Abstracts of Remediation Brochure

Abstracts of RemediationCase StudiesVolume 11FederalRemediationTechnologiesRoundtablewww.frtr.govPrepared by theMember Agencies of theFederal Remediation Technologies RoundtableAbstracts of RemediationCase StudiesVolume 11Prepared by Member Agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies RoundtableEnvironmental Protection AgencyDepartment of DefenseU.S. Air ForceU.S. ArmyU.S. NavyDepartment of EnergyDepartment of InteriorNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAugust 2007NOTICEThis report and the individual case studies and abstracts it covers were prepared by agencies of the U.S.Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of its employees, makes anywarranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness ofany information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Governmentor any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflectthose of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyunder EPA Contract No. 68-W-02-034.iFOREWORDThis report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 10 new case studies of site remediation applicationsprepared primarily by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the FederalRemediation Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable), were undertaken to document the results andlessons learned from technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost andperformance which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of innovative cleanuptechnologies.The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to considercooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtablemember agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department ofDefense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the nearfuture. These agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and thebenefits to be realized from greater coordination.The abstracts are organized by technology, and cover a variety of in situ and ex situ treatmenttechnologies and some containment remedies. The abstracts and corresponding case study reports areavailable through the Roundtable Web site, which contains a total of 393 remediation technology casestudies (the 10 new case studies and 383 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this reportidentifies the specific sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 393 casestudies. Appendix A is only available in the online version of this report and can be downloaded fromthe Roundtable Web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. Abstracts, Volume 11, covers a wide variety of technologies, including full-scale remediations andlarge-scale field demonstrations of soil, groundwater, and acid rock drainage treatment technologies. Previously published versions of the Abstracts Volume are listed below. Additional abstract volumeswill be compiled as agencies prepare additional case studies.AbstractsVolume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998Volume 4: EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000Volume 5: EPA-542-R-01-008; May 2001Volume 6: EPA-542-R-02-006; June 2002Volume 7: EPA 542-R-03-011; July 2003Volume 8: EPA 542-R-04-012; June 2004Volume 9: EPA-542-R-05-021; July 2005Volume 10: EPA-542-R-06-002; August 2006 Volume 11: EPA-542-R-07-004; August 2007iiAccessing Case StudiesAll of the Roundtable case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through theRoundtable Web site at: http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. This report is also available for downloadingat this address. The Roundtable Web site also provides links to individual agency Web sites, andincludes a search function. The search function allows users to complete a key word (pick list) search ofall the case studies on the Web site, and includes pick lists for media treated, contaminant types, primaryand supplemental technology types, site name, and site location. The search function provides users withbasic information about the case studies, and allows users to view or download abstracts and case studiesthat meet their requirements. Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from theRoundtable Web site.iiiTABLE OF CONTENTSSection PageFOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas . . . . . . . . 11Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida . . 13IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody CropGroundwater Treatment System, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas . . . . . 20Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air Force Base,Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24EX SITU ACID ROCK DRAINAGE TREATMENT ABSTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California . . . . . . . . . . 31Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Tables1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5ivThis page intentionally left blank1INTRODUCTIONIncreasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of morecost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used inthe field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal RemediationTechnologies Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale anddemonstration-scale remediation projects. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing 10 new remediationtechnology case studies to the Roundtable Web site (http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm). A total of 393case studies have now been completed, primarily focused on contaminated soil and groundwater cleanup.The 10 new remediation technology case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). They were prepared based on recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and PerformanceInformation for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998).By including a recommended reporting format, the Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting ofcosts and performance to make data comparable across projects. In addition, the Roundtable is workingto capture information in case study reports that identifies and describes the primary factors that affectcost and performance of a given technology. Factors that may affect project costs include economies ofscale, contaminant concentration levels in impacted media, required cleanup levels, completionschedules, and matrix characteristics and operating conditions for the technology.The case studies and abstracts present available cost and performance information for full-scaleremediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primaryreference sources, and contain information on site background, contaminants and media treated,technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The case studiesand abstracts contain varying levels of detail based on the availability of data and information for eachapplication.The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of in situ and ex situ treatmenttechnologies for soil, groundwater, and acid rock drainage. Contaminants treated included halogenatedvolatiles and heavy metals.2Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, andproject duration for the 10 technology applications in this volume. This table also provides highlightsabout each application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information about quantity of mediatreated and quantity of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for someprojects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology cost. The column showing thecalculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of media treated and contaminantremoved, as appropriate. The cost data presented in the table were taken directly from the case studiesand have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed torepresent dollar values for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as projectduration).Appendix A to this report provides a summary of key information for all 393 remediation case studiespublished to date by the Roundtable, including information about site name and location, technology,media, contaminants, and year the project began. The appendix also identifies the year that the casestudy was first published by the Roundtable. All projects shown in Appendix A are full-scale unlessotherwise noted. This report can be downloaded from the Roundtable Web site.3Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case StudiesSite Name, State (Technology)PrincipalContaminantGroups*Media (Quantity Treated)ProjectDurationSummaryVolatiles - HalogenatedMetalsIn Situ Soil TreatmentCamp Stanley Storage Activity,Texas (Solidification/Stabilization)?Soil (3,000 cy)April 2002 to April 2003.In situ stabilization using Apatite II TM to treat soilcontaminated with heavy metals (lead).Palermton Zinc Superfund Site,Pennsylvania (Phytoremediation)?Soil (1,240 acres),Sediment (220acres),Groundwater (NP)1991 to Present - OngoingUse of phytoremediation to treat soil, sediment, andgroundwater contaminated with heavy metals (cadmium,lead, and zinc).Swift Cleaners, Florida (In SituChemical Oxidation and Soil VaporExtraction)?Soil (NP),Groundwater (NP)March 2001 to May 2006Use of in situ chemical oxidation and soil vapor extractionto treat soil and groundwater contaminated withhalogenated volatiles.In Situ Groundwater TreatmentKelly Air Force Base, Texas(Bioaugementation)?Groundwater (NP)November 1999 to May2002Use of in situ bioremediation to treat groundwatercontaminated with halogenated volatiles.F.E. Warren Air Force Base,Wyoming (Permeable ReactiveBarrier)?Groundwater (NP)August 2002 to August2004Use of a permeable reactive barrier to treat groundwatercontaminated with halogenated volatiles.Naval Air Joint Reserve Base, Texas(Phytoremediaiton)?Groundwater (NP)August 1996 to September2998Use of phytoremediation to treat groundwater contaminatedwith halogenated volatiles.East Helena, Montana (PermeableReactive Barrier)?Groundwater (450feet by 2,100 feet)Spring 2005 to Present -OngoingUse of a permeable reactive barrier to treat groundwatercontaminated with heavy metals (arsenic).Site Name, State (Technology)PrincipalContaminantGroups*Media (Quantity Treated)ProjectDurationSummaryVolatiles - HalogenatedMetals4Ex Situ Acid Rock/Mine Drainage TreatmentLeviathan Mine, California (Activelime treatment, semi-passive alkalinelagoon treatment)?ARD (12.3 millionL), ARD/AMD (17.4million L), AMD (28.3 millionL)Active lime treatment:1999 to Present - Ongoing,Semi-active lagoontreatment: 2001 to Present -Ongoing.SITE demonstration: June2002 to October 2003.Use of chemical precipitation to treat acid rock/minedrainage contaminated with heavy metals.Leviathan Mine, California (Ex SituBioremediation)?ARD (31.34 millionL)Spring 2003 to Present -Ongoing.SITE demonstration:November 2003 to July2005.Use of ex situ bioremediation to treat acid rock drainagecontaminated with heavy metals. Copper Basin Mining District,Tennessee (constructed wetland)?Surface water/ARD(241 gpm)1998 to present - OngoingUse of a constructed wetland to treat surface water and acidrock drainage contaminated with heavy metals.* Contaminant group focused on for the technology covered in the case study.Key:NP= Not ProvidedARD= Acid Rock DrainageL= LitersAMD= Acid Mine Drainagecy= cubic yardsgpm= gallons per minuteSITE= U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program5Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost DataSite Name, State (Technology)Technology Cost ($)1,2Quantity ofMedia TreatedQuantity ofContaminantRemovedCalculated UnitCost forTreatment1,2Key FactorsPotentially Affecting Technology CostsIn Situ Soil TreatmentCamp Stanley Storage Activity,Texas(Solidification/Stabilization)D - $63,775Soil: 3,000 cyNP$22 per cy of SoilThe key factor that affects thistechnology is the material and shippingcosts for Apatite II. Palermton Zinc Superfund Site,Pennsylvania (Phytoremediation)T - $9 million (Initial 850acres)Soil: 1240 acresSediment: 220acresGroundwater:NPNP10,600 per acre (Based on initial850 acres)Costs may be affected by the type ofmaterials used in the biosolids. After theinitial 850 acres of Blue Mountain weretreated sewage sludge in the biosolidswas replaced with mushroom/leaf-littercompost.Swift Cleaners, Florida (In SituChemical Oxidation and SoilVapor Extraction)DI - $428,000AO - $30,000 (Soil) $30,000 (Groundwater)NPNPNPNPIn Situ Groundwater TreatmentKelly Air Force Base, Texas(Bioaugmentation)T - $255,936C - $67,727AO - $188,20940,000 gallonsNP$6.4 per gallonThe single biggest factor that wouldaffect the cost of the technology is thedepth to contamination. Costs associatedwith drilling, disposal, and labor wouldbe affected by the depth tocontamination.F.E. Warren Air Force Base,Wyoming (Permeable ReactiveBarrier)C - $74,863T- $77,565Groundwater:63,000 gallonsNP$419.63 per ft2The number of electrodes used to formthe electrically induced redox barrier willpotentially affect the costsNaval Air Joint Reserve Base,Texas (Phytoremediaiton)D - $641,467NPNPNPThe major cost drivers for thistechnology are the amount ofmonitoring required to adequatelyevaluate the process over the life of theproject and the labor required to prepareand maintain the tree plantations and toconduct sampling operations.East Helena, Montana(Permeable Reactive Barrier)D - $325,000Groundwaterplume: 450 ftwide by 2,100 ftlongNPNPThe nature of the site’s hydrogeologycould determine whether or not the PRBcould be implemented at the site.Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost DataSite Name, State (Technology)Technology Cost ($)1,2Quantity ofMedia TreatedQuantity ofContaminantRemovedCalculated UnitCost forTreatment1,2Key FactorsPotentially Affecting Technology Costs6Ex Situ Acid Rock Drainage TreatmentLeviathan Mine, California(Active lime treatment, semi-passive alkaline lagoontreatment)C -$1,021,415 (Active limetreatment - monophasic mode)C - $1,261,076 (Active limetreatment - biphasic mode)C - $297,482 (Semi-passivealkaline lagoon treatment)ARD: 12.3million LARD/AMD:17.4 million LAMD: 28.3million LNP$20.97 per 1,000L of water (Activelime treatment -monophasic mode)$16.97 per 1,00 Lof water (Activelime treatment -biphasic mode$16.44 per 1,000L of water ( Semi-passive alkalinelagoon treatment)Factors that would affect both treatmenttypes include flow rate, concentration ofcontaminants, geographic site location,and type and quantity of residualsgenerated.Leviathan Mine, California (ExSitu Bioremediation)C - $548,431 (Gravity flowmode) C - $554,551 (Reticulationmode)ARD: 31.34million LNP$15.28 per 1,000gallons (Gravityflow mode) $16.54 per 1,000gallons(Reticulationmode)Factors that would affect both modes oftreatment include flow rate,concentration of contaminants,geographic site location, and type andquantity of residuals generated.Copper Basin Mining District,Tennessee (constructed wetland)C - $1,300,000EffluentTreated: 241gmpNPNPNP1Actual full-scale costs are reported unless otherwise noted.2Cost abbreviation: T = Total costs, AO = Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, C = Capital costs, DI = Design and implementation costs, D = Demonstration-scale costs, P = Projected full-scale costs.Key:ft= feetNP= Not Providedcy= cubic yardsL= LiterPRB= permeable reactive barrierARD= acid rock drainageAMD= acid mine drainagegpm= gallons per minute7IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS8This page intentionally left blank9Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, PennsylvaniaSite Name:Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund SiteLocation:Palmerton, PennsylvaniaPeriod of Operation:1991 - OngoingCleanup Authority: CERCLAPurpose/Significance of Application:The site is being revegetated to:-Stop or significantly reduce wind erosion, which will prevent the spread ofheavy metal contamination through air-borne particulates-Stop or significantly reduce surface water erosion, thus preventing the spread ofheavy metal contamination into surface waters at the site-Increase evapotranspiration by establishing a permanent vegetative cover overthe site, which will prevent water from leaching through the contaminated soiland limit the migration of heavy metal contamination to groundwaterCleanup Type: Full ScaleContaminants:Blue MountainSurface soil - Heavy Metals: Cadmium (Cd) (364 to 1,300 parts per million[ppm]), Lead (Pb) (1,200 to 6,475 ppm), Zinc (Zn) (13,000 to 35,000 ppm)Cinder BankSediment - Heavy Metals: Cd (250 ppm), Pb (3,600 ppm), Zn (27,000 ppm)Stone RidgeGroundwater - Heavy Metals: Cd (1 to 1,670 ppm), Pb (1 to 1,630 ppm), Zn (40to 2,122,000 ppm)Waste Source:Zinc smelting operationsContacts:Remedial Project ManagerCharlie RootU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgencyRegion IIIPhone: 215-814-3193E-mail: root.charlie@epa.govTechnology:Phytoremediation-850 acres of Blue Mountain and 220 acres of cinder bank were revegated usingseed mixtures and Ecoloam (a mixture of municipal sewage sludge, power plant flyand/or bottom ash, and agricultural limestone).-At Blue Mountain, Ecoloam application rates were adjusted as necessary to provideup to 2,000 pounds/acre of organic nitrogen.-At the cinder bank, Ecoloam was applied at a rate of 60 dry tons per acre.-An additional 350 acres of Blue Mountain and 40 acres of Stoney Ridge wererevegetated using seed mixtures, mushroom/leaf-litter compost, lime, and fertilizer.Type/Quantity of Media Treated:As of mid-2006, almost 1,200 acres of the Blue Mountain area, 220 acres of the cinder bank, and 40 acres of Stoney Ridgehave been revegetated.Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Not ProvidedResults:After 10 years, the initial 850 acres of revegetated land on Blue Mountain has retained more than 70 percent of itsvegetative cover.Costs:The estimated cost for revegetating the initial 850 acres of Blue Mountain was $9 million. This cost included the cost ofrevegetation and the construction of more than 60 miles of switchback roads for use by the application trucks.Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, Pennsylvania (continued)10Description:The Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site is located in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. The Site operated as a zinc smelter from1898 till 1980. Smelting operations resulted in heavy metal contamination of the Site and caused defoliation of more than2,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Blue Mountain. Additionally, process residue and other wastes were deposited alonga cinder bank at the base of the Blue Mountain.After several years of pilot testing, a full scale phytoremediation project was implemented to revegetate the Blue Mountainarea. Initially, 850 acres of land on Blue Mountain were revegetated using seed mixtures and a biosolid consisting of lime,potash, sewer sludge, and fly ash. This operation lasted from 1991 to 1995 and cost $9 million. Additionally, 220 acres ofthe cinder bank were revegetated using this same procedure.After the initial application on Blue Mountain and the cinder bank, sewage sludge in the biosolid material was replacedwith mushroom and leaf-litter due to the public’s negative perception of sewage sludge. In 2005, this new mixture wasapplied to 40 acres of Stoney Ridge and to an additional 350 acres of Blue Mountain.Studies conducted 10 years after the start of the project, have shown that the initial 850 acres of treated land on BlueMountain have retained more than 70 percent of their vegetative cover.11Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, TexasSite Name:Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA)Location:TexasPeriod of Operation: April 2002 to April 2003 Cleanup Authority: Demonstrationconducted under the Department of Defense(DoD) Environmental Security TechnologyCertification Program (ESTCP).Purpose/Significance of Application: The purpose of the full scaleapplication was to determine suitable emplacement methodologies for thetreatment of Pb-contaminated soils using PIMS™ and to determine actualfield implementation costs. Cleanup Type: Full ScaleContaminants: Lead Waste Source: Pb-containing bullets usedat the firing rangeContacts:Dr. Judith Wright UFA Ventures, Inc.403 West Riverside Dr.Carlsbad, NM 88220Telephone: 505-628-0916Fax: 505-628-0915E-mail: judith@ufaventures.comDr. James Conca Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & ResearchCenterCarlsbad, NM 88220Telephone: 505-234-5555Fax: 505-887-3051E-mail: jconca@cemrc.orgBrian Murphy CSSA1408 Moore Place, SWLeesburg, VA 20175Telephone: 571-331-5374 E-mail: murphyb@adelphia.netKen Rice Parsons Inc.8000 Centre Park, Suite 200Austin, TX 78754Telephone: 512-719-6050Fax: 512-719-6099E-mail: Ken.R.Rice@parsons.comTechnology:Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS™) using Apatite II™-Apatite II™ uses a natural, benign material derived from processingfishbone waste products to treat soil contaminated with heavymetals. -In August 2002, a full scale application was conducted by treating3,000 cubic yards of lead (Pb)-contaminated firing range soil atSolid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) B-20 at the CSSA. ApatiteII™ binds Pb into Pb-pyromorphite, an insoluble phase that is stable. Pb-pyromorphite has an extremely low solubility and will remaininsoluble under most environmental conditions.-Approximately 3% by weight of Apatite IITM material was mixedwith Pb-contaminated soil at a rate of about 500 yd3 per day. -Soil, groundwater and leachate samples were collected for chemicalanalysis. Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil (3,000 cubic yards)Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Three cleanup goals were established for the site-Cleanup goal for leachate from amended soils - Maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Pb in drinking water (0.015milligrams per liter [mg/L]) -The State of Texas class 2 nonhazardous waste classification criterion for Pb (1.5 mg/L for soil) in leachate using theToxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)-Reduce the bioavailability or bioaccessibility of the Pb in the soilPhosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas(continued)12Results: The untreated soil contained an average total Pb concentration of 1,942 mg/kg and did not meet State of Texasclass 2 nonhazardous waste classification criterion of 1.5 mg/L Pb in leachate. After treatment with PIMS™, the treatedsoils met the TCLP criterion with an average TCLP Pb concentration of 0.46 mg/L. Analytical results of the field leachatefrom the site after treatment indicted an average of 0.0065 mg/L Pb concentration, well below the 0.0150 mg/L EPAstandard for Pb in drinking water. Bioaccessibility data showed that treatment reduced the bioavailability of lead. A U.S.patent (#6,217,775) was awarded for PIMS™ using Apatite II™ during the course of this application.Costs: The total costs for this demonstration was $63,775 which includes $8,100 in start-up costs and $55,675 inoperational costs. Description: Lead-contaminated soils at Department of Defense (DoD) range sites are widespread. These soils pose oneof the costliest environmental issues facing the DoD. CSSA was chosen as the test site because it is representative of manyother DoD sites, both in contaminant type and field characteristics. The PIMS™ technology is an in situ stabilization or sequestration technology that uses a natural, benign material, ApatiteII™. During treatment, Apatite II™ is mixed into the contaminated soil using nonspecialized equipment such as afront-end loader and a maintainer. The Apatite II™ causes the Pb to form Pb-pyromorphite, which immobilizes the Pbwithout changing the basic nature of the soil. This technology allows the soil to be reused or disposed as a nonhazardousmaterial.13Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, FloridaSite Name: Swift Cleaners Location: Jacksonville, FloridaPeriod of Operation:Soil Vapor ExtractionMarch 6 to May 9, 2001 – SVE system installed and beginning of system operationApril 2002 to Present – SVE system operations and maintenance (O&M) In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)May 21 to June 21, 2001 – Two injection events conducted. April 2002 – Third injection event conducted.August 2001 to November February 2003 – Conducted quarterly groundwater sampling September 2004, and May 2006 – Conducted annual groundwater monitoringCleanup Authority: Bureau of Waste Cleanup(as part of FDEP’s DryCleaning Solvent CleanupProgram)Purpose/Significance of Application: Full-scale remediation of PCE in soil andgroundwater. Cleanup Type: Full-scaleContaminants:Volatiles-halogenated: 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE); cis-1,2-DCE; tetrachloroethene (PCE)DNAPL; trans-1,2-DCE; trichloroethene (TCE); vinyl chloride (VC).Waste Source:Inappropriately discardedspent filters containingPCE at the drycleaningfacility Technology:SVE- The SVE system consists of five 12-ft vapor extraction wells (VEW). - The design radius of influence is 15 ft with a design flow rate of 27 cubic feet per minute (cfm). - Additional VEWs are being considered for the SVE system.ISCO- In June 1999, a pilot test was conducted in the source area located at the upgradient edge of the groundwaterplume at the site. The test area covered approximately 2,500 square feet (ft2) and consisted of three injections ofFenton’s chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™. - The full-scale operation for groundwater and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) remediation usingFenton’s chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™ began in April 2001. According to the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for thissite, the full-scale remediation will include five phases (I to V). - Baseline groundwater samples were collected from selected monitoring and injection wells prior to the firstinjection event. - Phase I, which began in April 2001, focused on two areas – Area IA and Area IB. Area IA was the same as the2,500 ft2 pilot test area which contained a large portion of the contaminant mass. Seven new injection wells wereinstalled in this area at depths ranging from 35 to 45 ft. Area IB was downgradient of area IA and covered 2,000ft2. Thirteen new injection wells were installed in this area.- Based on the results of groundwater samples taken after the first two full-scale injection events in areas IA and IB,a third injection was conducted in April 2002 in 11 select injection wells from areas IA and IB. - At the end of Phase I, it was determined that implementation of Phases II to V would be less cost effective. As ofMarch 2007, FDEP planned to assess soil and evaluate various options to treat the downgradient PCE plume. Treatment options include enhanced biodegradation with reductive dechlorination, thermal treatment, andexcavation of the contaminated soil in the source area.Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida(continued)14Contacts:Deinna NicholsonContract ManagerFlorida Department of Environmental Protection2600 Blair Stone Road, MS4520Tallahassee, FL 32399Telephone: 850-245-8932E-mail: Deinna.Nicholson@dep.state.fl.usKelly BaltzGolder Associates, Inc.9428 Baymeadows Road, Suite 400Jacksonville, FL 32256Telephone: 904-363-3430E-mail: kelly_baltz@golder.comType/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil; Groundwater (quantity not documented)Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:Soil cleanup target levels for the site were based on leachability tests while the groundwater cleanup levels were based onthe primary standards (maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)). The goal was to use active remediation activities such aschemical oxidation to reduce the contaminant levels to the Natural Attenuation Default Source Concentrations (NADSC)and use monitored natural attenuation (MNA) to lower concentrations below NADSCs to the primary standards. Results:SVE- Quarterly monitoring of the SVE system indicated that the system continued to remove PCE from the soil targetarea. - As of August 2006, the SVE system was operational and removing approximately one to four lbs per month andhas removed a total of 140.7 lbs. - Additional VEWs were being considered for the SVE system.ISCO- Results of the pilot test indicated that Fenton’s chemistry was capable of remediating both the dissolved phase andadsorbed phase PCE at the site. However, the intermediate and deep areas with higher concentrations of PCEwould require greater volume of the Fenton’s reagent to reduce PCE levels to the groundwater cleanup goals. - Samples collected from the source area in September 2001 after the first and second injections for Areas IA andIB showed that PCE concentrations were reduced to below 200 :g/L in most monitoring wells. However,monitoring results from November 2001 revealed that concentrations of PCE in several wells in the source areahad increased to levels at, or above, baseline concentrations.- A third injection was conducted in March 2002 at 11 selected wells in Areas IA and IB to address the areas wherecontaminant rebound was identified.- Groundwater monitoring results from 2004 indicated that elevated concentrations of PCE are still present atcertain locations on the site in the shallow, intermediate and deep zones of the aquifer.- Groundwater sampling results from May 2006 indicated that PCE and TCE concentrations had decreased in allthree surficial aquifers. The concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2,DCE, and VC continued to be detected atlow concentrations, indicating that the contaminants are not effectively degrading beyond TCE.Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida(continued)15Costs:Cost for site characterization totaled $164,000. Cost for design and implementation totaled $428,000, which included$110,000 for the ISCO pilot test, $118,000 for SVE construction, and $200,000 for 3 ISCO injection events. Theoperation and maintenance (O&M) costs for soil and groundwater were $30,000 per year.Description:Swift Cleaners in Jacksonville, Florida, is an active dry cleaning facility that has been in operation since 1971 andprimarily uses PCE as a dry cleaning solvent. Three source areas of contamination were identified at the site, including 1)the area outside the service door of the facility where the spent filters were stored, 2) the soils beneath the building floorslab near the dry cleaning machine, and 3) a former sanitary sewer line leak. The main waste source at the site was foundto be inappropriately discarded spent filters containing PCE and an assessment was conducted in 1997 to determine theextent of contamination. Maximum PCE concentration in the source area was approximately 40 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg), with the highest concentration being near the surface at approximately 1 foot below ground surface (bgs). Thegroundwater PCE plume appeared to have migrated vertically and laterally westward to a maximum depth ofapproximately 60 ft in the area downgradient from the source. The highest PCE concentration in groundwater was foundto be 10,000 :g/L, at a depth of 40 to 45 ft bgs. This indicated the presence of PCE as DNAPL, with the source zonelocated behind the Swift Cleaners building. The down gradient edge of the plume could not be determined due to offsiteaccess issues.The remedial action plan developed for the site included ISCO using Fenton’s chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™ to treatgroundwater and DNAPL contamination and SVE to treat the contaminated soil. A pilot test was conducted in 1999 todetermine the viability of chemical oxidation at the site and based on the results, a multiphase approach was developed forthe full-scale application. At the time of writing this report, full scale application of the remedial action was still beingconducted at the site and approximately 22,500 cubic feet (ft3) of soil and 37,500 ft3 of groundwater had been treated.16This page intentionally left blank17IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS18Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, MontanaSite Name:East HelenaLocation:East Helena, MontanaPeriod of Operation:Spring 2005 to OngoingCleanup Authority: CERCLAPurpose/Significance of Application:To remediate arsenic contaminated groundwater.Cleanup Type: Field DemonstrationContaminants:Groundwater:-Heavy Metals; Arsenic (As) (20 milligrams per Liter [mg/L])Waste Source:Process ponds contaminated due tolead smelting operations.Contacts:Remedial Project Manager:Linda JacobsonU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region VIIIPhone: (303) 312-6503Email: Jacobson.linda@epa.govProject Manager:Rick WilkinU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgencyNational Risk Management ResearchLaboratoryOffice of Research and DevelopmentPhone: (580) 436-8874Email: wilkin.rick@epa.govTechnology:Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier-The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) consists of a trench 30 feet long, 46 feetdeep and 6 feet wide, with 175 tons of zero-valent iron (ZVI) placed in thetrench.-The ZVI PRB system was installed 600 feet downgradient of the source area,perpendicular to the flow of contaminated groundwater.Type/Quantity of Media Treated:The ZVI PRB system is treating an arsenic contaminated groundwater plume that is 450 feet wide and extends 2,100 feetdowngradient from the process ponds.Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L.Results:Initial, post-installation monitoring evaluations indicated that arsenic concentrations in the groundwater had been reducedfrom 20 mg/L (highest concentration) to below 0.010 mg/L. Due to the limited evaluation of the system it has not beendetermined if the treatment has been successful. A two year evaluation to determine if the system should be implementedat a full scale will be completed in 2007.Costs:The ZVI PRB system cost approximately $325,000 to construct. There are no additional operation and maintenance costsassociated with this system.Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, Montana (continued)19Description:The East Helena site is located in East Helena, Montana. The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1984. The site was a lead smelting facility that operated from the late 1880s to 2001. Smelting operations over a period of ahundred years have lead to heavy metal contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater at the site.Groundwater at the site had become contaminated with arsenic due to leaching from the contaminated process pondslocated over the shallow groundwater. The arsenic plume is approximately 450 feet wide and extended 2,100 feetdowngradient from the process ponds. The ZVI PRB was installed as a pilot project in spring of 2005.The ZVI PRB includes a 30 foot long trench that is 46 feet deep and 6 feet wide. The trench is filled with 175 tons of ZVIand coarse sand. The system was constructed approximately 600 feet downgradient from the process ponds, perpendicularto the flow of the arsenic contaminated groundwater plume.The construction of the system cost approximately $325,000. There are no operation and maintenance costs associatedwith this system.The first round of post-implementation groundwater data was collected in June 2005. Based on this data, arsenicconcentrations in treated groundwater had been reduced from 20 mg/L to below 0.010 mg/L. The system is currently inthe process of a two year evaluation to determine if the system should be implemented in full scale.20In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody CropGroundwater Treatment System, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, TexasSite Name:Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS-JRB)Location:Fort Worth, TexasPeriod of Operation:August 1996 to September 1998Cleanup Authority:Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) EnvironmentalSecurity Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)Purpose/Significance of Application:To evaluate the capability of Eastern cottonwood trees (Populusdeltoides) to intercept and treat groundwater contaminated withTCE and c-DCE.Cleanup Type:Field DemonstrationContaminants:Halogenated – volatiles; Tetrachloroethene (PCE);Trichloroethylene (TCE); Cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE);trans-1,2-DCE; methylene chloride; vinyl chloride; tolueneWaste Source:Historically, manufacturing processes at Plant 4 ofthe NAS-JRB generated an estimated 5,500 to 6,000tons of waste per year, including: waste solvents,oils, fuels, paint residues, and miscellaneous spentchemicals. TCE is believed to have leaked fromdegreasing tanks in the assembly building at Plant 4and entered the underlying alluvial aquifer. Contacts:Mr. Gregory HarveyASC/ENVRBuilding 8, Suite 21801 10th Street, Area BWright Patterson AFB, OH 45433Telephone: 937-255-3276Fax: 937-255-4155E-mail: gregory.harvey@wpafb.af.milDr. Jeff MarquseeESTCP Program Office901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303Arlington, VA 22203Telephone: 703-696-2117Fax: 703-696-2114E-mail: jeffrey.marqusee@osd.milMs. Sandra M. EbertsUnited States Geological Survey6480 Doubletree AvenueColumbus, OH 43229Telephone: 614-430-7740Fax: 614-430-7777E-mail: smeberts@usgs.govMr. Steven Rock EPA NRMRL26 West Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268Telephone: 513-569-7149Fax: 513-569-7879E-mail: rock.steven@epa.govTechnology:Phytoremediation-The primary objective of the demonstration was to study the mechanism ofphytocontainment. Phytocontainment is achieved via transpiration (theevaporative loss of water from a plant). Eastern cottonwood trees were chosenas the preferred vegetation for this demonstration. They are classified as a shortrotation woody crop (SRWC) because they are fast-growing and are easy toregenerate.