds 
 per day to 129 pounds per day. Nearly 16,000 pounds of VOCs were removed during the 139 day demonstration period. 
 
 A cost analysis performed as part of this demonstration showed that in situ air stripping can remove VOCs for approximately 
 69% of the cost for conventional methods. Installation costs for horizontal wells is greater than for vertical wells. For 
 deeper horizontal wells (over 40-50 feet), costs range from $360 to $700 per foot. Several implementation concerns were 
 identified for installing horizontal wells at Savannah River. 
 
 59 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 60 
 
4.0 
 
 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay, 
 
 South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), Phase 2, Tacoma, 
 
 Washington. 62 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild Semiconductor 
 
 Corporation Superfund Site San Jose, California . 64 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Groundwater 
 Contamination Superfund Site Well Number 3 Subsite, 
 
 Hastings, Nebraska. 66 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation of 
 a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, 
 
 Utah. 68 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at North Fire Training Area 
 
 (NFTA) Luke AFB, Arizona. 70 
 
 In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at McClellan Air Force 
 
 Base California . 72 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
 
 Superfund Site Motor Pool Area (OU-18) Commerce 
 
 City, Colorado. 74 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot 
 Superfund Site, Tank 2 Operable Unit Sacramento, 
 
 California . 76 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the SMS Instruments Superfund 
 
 Site Deer Park, New York. 78 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona Well Field 
 Superfund Site, Thomas Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1) 
 
 Battle Creek, Michigan. 80 
 
 61 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay, 
 South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), 
 
 Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma 
 Channel (Well 12A) Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (DCE), 
 
 1.1.2.2- Tetrachloroethane (PCA), 
 
 1.1.2.2- Tetrachloroethene (PCE), 
 
 Trichloroethene (TCE) 
 
 - Average VOC concentrations in top 25 feet 
 of soil ranged from 10 to 100 mg/kg 
 
 - Average PCA concentrations in soil borings 
 ranged from 6,200 at 30 feet depth to over 
 19,000 mg/kg at 40 feet depth 
 
 - Approximately 571,000 lbs of VOCs present 
 in unsaturated zone 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 8/92 to 2/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Tacoma, Washington 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (Report 
 documents demonstration phase) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Environmental Science & 
 
 Engineering, Inc. 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 22 wells used for vapor extraction, air inlet, 
 and observation 
 
 - Vapor-phase carbon adsorption (GAC) used 
 for treatment of extracted VOCs 
 
 - GAC beds regenerated on site with low 
 pressure steam 
 
 - Design flow rate for extraction system of 
 
 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA, Local Requirements 
 - ROD Date: 3/85 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 2851 (Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, 
 Enamels, and Allied Products) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Phil Stoa 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
 Seattle District 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Storage - Drums; Other: Pour off 
 from Processing Tanks 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Volume of contaminated soil reported as 98,203 cubic yards, based on an area of 
 66,300 ft 2 and a depth of 40 ft 
 
 - Upper aquifer (50 ft thickness) consists of unconfined sand and gravel 
 
 - Surface soil permeability ranges from 2.8 to 3.6 x 10' 3 cm/sec 
 
 - Separate liquid phases of VOCs in soil and groundwater suspected 
 
 - Tar-like compounds in soil suspected 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Application of soil vapor extraction 
 with an on-site solvent recovery 
 system; relatively large volume of 
 contaminated soil; possible presence 
 of separate liquid phases of VOCs 
 and tar-like compounds in soil. 
 
 62 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay, 
 South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), 
 
 Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/CIeanup Goals: 
 
 - No specific cleanup goals identified in Record of Decision 
 
 - Local permit required for air emissions 
 
 - Performance objective for air treatment system set at 99% removal 
 
 - Air discharge limits specified as follows: 
 
 PC A 0.149 lbs/hr 
 
 PCE 0.095 lbs/hr 
 
 TCE 0.344 lbs/hr 
 
 Results: 
 
 - No results provided for quantity of contaminants removed during demonstration phase 
 
 - Computer modelling results show predicted removal rates for VOCs as a function of time 
 
 - Pilot-scale results indicated that 3 to 4 lbs/day/well of VOC could be removed from the upper 30 feet of soil 
 
 - No results provided for air emissions - treatment system removals or mass discharge rates 
 
 - Problems were experienced with the operation of the solvent recovery system 
 
 - Condensed mixed solvents formed an emulsion which did not readily separate from the water 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 Total Capital Cost - $5,313,973 (as of 5/94) (no breakdown of costs available) 
 
 Annual Operating Costs - $100,000 (estimated) (no breakdown of costs available) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Commencement Bay site was used from 1927 to 1964 for waste oil recycling, paint and lacquer thinner manufacturing, 
 and solvent reclamation and hundreds of drums of material were stored at the site. Leaks from these drums, as well as the 
 dumping of wastes directly on the ground and overflows from the solvent and waste oil recycling tanks, resulted in 
 contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site. The primary contaminants of concern at the site included DCE (trans- 
 1,2-dichloroethylene), PCA (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane), PCE (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene), and TCE (trichloroethylene). VOC 
 soil concentrations range from 10 to 100 mg/L. 
 
 A full-scale SVE system was constructed in 1992. Operation testing of this system began in August 1992 and this report 
 covers the demonstration phase of the project. The SVE system includes 22 vapor extraction wells. Granular activated 
 carbon (GAC), used to treat extracted vapors, is regenerated on site using low pressure steam, which was subsequently 
 condensed. The on-site solvent recovery system is used to separate VOCs from the condensate. 
 
 As of May 1994, the total capital costs and annual operating costs for this application were $5,313,973 and $99,810, 
 respectively. While no performance data are available at this time, it was noted that the SVE system seems to be 
 performing adequately. Several problems were experienced in the operation of the solvent recovery system. Condensed 
 mixed solvents formed an emulsion which did not readily separate from the water. The report identifies a need to perform 
 pilot testing of the solvent recovery system to ensure that separation of VOCs and water can be performed. 
 
 63 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild 
 Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site 
 San Jose, California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - TCA (trichloroethane), DCE (1,1- 
 dichloroethene), IPA (isopropyl alcohol), 
 xylenes, acetone, Freon-113, and PCE 
 (tetrachloroethene) 
 
 - Maximum concentration of total solvents in 
 soil was 4,500 mg/kg 
 
 - TCA - measured as high as 3,530 mg/kg in 
 soil; xylenes as high as 141 mg/kg in soil 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 January 1989 to April 1990 
 
 Location: 
 
 San Jose, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Dennis Curran 
 
 Canonie Environmental Services 
 Corporation 
 
 441 N. Whisman Road, Building 23 
 Mountain View, CA 94043 
 (415) 960-1640 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 39 extraction wells, 2 vacuum pumps 
 (capacity of 4,500 ff/min at 20 inches of 
 
 Hg) 
 
 - Vapor treatment system - dehumidification 
 unit and vapor phase granular activated 
 carbon 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and State: California 
 -ROD Date: 3/20/89 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 3674 (Semiconductors and Related 
 Devices) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Belinda Wei 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 9 
 
 75 Hawthorne Street 
 
 San Francisco, CA 94105 
 (415) 744-2280 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 One of the early full-scale applications 
 of SVE; used at a site with a complex 
 hydrogeology. 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 42,000 yds 3 
 
 - Sands, silts, and clays; air permeability 0.12-0.83 cm/sec; transmissivity - 
 69,000 to 810,000 gpd/ft 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Operation of SVE system until total chemical removal rate was less than 10 lbs/day and the chemical removal rate from 
 individual wells decreased to 10% or less of the initial removal rate or until the chemical removal rate declined at a rate of 
 less than 1% per day for 10 consecutive days 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Achieved the cleanup goal for the 10 lbs/day total chemical removal rate in 8 months 
 
 - After 16 months of operation, the removal rate for total chemicals was less than 4 lbs/day 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Actual capital costs - $2,100,000 (including installation of wells and vapor extraction system, and engineering services) 
 
 - Total operation and maintenance costs for 16 months - $1,800,000 (including water quality sampling and analysis, water 
 level monitoring, equipment maintenance, engineering services, and carbon regeneration) 
 
 64 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild 
 Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site 
 San Jose, California (Continued) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund site (Fairchild) is a former semiconductor manufacturing facility which 
 operated from 1977 to 1983. In late 1981, an underground storage tank used to store organic solvent was determined to be 
 leaking. An estimated 60,000 gallons of solvents were released to the soil and groundwater. The primary contaminants of 
 concern in the soil were 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), xylene, acetone, 
 Freon-113, and isopropyl alcohol (IPA). Reported concentrations of total solvents in the soil were as high as 4,500 mg/kg, 
 with maximum concentrations of TCA and xylenes in soil of 3,530 mg/kg and 941 mg/kg, respectively. As part of a multi¬ 
 site cooperative agreement between EPA, the State of California, and Fairchild, Fairchild conducted site remediation activities 
 at the San Jose site, including installing a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. The California Regional Water Quality Control 
 Board established a soil cleanup goal for this remediation of a total chemical rate of less than 10 lbs/day, along with specific 
 performance goals for individual wells. 
 
 The SVE system, which consisted of 39 extraction wells, operated from January 1989 to April 1990. The most rapid 
 reductions in contaminant concentrations occurred during the first 2 months of operation. After 8 months of operation, the 
 SVE system achieved the cleanup goal of less than 10 lbs/day for total chemical removed. After 16 months of operation, the 
 system achieved a chemical removal rate of less than 4 lbs/day, at which time the system was shut off. 
 
 The total costs for the SVE treatment system at Fairchild were approximately $3,900,000. The actual costs were about 7% 
 less than the projected costs because the time required for the cleanup was less than originally estimated. This treatment 
 application was part of a multi-faceted cleanup program which included the installation of a slurry wall and dewatering of the 
 aquifer which accelerated contaminant removal from the soil. 
 
