1

RUNNING HEAD: Chemical Remediation

The Chemical Remediation of Four Notable Superfund Sites

Frank Cucunato, James Woodward, Jonathan Pereira, Judith Kirkbride, Jessica Favorito

ENVL 4446 Remediation & Biotechnology

Richard Stockton College of NJ

Spring 2012

Abstract: Four superfund sites located in various regions across the country were

discussed in detail regarding their history, the pollutants found, site characteristics,

remedial action, and an evaluation of their remedial techniques. Although the sites have

varying chemical contaminants and site characteristics, the techniques used were

generally similar. Three of the common implemented chemical remediation techniques

included air stripping, air sparging and permeable reactive barriers – all of which are

effective methods.

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..…………3

II. Site 1: Reich Farm….…………….………………………………………………….....4

a. Site History……………………………………….4

b. Pollutants Found………………………………….5

c. Lot Characteristics…………….………………….6

d. Remediation Techniques………………...……….6

III. Site 2: Price Landfill…….………….…………………………………………..……10

a. Site History……………………………………….10

b. Pollutants Found………………………………….10

c. Lot Characteristics………….…………………….11

d. Remediation Techniques………………………….11

IV. Site 3: Savage Municipal Water Supply…………….……………………….………14

a. Site History……………………………………….14

b. Pollutants Found………………………………….14

c. Lot Characteristics………….…………………….15

d. Remediation Techniques………………………….15

V. Site 4: Frontier Hard Chrome ………………………………..………..…………..…18

a. Site History……………………………………….18

b. Pollutants Found………………………………….18

c. Lot Characteristics………….…………………….19

d. Remediation Techniques…………..….………….19

VI. Conclusion……………….………..………………………..………………..………22

VII. References………………..….….……………………………………..……………23

VIII. Appendix…………………….………………….………………….………………26

3

I. Introduction

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), commonly referred to as the “Superfund” program, was enacted in

December of 1980 in order to provide funds for the remediation of abandoned hazardous

waste sites throughout the United States. Superfund created requirements for abandoned

waste sites, set liabilities for responsible parties, and established trust funds for

remediation sites that lack an identifiable party (EPA, 2012). The superfund program

currently performs two types of response action: short term and long term removals.

Short term refers to addressing releases that require immediate response, while long term

refers to remedial action that significantly decreases the danger of particular releases

(EPA, 2011). Long-term remedial response action sites are typically listed on the EPA’s

National Priorities List (NPL), and require extensive remediation. Remediation is the

process of restoring contaminated sites to conditions that are suitable for biological and

environmental health. Chemical remediation, the main category that will be discussed, is

the most common and effective form and refers to the usage of chemicals in site

restoration. Chemical remediation utilizes various forms of technology and techniques

which include the following: activated carbon absorption, ion exchange, chemical

precipitation, chemical oxidation, permeable reactive barriers, soil vapor extraction, air

sparging, air stripping, solidification, stabilization, among others (University of

Kentucky, n.d.). Through the EPA’s NPL, four specific superfund sites have been

identified along with the sites’ characteristics, and their chemical remediation techniques

will be discussed and evaluated in great detail.

4

II. Site 1: Reich Farm in Toms River, New Jersey

Site History

The Reich Farm is a superfund site located in Toms River, New Jersey. It was one

of the first established superfund sites following CERCLA’s enactment and was officially

listed due to illegal disposal of toxic chemicals in the underlying groundwater (EPA,

1988). The farm’s pollution history began during the 1970s, prior to the Superfund

program’s establishment. Allegedly, the owners of the farm rented a portion of their

three-acres to a Mr. Nicholas Fernicola in August of 1971 to temporarily store 55-gallon

drums (EPA, 1988). In December of 1971, the Reich family discovered an estimated

4,500 drums containing waste, 450 empty drums, and trenches that may have been used

for waste disposal on the land rented by Fernicola. The ROD reports that the majority of

the drums had Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) markings on them and labels that

included: “Tar Pitch”, “Blend of Resin and Oil,” “Lab Waste Solvent,” and “Solvent

Wash of Process Stream.” Following this discovery, the owners and Dover Township

filed complaints against Fernicola and Union Carbide Corporation in the New Jersey

Superior Court. Union Carbide was subsequently ordered to cease dumping and remove

all drums from the property (EPA, 1988).