-The SRWC groundwater treatment (SRWCGT) system consisted of two 15 x75 square meter (m2) plantations, one planted with seven rows of whips or1-year old stem cuttings (438 total) and the other planted with seven rows ofcaliper trees or 1-year old seedlings (224 total). A total of 662 trees wereplanted at the site. The two sizes of trees were selected for planting so thatdifferences in rate of growth, contaminant reductions, and cost based onplanting strategy could be compared.-Both plantations were oriented generally perpendicular to groundwater flowdirection and spanned the most concentrated portion of the underlyingTCE-groundwater plume. -Contrary to many conventional treatment processes, a SRWCGT system doesnot require the addition of any chemical or biological enhancements. In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody CropGroundwater Treatment System (continued)21Type/Quantity of Media Treated:Groundwater (quantity not specified)Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:The cleanup goals for the contaminants of concern were the maximum contaminant levels (MCL), in ug/L: TCE – 5;c-DCE – 70; t-DCE – 100; methylene chloride – 5; vinyl chloride – 5; toluene – 1,000.The primary objective of the SRWCGT system focused on localized hydraulic containment and the goals were to:-Achieve a 30% reduction in the mass of TCE in the aquifer that is transported across the downgradient end of the siteduring the second growing season, relative to baseline TCE mass flux calculations.-Achieve a 50% reduction in mass of TCE in the aquifer that is transported across the downgradient end of the site duringthe third growing season, relative to baseline TCE mass flux calculations.Results:The SRWCGT system did not achieve the mass flux reductions goal of 30% and 50% for the second and third growingseasons, respectively. For the second growing season, the TCE mass flux was up 8% during peak season, as compared tobaseline conditions. The planted trees reduced the outward flux of groundwater by 5% during the peak of the secondseason, but TCE concentrations in a row of wells immediately downgradient of the trees were higher, resulting in theincrease in TCE mass flux. For the third growing season, the TCE mass flux was down 11% at peak season and down 8%near season’s end, as compared to baseline conditions. Concentrations of TCE during the third season in the row ofdowngradient wells were similar to concentrations at baseline, and the reduction in TCE mass flux is primarily attributed toa reduction in the volumetric flux of groundwater out of the site. The primary objective was not met because the trees didnot reach their full transpiration potential during the time period of the demonstration study, but greater hydraulic controlat the site is anticipated in the future.The data show a general decrease in TCE concentrations throughout the demonstration site over the course of the study.However, since a decrease in TCE concentration was observed in the upgradient monitoring wells as well as in the wellswithin the plantations, this trend does not appear to be predominantly related to the establishment of the whip and calipertree plantations. Secondly, downgradient monitoring wells did not exhibit a significant decrease in TCE concentrations.The change in TCE concentrations within the study area over time may be attributed to dilution from recharge to theaquifer and volatilization of TCE from the water table.Costs:Total estimated demonstration costs were $641,467, which included $426,427 in actual labor costs, $172,740 in otherdirect costs and $42,300 in laboratory costs.Description:The site chosen for the demonstration was a DoD site with a large unattenuated contaminant plume due to the lack ofadequate amounts of native and/or anthropogenic carbon and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The site was selected todemonstrate the SRWCGT system because of its geographical location, type of contamination, and depth of contamination. The site specifically exhibited the following characteristics:-Type-3 conditions (i.e., DO levels >1 mg/L and a lack of carbon sources that prevented reductive dechlorination ofchlorinated compounds).-The groundwater at the site is shallow and thus accessible to trees soon after planting.-An ample area, clear of obstructions, was available for plantations (i.e., the technology is well suited for use at very largefield sites where other methods of remediation are not cost effective or practical).-The site allowed for long-term, field-scale monitoring and evaluation.-Previously installed wells were available to monitor the treatment system (water levels in wells provide a direct means forassessing groundwater uptake by the trees).The site selected for the demonstration was an approximate 70-m-wide portion of a TCE plume on the north side of thesite. Specifically, the study was undertaken to determine the potential for a SRWC to decrease TCE flux. Although TCEwas the focus of the demonstration, other chlorinated organic compounds detected in the groundwater or plant tissueincluded, but were not limited to, cDCE, tDCE, PCE, methylene chloride, toluene, and VC. 22Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air ForceBase, WyomingSite Name:F.E. Warren Air Force BaseLocation:WyomingPeriod of Operation:August 2002 to August 2004Cleanup Authority:Demonstration conducted under the Department ofDefense (DoD) Environmental SecurityTechnology Certification Program (ESTCP).Purpose/Significance of Application:The purpose of the demonstration was to demonstrate/validate apotential new efficient and cost-effective technology for managingcontaminated groundwater at the Department of Defense (DoD)facilities.Cleanup Type: Field DemonstrationContaminants:Trichloroethene (TCE), approximately 300 mg/LWaste Source:Historical missile maintenance and disposalactivities.Contacts:Andrea LeesonESTCP Program Manager 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303Arlington, VA 22203Telephone: 703-696-2118 Fax: 703-696-2114E-mail: andrea.leeson@osd.milDon Ficklin HQ AFCEE/ERT 3207 Sidney Brooks RoadBrooks AFB, TX 78235-5344Telephone: 210-536-5290Fax: 210-536-9026Rob Stites EPA – Region 8 (EPR-F)999 18th St., Suite 300Denver, CO 80202Telephone: 303-312-6658E-mail: stites.rob@epa.govJane Cramer Wyoming Department of EnvironmentalQualityWDEQ PG122 West 25th St. 4-WCheyenne, WY 82002Telephone: 307-777-7092E-mail: jcramer@state.wy.usTechnology:Electrically Induced Redox Barrier (e-Barrier)-An e-barrier consists of a panel of closely spaced permeable electrodesinstalled in a trench that intercepts a plume of contaminated groundwater. -Application of an electrical potential to the electrodes creates oxidizingconditions at the positive electrodes and reducing conditions at the negativeelectrodes. This drives sequential oxidation and/or reduction of contaminantswith the net benefit of reducing contaminant flux. -The e-barrier constructed for this field demonstration consisted of 17individual electrode panels each 0.3 x 2 square meters (m2) in area. Concentric interlocks linked the individual panels. The overall as-builtdimension of the e-barrier is 9.2 x 1.9 m2. The effective cross-sectional areawas 17 m2. -Each panel contained three Ti-mmo electrodes, four layers of GeotextileTM,and six layers of Triplanar GeonetTM. -Panels were framed in slotted 3-in inner diameter (ID) PVC pipe. -Each e-barrier module includes a discrete electrical connection, gas vents,and washout tubing that are conveyed to the surface via 3-in PVC riser pipes. -The assembled e-barrier was installed in two sections.-Washed granular backfill from the Crow Creek alluvium was placed aroundthe e-barrier to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (ft) above the barrier. -Following installation at the site, the e-barrier was allowed to equilibratewith the contaminant in the plume for 5 months. Power was applied to thee-barrier in January 2003. Power was supplied by a 30V DC 200 ampsingle-phase rectifier. The rectifier was connected to a 110V AC 60 ampelectrical service.-As of August 2004, the e-barrier had been operating continuously forapproximately 19 months. Type/Quantity of Media Treated:Groundwater: .63,000 gallonsRegulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:Trichloroethene - 5 ug/L; cis-1,2-DCE - 70 ug/L.Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air ForceBase, Wyoming (continued)23Results:The primary effect of the e-barrier was to shift thermodynamic conditions in the vicinity of the electrodes, resulting in anoverall effect of oxidation followed by reduction. This facilitated oxidation and/or reduction of the TCE. The groundwaterbecame more acidic (approximately 1 pH unit) close to the e-barrier. On day 290, the highest potential was applied. Samples of groundwater collected at this time showed a 95% reduction in TCE concentration between 0.5 meters up- anddowngradient face of the e-barrier. This achieved the cleanup goal of 5ug/L. In general, no adverse reaction intermediates were observed. An exception was the apparent formation of chloroform at thecenter of the e-barrier. Plausible explanations for chloroform formation include highly toxic conditions developed at thee-barrier and/or unanticipated reactions with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe cement. Operation of the e-barrier had noapparent impact on the mobility of inorganic constituents in groundwater.Costs:The total costs associated with the demonstration included capital expenditure (96.5% of total) and operation andmaintenance (O&M) (3.5% of total). The capital costs consisted of e-barrier installation (29.7%), electrode materials(15.5%), and labor for panel fabrication (9%). Total observed capital and O&M costs, normalized to the cross-sectionalarea of the e-barrier, were $409/ft2/year and $10/ft2/year, respectively. Description:Research on e-barriers has been underway at Colorado State University (CSU) since September 1998. The e-barrier wasdesigned and fabricated at CSU in May through July 2002 and was installed at F.E. Warren AFB in August 2002. WarrenAFB was selected for this demonstration due to favorable geologic conditions at the site, the presence of the desired targetcompound, and proximity to CSU. Some primary site attributes include a background TCE concentration ofapproximately 300 ug/L; depth to groundwater of approximately 12 ft (below grade); and a groundwater seepage velocityof 0.37 ft/day.F.E. Warren is a 7,000-acre facility underlain by alluvial deposits and the Ogallala Formation. Locally, the OgallalaFormation consists of interbedded gravel, sand, and silt with varying clay content and cementation. The site selected forthe demonstration is a shallow alluvial plume containing approximately 300 ug/L of TCE. 24Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, TexasSite Name:Kelly Air Force BaseLocation:TexasPeriod of Operation:November 1999 to May 2002Cleanup Authority:Demonstration conducted under theDepartment of Defense (DoD)Environmental Security TechnologyCertification Program (ESTCP).Purpose/Significance of Application: The primary objective of thedemonstration was to determine if complete reductive dechlorination could bestimulated through the introduction of a microbial culture KB-1 known tocontain halorespiring bacteria. Secondary objectives involved testing therobustness of the applied microbial culture by depriving it of electron donorand adding sulfate to the system.Cleanup Type:Field DemonstrationContaminants: Volatiles – Halogenated; Tetrachloroethene (PCE);Trichloroethene (TCE)Waste Source: Not provided Technology: Bioaugmentation-Bioaugmentation was tested to treat chlorinated solvents-contaminated groundwater. The KB-1 culture, consisting ofhalorespiring bacteria, was added to a bioaugmentation demonstration plot.-The bioaugmentation system consisted of one injection well and three extraction wells. Groundwater was extracted andpumped into a tank; electron donors (methanol and acetate) were added to the groundwater stream to achieve a totalconcentration of 7.2 milliMoles (mM). The groundwater was then pumped into the injection well. A groundwaterrecirculation rate of 3 gallons per minute (gpm) was maintained throughout the test with a residence time in thedemonstration plot of approximately 8 days.-The demonstration plot included nine wells: one injection well, three extraction wells, and five monitoring wells. Three ofthe monitoring wells were aligned along the center of the plot parallel to the groundwater flow direction and located at adistance of 8, 12, and 22 ft downgradient of the injection well. The other two monitoring wells were aligned perpendicularto groundwater flow, and were initially installed to be outside the zone of influence of the system. Each of the wells inboth plots were completed to a depth of 25 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) and were screened from 15 to 25 ft bgs toreduce the opportunity for aeration and increased oxygen concentrations of the groundwater as it moved through thetreatment system.-Groundwater samples were collected monthly during operation or when system operating parameters were modified.During each sampling event, groundwater was collected for pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO),oxidation-reduction potential, salinity, and turbidity volatile organic compound (VOC), volatile fatty acid (VFA), sulfate,nitrite, nitrate, bromide (tracer), and dissolved gas analyses. In addition, samples were collected for gene probe analysis fordetection of the KB-1 culture.Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (continued)25Contacts:2nd Lt. Kolin NewsomeAir Force Research Laboratory139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403Telephone: 850-283-6308Fax: 850-283-6064 Paul Kerch Air Force Research Laboratory139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403Telephone: 850-283-6126Fax: 850-283-6064 Dr. Bruce Alleman Battelle Memorial Institute505 King AvenueColumbus, Ohio 43201Telephone: 614-424-5715Fax: 614-424-3667 Matt Place Battelle Memorial Institute505 King AvenueColumbus, Ohio 43201Telephone: 614-424-4531Fax: 614-424-3667 Dr. Dave Major GeoSyntec Consultants160 Research LaneGuelph, Ontario N1G 5B2Telephone: 519-822-2230Fax: 519-822-3151Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Groundwater: 40,000Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: No regulatory requirements or cleanup goals were provided for thedemonstration.Results: Baseline monitoring, in November 1999, indicated that PCE was the dominant chloroethene species at the site. When the electron donors alone was added to the demonstration plot, limited reductive dechlorination of PCE occurred(PCE conversion to dichlorothene [DCE]). The demonstration plot was then bioaugmented with KB-1 on May 6, 2000.Within 72 days of the addition of the KB-1 culture, ethane was detected in the demonstration plot and the PCE, TCE, andc-DCE were observed at the lowest levels observed since 1999. This indicates that the addition of the KB-1 culturestimulated complete reductive dechlorination of PCE to ethene. After demonstrating the effects of bioaugmentation for the potential to promote complete reductive dechlorination, thesystem was shut down (the addition of the electron donor stopped on September 25, 2000). Groundwater samples werecollected from the test plot on August 23, 2001 to determine the effects of eliminating the electron donor for one year onthe population of the KB-1 culture and the reductive dechlorination process. Gene probe analysis of the groundwatersamples indicated presence of KB-1 from demonstration plot. Samples from a non-augmented control plot tested negativefor KB-1. The microbial analyses and the distribution of chloroethenes indicated that the KB-1 culture was present andcomplete dechlorination was still occurring in the demonstration plot. Sulfate was added to the system at 3.6 mM on March 9, 2002, to determine if the competitive use of the electron donorbetween the chloroethenes and sulfate would limit the reductive dechlorination occurring in the test plot. Monitoring datacollected on May 9, 2002 indicated that the addition of sulfate did not significantly affect reductive dechlorination. The study indicated that the KB-1 culture was robust and able to compete with, and survive among, the indigenousmicrobial population. It also indicated that bioaugmentation may not require continuous monitoring following inoculationat sites where the natural attenuation requirements are met.Costs: The total cost for the field demonstration of the bioaugmentation technology at Kelly AFB was $333,936, including:$78,000 for microcosm testing; $67,727 for capital costs for full-scale study; and $188,209 for operation and maintenance(O&M).Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (continued)26Description: A field demonstration was conducted at Kelly AFB to test the capability of a microbial culture, KB-1, todechlorinate PCE to ethane, and to test the survivability of the culture in the field under various conditions such aspresence and absence of electron donors. Bioaugmentation had been successfully demonstrated earlier at Kelly AFB inmicrocosm studies. The demonstration plot was selected for the earlier microcosm bioaugmentation study based on thepresence and concentrations of the contaminants, access to an existing test infrastructure, hydrogeology/ geology of site,and site logistics (site access, electrical power, water, etc.). The geology in the vicinity of the test site consisted ofunconsolidated alluvial deposits that have been deposited on the top of the undulatory erosional surface of the NavarroClay. The alluvial deposits consisted of gravel, sand, silt, and clay, ranging in thickness from 20 to 40 ft bgs. From thesurface down, the geology typically consists of 1 to 4 ft of black organic clay, 6 to16 ft of tan silty, calcareous clay; and 4to 20 ft of clayey limestone and chert gravel (denoted as clayey/gravel). The water table was approximately 15 to 20 ft bgs,and the saturated zone thickness was between 5 to12 ft bgs. Generally, groundwater flow is to the southwest with a flowvelocity of approximately 0.3 ft/day. The volatile organic compounds (VOC) at the site groundwater consisted primarily ofPCE, TCE, and their degradation products c-DCE and vinyl chloride. Total chlorinated ethene concentrations in thegroundwater exceed 8,000 :g/L.27EX SITU ACID ROCK DRAINAGE TREATMENT ABSTRACTS28This page intentionally left blank29Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, TennesseeSite Name:Copper Basin Mining DistrictLocation:Ducktown, TennesseePeriod of Operation:1998 to PresentCleanup Authority:CERCLAPurpose/Significance of Application:The wetland was constructed to aide in the overall remediation of manganeseand aluminum contamination at the site.Cleanup Type:Field DemonstrationContaminants:-Heavy Metals: Iron (Fe) (7.0 mg/L), Manganese (Mn) (1.2 mg/L), Copper (Cu)(0.6 mg/L), Zinc (Zn) (1.7 mg/L), Aluminum (Al) (4.2 mg/L).Waste Source:Copper and sulfur mining operations.Contacts:Remedial Project Manager:Loften CarrU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IVPhone: 404-562-8804E-mail: Carr.Loften@epa.govTechnology:Constructed Wetland-The system consists of an anaerobic cell and a concrete diversion dam, bothconstructed in 1998. Two aerobic cells and a limestone-rock filter were laterconstructed in 2003.-The concrete diversion dam was constructed to control the flow of the McPhersonBranch into the constructed wetland and to provide a settlement basin to remove siltfrom the flow before it enters the wetland.-A liner was installed in 1998 on the west bank of the McPherson Branch, 70 meters(m) upstream of the concrete dam to minimize infiltration into, and drainage from,mined waste rock under the roadway parallel to McPherson Branch.-The wetland includes a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) covered by a 0.7 m thickagricultural lime-enriched soil layer; a 0.7 m thick layer of crushed 2.5 centimeter (cm)limestone (minimum 75% Calcium Carbonate [CaCO3]); hay bales; and a 0.15 m layerof spent mushroom compost.-The limestone-rock filter and aerobic cells were added to oxygenate the constructedwetland effluent, volatilizate hydrogen sulfides in the effluent, and provide additionalsettlement for metal precipitates in the effluent.-The constructed wetland is 2 acres in size.-The average flow of water into the constructed wetland is 291 gallons per minute(gpm) and the average flow out of it is 241 gpm.Type/Quantity of Media Treated:The average flow of water entering the anaerobic wetland is 241 gpm.Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:EPA secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) standards for public water systems:-Heavy Metals: Fe (0.3 mg/L), Mn (0.05 mg/L), Cu (1.0 mg/L), Zn (5 mg/L), Al (0.05 – 0.2 mg/L).Results:After the initial construction of the wetland in 1998, a study was conducted from September 15, 1999 to February 5, 2003to evaluate the performance of the wetland. The study found that the wetland was reducing the acidity and concentrationof most of the metals in the McPherson Branch flow. However, concentration of manganese was not being reduced. Thestudy also found an increase in the hardness of water and a decrease in sulfate concentration. Later in 2003, two additionalaerobic cells and a limestone-rock filter bed were installed to help decrease manganese concentrations.As of 2006, the effluent concentrations of heavy metals are:-Al at 0.055 mg/L-Fe at 0.133 mg/L-Mn at 0.294 mg/L-Cu at 0.017 mg/L-Zn at 0.197 mg/LWith the exception of manganese, all metal concentrations have been reduced to below the EPA MCL standards.Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, Tennessee (continued)30Costs:-The construction cost of the anaerobic wetland in 1998 was approximately $1 million. This included the initial removalof waste material and the construction of the anaerobic cell.-In 2003, the cost of adding the two additional aerobic cells to the wetland was approximately $300,000. This included thecost for the installation of the two cells, the cost for adding a rock filter, and the restoration of a segment of habitat onMcPherson Branch downstream of the anaerobic wetland.Description:The Copper Basin Mining District is located in Polk County, Tennessee and Fannin County, Georgia. Copper and sulfurmining and processing occurred at the site from 1843 until 1987, with sulfuric acid production continuing until 2000. As aresult of mining activities, an area of more than 35 square miles, including the Davis Mill Creek Watershed, the NorthPotato Creek Watershed, and sections of the Ocoee River, had become contaminated.The site is currently being investigated and remediated through a collaborative three-party effort that was formalized by aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated January 11, 2001. The three parties overseeing remediation of the site are:the EPA, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and OXY USA (a subsidiary of OccidentalPetroleum Corporation). Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSHI), also a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, isconducting the remedial work at the site.The constructed wetland was installed by GSHI on the McPherson Branch near its convergence with Burra Burra Creekwithin the North Potato Creek Watershed. The two-acre wetland was constructed on a highly eroded watershed, near thelocation of a former ore roast yard. In 1998 the initial anaerobic cell of the wetland was installed on the McPhersonBranch. The construction cost of the wetland and removal of waste from the area was approximately $1 million.After construction of the wetland, a study was initiated in September 1999 to monitor the performance of the system. Thestudy ended in February 2003 and found that the wetland had succeeded in reducing the acidity and concentration of mostof the metal contamination in the McPherson Branch. The only metal that was not reduced to below the EPA MCL wasmanganese.To help reduce the concentrations of manganese, two additional aerobic cells were added to the wetland system. Inaddition, a rock filter was constructed to provide oxygenation, volatilization of hydrogen sulfide, and settlement for metalprecipitates. These additions to the wetland were conducted in 2003 at a cost of $300,000. This also includes the cost forthe restoration of a segment of the stream downriver from the wetland.The average volume of influent into the constructed wetland system is 291 gpm. Iron, copper, zinc, and aluminumconcentrations have been reduced by an order of magnitude. In addition, acidity has been reduced with the pH of treatedwater increasing from 3.82 to 6.50.31Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, CaliforniaSite Name:Leviathan MineLocation:Markleeville, CAPeriod of Operation:Spring 2003 – OngoingSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE): November 2003 to July2005Cleanup Authority:CERCLATechnology evaluated under the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) SITE programPurpose/Significance of Application:The primary objectives of the SITE evaluation were to:-Determine the removal efficiencies for the primary target metals (Al, Cu, Fe,and Ni) over the evaluation period-Determine if the concentrations of the primary target metals in the treatedeffluent are below the interim (pre-risk assessment and record of decision)discharge standards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for Early Actionsat Leviathan MineCleanup Type: Full ScaleContaminants:Average gravity flow mode influent ARD concentrations:-Heavy metals: Aluminum (Al) (37,467 ug/L), Copper (Cu) (691 ug/L), Iron(Fe) (117,167 ug/L), Nickel (Ni) (487 ug/L)Average recirculation mode influent ARD concentrations:-Heavy metals: Al (40,029 ug/L), Cu (795 ug/L), Fe (115,785 ug/L), Ni (529ug/L)Waste Source:Copper and sulfur mining activities.Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)32Contacts:EPA Contacts:Edward Bates, EPA Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Risk Management Research LaboratoryOffice of Research and Development26 West Martin Luther King Jr. DriveCincinnati, OH 45268(513) 569-7774bates.edward@epa.govKevin Mayer, EPA Remedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 975 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2San Francisco, CA 94105(415) 972-3176mayer.kevin@epa.govVendor Contact:Roy Thun, Project ManagerBP Atlantic Richfield Company6 Centerpointe Drive, Room 6-164La Palma, CA 90623(661) 287-3855thunril@bp.comState of California Contact:Richard Booth, Project ManagerCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control BoardLohontan Region2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150(530) 542-5470RBooth@waterboards.ca.govUniversity of Nevada-Reno Contact:Dr. Glenn Miller and Dr. Tim TsukamotoDepartment of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalScienceUniversity of Nevada-Reno, Mail Stop 199Reno, NV 89557-0187(775) 784-4413gcmiller@unr.edutimothyt@unr.eduTechnology:Compost-free Bioreactor-A compost-free bioreactor system was installed in the spring of2003.-The system consists of a flow control weir, a pretreatment pond,two sulfate-reducing bioreactors, a settling pond, and an aerationchannel.-Influent acid rock drainage (ARD) enters the system through aflow control weir. Sodium hydroxide is added to the influent toadjust the pH to approximately 4. Precipitates formed during thepH adjustment are settled out in the pretreatment pond. Ethanol isadded to the ARD as it flows into a series of two sulfate-reducingbioreactors where sulfate is reduced to sulfide. Effluent from thebioreactors enters a settling pond where metal sulfide precipitatesare removed. Finally, effluent from the settling pond flowsthrough a rock lined aeration channel to promote gas exchangebefore being discharged into Aspen Creek.-Ethanol is contained in a 7,600 Liter (L) ethanol feed stock tankand sodium hydroxide is contained in three 3,800 L feed stocktank.-The system is designed to handle influent flows up to a maximumof 115 liter per minute (L/min). During the evaluation inlet flowswere evaluated up to 91 L/min.-The two bioreactors are lined with 60 mil high densitypolyethylene (HDPE) and filled with 20 to 40 centimeters (cm) ofriver rock.-The system operated in two modes: gravity flow mode andrecirculation mode. The gravity flow mode operates by having theARD pass through two successive sulfate-reducing bioreactorsfollowed by precipitation of metal sulfides in the continuous flowsettling pond. The recirculation mode operates by having ARDcome into direct contact with the sulfide rich water from thebioreactors followed by precipitation of the metal sulfides in thesettling pond. Also in the recirculation mode, a portion of thesettling pond supernatant containing excess sulfate is then pumpedback to the head of the bioreactors to generate additional sulfides.Type/Quantity of Media Treated:From November 2003 to mid-May 2004 the system treated 9.24 million liters of ARD while in gravity flow mode. Frommid-May 2004 to July 2005, 22.1 million liters of ARD were treated using the recirculation mode.Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:Maximum EPA Interim Discharge Standards:-Heavy Metals: Al (4,000 ug/L), Cu (26 ug/L), Fe (2,000 ug/L), Ni (840 ug/L)Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)33Results:The evaluation showed that the compost-free bioreactor system is effective in neutralizing acidity and reducing theconcentrations of the heavy metal contamination to below the interim discharge standards. During the gravity flow mode,the system removed an average of 94 percent of the total heavy metal contamination from the ARD. The recirculationmode approach removed an average of 96 percent of the contamination. In addition, the metal sulfide precipitates createdby the system were found to be non-hazardous, did not pose a threat to water quality, and could be used as a soilamendment for site reclamation.Costs:The estimated initial fixed cost to construct a treatment system for the gravity flow mode was $836,617 and $864,119 forthe recirculation mode system. These costs included site preparation, permitting, and capital and equipment costs. Thesite preparation costs included costs for system design, project and construction management, and preconstruction sitework. The capital and equipment costs ($548,431 for gravity flow mode and $554,551 for recirculation mode) includedcosts for all equipment and materials used during construction, delivery of equipment and materials, earthwork, and initialsystem construction. The equipment and materials costs included costs for reagent storage tanks, pumps, valves, pondliners, rock substrate, pH control equipment, automation equipment and satellite phones for reliable communication at theremote site.The total variable cost to operate the treatment system was $82,155 for gravity flow mode (over a 6-month period) and$75,877 for the recirculation mode (over a 16-month period). These costs include the cost of system startup andacclimation, consumable and rentals, labor, utilities, waste handling and disposal, analytical services, and maintenance andsystem modifications.Description:The Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located in Alpine County on the eastern slopes of the SierraNevada Mountain range. Mining activities since the 1860s have resulted in significant acid mine drainage (AMD) andARD contamination. In the 1950s, approximately 22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed from thesite’s open pit mine and were placed in the Aspen Creek drainage channel.In the spring of 2003 installation of a compost-free bioreactor at the site was completed. From November 2003 to July2005 the treatment system was evaluated by the EPA SITE program to determine its effectiveness in treating ARDcollected from the Aspen Seep.The system operated in gravity flow mode from November 2003 through mid-May and in recirculation mode frommid-May through July 2005. During both periods the influent flow of ARD into the system ranged from 25 to 91 L/min. During gravity flow mode the system treated 9.24 million liters of ARD and during recirculation mode the system treated22.1 million liters of ARD. The initial fixed cost to construct the treatment system for gravity flow mode is $836,617 and$864,119 for a recirculation mode system.Results from the evaluation showed that the system was able to remove on an average 94 to 96 percent of the total heavymetal contamination from the ARD. Based on the success of the system, remediation of the ARD from the Aspen Seepcontinued.34Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, CaliforniaSite Name:Leviathan MineLocation:Markleeville, CAPeriod of Operation:Active lime treatment system: 1999 – ongoing; semi-passive lagoon treatmentsystem: 2001 – ongoingSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE): June 2002 to October2003.Cleanup Authority:CERCLATechnology evaluated under the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) SITE programPurpose/Significance of Application:The primary objectives of the SITE evaluation were to:-Determine the removal efficiencies for the target metals over the evaluationperiod-Determine if the concentrations of the target metals in the treated effluent arebelow the interim (pre-risk assessment and record of decision) dischargestandards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for Early Actions atLeviathan MineThe secondary objectives of the evaluation were to:-Document operating parameters and assess critical operating conditionsnecessary to optimize system performance-Monitor the general chemical characteristics of the AMD or ARD water as itpasses through the treatment system-Evaluate operational performance and efficiency of solids separation systems-Document solids transfer, dewatering, and disposal operations-Determine capital and operation and maintenance costsCleanup Type:Full ScaleContaminants:Average active lime treatment biphasic operation influent AMD concentrations:-Heavy metals: Aluminum (Al) (381,000 ug/L), Copper (Cu) (2,383 ug/L), Iron(Fe) (461,615 ug/L), Nickel (Ni) (7,024 ug/L)Average active lime treatment monophasic operation influent ARD/AMDconcentrations-Heavy metals: Al (107,800 ug/L), Cu (2,152 ug/L), Fe (456,429 ug/L), Ni(2,560 ug/L)Average semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment influent ARD concentrations-Heavy metals: Al (31,988 ug/L), Cu (13.5 ug/L), Fe (391,250 ug/L), Ni (1,631ug/L)Waste Source:Copper and sulfur mining activities.Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)35Contacts:EPA Contacts:Edward Bates, EPA ProjectManagerU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgencyNational Risk ManagementResearch LaboratoryOffice of Research andDevelopment26 West Martin Luther King Jr.DriveCincinnati, OH 45268(513) 569-7774bates.edward@epa.govKevin Mayer, EPA RemedialProject ManagerU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region 975 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2San Francisco, CA 94105(415) 972-3176mayer.kevin@epa.govVendor Contact:Roy Thun, Project ManagerBP Atlantic Richfield Company6 Centerpointe Drive, Room6-164La Palma, CA 90623(661) 287-3855thunril@bp.comState of California Contact:Richard Booth, Project ManagerCalifornia Regional WaterQuality Control BoardLohontan Region2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150(530) 542-5470RBooth@waterboards.ca.govTechnology:Active lime treatment system-Acid rock drainage (ARD) and acid mine drainage (AMD) are neutralized using limeto precipitate dissolved iron, other metals, and oxy-hydroxides.-Influent flows into a reaction tank where it is mixed with lime slurry. The processsolution then flows through a 4,000 Liter (L) flash/floc mixing tank where polymerflocculent is added. The solution then flows into a 40,000 L clarifier for floc settlingand thickening. Solids are periodically pumped from the clarifier into a 550L-capacity batch filter press for dewatering.-The system operated in two modes: monophasic and biphasic. The monophasic modeis a single stage process that treats a combined flow of ARD and AMD. The biphasicmode consists of two stages where only AMD is treated. During biphasic mode, theAMD flow passes through two sets of reaction tanks, flash/floc mixing tanks, andclarifiers.-The monophasic mode of the system treated ARD/AMD flows up to 250 liter perminute (L/min) while the biphasic mode treated AMD flow up to 720 L/min.-Forty-five percent lime slurry was added to the AMD at a rate of up to 1.3 L/min forbiphasic mode and to the ARD/AMD at 0.35 L/min for monophasic mode.Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system-ARD with low arsenic concentration is neutralized using lime to form hydroxideprecipitate.-The semi-passive system operates as a continuous flow lime contact system.-ARD influent passes through three 4,000 L air sparge/lime contact tanks where initialprecipitation occurs. Forty-five percent lime slurry is added to each contact tank at acombined rate of 0.16 L/min. The tanks are sparged with compressed air to mix theARD and lime. The ARD/lime solution then flows through a series of six, spun fabricbag filters where approximately 60 percent of the precipitate is captured. Effluentfrom the bag filters then flows into a 5.4 million L multi-cell settling lagoon. TreatedARD is periodically discharged from the settling lagoon into the Leviathan Creek.-The system treats low ARD flows of approximately 120 L/min with relatively lowarsenic content.Type/Quantity of Media Treated:In monophasic mode, the active lime treatment system treated 17.4 million liter of combined AMD and ARD using 23.8dry tons of lime over 6 months. During the biphasic mode the active treatment system treated 28.3 million liter of AMDusing 125 dry tons of lime over 6 months.The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treated 12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons of lime over 6months.Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:EPA Project Discharge Standards (Maximum):-Heavy metals: Al (4,000 ug/L), Cu (26 ug/L), Fe (2,000 ug/L), Ni (840 ug/L)Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)36Results:-Both the monophasic and biphasic modes for active lime treatment were able to remove on average 93.1 to 100 percent ofeach metal contaminant, with the exception of lead, which had a removal percentage of 74.6 to 78.3 percent.-The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system was able to remove on an average 88.5 to 100 percent of each metalcontaminant, with the exception of lead (removal efficiency of 66.4 percent) and copper (removal efficiency of 58.3).-Despite the low average percent removal efficiency for lead and copper, all contaminant metal concentrations in theeffluent were below the interim discharge standards for both systems.Costs:The initial fixed costs to construct the lime treatment systems were:-Active lime treatment operated in monophasic mode: $1,021,415-Active lime treatment operated in biphasic mode: $1,261,076-Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment: $297,482The initial fixed costs consisted of site preparation costs, permitting costs, and capital and equipment costs. Sitepreparation costs included system design, project management, and construction management. Capital and equipmentcosts included all equipment and materials used, delivery, and initial system construction. Equipment and materialsincluded reaction tanks, settling tanks, piping, pumps, valves, pH control equipment, automation equipment and satellitephones to support communication in the remote location.Variable costs to operate each system over the 6-month evaluation period were as follows:-Active lime treatment operated in monophasic mode: $200,022-Active lime treatment operated in biphasic mode: $224,813-Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment: $195,151Variable costs included system startup and shakedown, consumables and rentals, labor, utilities, waste handling anddisposal, analytical services, maintenance and system modification, and system winterization.Description:The Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located in Alpine County on the eastern slopes of the SierraNevada Mountain range. Mining activities since the 1860s has resulted in significant AMD and ARD contamination. Inthe 1950s, approximately 22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed from the open pit mine anddistributed throughout the site.The active lime treatment system was installed at the site in 1999 and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment systemwas installed in 2001. The SITE evaluation was conducted from June 2002 to October 2003. Each system used lime toneutralize AMD and/or ARD. The initial fixed costs for active lime treatment were $1,021,415 and $1,261,076 formonophasic and biphasic treatment respectively, and $297,482 for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system.Both treatment systems were able to remove an average of 88.5 to 100 percent of each metal contaminant from theinfluent, with the exception of lead for the active lime treatment system (both modes), and copper and lead for thesemi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. Lead had an average removal efficiency percentage of 74 to 78 with theactive lime treatment and 66 percent removal efficiency with the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment. Copper had anaverage 58 percent removal efficiency with the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment. Based on these results, both limetreatment systems were continued after the SITE evaluation, with the active lime treatment system operating in biphasicmode to treat AMD and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treating ARD.37APPENDIX ASUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES38This page intentionally left blankA-1APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIESSite Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedSoil Vapor Extraction (43 Projects)Basket Creek Surface ImpoundmentSite, GA18SVESoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Ketones; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19921997Camp Lejeune Military Reservation,Site 82, Area A, NC32SVESoilBTEX; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998Commencement Bay, South TacomaChannel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA45SVESoil;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921995Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ51SVESoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU5, VA52SVE (Field Demonstration)SoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19921998East Multnomah County GroundwaterContamination Site, OR370SVE; Air Sparging; Pump and TreatSoil;Groundwater;LNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19912004Fairchild Semiconductor CorporationSuperfund Site, CA68SVESoilPCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated 19891995Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA84SVE;Air SpargingSoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals 19941998Fort Richardson, Building 908 South,AK88SVESoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19951998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-2Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK82SVE; Air Sparging; Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationSoil;GroundwaterPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Hastings Groundwater ContaminationSuperfund Site, Well Number 3Subsite, NE104SVESoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921995Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM108SVESoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA117SVESoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19881998Luke Air Force Base, North FireTraining Area, AZ145SVESoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Ketones19901995McClellan Air Force Base, OperableUnit D, Site S, CA154SVE (Field Demonstration)SoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931995Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites - In situSVE, Various Locations 366SVESoil;GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19942004Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In SituTreatment, Various Locations363SVE;ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu); Thermal Treatment (insitu)Soil;Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20012004Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites -SVE/Air Sparging, Various Locations317SVE; Air SpargingSoil;Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE;Volatiles-HalogenatedVariousyears -starting 19952003APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-3Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites -SVE/MNA, Various Locations320SVE; Monitored NaturalAttenuation; Pump and TreatSoil;GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-HalogenatedVariousyears -starting 19962003Multiple (4) Dry Cleaners - SVE andSVE Used with Other Technologies,Various Locations365SVE; Air Sparging; ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu); Pump and Treat; Monitored NaturalAttenuation; Multi Phase ExtractionSoil;Groundwater; DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19972004Multiple (6) Dry Cleaner Sites, VariousLocations345SVESoil; DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears -starting 1992Variousyears - 2002,2003Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites176SVE;Pump and TreatSoil;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedVariousyears -starting 1998Variousyears - 2001, 2002Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites -P&T/SVE/MPE, Various Locations349SVE; Multi Phase Extraction;Pump and Treat Soil;Groundwater; DNAPLs;Off-gasesPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears -starting 1991Variousyears - 2002,2003Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites, VariousLocations379SVESoil;Groundwater;DNAPLsDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears -starting 19992005NAS North Island, Site 9, CA183SVE (Photolytic Destruction)(Field Demonstration)SoilPCE; TCE; DCE; BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19971998Patrick Air Force Base, Active BaseExchange Service Station, FL214SVE (BiocubeTM) (FieldDemonstration)SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19942000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-4Patrick Air Force Base, Active BaseExchange Service Station, FL215SVE (Internal CombustionEngine) (FieldDemonstration)SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19932000Rocky Mountain Arsenal SuperfundSite (Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit#18), CO237SVESoil TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19911995Sacramento Army Depot SuperfundSite, Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA241SVESoilKetones; BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19921995Sacramento Army Depot SuperfundSite, Burn Pits Operable Unit, CA240SVESoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19941997Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,Operable Unit 1, CO242SVESoil;LNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931997Seymour Recycling CorporationSuperfund Site, IN258SVE;Containment - Caps;Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationSoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921998Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC261SVE;Free Product RecoverySoil;Groundwater;LNAPLsBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998SMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY264SVESoilVolatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995Stamina Mills Superfund Site, RI273SVE;Multi Phase Extraction (Field Demonstration)Soil; Off-gasesTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-5404SVE; ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Soil;GroundwaterTCE; PCE; Vinyl Chloride;DCE; Volatile-Halogenated20012007Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site, PA285SVESoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19881998U.S. Department of Energy,Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,OH292SVE;ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu);Solidification/Stabilization;Thermal Treatment (in situ) (Field Demonstration)SoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921997U.S. Department of Energy, SavannahRiver Site, SC295SVE (Flameless ThermalOxidation) (FieldDemonstration)Soil; Off-gasesPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951997U.S. Department of Energy, SavannahRiver Site, SC, and Sandia, NM251SVE;In-Well Air Stripping;Bioremediation (in situ)ALL;Drilling(Field Demonstration)Soil;GroundwaterVolatiles-Halogenated19882000Vandenberg Air Force Base, BaseExchange Service Station, CA306SVE (Resin Adsorption)(Field Demonstration)SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19942000Verona Well Field Superfund Site (Thomas Solvent Raymond Road -Operable Unit #1), MI307SVESoilLight Non-aqueous PhaseLiquidsKetones; BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19881995Other In Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (51 Projects)Alameda Point, CA5Electrokinetics(FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19972001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-6Argonne National Laboratory-East,317/319 Area, Argonne, IL390PhytoremediationSoil;GroundwaterBTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated; Volatiles-Halogenated; Semivolatile-Halogenated19992006Argonne National Laboratory - West,Waste Area Group 9, OU 9-04, ID12Phytoremediation(FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19982000Avery Dennison, IL329Thermal Treatment (in situ)Soil; DNAPLsVolatiles-Halogenated19992003Beach Haven Substation, Pensacola, FL20Electrokinetics (FieldDemonstration)SoilArsenic19982000Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA24Thermal Treatment (in situ)Soil; DNAPLsPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Arsenic19951998California Gulch Superfund Site, OU11, CO373Solidification/Stabilization(Field Demonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19982005401Solidification/StabilizationSoilHeavy Metals20022007Castle Airport and Various Sites, CA361Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing(Field Demonstration)SoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated; 19982004Castle Airport, CA 35Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing (FieldDemonstration)SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19981999Cleaners #1, Kent, WA394Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation,Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil,GroundwaterDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982006Confidential Chemical ManufacturingFacility, IN330Thermal Treatment (in situ)Soil;DNAPLs;Off-gasesPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19972003APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-7Crooksville/Roseville Pottery Area ofConcern (CRPAC), OH327Solidification/Stabilization(Field Demonstration)SoilHeavy Metals 19982002Dover Air Force Base, Building 719,DE57Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing (Field Demonstration)SoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19982000Eielson Air Force Base, AK64Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing (FieldDemonstration)SoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19911995Ensign-Bickford Company - OB/ODArea, CT66PhytoremediationSoilHeavy Metals19982000Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard,CA75Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19972000Fort Richardson Poleline RoadDisposal Area, OU B, AK89Thermal Treatment (in situ);SVE (Field Demonstration)SoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19972000Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site,WA381ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Soil;GroundwaterHeavy Metals20032005Hill Air Force Base, Site 