 65 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site 
 
 Well Number 3 Subsite, 
 
 Hastings, Nebraska 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Hastings Groundwater Contamination 
 Superfund Site, Well Number 3 
 
 Subsite 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 
 trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethane 
 (DCA), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and 
 perchloroethylene (PCA) 
 
 - Highest carbon tetrachloride concentration 
 measured in soil gas was 1,234 ppmv at 
 
 112 ft below ground surface 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 June 1992 to July 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Hastings, Nebraska 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Steve Roe 
 
 Morrison-Knudsen Corporation 
 
 7100 East Belleview Avenue 
 
 Suite 300 
 
 Englewood, CO 80111 
 (303) 793-5089 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 10 extraction wells (5 deep, 3 intermediate, 
 
 2 shallow) 
 
 - 5 monitoring well probes 
 
 - An air/water separator, vacuum pump, and 
 vapor phase granular activated carbon unit 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 9/26/89 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 0723A (Crop Preparation Services for 
 Market, Except Cotton Ginning- Grain 
 Fumigation) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Diane Easley (RPM) 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 7 
 
 726 Minnesota Avenue 
 
 Kansas City, KS 66101 
 (913) 551-7797 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Spill; Other: Contaminated Aquifer 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 185,000 yd 3 
 
 - Shallow zone: moisture content 26.3%, air permeability 1.9 x 10 10 cm 2 , 
 
 TOC - 270 mg/kg 
 
 - Deep zone: moisture content 5%, air permeability 6.2 x 10' 8 cm 2 , 
 
 TOC - < 50 mg/kg 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale SVE application at a 
 Superfund site to treat a large quantity 
 of soil contaminated with carbon 
 tetrachloride. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Extraction rate for carbon tetrachloride of 0.001 lb/hr 
 
 - Established in 1992 by EPA and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 
 
 66 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site 
 
 Well Number 3 Subsite, 
 
 Hastings, Nebraska (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The SVE system achieved the cleanup goal of 0.001 lb/hr extraction rate for carbon tetrachloride within 9 months of 
 operation 
 
 - Approximately 600 pounds of carbon tetrachloride extracted, about 45 pounds extracted within the first 2 months of 
 operation 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total cost of $369,628 (including project monitoring and control, procurement support, construction management (drilling, 
 construction, system dismantlement, and grouting of wells), operations, maintenance, and reporting) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) was used at the Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund site to treat approximately 
 185,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with carbon tetrachloride (CC1 4 ). The site had become contaminated through 
 accidental spills of carbon tetrachloride which was used in the 1960s and 1970s as a fumigant at a grain storage facility. 
 Concentrations of CC1 4 were measured in soil gas at the site at levels as high as 1,234 ppmv. A Record of Decision (ROD) 
 was signed in September 1989, specifying SVE as an interim source control measure. 
 
 A pilot-scale treatability study (2 deep and 2 shallow extraction wells), conducted from April to May 1991, removed 45 
 pounds of CC1 4 . The full-scale SVE system, based on the pilot-scale study, consisted of 10 extraction wells (5 deep, 3 
 intermediate, and 2 shallow) and was operated from June 1992 to July 1993. EPA and the Nebraska Department of 
 Environmental Quality established an extraction rate for CC1 4 of 0.001 lb/hr as the cleanup goal with operation of the system 
 required until field analytical results were verified through laboratory analysis and confirmation of no rebounding of CC1 4 . 
 
 The SVE system achieved the 0.001 lb/hr CC1 4 extraction rate within 6 months (January 1993) with the results verified and no 
 rebounding confirmed by July 1993. 
 
 The total cost for this treatment application was approximately $370,000. Actual costs were 17% less than projected. Cost 
 savings were attributed to the effectiveness of the SVE system (the cleanup required only 9 months rather than the estimated 2 
 years based on treatability study results), and use of local contractors. 
 
 67 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing 
 for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill 
 at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Hill Air Force Base, Site 914 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 October 1988 to December 1990 
 
 Location: 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 
 - TPH concentrations in untreated soil ranged 
 from <20 to 10,200 mg/kg with average soil 
 TPH concentration of 411 mg/kg 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: Soil Vapor Extraction followed 
 
 by Bio venting 
 
 SVE 
 
 - 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11 located in areas 
 of highest contamination), 31 monitoring 
 wells, 3 neutron access probes (for soil 
 moisture monitoring) 
 
 - Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with 
 4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from 
 
 10 to 50 feet below ground surface 
 
 - Plastic liner installed over part of spill area 
 surface to prevent local air infiltration and 
 bypassing of air flow to the vent well 
 directly from the surface 
 
 - Monitoring wells - ranged in depth from 6 to 
 55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casing and 
 a 2-foot screened interval to the bottom of 
 the well 
 
 - Catalytic incinerator for extracted vapor 
 
 - Air flow - 1,500 acfm (maximum), 700 acfm 
 (typical) 
 
 Bioventing 
 
 - 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15) located on the 
 southern perimeter of the spill area; 31 
 monitoring wells; 3 neutron access probes 
 (soil moisture monitoring) 
 
 - Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with 
 4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from 
 
 10 to 50 feet below ground surface 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Utah 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Robert Elliot 
 
 OO-ACC/EMR 
 
 7274 Wardleigh Road 
 
 Hill AFB, UT 84055 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Spill of JP-4 Jet Fuel 
 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 One of the early applications 
 involving sequential use of SVE and 
 bioventing technology. 
 
 - Monitoring wells - range in depth from 6 to 
 
 55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casings, 
 screened from 10 to 50 feet below ground 
 surface 
 
 - No treatment of extracted vapors required 
 (hydrocarbon concentrations <50 mg/L; use 
 of catalytic incinerator not required) 
 
 - Air flow - 250 acfm 
 
 - Soil moisture - 6 to 12% 
 
 - Nutrients added - C:N:P ratio of 100:10:10 
 
 
 68 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing 
 for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill 
 at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah (Continued) 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 5,000 yds 3 contaminated by spill (surface area of 13,500 ft 2 ) 
 
 - Approximate extent of 10,000 mg/kg JP-4 contour covered area 100 by 150 feet 
 
 - Formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses 
 
 - Air permeability ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 darcies 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - 38.1 mg/kg TPH 
 
 - Cleanup conducted under Utah Department of Health’s "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for Petroleum- 
 Contaminated Soil at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites" 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Achieved specified TPH levels 
 
 - Average TPH soil concentrations in treated soil reduced to less than 6 mg/kg 
 
 - 211,000 lbs of TPH removed in approximately 2 years of operation 
 
 - Removal rate ranged from 20 to 400 lbs/day 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total costs of $599,000, including capital and 2 years of operating costs 
 
 - Capital costs - $335,000 (including construction of piping and wells, other equipment, and startup costs) 
 
 - Annual operating costs - $132,000 (including electricity, fuel, labor, laboratory charges, and lease of equipment for 2 year 
 operation) 
 
 Description: 
 
 In January 1985, an estimated 27,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel were spilled at the Hill Air Force Base Site 914 when an 
 automatic overflow device failed. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil ranged from <20 mg/kg 
 to over 10,000 mg/kg, with an average concentration of about 400 mg/kg. The spill area covered approximately 13,500 ft 2 . 
 
 The remediation of this spill area was conducted from October 1988 to December 1990 in two phases: the soil vapor 
 extraction (SVE) phase followed by the bioventing phase. The SVE system included 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11) located in 
 the areas of highest contamination, 31 monitoring wells, and a catalytic incinerator. The typical air flow rate through the 
 vent wells was 700 acfm, with a maximum of 1,500 acfm. In addition, a plastic liner was installed over part of the spill 
 area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow to the vent well directly from the surface. Within a 
 year, the SVE system removed hydrocarbons from the soil to levels ranging from 33 to 101 mg/kg. Further reduction of the 
 hydrocarbon concentration in the soil, to levels below the specified TPH limit, was achieved by using bioventing for 15 
 months. The bioventing system included 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15), located on the southern perimeter of the spill area, 
 and the monitoring wells used for SVE system. Because hydrocarbon concentrations were <50 mg/L in the extracted vapors, 
 the catalytic incinerator was not required for this phase. Biodegradation was enhanced by injecting oxygen, moisture, and 
 nutrients to the soil. Average TPH concentrations in the treated soil were less than 6 mg/kg. 
 
 The total capital cost for this application was $335,000 and the total annual operating costs were $132,000. In monitoring 
 biodegradation rates, oxygen depletion was found to be a more accurate estimator of biodegradation rate than carbon dioxide 
 formation. Carbon dioxide sinks, such as biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with the soil, limited the usefulness of 
 carbon dioxide formation as a process control parameter. 
 
 69 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at 
 North Fire Training Area (NFTA) 
 Luke AFB, Arizona 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Luke Air Force Base, North Fire 
 Training Area 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 
 
 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes 
 (BTEX), and Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 
 
 - Initial soil contamination in two fire 
 training pits - Benzene - 0.2 to 16 mg/kg; 
 Toluene - 10 to 183 mg/kg; Ethylbenzene - 
 21 to 84 mg/kg; Xylenes - 69 to 336 
 mg/kg; and Total Recoverable Petroleum 
 Hydrocarbons (TRPH) - 151 to 1,380 
 mg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 October 1991 to December 1992 
 
 Location: 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Dan McCaffery 
 
 Envirocon, Inc. 
 
 James Ramm 
 
 Rust Environment 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 1 extraction well for each of 2 fire pits 
 
 - Wells constructed with 35-foot screens to 
 depths up to 57 feet 
 
 - Thermal oxidizer used for destruction of 
 organics in extracted vapors 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 State: Arizona 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Jerome Stolinksi 
 
 CERMO 
 
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
 Omaha District 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Fire Training Area 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Permeable silty sands, very permeable, clean well graded to poorly graded 
 sands, and permeable to low permeability inorganic silts 
 
 - Moisture content 10% 
 
 - Permeability of top soils ranged from 1 x 10' 4 to 3 x 10' 3 cm/sec 
 
 - Porosity ranged from 36 to 46% 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup of two fire training 
 pits using soil vapor extraction. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Arizona Action Levels for soil - TPH - 100 mg/kg; and BTEX - 412 mg/kg 
 
 - Applicable state air emissions standards 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Treated soil concentrations indicated TPH and BTEX were below the Arizona Action Levels 
 
 - 12,000 lbs of contaminants were removed during 30 weeks of operation 
 
 - Removal rate remained at 40 lbs/day after 30 weeks of operation 
 
 - Soil gas concentration reductions achieved in 6 months for 8 constituents ranged from 72 to 96% (benzene) 
 
 70 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at 
 North Fire Training Area (NFTA) 
 Luke AFB, Arizona (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 Total cost - $507,185 
 
 - Capital costs - $297,017 (including site preparation, site work, startup, engineering, pipes, buildings, permitting, and 
 regulatory) 
 
 - Annual operating costs - $210,168 (including labor, laboratory charges, monitoring, fuel, electricity, maintenance, and 
 disposal of residuals) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Routine fire training exercises were conducted at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona between 1963 and 1990, using petroleum, 
 oil, and lubricant wastes, and JP-4 fuel. Fire training pits number 3 and 4 were used since 1973. During site investigations 
 conducted between 1981 and 1989, soil at these two pits were determined to be contaminated with total petroleum 
 hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Cleanup goals were established for TPH and 
 BTEX in soil based on Arizona Action Levels (AALs) - TPH at 100 mg/kg, and BTEX at 412 mg/kg. 
 
 A full-scale cleanup using Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) of the soil in the two pits was conducted from October 1991 until 
 December 1992. A thermal oxidizer was used for destruction of organic vapors extracted from the soil. The full-scale 
 system, which used the thermal oxidizer, removed 12,000 pounds of contaminants in 30 weeks of operation. TPH and BTEX 
 levels were below the AALs after five months of operation, with TPH and benzene reported as not detected in March 1992. 
 Results of sampling in November 1992 showed ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes as not detected. System downtime was 
 about 1% during this period. After a temporary shutdown period, an attempt to restart the system caused a malfunction in the 
 thermal oxidizer and the destruction of the burner. As of December 1992, future activities at the site were pending. 
 