Union Carbide was later charged with, “polluting the public water supply

in…Dover Township by improperly disposing of liquid chemical wastes” (EPA, 1988).

In 1977, Union Carbide signed an agreement with the NJDEP for the state to perform

further investigations at the site. The Reich Farm was placed on NPL officially in 1983

because of groundwater contamination in the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer.

5

Pollutants Found

Several noted volatile organic compounds were discovered on site, including:

trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA)

(EPA, 1988). The soil sampling results showed “hot spots” for the aforementioned

chemicals at depths below ten feet that exceeded the New Jersey Soil Action Levels

(EPA, 1988). Sampling results in the record of decision (ROD) (1988) also showed the

presence of trace metals and other organics, however, the EPA did not accept them as

remedial objectives. Exposure pathways of TCE include drinking, swimming or

showering in contaminated water, contact with contaminated soil, and breathing in

contaminated air from shower vapors or occupational exposures (ATSDR, 2003). TCE is

classified as a probable human carcinogen and other chronic effects include liver and

kidney damage and impaired immune system function. Routes of exposure to PCE

include occupational exposure, vapors from dry-cleaned clothing and drinking water

contaminated by the chemical. Acute exposures to PCE vapors can result in headaches,

loss of coordination, confusion, nausea and even death (ASTDR, 1997). PCE is also

classified as a possible carcinogen (ASTDR, 1997). TCA was manufactured and used

mainly as a solvent until its production was banned in the United States (ASTDR, 2006).

TCA evaporates quickly from surface waters and soils (ASTDR, 2006). Because of its

ban in 2002, TCA exposure is typically only from ingesting contaminated food or water.

Low exposure to TCA vapors may cause dizziness and acute exposures to TCA could

cause unconsciousness. The chronic effects are yet to be fully understood and the EPA

determined TCA is not classifiable as to whether it is carcinogenic to humans or not

(ASTDR, 2006). At this site in particular, it was concluded that the pollutants would

6

volatilize before affecting stream biota. Because the ground water below the farm was not

used as a drinking source, it was not considered a health risk.

Lot Characteristics

The Reich Farm site contains 1 operable unit for both contaminated groundwater

and soil. It is located on relatively flat topography and contains highly permeable sandy

soils. The lot is open, so therefore, the soil lacks high amounts of organic matter. A

stream is also located 0.75 miles from the site as well, which must be taken into account

with remediation practices (See Appendix, Figure 1).

Remediation Technique Evaluation

The remediation technique chosen for the groundwater is listed as “Alternative

GW-2: Pump/Treat using Air Stripping and Carbon” on the ROD (EPA, 1988). The plan

called for extraction wells to be dug and positioned into the plume with water treatment

completed ex situ. The extracted water would then be injected with hot air to volatilize

the VOCs in the air stripper. This plan called for further treatment by using a carbon

filter to ensure the removal of trace volatiles and semi-volatiles. After further

groundwater sampling at the Toms River Water Field, additional concentrations of VOCs

were discovered, so an air stripper was installed at the Toms River Parkway Well Field

(EPA, 2003). After a Phase I assessment was conducted by Union Carbide, the EPA

concluded that the groundwater contamination from the Reich Farm extended one mile

south of the site to the Toms River Parkway Well Field (EPA, 2003). The EPA revised

the groundwater remedy in 1995 to use the existing air stripping facility at the Well Field

and treat groundwater extracted from the existing public wells instead of in situ (EPA,

2003). Four activated carbon units were added to the treatment system at Well Field in

7

1997, and in 1999, an additional contaminant well was installed in Well Field with a

carbon treatment system to further protect uncontaminated wells in the field (EPA, 2011).