280, UT106Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19901995Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT107Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing; SVESoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19881995Hunter Army Airfield, FormerPumphouse #2, GA382Thermal Treatment (in situ)Soil;Groundwater; LNAPLsBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedPAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated20022005Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, ID114Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing(Field Demonstration)SoilVolatiles-Halogenated19962000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-8Jones Island Confined DisposalFacility, Milwaukee, WI393Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)SedimentPCBs; PAHs; PetroleumHydrocarbons20012006Koppers Co. (Charleston Plant) AshleyRiver Superfund Site, SC350Solidification/StabilizationSediment;DNAPLsPAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated 20012006Lowry Air Force Base, CO143Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995Magic Marker, NJ and Small ArmsFiring Range (SAFR) 24, NJ146Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy MetalsMagicMarker -1997; Fort Dix -20002002Missouri Electric Works SuperfundSite, MO160Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19971998Morses Pond Culvert, MA351ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)SoilHeavy Metals20012004Multiple Air Force Test Sites, MultipleLocations180Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing(Field Demonstration)SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19922000Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In SituChemical Oxidation, Various Locations 380ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Soil; GroundwaterDCE; PCE; TCE;Volatiles-HalogenatedBTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedSemivolatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears-starting 19992005APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-9Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated Sites,AK376Phytoremediation;Bioremediation (in situ)(Field Demonstration)SoilBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedPAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy MetalsVariousyears -starting 19982005Naval Air Weapons Station Point MuguSite 5, CA (USAEC)188Electrokinetics (FieldDemonstration)Soil;SedimentHeavy Metals19982000Naval Air Weapons Station Point MuguSite 5, CA (USEPA)189Electrokinetics (FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19982000Onalaska Municipal Landfill SuperfundSite, Onalaska, WI387Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing, Pump and Treat,Monitored NaturalAttenuationSoil;GroundwaterBTEX; DCE; HeavyMetals; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated; PCE;TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19942006Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant(PGDP) Superfund Site, KY328LasagnaTMSoilTCE;Volatiles-Halogenated 19992002396PhytoremediationSoil;Sediment;GroundwaterHeavy Metals19912007Parsons Chemical/ETM EnterprisesSuperfund Site, MI212Vitrification (in situ)Soil;SedimentPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals;Dioxins/Furans19931997Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, X-231A Site, Piketon, OH225Fracturing (FieldDemonstration)Soil;GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-10Rocky Mountain Arsenal SuperfundSite, Denver, CO386Thermal Treatment (in situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated20012006Sandia National Laboratories, UnlinedChromic Acid Pit, NM246Electrokinetics (FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19962000Savannah River Site 321-M SolventStorage Tank Area, GA337Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Soil; DNAPLsPCE; TCE;Volatiles-Halogenated20002003Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine SuperfundSite391Solidification/Stabilization(Bench Scale)SoilHeavy Metals20002006Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,MN283Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals;Arsenic19982000U.S. Department of Energy, SavannahRiver Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA296Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Soil;SedimentPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931997U.S. Department of Energy, PaducahGaseous Diffusion Plant, KY291LasagnaTM (FieldDemonstration)Soil;GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951997U.S. Department of Energy,Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,OH and Other Sites293Fracturing (FieldDemonstration)Soil;Groundwater;DNAPLsTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19911997U.S. Department of Energy, MultipleSites288Drilling (FieldDemonstration)Soil;Sediment-19921997U.S. Department of Energy, HanfordSite, WA, Oak Ridge (TN) and Others289Vitrification (in situ)Soil;Sludge;Debris/Slag/SolidPesticides/Herbicides;Heavy Metals;Arsenic;Dioxins/Furans;Semivolatiles-HalogenatedPCBs;Radioactive MetalsNot Provided1997White Sands Missile Range, SWMU143, NM313ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(Field Demonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19982000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-11Young-Rainy Star Center (formerlyPinellas) Northeast Area A, FL355Thermal Treatment (in situ)Soil; GroundwaterBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedDCE; PCE; TCE;Volatiles-Halogenated 20022004Incineration (on-site) (18 Projects)Baird and McGuire, MA15Incineration (on-site)Soil;SedimentDioxins/Furans;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Arsenic;Heavy Metals;Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Bayou Bonfouca, LA19Incineration (on-site)Soil; SedimentPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19931998Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services,NJ23Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/Solid;Sediment;OrganicLiquids;SludgePCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Volatiles-Halogenated19911998Celanese Corporation Shelby FiberOperations, NC36Incineration (on-site)Soil; SludgePAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;BTEX19911998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-12Coal Creek, WA43Incineration (on-site)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19941998Drake Chemical Superfund Site,Operable Unit 3, Lock Haven, PA59Incineration (on-site)SoilVolatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001FMC Corporation - Yakima, WA72Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19931998Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - OU1, NE76Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidExplosives/Propellants19971998Former Weldon Springs OrdnanceWorks, OU 1, MO79Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidExplosives/Propellants;Heavy Metals;PCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19982000MOTCO, TX165Incineration (on-site)Soil;Sludge;OrganicLiquidsPCBs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19901998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-13Old Midland Products, AR206Incineration (on-site)Soil; SludgeSemivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19921998Petro Processors, LA217Incineration (on-site)Soil; OrganicLiquids;DNAPLsPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Volatiles-Halogenated19941998Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO236Incineration (on-site)Soil; OrganicLiquidsPesticides/Herbicides;Heavy Metals; Arsenic19931998Rose Disposal Pit, MA238Incineration (on-site)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Rose Township Dump, MI239Incineration (on-site)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;PAHs;Ketones19921998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-14Sikes Disposal Pits, TX262Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921998Times Beach, MO280Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidDioxins/Furans;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19961998Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR308Incineration (on-site)Soil;Debris/Slag/Solid;OrganicLiquidsDioxins/Furans;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921998Thermal Desorption (30 Projects)Anderson Development CompanySuperfund Site, MI8Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil; SludgePAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19921995Arlington Blending and PackagingSuperfund Site, TN13Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Arsenic 19962000Brookhaven NationalLaboratory(BNL), NY325Thermal Desorption (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)SoilHeavy MetalsNot provided2002APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-15Cape Fear Superfund Site, NC33Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Arsenic; Heavy Metals;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX19982002FCX Washington Superfund Site, NC69Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19951998Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal PilotPlant (SRCPP), WA86Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19961998Fort Ord, CA354Thermal Desorption (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid; Off-gasHeavy Metals20022004Industrial Latex Superfund Site, NJ348Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil;Off-gasesPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs; PCBs; Arsenic 19992002Letterkenny Army Depot SuperfundSite, K Areas, OU1, PA135Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19932000Lipari Landfill, Operable Unit 3, NJ137Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Arsenic;Heavy Metals;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19942002Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,Burning Ground No. 3, TX138Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19972000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-16McKin Superfund Site, ME155Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19861995Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site,Franklin Borough, NJ156Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals 19942001Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17,OU 2, FL182Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19951998New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,New Bedford, MA197Thermal Desorption (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)SedimentPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19962001Outboard Marine CorporationSuperfund Site, OH209Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil;SedimentPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19921995Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK223Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH227Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19931995Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA230Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil PCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Ketones;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-17Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ228Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilVolatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19942001Reilly Industries Superfund Site,Operable Unit 3, IN229Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated 19962002Rocky Flats Environmental TechnologySite, Mound Site, Golden, CO234Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19972001Rocky Flats Environmental TechnologySite, Trenches T-3 and T-4, CO235Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil;Debris/Slag/SolidTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Ketones; BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Radioactive Metals19962000Sand Creek Superfund Site, OU 5, CO243Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Arsenic19942000Sarney Farm, Amenia, NY248Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Ketones;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972001Site B (actual site name confidential),Western United States333Thermal Desorption (ex situ)Soil;Off-gasesPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles- Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated 19952003TH Agriculture & Nutrition CompanySuperfund Site, GA277Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides19931995APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-18Waldick Aerospaces DevicesSuperfund Site, NJ310Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19931998Wide Beach Development SuperfundSite, NY314Thermal Desorption (ex situ);ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (ex situ)SoilSemivolatiles-Halogenated;PCBs19901995TH Agriculture and Nutrition Site,OU2, GA374Thermal Desorption (ex situ)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles- Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19992005Other Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (33 Projects)Bonneville Power Administration RossComplex, Operable Unit A, WA 22Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19941998Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY25Physical SeparationSoilRadioactive Metals20002001Brown Wood Preserving SuperfundSite, FL27Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19891995Burlington Northern Superfund Site,MN29Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoil;SludgePAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19861997Dubose Oil Products Co. SuperfundSite, FL60Bioremediation (ex situ)CompostingSoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19931997APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-19Fort Polk Range 5, LA87Acid Leaching;Physical Separation(FieldDemonstration)SoilHeavy Metals19962000Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK 83Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19941998French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX91Bioremediation (ex situ)Slurry PhaseSoil;SludgePAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;PCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Arsenic;Heavy Metals19921995Hazen Research Center and MinergyGlassPack Test Center, WI358Vitrification (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)SedimentPCBs;Dioxins/Furans;Semivolatiles-Halogenated; Heavy Metals20012004Idaho National Environmental andEngineering Laboratory (INEEL), ID116Physical SeparationSoilRadioactive Metals19992001Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL121Bioremediation (ex situ)Slurry Phase (FieldDemonstration)SoilExplosives/Propellants19942000King of Prussia Technical CorporationSuperfund Site, NJ125Soil WashingSoil;SludgeHeavy Metals19931995Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM141Physical SeparationSoil;Debris/Slag/ SolidRadioactive Metals19992000Lowry Air Force Base, CO144Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoilBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-20Massachusetts Military Reservation,Training Range and Impact Area, CapeCod, MA152Solidification/StabilizationSoilHeavy Metals19982001Naval Construction Battalion CenterHydrocarbon National Test Site, CA190Bioremediation (ex situ)Composting (FieldDemonstration)SoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19961998New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,New Bedford, MA198Vitrification (ex situ) (FieldDemonstration)SedimentPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19962001New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,New Bedford, MA195Solidification/Stabilization(Field Demonstration)SedimentPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19952001New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,New Bedford, MA196Solvent Extraction (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)SedimentPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19962001Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada 199Bioremediation (ex situ)Land Treatment (FieldDemonstration)SoilPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19961998Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN201Vitrification (ex situ) (FieldDemonstration)SludgeHeavy Metals;Radioactive Metals19972000Pantex Plant, Firing Site 5, TX211Physical SeparationSoil;Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19982000Peerless Cleaners, WI; StannardLaunders and Dry Cleaners, WI216Bioremediation (ex situ)CompostingSoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001RMI Titanium Company ExtrusionPlant, OH231Solvent Extraction (exsitu)(Field Demonstration)SoilRadioactive Metals19972000Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site16, NM245Physical SeparationSoilRadioactive Metals19982000Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site228A, NM244Physical SeparationSoilRadioactive Metals19982000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-21Scott Lumber Company SuperfundSite, MO254Bioremediation (ex situ)Land TreatmentSoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19891995Southeastern Wood PreservingSuperfund Site, MS270Bioremediation (ex situ)Slurry PhaseSoil;SludgePAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19911997Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,AK272Solvent Extraction (ex situ)SoilPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated19961998Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa,FL275Bioremediation (ex situ)Composting (FieldDemonstration)Soil Pesticides/Herbicides19972001Tonapah Test Range, Clean Slate 2, NV282Physical SeparationSoil;Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19982000Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR300Bioremediation (ex situ)Composting (FieldDemonstration)SoilExplosives/Propellants19921995Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR301Bioremediation (ex situ)CompostingSoilExplosives/Propellants19941997Pump and Treat (50 Projects)Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, MI7Pump and Treat; Air SpargingGroundwater; LNAPLsBTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19881995Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,MA16Pump and TreatGroundwaterBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Pesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated 19931998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-22Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1,MI21Pump and TreatGroundwaterBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Charnock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA37Pump and Treat;ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (exsitu)(Field Demonstration)DrinkingWaterMTBE;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001City Industries Superfund Site, FL41Pump and TreatGroundwaterBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated;Ketones;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL44Pump and Treat (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19971998Commencement Bay, South TacomaChannel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA46Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19881995Commencement Bay, South TacomaChannel Superfund Site, WA47Pump and Treat;SVEGroundwater;Soil;DNAPLs;LNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19982001Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU1, IA54Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19871998Former Firestone Facility SuperfundSite, CA73Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19861998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-23Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA85Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19952000Ft. Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595,NY81Pump and Treat;Free Product RecoveryGroundwater;LNAPLsBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerlyBlack & Decker RCRA Site), NY119Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19881998Keefe Environmental ServicesSuperfund Site, NH122Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931998King of Prussia Technical CorporationSuperfund Site, NJ126Pump and TreatGroundwaterBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-HalogenatedHeavy Metals19951998Lacrosse, KS127Pump and TreatDrinkingWaterBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;MTBE;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972001Langley Air Force Base, IRP Site 4,VA128Pump and TreatGroundwater;LNAPLsBTEX; PetroleumHydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL129Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921998Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - GeneralServices Area (GSA) Operable Unit,CA134Pump and TreatGroundwater;Soil;DNAPLsTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19911998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-24Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, CampLejeune, NC149Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCBs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Pesticides/Herbicides;Heavy Metals;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19952001Marine Corps Base, Campbell StreetFuel Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC150Pump and TreatGroundwater;SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19962001McClellan Air Force Base, OperableUnit B/C, CA153Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19881995Mid-South Wood Products SuperfundSite, AR158Pump and TreatGroundwaterSemivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Arsenic19891998Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 SuperfundSite, Dow/DSI Facility - VolatileHalogenated Organic (VHO) Plume,WY181Pump and Treat;SVEGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19941998Naval Air Station, Brunswick, EasternGroundwater Plume, ME 185Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19952001Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site,OU 2, TX204Pump and TreatGroundwaterHeavy Metals19931998Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site,OU 2, TX203Pump and TreatGroundwaterHeavy Metals19931998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-25Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE205Pump and TreatGroundwaterBTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19971998Old Mill Superfund Site, OH207Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19891998Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site,North Muskegon, MI208Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Pesticides/Herbicides19962001Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY344Pump and Treat(FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterRadioactive Metals 19992002Pinellas Northeast Site, FL219Pump and Treat (MembraneFiltration - PerVapTM) (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue RampSpill Site, NC222Pump and Treat;Free Product Recovery Groundwater;LNAPLsPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931998Pope AFB, Site FT-01, NC221Pump and Treat;Free Product Recovery Groundwater;LNAPLsPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931998Rockaway, NJ 233Pump and TreatDrinkingWaterMTBE; BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19802001SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC255Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-26Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC260Pump and Treat;Free Product RecoveryGroundwater;LNAPLsPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC259Pump and TreatGroundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Sol Lynn/Industrial TransformersSuperfund Site, TX265Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931998Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,MO266Pump and TreatGroundwater;DNAPLsTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931998Solvent Recovery Services of NewEngland, Inc. Superfund Site, CT267Pump and Treat;Containment - Barrier WallsGroundwaterSemivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals;TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site,NH276Pump and Treat;Containment - Barrier Walls;Containment - Caps;SVEGroundwater;LNAPLsVolatiles-Halogenated;Ketones;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19821998Tacony Warehouse, PA278Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982000Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,MN284Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19871995APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-27U.S. Department of Energy KansasCity Plant, MO290Pump and TreatGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-HalogenatedPCBs;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19831995U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI286Pump and TreatGroundwater;DNAPLsVolatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931998U.S. Department of Energy SavannahRiver Site, A/M Area, SC297Pump and TreatGroundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19851995Union Chemical Company SuperfundSite, ME302Pump and Treat;ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu);SVEGroundwater;SoilTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962001United Chrome Superfund Site, OR303Pump and TreatGroundwaterHeavy Metals19881998Western Processing Superfund Site,WA312Pump and Treat;Containment - Barrier WallsGroundwater;LNAPLs;DNAPLsTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19881998In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation (46 Projects)Abandoned Manufacturing Facility -Emeryville, CA2Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated; Heavy Metals19972000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-28Altus Air Force Base, Landfill 3 (LF 3),OK338Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE;Volatiles-Halogenated 20002003Avco Lycoming Superfund Site, PA14Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals 19972000Balfour Road Site, CA; Fourth PlainService Station Site, WA; Steve’sStandard and Golden Belt 66 Site, KS17Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN(specific site name not identified)28Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterMTBE; BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19992001Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL49Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(HRC)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated Not Provided2001Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC50Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(ORC)GroundwaterBTEX; MTBEVolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE56Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962000Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE55Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19962002Edwards Air Force Base, CA63Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962000Former Industrial Property, CA 372Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20002004APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-29French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX92Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterBTEX; Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921998Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific sitename not identified)94Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterBTEX;MTBEVolatiles-Nonhalogenated19972001Hanford Site, WA96Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterVolatiles-Halogenated 19952000Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR105Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(HRC)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, Test AreaNorth, ID115Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992002ITT Roanoke Site, VA118Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterDCE;Volatiles-Halogenated1998Not Provided400Bioremediaiton (in situ)GroundwaterTCE; PCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992007Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, CA133Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwater;SoilMTBEVolatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Libby Groundwater Superfund Site,MT136Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation;Pump and TreatGroundwaterSemivolatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19911998Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA162Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterVolatiles-Halogenated19862000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-30Moss-American Site, WI369Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation; Permeable Reactive Barrier GroundwaterPAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated,20002004Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites174Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(HRC)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In SituBioremediation, Various Locations346Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX; MTBE Variousyears -starting 20022003Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In SituBioremediation, Various Locations384Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationSoil;GroundwaterDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Volatiles-Semihalogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears -starting 20002005Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner sites - In SituBioremediation, Various Locations383Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationSoil;Groundwater;DNAPLsDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-NonhalogenatedVariousyears -starting 20012005National Environmental TechnologyTest Site, CA 371Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterMTBE20012004Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA194Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationField Demonstration)Groundwater;Soil;LNAPLsBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972000Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site,NV 360Bioremediation (in situ)Bioventing; Free Product RecoveryGroundwaterPetroleum Hydrocarbons;LNAPLsNot Provided2004APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-31Naval Weapons Industrial ReservePlant (NWIRP) , TX315Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE, Volatiles-Halogenated19992002Naval Base Ventura County, CA352Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19992004Offutt Air Force Base, NE339Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)roundwaterTCE;Volatiles-HalogenatedNot provided2003Pinellas Northeast Site, FL218Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19971998Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill(SLF), SC 362Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19992004Savannah River Site, SC250Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SedimentPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19922000Service Station, CA (specific site namenot identified)256Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(ORC)GroundwaterBTEX; MTBE;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI(specific site name not identified)257Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(ORC)GroundwaterBTEX; MTBE;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Site A (actual name confidential), NY263Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation;Pump and Treat; Air Sparging;SVEGroundwaterBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19951998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-32South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC268Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX;MTBE;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19992001Specific site name not identified304Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Bench Scale)roundwater;SoilMTBE;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Texas Gulf Coast Site, TX279Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19952000U.S. Navy Construction BattalionCenter, Port Hueneme, CA299Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterMTBE;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001U.S. Department of Energy SavannahRiver Site, M Area, SC298Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)Groundwater; SedimentPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19921997Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,CA305Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterMTBE; BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19992001Watertown Site, MA311Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced Bioremediation(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962000Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment (86 Projects)328 Site, CA1Multi Phase Extraction; FracturingGroundwater;SoilTCE;Volatiles-Halogenated 19962000A.G. Communication Systems, IL332Thermal Treatment (in situ)Groundwater;SoilTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated 19952003APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-33Aberdeen Proving Grounds, EdgewoodArea J - Field Site, MD3Phytoremediation(FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19962002Amcor Precast, UT6In-Well Air Stripping; SVEGroundwater;SoilBTEX; Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated; PAHs; Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY26In-Well Air Stripping (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19992002Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL30ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(KMnO4)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,Bldg 25, Camp Lejeune, NC31Flushing (in situ) (SEAR andPITT)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992001Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,Launch Complex 34, FL340Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilDNAPLsTCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19992003Carswell Air Force Base, TX34Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962002Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607,SC378Thermal Treatment (in situ)Groundwater;DNAPLsDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20012005Clear Creek/Central City Superfundsite, CO326Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterHeavy Metals 19942002Confidential Manufacturing Facility, IL48Thermal Treatment (in situ)Groundwater;Soil;DNAPLsTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-34Confidential Maryland Site, MD388Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterDCE;Explosives/Propellants;TCE; PCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20032006Defense Supply Center, AcidNeutralization Pit, VA53Multi Phase Extraction (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;SoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated 19972000Del Norte County Pesticide StorageArea Superfund Site, CA (Air Spargingand Pump and Treat)359Air Sparging; SVEGroundwaterPesticides/Herbicides;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19902004Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC61Air Sparging; SVEGroundwater;SoilBTEX; MTBEVolatiles-Nonhalogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19992001395Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterArsenic; Heavy Metals20052007Edward Sears Site, NJ62Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19962002Eight Service Stations, MD (specificsites not identified)65Multi Phase ExtractionGroundwater;SoilLNAPLsBTEX; MTBEVolatiles-Nonhalogenated19902001403Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20022007Fernald Environmental ManagementProject, OH70Flushing (in situ) (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterHeavy Metals19982001Former Sages Dry Cleaners,Jacksonville, FL78Flushing (in situ) (EthanolCo-solvent)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners,Coral