 The total cost of this treatment application was $507,185. It was noted that the site investigation underestimated the amount 
 of contamination at the site. A pilot-scale study was conducted at Luke prior to implementing the full-scale system. The 
 pilot-scale system used vapor-phase granular activated carbon to treat extracted soil gas. Due to unexpectedly high 
 concentrations of volatile organic constituents, the carbon supply was exhausted after two days of operation and the study was 
 aborted. In discussing remediation of sites contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel, the report includes a discussion of the relative 
 benefits of using SVE and bioventing techniques. 
 
 71 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 McClellan Air Force Base Superfund 
 Site, Operable Unit D, Site S 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Trichloroethene 
 (TCE), 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), Vinyl 
 Chloride, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), 1,2- 
 Dichloroethene (1,2-DCA), Freon 113 
 
 - PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, TCA, and Freon 113 
 account for over 99% of the speciated VOC 
 mass in the vadose zone 
 
 - Maximum borehole concentration of VOCs 
 in vadose zone reported up to 2,975,000 
 
 Mg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status - Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 1993 to 5/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Sacramento, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Field Demonstration 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 CH2M Hill 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 17 vapor extraction wells in three 
 contamination zones 
 
 - 5 vacuum blowers, 2 vapor/liquid separators 
 
 - Catalytic oxidizer and scrubber used to 
 control air emissions 
 
 - Total system average air flow rate was 
 
 2,500 scfm 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and State: California 
 - ROD Date: pending 
 (scheduled for issuance 
 mid-1995) 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 9711 (National Security) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Kendall Tanner 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 McClellan, AFB 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Disposal Pit (for fuel and solvents) 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Three zones of contamination - waste pit (landfilled silty sands and sandy silt 
 with oily material, wire wood, debris, etc.); intermediate alluvium; and deep 
 alluvium 
 
 - Permeability ranged from 0.001 (for silty clay) to 1.7 (for sand) darcies 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 A demonstration of soil vapor 
 extraction to remediate VOCs in waste 
 pit materials and vadose zone soils, 
 and to assess performance of catalytic 
 oxidation and scrubbing. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Cleanup criteria not yet established for this site at McClellan 
 
 - Air Emissions - 95% destruction of total VOCs, required by the Sacramento Air Quality Management District 
 
 72 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at 
 McClellan Air Force Base 
 California (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Demonstration not complete at time of report; no soil samples to characterize post-treatment vadose zone were collected at 
 time of report 
 
 - Approximately 46,000 lbs of speciated VOCs were extracted and treated during initial 6 weeks of operation; 113,000 lbs 
 during initial 15 weeks of operation 
 
 - TCE, 1,1-DCE, and TCA accounted for more than 90% of the mass of contaminants removed 
 
 - Up to 150,000 lbs of contaminants (hexane-equivalents) believed to have been biodegraded in situ during initial 6 weeks of 
 operation 
 
 - Overall DRE averaged 99% for total VOCs during second and third months of demonstration; lower DRE in first month 
 attributed to operational concerns 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Field demonstration budget - $1.8 million for 1993 and $2.0 million for 1994 (including site characterization; air 
 permeability testing; installation and operation of SVE wells; vapor probes and manifold; air/water separators; blowers; 
 scrubber; catalytic oxidizer (rented); resin adsorption (rented); electronic beam technology testing; laboratory analysis; and 
 engineering support) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California is an Air Force Command Logistics Center that has been in 
 operation since 1943. The base was placed on the National Priorities List in 1987 and Site S within Operable Unit D is one 
 of the areas of confirmed contamination at the base. Site S is the location of a former fuel and solvent disposal pit, used 
 from the early 1940s to mid-1970s. Soil at Site S has been contaminated with chlorinated and petroleum-based volatile 
 organic constituents (VOCs). No cleanup goals had been established for Site S at the time of this report. The report indicates 
 that a Record of Decision for Operable Unit D (which includes the disposal pit site) is scheduled to be issued in mid-1995. A 
 95% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for total VOCs in the extracted vapors was required by the Sacramento Air 
 Quality Management District. 
 
 A field demonstration of soil vapor extraction (SVE) at Site S began in mid-1993. This demonstration is being conducted as 
 part of a series of field programs designed to optimize remedial technologies to be used in a full-scale cleanup at McClellan. 
 This SVE system includes 17 vapor extraction wells, vapor/liquid separators, a catalytic oxidizer, and a scrubber. Results 
 from the field demonstration of SVE to date showed that approximately 113,000 pounds of VOCs were extracted in 15 weeks 
 of operation; mostly consisting of TCE, 1,1-DCE, and TCA. In addition, up to 150,000 pounds of contaminants (hexane- 
 equivalents) were believed to have been biodegraded in situ during the initial 6 weeks of the SVE demonstration. The 
 average DRE for total VOCs during the second and third months of the demonstration was 99 percent. 
 
 It was noted during this application that the heterogeneity of the soils at this site caused the radius of influence for the 
 extraction wells to vary from 15 to 60 feet for a single well. The calculated mass of contaminants was almost two orders of 
 magnitude less than the mass extracted in the first six weeks of system operation. It was also noted that SVE air pollution 
 control systems should be designed with sufficient capacity to provide for operational flexibility. 
 
 73 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site 
 Motor Pool Area (OU-18) 
 Commerce City, Colorado 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund 
 
 Site (Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit 
 
 18) 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Trichloroethylene (TCE) 
 
 - Levels of TCE in soil vapor of up to 65 
 ppm 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 July 1991 to December 1991 
 
 Location: 
 
 Commerce City, Colorado 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Rick Beyak 
 
 Woodward-Clyde Federal Services 
 
 4582 S. Ulster St., Suite 1200 
 
 Denver, CO 80237 
 (303) 740-2600 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 1 shallow vapor extraction well and 1 deep 
 vapor extraction well 
 
 - Shallow well screened between 13 and 28 
 feet below ground surface (bgs); deep well 
 screened between 43 and 58 feet bgs 
 
 - Liquid/vapor separator tank, sediment filter, 
 and regenerative blower 
 
 - Exhaust air from blower treated using two 
 granular activated carbon systems in series 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 - Federal Facilities Agreement 
 -ROD Date: 2/26/90 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 7699 (Repair Shops and Related 
 
 Services, Not Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 James D. Smith 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
 
 Attn: AMCPM-RME 
 
 Commerce City, CO 80022- 
 1749 
 
 (303) 289-0249 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Motor Vehicle, Railcar, and 
 Heavy Equipment Maintenance, 
 
 Repair, and Cleaning Activities 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 34,000 yd 3 (70 ft radius by 60 ft deep) 
 
 - Unconsolidated deposits beneath Motor Pool Area consist of discontinuous sand 
 and gravel lenses 
 
 - 1-3 foot low-permeability clayey sand to clay layer 32 to 38 feet bgs 
 
 - Moisture content - 4.7 to 30.9%; permeability - 167 darcys at 38 ft bgs and 
 
 2,860 darcys at 55 ft bgs 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 This application demonstrated that a 
 pilot-scale SVE system removed 
 sufficient vapor contaminants from the 
 vadose zone, and expansion of the 
 system beyond a pilot-scale was not 
 necessary. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - No specific cleanup goals were specified for Motor Pool Area OU-18 
 
 Results: 
 
 - TCE concentrations decreased to less than 1 ppm after 5 months of operation of the SVE system 
 
 - Rate of TCE extraction decreased from 35 pounds per month to less than 10 pounds per month 
 
 - Approximately 70 pounds of TCE removed during operation of the system 
 
 74 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site 
 Motor Pool Area (OU-18) 
 Commerce City, Colorado (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Costs attributed to treatment activities: $75,600 (installation and operation) 
 
 - Costs attributed to before-treatment activities: $88,490 (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring, and 
 laboratory analytical) 
 
 - Costs attributed to after-treatment activities: $19,650 (including pilot study) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Soil vapor extraction (SVE) was performed at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Superfund site, Motor Pool Area, in 
 Commerce City, Colorado to remove halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene, from the 
 vadose zone. The Motor Pool Area at RMA, referred to as Operable Unit 18, had been used for cleaning and servicing 
 equipment, vehicles, and railroad cars, and for storing diesel, gasoline, and oil products in aboveground and underground 
 storage tanks. VOCs, detected in the Motor Pool Area’s soil and groundwater have been attributed to releases of chlorinated 
 solvents used during cleaning operations; these solvents were discharged through floor drains and pipes into unlined ditches at 
 the site. 
 
 This system was initially considered to be a pilot study because it was expected to provide performance data on SVE at this 
 site that could be used to expand the system to a full-scale operation. This application, operated from July to December 1991, 
 demonstrated that a pilot-scale SVE system removed sufficient vapor contaminants from the vadose zone, and expansion of 
 the system beyond pilot-scale was not necessary. The SVE system used within the Motor Pool Area consisted of one shallow 
 vapor extraction well and one deep vapor extraction well. Four clusters of vapor monitoring wells were installed to aid in the 
 assessment of the performance of the SVE system. TCE levels in soil vapors collected from the vapor monitoring wells were 
 reduced to non-detect or to levels of less than 1 ppm from initial vapor monitoring well samples as high as 65 ppm. 
 Approximately 70 pounds of TCE were recovered during this cleanup action. 
 
 The operating parameters collected during the system’s 1991 operation indicated that a clay lense located beneath the site 
 affected the SVE system’s performance by limiting both the shallow and deep vapor extraction wells’ vertical zones of 
 influence. The contract award cost for procuring, installing, and operating the SVE pilot system, as well as preparing a pilot 
 study report was $182,800. This cost was approximately 15% less than the preliminary cost estimate provided by the 
 remediation contractor for the project. Factors contributing to the lower cost included lower construction and system 
 operating costs. 
 
 75 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site, 
 Tank 2 Operable Unit 
 Sacramento, California 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Sacramento Army Depot Superfund 
 
 Site, Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3) 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 - 2-Butanone (0.011 to 150 mg/kg); 
 Ethylbenzene (0.006 to 2,100 mg/kg), 
 Tetrachloroethene (0.006 to 390 mg/kg), 
 and Xylenes (0.005 to 11,000 mg/kg) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 August 1992 to January 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Sacramento, California 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 James Perkins 
 
 Terra Vac, Inc. 
 