The carbon filters were implemented to remove any remaining trace volatiles and semi-

volatiles to below detectable levels, and additional filters were added to treat SAN trimer

contaminants found. The EPA fact sheet (2011) for Reich Farm states there was “no risk

based information available for SAN Trimer so a risk based cleanup number could not be

developed, and instead, a defacto cleanup level of ‘non detect’ has been used for

groundwater.” The EPA is currently anticipating data from studies on the toxicological

effects of SAN Trimer to develop a risk based cleanup number for the chemical. It should

also be noted that SAN Trimer was found due to further investigation brought on by a

statistically significant rise in child cancer rates in the Toms River area (EPA, 2003). The

Fact Sheet (2011) also states that the treated water from the Well Field is not currently

used as potable water but is discharged to a selected recharge area.

The EPA was incorrect for not considering the local private wells at risk of

contamination. They should have closed all private wells in the area until the full extent

of the plume was delineated. The soils at the site are sandy, and therefore, likely to allow

leaching through water percolation. It is also likely that the soils are low in organic matter

content as well, due to the fact that it is a cleared area and probably receives little organic

matter from vegetation. This would indicate that the soil does not have the capability of

holding organics within its complex. Because of these factors, all precautions for

groundwater contamination should have been taken into account until proven

nonthreatening. Also, the carbon filters should have been used after air stripping

treatment initially at the Well Field facility, as suggested in the chosen ROD plan. This

8

would have prevented exposures to SAN Trimer and other traces remains of volatiles and

semi-volatiles.

The use of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) could have served as a favorable

remediation technique at the farm for a number of reasons. A variety of oxidants can be

used in PRBs to treat TCE and PCE, such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, calcium

peroxide, and potassium/sodium permanganate (EPA, 2012). Sites comparable to Reich

Farm with sandy soils can be easily remediated using PRBs because high soil

permeability allows water to flow relatively quickly through these barriers (Chirenje,

2012). Lastly, the groundwater contamination was found at depths of 35-55 feet, which is

reasonable for the construction of a PRB because they become increasingly expensive at

depths beyond 120 feet.

The EPA also did not begin its remedial investigation until 1986, 15 years after

initial soil contamination. This is, perhaps, the most significant error made at this site.

Also, as previously stated, this was one of the first sites on the NPL so perhaps some

faults in the remediation could be attributed to the adolescence of CERCLA and

Superfund at that period in time. Along with these factors, the original plan to use air

stripping followed by the usage of a carbon filter as a polishing unit posed as the best

option.

As for the soil, the ROD called for the use of remediation “Alternative S-5: Soil

Excavation/Enhanced Volatilization/On-Site Placement of Remediated Soil/Off-Site

Treatment and Disposal” (EPA, 1988). This plan involved two stages, with the first order

to remove 1480 cubic yards of soil through excavation; 360 cubic yards were surface

soils to be stored temporarily and then used as backfill, and 1120 cubic yards were

9

subsurface soils contaminated with volatile organics. The contaminated soils were treated

on-site through enhanced volatilization. This involves treating the soil in a thermal

processor or rotary dryer where it is injected with hot air and the VOCs are able to

“volatilize into the air stream and combust in an afterburner, where they are destroyed”

(EPA, 1988). To maintain air quality standards, the gases would be treated in a scrubber

or carbon absorber. Following treatment, the plan called to retest the soils for volatile

organics; if the standards were met for volatile organics of 1 ppm, then it would be used

as backfill for the excavated area. The second stage of this plan called for further

excavation of approximately 1140 cubic yards of soil, treating an estimated 890 cubic

yards ex situ via incineration and disposal, and 250 cubic yards to be used as back fill

(EPA, 1988). The EPA’s Five Year Review (2003) of the site states that the soils were

treated better than the ROD required for the particular contaminants when remediation

was completed in 1994 - treating 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil instead of the

2,000 cubic yards estimated in the ROD. In 2003, the treated soils at the site were

analyzed and found to contain SAN Trimer (EPA, 2003).