Springs, FL77In-Well Air Stripping(NoVOCsTM)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-35Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA74Permeable Reactive Barrier;Pump and TreatGroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19951998Fort Devens, AOCs 43G and 43J, MA80Monitored NaturalAttenuationGroundwater;SoilLNAPLsBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972000Fort Richardson, AK331Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilDNAPLs;Off-gasesPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19992003Four Service Stations (specific sitenames not identified)90Air SpargingGroundwaterBTEX; MTBEVolatiles-Nonhalogenated19932001Fry Canyon, UT93Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterRadioactive Metals;Heavy Metals19972000Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL95Air Sparging; Pump and TreatGroundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19941998Hanford Site, 100-H and 100-D Areas,WA101ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterHeavy Metals19952000Multiple (3) Naval Facilities - In SituChemical Reduction, Various Locations389Chemical Reduction (in situ,nanoscale zero-valent iron)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater,DNAPLsDCE; TCE; PCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2006Hunter’s Point Ship Yard, Parcel C,Remedial Unit C4, CA357ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Groundwater;DNAPLsTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20022004ICN Pharmaceuticals, OR334Thermal Treatment (in situ);SVEGroundwater;SoilDNAPLsTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated20002003Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR120Multi Phase ExtractionGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-36Keesler Air Force Base Service Station,AOC-A (ST-06), MS123Monitored NaturalAttenuationGroundwater;SoilBTEX; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals19972000Kelly Air Force Base, Former Building2093 Gas Station, TX124Monitored NaturalAttenuationGroundwater;SoilBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972000Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory Gasoline Spill Site, CA130Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19921995Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, ME392Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20022006Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA142Monitored NaturalAttenuationGroundwaterExplosives/PropellantsNot Provided2001Marshall Space Flight Center, AL336ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu); Fracturing; PermeableReactive Barrier (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated20002003Massachusetts Military Reservation,CS-10 Plume, MA159In-Well Air Stripping (UVBand NoVOCs) (FieldDemonstration) GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962002McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), OUA, CA151Air Sparging; Bioremediation(in situ) EnhancedBioremediation (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;SoilTCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19992001Miamisburg, OH343Air Sparging;SVEGroundwater;SoilPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19972001Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN157Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterExplosives/Propellants19962000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-37Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA163Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962000Moffett Federal Airfield, CA161Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19961998Monticello Mill Tailings Site,Monticello, UT164Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterMetals19992001Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites171Air Sparging; SVEGroundwater;SoilDNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001, 2002Multiple (10) Sites - Air Sparging,Various Locations342Air SpargingGroundwater;SoilTCE; PCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated;PAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated; BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;MTBE; PetroleumHydrocarbonsVariousyears2002Multiple Air Force Sites177Multi Phase Extraction (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;LNAPLsPetroleum Hydrocarbons;BTEX;Volatiles-NonhalogenatedNot Provided2001Multiple Air Force Sites178Monitored NaturalAttenuation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19931999Multiple Air Force Sites179Monitored NaturalAttenuation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterBTEX;Petroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19931999Multiple DoD Sites, Various Locations347Permeable Reactive Barrier(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterVolatiles-HalogenatedVariousyears2003APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-38Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites, VariousLocations324ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Groundwater;DenseNon-aqueousPhase Liquids(DNAPLs)PCE; TCE;Volatiles-HalogenatedVariousyears -starting 19982003Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well AirStripping 364In-Well Air StrippingSoil;GroundwaterPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19942004Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites175ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992001, 2002Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites173Multi Phase Extraction;Pump and TreatGroundwater;Soil;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001, 2002Multiple Sites167Permeable Reactive Barrier(Full scale and FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19912002Multiple Sites166Permeable Reactive Barrier(Full scale and FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals;Radioactive Metals;Arsenic19972002Multiple Sites169Permeable Reactive Barrier (Full scale and FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Radioactive Metals;Arsenic19952002APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-39Multiple Sites170Permeable Reactive Barrier(Full scale and FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;Heavy Metals;Radioactive Metals;Pesticides/Herbicides19952002Multiple Sites168Permeable Reactive Barrier(Full scale and FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals;Radioactive Metals19952002Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites172Flushing (in situ);Thermal Treatment (in situ);In-Well Air Stripping (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedNot Provided2001Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In SituChemical Oxidation385ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)Groundwater;Soil;DNAPLsDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy MetalsVariousyears -starting 20012005402Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterDCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962007Naval Air Station - Joint Reserve BaseFort Worth, TX34Phytoremediation (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19962005Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL187ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982001Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA193ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (insitu);Monitored NaturalAttenuationGroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19992001Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA192ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-40Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES)Site (Area I), NJ353ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)GroundwaterPCE; TCE; DCE;Volatiles-Halogenated20022004Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,Site 11, GA375Flushing (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilDCE; TCE;Volatiles-Halogenated20022005Naval Air Station, North Island, CA186In-Well Air Stripping(NoVOCs) (FieldDemonstration)GroundwaterTCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982000Naval Air Station, Pensacola, OU 10,FL184ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19982000Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN202Permeable Reactive Barrier -Funnel and GateConfiguration and Trench(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterRadioactive Metals19972002Pinellas Northeast Site, FL220Thermal Treatment (in situ) -Dual Auger Rotary SteamStripping (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;SoilDNAPLsPCE; TCE; DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;BTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19961998Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,X-701B Facility, OH226ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (in situ)(Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLsTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19882000RMI Titanium Plant, AshtabulaEnvironmental Management Project,OH232Flushing (in situ) (WIDE) (Field Demonstration)Groundwater;SoilTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Radioactive Metals19992001Scotchman #94, Florence, SC253Multi Phase Extraction;Air Sparging;SVEGroundwater;SoilPAHs;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;BTEX;MTBE;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-41Site 88, Building 25, Marine CorpsBase Camp Lejeune, NC147Flushing (in situ) (SEAR) (Field Demonstration)Groundwater;DNAPLs;LNAPLsPetroleum Hydrocarbons;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCE;Volatiles-Halogenated19992001South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-Dock Site, Portsmouth, RI269Air Sparging;Bioremediation (in situ)Enhanced BioremediationGroundwaterBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19982001Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV271Multi Phase ExtractionGroundwater;LNAPLsBTEX; MTBE;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;PCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19952001Tinkham's Garage Superfund Site, NH281Multi Phase ExtractionGroundwater;SoilPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19942000U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC287Permeable Reactive BarrierGroundwater;DNAPLsTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Heavy Metals19961998U.S. Department of Energy SavannahRiver Site, A/M Area, SC294In-Well Air Stripping;Pump and Treat (FieldDemonstration)Groundwater;SoilDNAPLsPCE; TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated19901995Visalia Superfund Site, CA309Thermal Treatment (in situ)(Field Demonstration)GroundwaterSemivolatiles-Halogenated;Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated19972000Westover Air Reserve Base, MA377Phytoremediation;Bioremediation (in situ)(Field Demonstration)StormwaterSemivolatiles-Nonhalogenated20012005Debris/Solid Media Treatment (28 Projects)Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL4Thermal Desorption (exsitu)(Field Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Explosives/Propellants19951998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-42Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL9Physical Separation(Scabbling) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive MetalsNot Provided2000Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL11Physical Separation(Concrete Demolition) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive Metals19972000Argonne National Laboratory, IL10Solidification/Stabilization(Phosphate BondedCeramics)(FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;GroundwaterHeavy MetalsNot Provided2000Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) ResearchReactor, Argonne National Laboratory,IL38Physical Separation(Centrifugal Shot Blast)(FieldDemonstration) Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive Metals19971998Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) ResearchReactor, Argonne National Laboratory,IL39Physical Separation (RotaryPeening with CaptiveShot)(Field Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive Metals19971998Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) ResearchReactor, Argonne National Laboratory,IL40Physical Separation (RotoPeen Scaler with VAC-PACRSystem)(FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive Metals19961998Clemson University, SC42Solidification/Stabilization(Sintering) (Bench Scale)Debris/Slag/SolidHeavy Metals19952000Envirocare of Utah, UT67Solidification/Stabilization(Field Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid Radioactive Metals19961998Fernald Site, OH71Physical Separation (SoftMedia Blasting)(FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19962000Hanford Site, C Reactor, WA102Solidification/Stabilization(Polymer Coating) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19971998APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-43Hanford Site, WA97Physical Separation(ConcreteGrinder) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19972000Hanford Site, WA98Physical Separation(Concrete Shaver) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19972000Hanford Site, WA99Physical Separation(Concrete Spaller) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19982000Hanford Site, WA100Solidification/Stabilization(Polyester Resins) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;GroundwaterRadioactive Metals;Heavy Metals;ArsenicNot Provided2000Hanford Site, WA103Physical Separation;Solvent Extraction(Ultrasonic Baths) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19981998Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, ID110Solidification/Stabilization(Innovative Grouting andRetrieval) (Full scale andField Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid; SoilRadioactive Metals19942000Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, ID109Solidification/Stabilization(DeHgSM Process) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidHeavy Metals19982000Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, ID113Physical Separation (WallScabbler) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidHeavy Metals20002001Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, ID112Vitrification (ex situ)(Graphite Furnace) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;OrganicLiquids; SoilHeavy Metals;Radioactive Metals19972000APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-44Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, Pit 2, ID111Solidification/Stabilization(Polysiloxane) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;GroundwaterHeavy Metals19972000Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, CA132ChemicalOxidation/Reduction (ex situ)(Field Demonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;GroundwaterPCE; TCE; Volatiles-HalogenatedPCBs;Semivolatiles-Halogenated;Explosives/PropellantsNot Provided2000Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM139Solidification/Stabilization(ADA Process) (FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidHeavy Metals19982000Los Alamos National Laboratory,Technical Area 33, NM140Solidification/Stabilization(Field Demonstration)SludgeHeavy Metals;DCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Radioactive Metals19972000Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,WA210Solidification/Stabilization(Sol Gel Process) (BenchScale)Debris/Slag/Solid;GroundwaterHeavy MetalsNot Provided2000Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,OH224Solidification/Stabilization(ATG Process)(FieldDemonstration)OrganicLiquidsHeavy Metals;Radioactive Metals19982000Savannah River Site, SC249Acid Leaching(FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/SolidRadioactive Metals19962000STAR Center, ID274Vitrification (ex situ) (PlasmaProcess)(FieldDemonstration)Debris/Slag/Solid;Soil;SludgeHeavy Metals;Radioactive Metals19932000Containment (7 Projects)Dover Air Force Base, GroundwaterRemediation Field Laboratory NationalTest Site, Dover DE58Containment - Barrier Walls(Field Demonstration)Groundwater-19962001APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)Site Name, LocationCaseStudyIDTechnology *†MediaContaminantsYearOperationBeganYearPublishedA-45Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6Landfill OU, CA131Containment - CapsDebris/Slag/SolidTCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;Radioactive Metals19971998Marine Corps Base Hawaii, HI148Containment - Caps (FieldDemonstration)Soil-19941998Naval Shipyard, CA191Containment - Caps (FieldDemonstration)SoilBTEX;Volatiles-Nonhalogenated19971998Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN200Containment - Barrier Walls(Field Demonstration)Soil;Sediment;GroundwaterRadioactive Metals19962000Sandia National Laboratory,Albuquerque, NM247Containment - Caps (FieldDemonstration)Soil-19952001U.S. Department of Energy, SEGFacilities, TN252Containment - Barrier Walls(Field Demonstration)Soil-19941997Ex Situ Acid Rock Drainage Treatment (3 Projects)Copper Basin Mining District, TN397Bioremediation (FieldDemonstration)AMD/ARDHeavy Metals19982007Leviathan Mine, CA398BioremediationAMD/ARDHeavy Metals20032007Leviathan Mine, CA399Chemical PrecipitationAMD/ARDHeavy Metals1999 2007* Full scale unless otherwise noted† Technology focused on in case study listed first, followed by other technologies identified in the case studyKey:DNAPLs= Dense Non-Aqueous Phase LiquidsTCE= TrichloroetheneARD= Acid Rock DrainageSVE= Soil Vapor ExtractionPCE= TetrachloroetheneAMD= Acid Mine DrainageBTEX= Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and XyleneDCE= DichloroethenePAHs= Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsLNAPLsLight Non-Aqueous Phase LiquidsPCBs= Polychlorinated BiphenylsMTBE= Methyl tert-butyl etherSolid Waste and EPA 542-R-07-004Emergency Response August 2007(5203P) www.epa.govwww.frtr.govNational Service Center forEnvironmental PublicationsP.O. Box 42419Cincinnati, OH 45242Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300