 14798 Wicks Boulevard 
 
 San Leandro, CA 94577 
 (510) 351-8900 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 8 vacuum extraction wells, positive 
 displacement blower, vapor-liquid separator, 
 and primary and secondary carbon filters 
 
 - Wells installed to depths of 15 to 28 feet 
 below ground surface 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and Other: Federal 
 Facilities Agreement 
 -ROD Date: 12/9/91 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 3471 (Electroplating, Plating, 
 
 Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring) 
 
 3479 (Coating, Engraving, and Allied 
 Services, Not Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Dan Obem 
 
 Sacramento Army Depot 
 
 8350 Fruitridge Road 
 
 Sacramento, CA 95813-5052 
 (916) 388-2489 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 650 yd 3 (25 ft by 35 ft by 20 ft deep) 
 
 - Silt with clay content of <30%; moisture content - 25.6 to 26.5%; air 
 permeability 1.7 x 10 7 to 6.2 x 10' 5 cm/sec; porosity - 44.3 to 45.8%; TOC 
 
 0.011 to 0.44% 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 This application of SVE was in a 
 relatively small volume of low 
 permeability, heterogenous, 
 contaminated soil. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - 1991 ROD specified soil cleanup levels for the Tank 2 Operable Unit of 2-Butanone (1.2 ppm); ethylbenzene (6 ppm); 
 tetrachloroethene (0.2 ppm); and total xylenes (23 ppm) 
 
 - Cleanup levels were to be achieved within 6 months of system operation 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The specified cleanup levels were achieved within six months of system operation 
 
 - Levels of 2-butanone, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and total xylenes were reduced to below detection limits 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 Total cost of $556,000 - costs directly associated with treatment (including mobilization/setup, startup, operation, sampling 
 and analysis, demobilization) 
 
 - $290,000 of total cost attributed to treatment of non-Freon contaminants (adjusted assuming operation costs equivalent for 
 Freon and non-Freon contaminants) 
 
 76 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site, 
 Tank 2 Operable Unit 
 Sacramento, California (Continued) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Sacramento Army Depot (SAAD) located in Sacramento, California is an Army support facility. Past and present 
 operations conducted at the site include equipment maintenance and repair, metal plating, parts manufacturing, and painting. 
 During investigations of the facility in 1981, soil contamination was identified in the area of an underground storage tank and 
 designated as Tank 2 Operable Unit. Tank 2 had been used to store solvents and the primary contaminants of concern 
 included ethylbenzene, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene, and xylenes. These constituents were detected in the soil at levels up to 
 11,000 mg/kg. A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in December 1991, specified soil cleanup levels for the four primary 
 constituents of concern and specified a six month timeframe for achieving these levels. SVE was selected for remediating the 
 contaminated soil because it was determined to be the most cost effective alternative. 
 
 The SVE system consisted of 8 vacuum extraction wells, a vapor-liquid separator, and primary and secondary carbon 
 adsorption units, and was operated from August 6, 1992 to January 25, 1993. The system achieved the specified soil cleanup 
 levels a month ahead of the specified timeframe. In addition, the SVE system removed approximately 2,300 pounds of 
 VOCs. During system operation. Freon 113 was unexpectedly encountered. Extraction of Freon 113 significantly increased 
 the quantity of carbon required to treat the extracted vapors. 
 
 The total treatment cost for this application was $556,000. This cost was greater than originally estimated primarily as a 
 result of the additional carbon required as a result of the presence of Freon 113. A computer model treatability study was 
 used for this application. The study predicted SVE using 4 extraction wells could reduce concentrations of volatile organics 
 to non-detectable levels within 6 months. 
 
 77 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 SMS Instruments Superfund Site 
 Deer Park, New York 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 SMS Instruments Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 and Semi volatile Organic Compounds 
 
 - Concentration of specific volatiles ranged as 
 high as 1,200 mg/kg in source area soils 
 
 - Concentration of specific semi volatiles 
 ranged as high as 1,800 mg/kg in source 
 area soils 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 May 1992 to October 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Deer Park, New York 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Bill Ballance 
 
 Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. 
 
 3107 South Elm - Eugene Street 
 
 P.O. Box 16590 
 
 Greensboro, NC 27416-0590 
 (919) 273-2718 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - Two horizontal vapor extraction wells 
 
 - Installed in trenches 15-feet deep, 2-feet 
 wide, and 75-feet long 
 
 - Extracted vapors treated using catalytic 
 incineration and scrubbing 
 
 - Remote monitoring used for process control 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and State: New York 
 -ROD Date: 9/29/89 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 3728 (Aircraft parts and auxiliary 
 equipment, not elsewhere classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Abram Miko Fayon 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 2 
 
 Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 
 New York, NY 10278-0012 
 (212) 264-4706 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Underground Storage Tank; Other: 
 Leaching Pool 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 1,250 cubic yards of soil treated in this application 
 
 - Well-sorted sands to silty sands with fine gravel 
 
 - Permeability 0.00227 to 0.00333 cm/sec 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Full-scale SVE system that used 
 horizontal vapor extraction wells and a 
 process control system which allowed 
 for remote system monitoring and 
 oversight. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil cleanup levels established for 9 volatiles and 9 semivolatiles; levels ranged from 0.5 to 5.5 mg/kg 
 
 - Additional criteria specified for soil cleanup effort based on percent reductions 
 
 - Air emissions required to meet New York State ambient air guidelines for toxic air contaminants 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Soil cleanup levels and criteria were achieved within approximately 400 days after system operation began 
 
 78 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the 
 SMS Instruments Superfund Site 
 Deer Park, New York (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total treatment system cost was $450,520 (including $182,700 for one year of monthly operation and maintenance, 
 mobilization, system design and construction, demobilization, drum relocation) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The SMS Instruments site in Deer Park, NY was used for overhauling military aircraft components. Past waste disposal 
 practices at the site included discharging untreated wastewater from degreasing and other refurbishing operations to an 
 underground leaching pool. In addition, jet fuel was stored at the site in an underground storage tank. The results of a 
 Remedial Investigation at the site indicated soil contamination in the areas of the leaching pool and the underground storage 
 tank. Contaminant concentrations in soil ranged as high as 1,200 mg/kg for volatiles and 1,800 mg/kg for semivolatiles. The 
 New York Department of Environmental Conservation developed soil cleanup levels for 9 volatile and 9 semivolatile 
 constituents. 
 
 Soil vapor extraction (SVE) was used at SMS to treat the contaminated soil. The SVE system, operated from May 1992 to 
 October 1993, included two horizontal vapor extraction wells installed in trenches adjacent to the contaminated areas, a 
 catalytic oxidizer, and acid gas scrubber. Based on the results of soil boring data, collected in June 1993, SVE achieved the 
 cleanup levels and standards for 17 of the 18 specified organic constituents. For one constituent, BEHP, concentrations were 
 above the specified cleanup level. However, according to the EPA RPM, this result may be an anomaly since the 
 concentration of BEHP in the treated soil was greater than concentrations of BEHP identified during the remedial 
 investigation at the site. In addition, the state ambient air guidelines were met during the operation of this system. 
 
 The total treatment cost for this application was $450,420. The treatment vendor indicated that the costs associated with 
 instrumentation were greater than anticipated and that there was a problem with corrosion of ductwork. The vendor suggested 
 several ideas for reducing costs of future similar applications including ways to reduce air monitoring costs. 
 
 79 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona 
 Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas 
 Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1) 
 Battle Creek, Michigan 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Verona Well Field Superfund Site, 
 Thomas Solvent Raymond Road 
 (OU-1) 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - Tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1- 
 trichloroethane, acetone, and toluene 
 
 - Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) 
 in groundwater 
 
 - Volume of organic compounds estimated to 
 be 3,900 lbs in groundwater and 1,700 lbs 
 in soil 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 March 1988 to May 1992 
 
 Location: 
 
 Battle Creek, Michigan 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Robert Pinewski 
 
 Terra-Vac, Inc. 
 
 9030 Secor Road 
 
 Temperance, MI 48182 
 (313) 847-4444 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 - 23 extraction wells with 14 of 23 wells in 
 operation at a given time 
 
 - Catalytic oxidation and activated carbon 
 adsorption of offgases 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 8/12/85 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 7389 (Business Services, Not 
 
 Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Margaret Guerriero (RPM) 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 5 
 
 77 W. Jackson Boulevard 
 
 Chicago, EL 60604 
 (312) 886-0399 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Solvent Storage, Blending, 
 Repackaging, Distribution, and 
 
 Disposal 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 26,700 yd 3 of soil (based on capture zone of 36,000 ft 2 and depth of 20 ft) 
 
 - Clay content <5% 
 
 - Moisture content 5 % 
 
 - Permeability 10' 3 cm/sec 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 EPA’s first application of SVE at a 
 Superfund site. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - 1991 ROD specified soil and groundwater cleanup standards for 19 constituents 
 
 - Standards in soil ranged from 0.014 mg/kg for carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and 
 tetrachloroethene to 16 mg/kg for toluene 
 
 - Standards in groundwater ranged from 0.001 mg/L for vinyl chloride, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, and benzene 
 to 0.8 mg/kg for toluene 
 
 Results: 
 
 - SVE achieved the cleanup standards for all VOCs 
 
 - A total of 45,000 lbs of VOCs were removed 
 
 80 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona 
 Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas 
 Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1) 
 Battle Creek, Michigan (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Cost attributed to treatment activities - approximately $1,600,000 (including solids preparation and handling, 
 mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, operation, cost of ownership, and demobilization) 
 
 - Cost attributed to before-treatment activities - approximately $480,000 (including monitoring, sampling, testing and analysis, 
 and drums/tanks/structures/miscellaneous demolition and removal) 
 
 - Cost attributed to after-treatment activities - approximately $5,000 (including well abandonment and disposal of drums) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Verona Well Field Superfund site is the location of the former primary well field that supplied potable water for the city 
 of Battle Creek, Michigan. In early 1984, 27 of the 30 wells were determined to be contaminated. The Thomas Solvent 
 Raymond Road area was determined to be a source of contamination. Soil in this area was determined to be contaminated 
 with chlorinated solvents, primarily tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The amount of volatile organic compounds in 
 the soil at this site was estimated to be 1,700 pounds. 
 
 Full-scale operation of an SVE system to treat the soil began in March 1988 and ran intermittently until May 1992. Over the 
 course of the SVE operation, both carbon adsorption and catalytic oxidation were utilized to treat the extracted vapors prior to 
 atmospheric discharge. Dual vacuum extraction and nitrogen sparging were implemented to enhance recovery rates during the 
 latter stages of the groundwater remediation effort. A total of 45,000 pounds of VOCs were removed from the subsurface 
 soil, and 10,000 pounds from the groundwater, during the remediation. Cleanup verification sampling of the soil occurred in 
 June 1992 and the analytical results indicated that SVE reduced the constituent concentrations in the soil at this operable unit. 
 The constituent-specific soil cleanup standards established in a 1991 ROD were met. 
 
 The cost attributed to treatment activities for this SVE application was approximately $1,600,000. The SVE system used at 
 Verona accommodated both carbon adsorption and catalytic oxidation for the treatment of extracted vapors. Catalytic 
 oxidation was identified as preferable for treatment of extracted vapors instead of carbon adsorption for the period of the 
 application where the contaminant mass removed by SVE was much greater than 10 to 20 lb/day. 
 
 81 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
 82 
 
5.0 
 
 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES: THERMAL DESORPTION, SOIL 
 WASHING, AND IN SITU VITRIFICATION 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the Anderson Development Company 
 
 Superfund Site Adrian, Michigan . 84 
 
 Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Technical Corporation 
 
 Superfund Site Winslow Township, New Jersey. 86 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the McKin Company Superfund Site 
 
 Gray, Maine. 88 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the Outboard Marine Corporation 
 
 Superfund Site Waukegan, Illinois. 90 
 
 In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises 
 
 Superfund Site Grand Ledge, Michigan. 92 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site Reading, 
 
 Ohio . 94 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the T H Agriculture & Nutrition 
 
 Company Superfund Site Albany, Georgia. 96 
 
 Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the Wide Beach 
 
 Development Superfund Site Brant, New York. 98 
 
 83 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Anderson Development Company Superfund Site 
 
 Adrian, Michigan 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Anderson Development Company 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics, PAHs, Other Organics, 
 and Metals 
 
 - MBOCA (4,4-methylene bis(2- 
 chloroaniline) primary contaminant 
 concentration in untreated soil 
 
 - Manganese at levels up to 10% 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 January 1992 to June 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Adrian, Michigan 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Michael G. Cosmos 
 
 Weston Services 
 
 1 Weston Way 
 
 West Chester, PA 19380 
 (610) 701-7423 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption 
 
 - Solids pretreated by shredding, screening, 
 and dewatering 
 
 - Thermal processor consisting of 2 jacketed 
 troughs 
 
 - Hollow screw conveyors in the troughs mix, 
 transport, and heat the contaminated soil 
 
 - Soil residence time 90 minutes, temperature 
 of soil/sludge 500-530°F 
 
 - Treated soil was discharged into a 
 conditioner, where it was sprayed with 
 water 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLAxand State: Michigan 
 -ROD Date: 9/30/91 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 2869 (Industrial Organic Chemicals, 
 
 Not Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Jim Hahnenburg (HSRW-6J) 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 5 
 
 77 West Jackson Boulevard 
 Chicago, IL 60604 
 (312) 353-4213 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundment/Lagoon 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil and Sludge 
 
 - 5,100 tons treated 
 
 - Moisture content: soil - not available, sludge - 65-70% (before dewatering), 
 41-44% (after dewatering) 
 
 - pH: <7 (before dewatering), 10.9-11.2 (after dewatering) 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 Treatment using a thermal auger 
 system; main contaminant is a 
 hardener for plastics. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil - MBOCA: 1.684 mg/kg 
 
 - Soils/sludges - VOCs and SVOCs: Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA) Number 307, Regulation 299.5711, 
 compliance with Type B criteria for soil standards; off-site disposal required for treated soil due to elevated manganese 
 levels 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Analytical data for 6 piles of treated soil indicated that the cleanup goals for MBOCA and VOCs were met 
 
 - Seven of eight SVOCs met cleanup goals; analytical problems were identified for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 
 
 - Treated soil disposed off site due to elevated manganese levels 
 
 84 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Anderson Development Company Superfund Site 
 Adrian, Michigan (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 Information not available 
 
 Description: 
 
 Between 1970 and 1979, the Anderson Development Company (ADC) site located in Adrian, Lewanee County, Michigan, was 
 used for the manufacture of 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) or MBOCA, a hardening agent used in plastics manufacturing. 
 Process wastewaters were discharged to an unlined lagoon. A remedial investigation determined that soil and sludges in and 
 around the lagoon were contaminated. Contaminated soils and sludges were excavated, dewatered, and stockpiled. A Record 
 of Decision (ROD), signed in September 1991, specified thermal desorption as the remediation technology for the excavated 
 soil. Soil cleanup goals were established for MBOCA and specific volatile and semivolatile organic constituents. 
 
 Thermal desorption using the Roy F. Weston LT 3 system was performed from January 1992 to June 1993. The LT 3 thermal 
 processor consists of two jacketed troughs. Hollow-screw conveyors move soil across the troughs, and act to mix and heat 
 the contaminated soil. The thermal processor discharges treated soil to a conditioner where it is sprayed with water. Thermal 
 desorption achieved the soil cleanup goals specified for MBOCA and all volatile organic constituents. Seven of eight 
 semivolatile organic constituents met cleanup goals; analytical problems were identified for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. 
 
 Information on costs for this application were not available at the time of this report Originally, the treated soils were to be 
 used as backfill for the lagoon. However, the state required off-site disposal of treated soils due to the presence of elevated 
 levels of manganese. 
 
 85 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Soil Washing at the 
 
 King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site 
 Winslow Township, New Jersey 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 King of Prussia Technical Corporation 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Metals 
 
 - Beryllium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, 
 lead, mercury 
 
 - Highest metals concentrations in sediments - 
 chromium (8,010 mg/kg), copper (9,070 
 mg/kg), mercury (100 mg/kg) 
 
 - Highest metals concentration in sludge - 
 chromium (11,300 mg/kg), copper (16,300 
 mg/kg), lead (389 mg/kg), nickel (11,100 
 mg/kg) 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 June 1993 to October 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Winslow Township, New Jersey 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Mike Mann 
 
 Alternative Remediation Technologies, Inc. 
 14497 Dale Mabry Highway 
 
 Tampa, FL 33618 
 (813) 264-3506 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Soil Washing 
 
 Materials Handling 
 
 - Selective excavation of metals-contaminated 
 soil using visual inspection, confirmed using 
 on-site X-ray fluorescence 
 
 Soil Washing System 
 
 - Four components - screening, separation, 
 froth flotation, sludge management; rated 
 feed capacity of 25 tons/hour 
 
 - Screening - multiple screens; coarse screen 
 (>8 inches) and process oversize (>2 inches); 
 wet screening of <2 inch materials 
 
 - Separation - hydroclones separate coarse and 
 fine-grained materials 
 
 - Froth flotation - air flotation treatment units 
 
 - Sludge management - overflow from 
 hydroclones sent through clarifier, sludge 
 thickener, filter press; filter cake disposed off 
 site; water reused for wet screening 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 9/28/90 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 4953 (Sanitary Services-Refuse Systems) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 John Gorin 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 U.S. EPA Region 2 
 
 26 Federal Plaza 
 
 New York, NY 
 (202) 264-7592 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Surface Impoundments/Lagoons 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil and Sludge 
 
 - 19,200 tons of soil and sludge 
 
 - Moisture content of approximately 15% 
 
 - pH of approximately 6.5 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 EPA’s first full-scale application of soil washing to remediate a Superfund site. Innovative on-site monitoring technique; 
 selective excavation techniques, including use of X-ray fluorescence, to screen soil for cleanup. 
 
 86 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Soil Washing at the 
 
 King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site 
 Winslow Township, New Jersey (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 1990 ROD identified soil cleanup levels for 11 metals 
 
 - Arsenic (190 mg/kg), beryllium (485 mg/kg), cadmium (107 mg/kg), chromium (483 mg/kg), copper (3,571 mg/kg), lead 
 (500 mg/kg), mercury (1 mg/kg), nickel (1,935 mg/kg), selenium (4 mg/kg), silver (5 mg/kg), zinc (3,800 mg/kg) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Cleanup goals were met for all 11 metals 
 
 - Cleanup goals were achieved in less than 4 months 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total cost of $7,700,000 (including off-site disposal cost) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The King of Prussia (KOP) Technical Corporation Superfund site had been used as a waste recycling facility from 1971 to 
 1974. An estimated 15 million gallons of liquid industrial waste were processed in six lagoons. These activities resulted in 
 soil and sludge contamination at the site. The primary constituents of concern were chromium (at levels up to 11,300 
 mg/kg), copper (at levels up to 16,300 mg/kg), and nickel (at levels up to 11,100 mg/kg). The ROD, signed in September 
 1990, specified complete excavation of soils, sediments, and sludges from these lagoons and use of contaminant extraction 
 (soil washing) to achieve the specified soil cleanup levels for 11 metals. 
 
 The soil washing system at KOP was selected based on the results of a treatability study and data from a demonstration run 
 using KOP soil at a full-scale unit in the Netherlands. The soil washing system was operated at KOP from June 1993 to 
 October 1993. The system consisted of a series of hydroclones, conditioners, and froth flotation cells. Approximately 
 19,200 tons of contaminated soil and sludge were treated during this application. The soil washing system achieved the 
 specified soil cleanup levels for all 11 metals, and the treated soil was used as backfill at the site. Of note for this full-scale 
 cleanup was the use of selective excavation techniques to screen contaminated soil and sludge for treatment. Selective 
 excavation was performed through visual examination confirmed using on-site X-ray fluorescence, and resulted in fewer tons 
 of soil requiring treatment. 
 
 The total cost for this application was $7,700,000, including off-site disposal costs for the sludge cake. Selective excavation 
 reduced the overall costs for the application by reducing the amount of soil requiring treatment by a factor of two. Further, 
 the data from the demonstration run expedited the design schedule of the full-scale unit by more than a year. 
 
 87 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 McKin Company Superfund Site 
 Gray, Maine 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 McKin Company Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics; Benzene, Toluene, 
 Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX); 
 
 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
 
 - Excavated soil contained up to 3,310 mg/kg 
 TCE, 130 mg/kg Ethylbenzene, and 
 
 35 mg/kg Toluene 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 July 1986 to April 1987 
 
 Location: 
 
 Gray, Maine 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Canonie Environmental 
 
 800 Canonie Drive 
 
 Porter, IN 46304 
 (219) 926-8651 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption 
 
 - Rotary kiln desorber 7 feet in diameter and 
 
 28 feet long 
 
 - Soil heated to 250-400°F and a residence 
 time of 6 minutes 
 
 - Offgases treated using HEPA filter, 
 baghouse, scrubber, and carbon adsorption 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 7/22/85 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 4953E (Refuse Systems - Sand and 
 Gravel Pit Disposal) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Sheila Eckman 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region I 
 
 John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., 
 Room 2203 
 
 Boston, MA 02203 
 (617) 573-5784 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Disposal Pit 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 This treatment application is notable 
 for being one of the earliest full-scale 
 applications of thermal desorption to 
 remediate halogenated volatile organic 
 compounds at a Superfund site. 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 11,500 cubic yards 
 
 - No information available on matrix characteristics 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil performance standard of 0.1 mg/kg for TCE, with retreatment as necessary 
 
 - Performance standards of 1 mg/kg for individual aromatic organic compounds, 1 mg/kg for individual PAHs, and 10 mg/kg 
 for total PAHs 
 
 Results: 
 
 - All cleanup goals achieved 
 
 - 11,500 tons of soil treated within 10-month period 
 
 - Ambient air concentrations for VOCs were less than 2 ppm above background 
 
 88 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 McKin Company Superfund Site 
 Gray, Maine (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total Cost - $2,900,000 (including salaries and wages, rental, supplies, subcontracts, fuel, and other professional services) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The McKin Company (McKin), in Gray, Maine, was a former waste collection, transfer, storage, and disposal facility. Soil at 
 McKin was contaminated with halogenated VOCs and petroleum products, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 
 (PAHs) and aromatic compounds. During the remedial investigation at McKin, soil contamination levels were measured as 
 high as 1,500 mg/kg for trichloroethylene (TCE), 49 mg/kg for methylene chloride, and 21 mg/kg for xylenes. The ROD 
 identified several areas at McKin that required on-site thermal desorption treatment for contaminated soil. These areas were 
 grouped into a "VOC-Contaminated Area" and a "Petroleum-Contaminated Area." The treatment performance standard, 
 stipulated in the ROD, required treatment of TCE in the soil to a concentration of 0.1 mg/kg. In addition to the TCE 
 requirement, treatment performance standards for PAHs and aromatic organics were specified for the petroleum-contaminated 
 area. Ambient air monitoring was required during the application. 
 
 The thermal desorption system included a rotary kiln desorber with offgases treated using a filter, baghouse, scrubber, and 
 carbon adsorption. Thermal desorption of approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil was completed at McKin between July 
 1986 and April 1987. This treatment application is notable for being one of the earliest full-scale applications of thermal 
 desorption to remediate halogenated volatile organic compounds at a Superfund site. Treatment performance and air 
 monitoring data collected during this application indicated that all performance standards and monitoring requirements were 
 achieved through use of the thermal desorption technology. 
 
 The total cost for this application was $2,900,000. According to the vendor, this cost included rental supplies, labor, 
 subcontracts, fuel and other professional services, and estimated that over 80% of the cost was associated with the treatment 
 of the contaminated soil. A pilot-scale treatability study indicated that thermal desorption would be effective in treating soils 
 at the McKin site. 
 
 89 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site 
 
 Waukegan, Illinois 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Outboard Marine Corporation 
 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 
 
 - PCB concentrations in material feed to 
 thermal desorber ranged from 2,400 to 
 
 23,000 mg/kg PCBs 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 January 1992 to June 1992 
 
 Location: 
 
 Waukegan, Illinois 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Joseph Hutton 
 
 SoilTech ATP System, Inc. 
 
 800 Canonie Drive 
 
 Porter, IN 46304 
 (219) 926-8651 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption 
 
 - Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand 
 seals 
 
 - Retort zone temperature 1,207°F 
 
 - Preheat and retort zone residence time 30- 
 40 minutes 
 
 - Air emissions controlled using cyclones, 
 baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator, 
 condenser, gas-oil-water separator, and 
 carbon adsorption 
 
 - Water treated on site using sand filtration, 
 Klensorb® filtration, ultraviolet oxidation, 
 cartridge filtration, and carbon adsorption 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 3/31/89 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 3363 (Aluminum Die-Casting) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Bin Bolen - RPM 
 (Cindy Nolan - former RPM) 
 
 U.S. EPA, Region 5 
 
 77 West Jackson 
 
 Chicago, IL 60604 
 (312) 353-6316 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Discharge to Sewer/Surface 
 Water; Surface Disposal Area 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil and Sediment 
 
 - 12,755 tons treated 
 
 - 12.9% moisture; pH of 8.59 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 This application was an early 
 application of SoilTech’s ATP system 
 for treating soil and sediment at a 
 Superfund Site contaminated with 
 
 PCBs. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil and Sediment - PCBs: 97% removal by mass 
 
 - Air - PCBs: Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999%, Dioxins/Furans: 30 ng/dscm 
 
 Results: 
 
 Soil and Sediment - Achieved PCB cleanup goal for soil and sediment; average PCB removal efficiency of 99.98%; PCB 
 concentrations in treated soil ranged from 0.4 mg/kg to 8.9 mg/kg; most samples less than 2 mg/kg 
 
 Air - Stack gas requirements met for PCBs; stack gas requirements met for dioxins/furans after system modifications 
 
 90 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site 
 Waukegan, Illinois (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - $2,474,000 - Actual total costs for cost elements directly associated with treatment (including solids preparation and 
 handling, startup/testing/permits, operation, capital equipment, and demobilization) 
 
 - $900,000 for before-treatment costs (including mobilization and preparatory work, and monitoring, sampling, testing, and 
 analysis) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC), located on Lake Michigan, performed marine product manufacturing operations at the 
 site. Contamination of the soil and sediments at the site resulted from the discharge of hydraulic fluid containing PCBs 
 through floor drains which discharged to several areas at the site and into Waukegan Harbor. An estimated 700,000 pounds 
 of PCBs were discharged to the OMC site and 300,000 pounds of PCBs were discharged to Waukegan Harbor. Based on a 
 1989 Consent Decree and Record of Decision, remedial activities selected for the site included excavation, stockpiling, and 
 treatment of soil and sediment contaminated with PCBs. A cleanup goal for PCBs in soil and sediment of 97% removal was 
 specified in the 1989 ROD. 
 
 SoilTech’s mobile Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system was selected for treating the PCB-contaminated soil and 
 sediment at OMC. The ATP system was operated at the site from January 23, 1992 until June 23, 1992. During this time, 
 12,755 tons of PCB-contaminated soils and sediments were treated. The ATP system met the cleanup goal for PCBs in soil 
 and sediment by achieving an average removal efficiency of 99.98% for total PCB concentrations. PCBs in treated soil 
 ranged from 0.4 to 8.9 mg/kg. The PCB DRE of 99.9999% and total dioxin and furan stack emission requirements of 30 
 ng/dscm were met during the cleanup. 
 
 During the proof-of-process period (January 23 until March 5), the DRE for PCBs was not met, and EPA shut the system 
 down. From March 5 until May 30, SoilTech made modifications to the system, and the stack gas emissions requirements 
 were met during the remainder of the soil cleanup. An EPA SITE Demonstration was conducted at the OMC site in June 
 1992. During this demonstration, 255 tons of soil and sediment were treated. The total cost for the full-scale application of 
 thermal desorption at the OMC site was $2,474,000. 
 
 91 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 In Situ Vitrification at the 
 Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site 
 
 Grand Ledge, Michigan 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Pesticides, Heavy Metals, Phthalates, 
 
 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), 
 and Dioxins 
 
 - Pesticides - up to 340 mg/kg for DDT 
 
 - Heavy metals - up to 34 mg/kg for mercury 
 
 - Dioxin - up to 1.13 pg/kg 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 May 1993 to May 1994 
 
 Location: 
 
 Grand Ledge, Michigan 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 James E. Hanson 
 
 Geosafe Corporation 
 
 2950 George Washington Way 
 
 Richland, WA 99352 
 (509) 375-0710 
 
 Technology: 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 - 9 melt cells; each cell 26 feet by 26 feet 
 with cells installed in a 16-foot deep 
 treatment trench 
 
 - Air emissions control system - offgas 
 collection, hood, water scrubber, and 
 thermal oxidizer 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA (Removal Action) and 
 State: Michigan 
 
 - Action Memo Date: 9/21/90 
 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 2879 (Agricultural Chemicals, Not 
 Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Len Zintak, OSC 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 5 
 
 77 West Jackson Boulevard 
 Chicago, IL 60604 
 (312) 886-4246 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Other: Discharge to sewer/surface 
 water (floor drains, septic tank, leach 
 field) 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 3,000 cubic yards 
 
 - Silty clay with high moisture content 
 
 - Soil reported to be difficult to work with under very wet and very dry 
 conditions 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 First application of full-scale in situ 
 vitrification at a Superfund site to treat 
 soils and sediments contaminated with 
 pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil cleanup standards and standards for offgases established for four constituents. Soil cleanup/offgas standards were - 
 chlordane (1 mg/kg / 25 lbs/hr); DDT (4 mg/kg / 0.01 lbs/hr); dieldrin (0.08 mg/kg / 0.00028 lbs/hr); mercury (12 mg/kg / 
 0.00059 lbs/hr) 
 
 - Offgas standards based on State ARARs 
 
 92 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 In Situ Vitrification at the 
 Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site 
 Grand Ledge, Michigan (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Specific performance data for soils were not available at the time of this report 
 
 - According to the vendor, near-surface vitrified materials had "acceptable" levels of pesticides and mercury 
 
 - Additional samples will not be taken until after the melt has cooled (estimated May 1995) 
 
 - Data on air emissions indicates offgases met the state air emissions standards 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Cost objectives were $800,000 for vitrification activities; approximately $800,000 for before-treatment activities 
 (mobilization, site administration and preparation, sampling and analysis, and site configuration); and $90,000 for after- 
 treatment activities (backfill and restoration, drainage structures, and demobilization) 
 
 Description: 
 
 A full-scale soil remediation system using in situ vitrification (ISV) was conducted at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises 
 Superfund site (Parsons). Soils and sediments at the site were contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, PAHs, 
 and dioxins as a result of former agricultural chemical manufacturing processes. Dioxin levels in soil at the site were reported 
 as high as 1.13 pg/kg. Maximum levels of other contaminants in the soil range from 0.99 mg/kg for phenanthrene to 
 340 mg/kg for DDT. Soil cleanup requirements were established for four constituents (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and 
 mercury). In addition, the offgases from the ISV unit were required to meet state air requirements for these constituents 
 during operation. 
 
 The ISV system used at Parsons included 9 melt cells and an air emissions control system. Contaminated soil was excavated 
 and staged at the site due to the shallow nature of the contamination. The melt cells were installed in a treatment trench. 
 
 Eight melts were completed from June 1993 to May 1994. The melts ranged in duration from 10 to 19.5 days and consumed 
 between 559,000 and 1,100,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per melt. Several operational problems were encountered during 
 this period including fires and equipment problems. These problems were addressed through modifications to equipment and 
 operating practices. 
 
 Because the melt requires approximately one year to cool before samples of the subsurface can be collected, data on the 
 performance of the ISV will not be available until after May 1995. According to the vendor, initial results of samples taken 
 from the surface indicate that near-surface vitrified materials contained acceptable levels of pesticides and mercury. Data on 
 typical air emissions indicates that stack gas emissions were in compliance with state standards during operation. The cost 
 ceiling identified in the action memorandum for this application was $1,763,000. 
 
 93 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site 
 Reading, Ohio 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics, Pesticides, Polynuclear 
 Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Metals 
 
 - VOCs up to 0.14 ppm 
 
 - SVOCs up to 130 ppm 
 
 - 4,4’-DDT ranging from 0.11 ppm to 8.2 
 ppm 
 
 - Lead ranging from 26 ppm to 1,100 ppm 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 November 1993 to March 1994 
 
 Location: 
 
 Reading, Ohio 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Joseph Hutton 
 
 SoilTech ATP System, Inc. 
 
 800 Canonie Drive 
 
 Porter, IN 46304 
 (219) 926-8651 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption 
 
 - Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand 
 seals 
 
 - Retort zone temperature 1,009.9-1,034.1°F 
 
 - Air emissions controlled using cyclones, 
 baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator, 
 condenser, and gas-oil-water separator 
 
 - Water treated on site using oil/water 
 separation, hydrogen peroxide oxidation, 
 sand filtration, and carbon adsorption 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA 
 
 -ROD Date: 3/30/90 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 4953W - Waste Management; Refuse 
 Systems (Waste Processing Facility, 
 Miscellaneous) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Tom Alcamo 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA - Region 5 
 
 230 South Dearborn Street 
 
 Chicago, EL 60604 
 (312) 886-7278 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Storage-Drums/Containers; Waste 
 Treatment Plant 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - Approximately 12,800 tons treated 
 
 - 12-25% moisture; pH of 1-2 for some feed soils 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 
 This application is notable for treating 
 soils with a wide range of pH and 
 moisture conditions. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil - Numeric cleanup goals identified for 11 constituents, including PAHs, pesticides, dioxin, benzene, and chlorinated 
 aliphatics; cleanup goals ranged from 0.99 to 3,244 pg/kg 
 
 - Air - Total Dioxins/Furans: <30 mg/dscm, particulates: 0.015 gr/dscf, and four other stack gas emission parameters 
 
 Results: 
 
 Soil - Cleanup goals for all constituents were met in all soil piles tested; 6 of 11 constituents removed to levels at or below 
 detection limit 
 
 Air - Stack gas requirements met for dioxin/furan emissions and particulates 
 
 94 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site 
 Reading, Ohio (Continued) 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 No data available 
 
 Description: 
 
 Pristine, Inc. performed liquid waste disposal operations at the site from 1974 to 1981. Spills and on-site disposal of treated 
 wastes led to soil contamination. Soils at the Pristine site were contaminated with volatile and semivolatile organics, 
 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and metals. The soils also contained greater than 2% of elemental 
 sulfur. This application was notable for treating soil with a wide range of pH and moisture conditions. 
 
 SoilTech’s 10 ton/hr mobile Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system was used for treating the contaminated soil at the 
 Pristine site. The SoilTech ATP system included a feed system, the ATP unit (rotary kiln thermal desorber), a vapor recovery 
 system, a flue gas treatment system, and a tailings handling system. Wastewater from the vapor recovery system was treated 
 in an on-site wastewater treatment system. The ATP system was operated at the Pristine site from November 1, 1993 until 
 March 4, 1994 and was used to treat approximately 12,800 tons of contaminated soil. 
 
 The ATP System treated contaminants in soil to levels below the cleanup goals. Levels of 6 of the 11 target constituents 
 were reduced to concentrations at or below the reported detection limits. All stack gas air emission performance standards 
 were met in this application, with occasional spikes of THC over the 20 ppm performance standard. Average throughput was 
 approximately 6.5 tons/hr, and average on-line availability was approximately 62 percent. 
 
 95 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 
 T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company Superfund Site 
 
 Albany, Georgia 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company 
 Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Halogenated Organic Pesticides 
 - Dieldrin, toxaphene, DDT, lindane 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 July 1993 to October 1993 
 
 Location: 
 
 Albany, Georgia 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Mark Fieri 
 
 Williams Environmental Services, Inc. 
 2076 West Park Place 
 
 Stone Mountain, GA 30087 
 (404) 498-2020 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption 
 
 - Rotary dryer desorber 
 
 - Temperature of soil exiting heating chamber 
 ranged from 833 to 1,080°F 
 
 - Soil residence time 15 minutes 
 
 - Offgases - routed through a baghouse, a 
 water quenching unit, a reheater, and a 
 vapor phase carbon adsorption bed 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA (Removal Action) and 
 State: Georgia 
 
 - Unilateral Administrative 
 
 Order - 3/92 
 
 - PRP Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 2879 (Pesticides and Agricultural 
 Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 R. Donald Rigger 
 
 On-Scene Coordinator 
 
 U.S. EPA Region IV 
 
 345 Courtland Street, N.E. 
 
 Atlanta, GA 30365 
 (404) 347-3931 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Manufacturing Process 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 4,300 tons 
 
 - Bulk density - 125.8 to 129.7 lbs/ft 3 ; moisture content - 13 to 19%; pH - 5.7 to 
 
 6.2; particle size distribution - up to 2.38 mm; TOC - 0.2 to 0.23 mg/kg 
 
 Purpose/Significance of Application: 
 First full-scale application of thermal 
 desorption under the Superfund 
 program to remediate soil 
 contaminated with a mixture of 
 organochlorine pesticides. 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 Cleanup goals identified in March 1992 Unilateral Administrative Order and October 1992 Treatability Variance for proof-of- 
 process performance test and full-scale treatment 
 
 - Total OCL pesticides <100 mg/kg and 4 constituents (DDT, toxaphene, BHC-alpha, BHC-beta) > 90% measured reduction 
 in concentration; air emissions - stack gas total hydrocarbons < 100 ppmv 
 
 - Additional air emissions limits during proof-of-process test - Georgia Guideline for Ambient Impact Assessment of Toxic 
 
 Air Pollutant Emissions 
 
 96 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption at the 
 
 T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company Superfund Site 
 Albany, Georgia (Continued) 
 
 Results: 
 
 - The cleanup goals for soil were met for both total OCL pesticides and individual constituents 
 
 - Air emission standards were achieved during both the proof-of-process test and during the full-scale remediation 
 
 - Average OCL pesticides concentration in treated soil was 0.51 mg/kg 
 
 - Average removal efficiencies for individual constituents were greater than 98% 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Estimated Total Treatment Cost - $849,996 (including solids preparation and handling, mobilization, startup, system 
 operation, and demobilization) 
 
 - Estimated Before-Treatment Costs - $252,582 (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring, sampling, testing, 
 and analysis, including the treatability study) 
 
 Description: 
 
 The T H Agriculture & Nutrition (THAN) Company Superfund site in Albany, Georgia was used from the 1950s to 1982 for 
 pesticide formulation and storage. As a result of these operations, soils at the site were contaminated with pesticides, 
 primarily organochlorine (OCL) pesticides and the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1989. In March 
 1992, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to THAN for removal of contaminated soil and debris. Contaminated 
 soil with concentrations of OCL pesticides greater than 1,000 mg/kg was excavated and stockpiled. 
 
 Thermal desorption was used at THAN to treat approximately 4,300 tons of stockpiled soil contaminated with OCL pesticides. 
 The thermal desorption unit consisted of a rotary kiln thermal desorber operated at 833 to 1,080°F (soil exit temperature) and 
 a 15-minute residence time. An interlock (waste feed cutoff) process control system was used in this application to maintain 
 operation of the unit within allowable limits. The system was operated from July to October 1993. Thermal desorption 
 achieved the specified cleanup levels for OCL pesticides and air emission rates. Total OCL pesticide concentrations in the 
 treated soil ranged from 0.009 to 4.2 mg/kg with an average concentration of 0.5 mg/kg. Average removal efficiencies for the 
 four target OCL pesticides were greater than 98%. 
 
 The total estimated treatment cost for this application was approximately $850,000. The proof-of-process performance test 
 results provided information on operating conditions and air emissions that were used for the full-scale treatment application. 
 In addition, the bench-scale treatability study provided data to support a treatability variance request by THAN, approved by 
 EPA in October 1992, to place treated soils on site. 
 
 97 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the 
 Wide Beach Development Superfund Site 
 Brant, New York 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Wide Beach Development Superfund 
 Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 
 
 - Stockpiled soil contained 10 to 5,000 mg/kg 
 PCBs 
 
 - Material feed to thermal desorber contained 
 
 11 to 68 mg/kg PCBs 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 October 1990 to September 1991 
 
 Location: 
 
 Brant, New York 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Joseph Hutton 
 
 SoilTech ATP System, Inc. 
 
 800 Canonie Drive 
 
 Porter, IN 46304 
 (219) 926-8651 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation 
 
 - Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand 
 seals 
 
 - Retort zone temperature 1,160°F 
 
 - Preheat and retort zone residence time 30-40 
 minutes 
 
 - Alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG) 
 sprayed onto contaminated soil to 
 dechlorinate PCBs 
 
 - Air emissions controlled using cyclones, 
 baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator, condenser, 
 gas-oil-water separator, and carbon 
 adsorption 
 
 - Water treated on site using filtration, 
 oxidation, settling, air stripping, and carbon 
 adsorption 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA and State: New York 
 (per interagency agreement 
 between EPA and US ACE) 
 
 -ROD Date: 9/30/85 
 - Fund Lead 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 Not applicable 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Herb King (RPM) 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 2 
 
 26 Federal Plaza 
 
 New York, NY 10278 
 (212) 264-1129 
 
 Joe Salvatore 
 
 US ACE c/o 914 TAG, Bldg. 322 
 Niagara Falls Inf 1. Airport 
 
 Niagara Falls, NY 14304 
 (716) 297-8531 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Road Oiling - Application of PCB- 
 containing waste oils to the roadways 
 for dust control 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Soil 
 
 - 42,000 tons treated 
 
 - 18.3% moisture; 12.8% clay; 30.3% silt; pH of 7.7 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 The Wide Beach project is notable 
 for being the first full-scale treat¬ 
 ment application using SoilTech’s 
 
 ATP system in conjunction with 
 
 APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a 
 Superfund Site contaminated with 
 PCBs. 
 
 98 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and 
 
 In Situ Vitrification 
 
 Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the 
 Wide Beach Development Superfund Site 
 Brant, New York (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/CIeanup Goals: 
 
 - Soil - PCBs: 2 mg/kg 
 
 - Air - PCBs: 3.33 x 10' 5 lbs/hr, PEG: 4.16 x 10' 5 lbs/hr, particulates: 0.05 gr/dscf 
 
 Results: 
 
 - Soil - PCB concentrations reduced from up to 68 to less than 2 mg/kg 
 
 - Air - Stack gas requirements met for PCBs, PEG, and particulates; dioxin/furan emissions equivalent to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD 
 concentration of 0.707 ng/dscm 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Actual total costs for cost elements directly associated with treatment - $11,600,000 (including solids preparation and 
 handling, startup, equipment, and operation) 
 
 - Before-treatment costs - $908,000 (including mobilization/preparatory work, monitoring) 
 
 - After-treatment costs - $3,400,000 (disposal) 
 
 Description: 
 
 Contamination of soil at the Wide Beach Development Superfund site (Wide Beach) resulted from the spraying of waste oil 
 containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) over the roadways in the community to control dust. In response to a 1985 
 Record of Decision and a 1988 interagency agreement between EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE), 
 SoilTech’s mobile anaerobic thermal processor (ATP) system was used in conjunction with alkaline polyethylene glycol 
 (APEG) dechlorination from October 1990 to September 1991 to treat contaminated soil at Wide Beach. Approximately 
 42,000 tons of stockpiled soil contaminated with PCBs, mainly Arochlor 1254, at concentrations ranging from 10 to 5,000 
 mg/kg, were treated at Wide Beach. The USACE specified that the concentration of PCBs in soil treated at Wide Beach 
 should not exceed 2 mg/kg. The Wide Beach project is notable for using full-scale treatment application using SoilTech’s 
 ATP system in conjunction with APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a Superfund Site contaminated with PCBs. 
 
 During the full-scale treatment of soils at Wide Beach, samples of untreated soil were occasionally collected from the feed 
 conveyor of the ATP system. The concentrations of PCBs measured in these samples ranged from 11 to 68 mg/kg, with an 
 average PCB concentration of 24 mg/kg. Samples of the treated soil were collected either from the treated solids staging 
 area or the tailings conveyor of the ATP system. The concentrations of PCBs measured in these samples were generally less 
 than or near the detection limit (approximately 0.5 mg/kg) and all samples were below the 2 mg/kg cleanup level during the 
 treatment application. A lack of structural integrity in the treated soils led to a need for off-site disposal. 
 
 The cost for this full-scale application was $11,600,000, for costs directly associated with treatment. The level of 
 dechlorination achieved by the ATP/APEG process was measured during a demonstration test conducted prior to full-scale 
 operation of the system. The demonstration test results indicated that the ATP/APEG process dechlorinated 76 percent of 
 the PCBs that entered the ATP system during the test. However, this figure does not account for dechlorination from 
 recycling residual oil through the system. In addition, an EPA SITE Demonstration was conducted during the full-scale 
 operation in May of 1991. The SITE Demonstration results indicated that 98 percent of the PCBs that entered the ATP 
 system were dechlorinated. 
 
 99 
 
This page intentionally left blank. 
 
Errata 
 
 The following are changes for Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies . March, 1995: 
 
 Remediation Case Study 
 
 Errata 
 
 Comments 
 
 Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump and Treatment System at 
 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma 
 Channel (Well 12A), Phase 2, Tacoma, 
 Washington 
 
 The attached abstract should 
 be added. 
 
 The reDort Remediation 
 
 Case Studies: Groundwater 
 
 Treatment, contains the full 
 report for this project. 
 
 Dynamic Underground Stripping 
 Demonstrated at Lawrence Livermore 
 National Laboratory Gasoline Spill 
 
 Site. Livermore, California 
 
 The cost factors section should 
 be changed to show a total 
 cost for the demonstration of 
 approximately $10,440,000 
 
 — 
 
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated 
 , Water at Operable Unit D McClellan 
 
 Aii Force Base California 
 
 This abstract should be 
 disregarded because the 
 project describes the same 
 system and presents 
 approximately the same cost 
 and performance information 
 for Operable Unit D as for 
 Operable Unit B/C 
 
 For the same reason, the 
 report. Remediation Case 
 Studies: Groundwater 
 Treatment, does not contain 
 the full report for this 
 project. 
 
 In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated 
 Groundwater at U.S. Department of 
 Energy Savannah River Site Aiken, 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 The description of costs 
 should be changed to show 
 costs ranging from $50 to $200 
 per foot for installation of 
 horizontal wells. 
 
 — 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction 
 
 Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona 
 
 Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas 
 Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1), Battle 
 Creek, Michigan 
 
 The cost factors section should 
 be changed to show costs 
 attributed to treatment 
 activities of approximately 
 $1,645,281; costs for before- 
 treatment activities of 
 approximately $535,180; and 
 no costs tor after-treatment 
 activities. 
 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treatment System at Commencement Bay, 
 South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), 
 
 Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington 
 
 Site Name: 
 
 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma 
 Channel (Well 12A) Superfund Site 
 
 Contaminants: 
 
 Chlorinated Aliphatics 
 
 - trans-l,2-Dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1,2,2- 
 Tetrachloroethane (PCA), 1,1,2,2- 
 Tetrachloroethane (PCE), Trichloroethene 
 (TCE) , 
 
 - PCA contamination plume measured at 
 levels greater than 10,000 /ig/L in July 1983 
 
 - Free phase estimates of contamination are 
 PCE - 3734 lbs, TCE - 126,112 lbs, and 
 
 PCA - 209,115 lbs 
 
 - Remedial investigation showed DCE up to 
 100 ppb; PCA up to 300 ppb; PCE up to 
 
 5.4 ppb; and TCE up to 130 ppb in Well 
 
 12A 
 
 Period of Operation: 
 
 Status: Ongoing 
 
 Report covers - 1988 to 2/94 
 
 Location: 
 
 Tacoma, Washington 
 
 £ 
 
 Cleanup Type: 
 
 Full-scale cleanup (interim 
 results) 
 
 Vendor: 
 
 Not Available 
 
 Technology: 
 
 Groundwater Extraction followed by 
 
 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) 
 
 - 7 groundwater extraction wells with a 500 
 gpm design flow rate 
 
 - Designed to have drawn-down sufficient to 
 create a cone of depression and to reduce 
 further migration of contaminants out of 
 the source area 
 
 - 2 liquid-phase GAC containers operated in 
 parallel 
 
 - Treated water discharged to a storm drain 
 system 
 
 - Soil vapor extraction used in a related 
 application to remove volatile contaminants 
 from the soil matrix 
 
 Cleanup Authority: 
 
 CERCLA; Local Requirements 
 - ROD Date: 3/85 
 
 SIC Code: 
 
 2851 (Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, 
 Enamels, and Allied Products) 
 
 Point of Contact: 
 
 Kevin Rochlin 
 
 Remedial Project Manager 
 
 U.S. EPA Region 10 
 
 Seattle, Washington 
 
 Waste Source: 
 
 Storage - Drums; Other; Pour off 
 from Processing Tanks 
 
 Type/Quantity of Media Treated: 
 
 Groundwater 
 
 - Upper aquifer (50 ft thickness) consists of unconfmed sand and gravel 
 
 - Depth to water table approximately 36 feet 
 
 - Lower aquifer not contaminated 
 
 - Separate liquid phases of VOCs in soil and groundwater suspected 
 
 - Area suspected of groundwater contamination covers approximately 100 acres 
 
 ---11 
 
 Purpose/Significance of 
 
 Application: 
 
 Application of groundwater 
 extraction followed by granular 
 activated carbon treatment of 
 extracted groundwater. Project 
 completed in conjunction with an 
 ongoing soil vapor extraction 
 system. 
 
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment 
 
 Pump & Treatment System at Commencement Bay, 
 South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), 
 
 Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington (Continued) 
 
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: 
 
 - Cleanup goals identified for Well 12A (City of Tacoma production well) based on ARARs for RCRA. CAA, and 
 CWA: if Well 12A is used for drinking water - Kf 6 risk level for contaminants present if not, groundwater corrective 
 action required until the concentration of hazardous constituents meets one of the following: MCLs, ACLs. or 
 background 
 
 - Prior to discharge to storm sewer, extracted water required to meet EPA standards for "Fish Consumption Only", 
 including DCE at 1.85 Mg/L; PCA at 10.7 Mg/L; PCE at 8.85 Mg/L; TCE at 80.7 Mg/L; discharge rate of 500 gallons 
 per minute; pH of 6 to 9; TSS < 500 mg/L, and total VOAs of < lmg/L 
 
 Results: 
 
 As of February 1994: 
 
 - 281,700,000 gallons of groundwater have been pumped and treated 
 
 - An estimated 10,361 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the GAC system 
 
 - Specific VOCs in GAC system influent ranged from 13 Mg/L to 2,000 Mg/L 
 
 - Specific VOCs in GAC system effluent ranged from < 1 Mg/L to 13 Mg/L 
 
 * 
 
 Cost Factors: 
 
 - Total C apital Costs (contract amount) - $1,343,701 (as of 7/25/88) 
 
 - No information provided on operatmg costs, cost sensitivities, or breakdown of capital costs 
 
 Description: 
 
 The Commencement Bay site was used from 1927 to 1964 for waste oil recycling, paint and lacquer thinner 
 manufacturing, and solvent reclamation. Hundreds of drums of material were stored at this site. Leaks from these 
 drums, as well as the dumping of wastes directly on the ground and overflows from the solvent and waste oil recycline 
 tanks, resulted in contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site. The primary contaminants of concern at the 
 site included DCE (trans-l,2-dichloroethene), PCA (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane), PCE (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene), and 
 TCE (trichloroethene). A PCA groundwater contamination plume was measured at levels greater than 10,000 Mg, L .nul 
 a separate liquid phase of contamination was suspected in both the soil and groundwater. In addition, chlorinated 
 hydrocarbons were detected in a City of Tacoma production well (Well 12A) in 1981. The site was placed on the 
 National Priorities List (NPL) and a Record of Decision was signed in 1985. 
 
 A groundwater extraction system using granular activated carbon (GAC) for treatment of extracted groundwater 
 installed and began operating at the site in 1988. This system includes 7 groundwater extraction wells and a 500 gpm 
 design flow rate, and was designed to have a draw-down sufficient to create a cone of depression and to reduce furth r 
 migration of contaminants out of the source area. Treated water is discharged into a storm drain system. The 
 groundwater remediation was ongoing at the time of this report. 
 
 As of February 1994, approximately 282,000,000 gallons of groundwater had been extracted, and an estimated lO.O'i 
 pounds of VOCs removed by the GAC. Specific VOCs in the GAC system influent ranged from 13 Mg/L to 2.0()<) 
 
 Mg/L. and, in the effluent, from < 1 Mg/L to 13 Mg/L. The contract amount for total capital cost was identified as 
 S 1.343,701. as of July, 1988. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

m 
 
 “0 
 
 > 
 
 cn 
 
 4^ 
 
 NJ 
 
 7J 
 
 cb 
 
 cn 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 “0 
 
 CO CD 
 O =5 
 O Q) 
 
 o 
 
 E? 
 
 o 
 
 ID 
 
 *< 
 
 —+\ CD 
 
 o c 
 
 ^ cn 
 2 2 
 S w 
 
 SI c/) 
 
 CD 
 
 Cl 
 
 c/) 
 
 CD 
 
 UNIVERSfTY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 30 
 
 12 1 
 
 O -0 
 
 u‘ O 
 
 o • 
 
 d' CD 
 Z5 O 
 Q) X 
 
 O 4^ 
 
 X 
 
 CD 
 
 4^ 
 
 cn 
 
 ro 
 
 4^ 
 
 ro 
 
 o 
 
 ■D 
 
 z m 
 
 ° < 
 
 m ~ 
 
 Tl O 
 ~ D 
 
 oi 3 
 
 -»■ CD 
 O Z5 
 
 <, s; 
 
 ^ -n 
 
 Ifr 
 
 am 
 
 $2-n 
 
 CD 
 
 (/) 
 
 2942963 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 r ♦ 
 
 O 
 
 D 
 
 > 
 
 (Q 
 
 0 
 
 =3 
 
 O