The soil remediation plan used was the best that could be implemented at the site,

and physical removal of soils was necessary. The plan had integrity because it treated the

contaminated soils as thoroughly as possible, rather than simply disposing of it in a

landfill or capping the area. Enhanced volatilization was an acceptable method because it

takes advantage of the volatiles’ low boiling points. Rather than washing the soil and

creating more chemical waste to dispose of, the pollutants were extracted from the soil

through heat application and trapped in the carbon filter. In order to improve the

remediation technique, the EPA could have remediated the surface soil to the same

10

degree, however, they deemed it unnecessary because no contaminant levels exceeded

standards in the upper portion of the soils.

III. Site 2: Price Landfill in Pleasantville, New Jersey

Site History

Price’s Pit is a landfill located in Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville, New

Jersey (EPA, 1983). The site was originally a sand and gravel excavation plant that

closed in 1968. In 1971, the company began accepting waste drums and other pollutants

to be stored on site. Bulk waste was also dumped in pits found onsite, while other

locations contained drums that were buried. Chemical disposal was ceased in late 1972,

sludge disposal in the spring of 1973, and municipal waste disposal in 1976 - an

estimated nine million gallons of total waste disposed of on the site. As a result of the

previous disposals, the groundwater in this location is currently contaminated (EPA,

1983). The contaminants include VOCs, lead, and cadmium. Serious risks are posed to

one hundred homes in the surrounding area, Absecon Creek, and other nearby waterways.

The site is currently being addressed through Federal and State actions (EPA 1983)

Pollutants Found

The groundwater at this site and surrounding sites are contaminated with VOCs,

lead, and cadmium. Some of the notable VOCs include: vinyl chloride, benzene, toluene,

trichloroethylene, and chloroform. Total volatile organic concentrations ranged from 40 -

50 ppm at the landfill, to 10 - 1000 ppb within the aquifer. Benzene and vinyl chloride

are both classified as known carcinogens. Trichloroethylene is a probable carcinogen.

Chloroform is reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen. Toluene, however, is not a

classified carcinogen, but can cause symptoms such as confusion, tiredness, nausea,

11

unconsciousness, and even death. High levels are able to affect kidneys (ASTDR, 2001).

Lead is a group 2 probable carcinogen with neurotoxic effects, while cadmium is a group

1 known carcinogen (ATSDR, 2011).

Lot Characteristics

The landfill mass at this site rises 40 feet above the surface elevation, and the

groundwater is shallow, about 20 feet below this. The soil is sandy, making it permeable.

The site is also located near water supply sources and is above an aquifer which flows in

the direction of public wells (EPA, n.d.) (See Appendix, Figure 2).

Remediation Technique Evaluation

In 1981, 37 affected residences were connected to the New Jersey Water

Company (NJWC) system (EPA, 1983). In order to prevent groundwater flow to Atlantic

City, the EPA relocated the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA), a

public water supply field was established, and carbon filtration units were set in the three

new wells. The EPA implemented a water conservation program to prevent the polluted

plume from contaminating the Atlantic City area. A security fence was also installed

around the 26 acre lot to prevent trespassing. Most of the time and money spent was

allocated to designing and preparing a final groundwater treatment system that would

completely clean the area’s groundwater, making it safe for human consumption and

usage.

In February of 2011, construction was completed for a main underground pipe for

the transport of treated groundwater. A six acre property adjacent to the site was cleared

and prepared for the groundwater treatment facility to be constructed; this is the extent of

the actual remediation plan that has been completed. A long term plan has been laid out

12

to pump and treat all of the contaminated groundwater and return it to the community as

clean drinking water. There is no written method for what will be used to treat the

groundwater, but it will be completed through an ex situ washing method. This washing

is beneficial for this site’s circumstances because it ensures that no contaminants used to

treat the water will enter into the groundwater. Along with soil washing, there are also

plans to excavate and relocate soils that are contaminated to other sections of the landfill

that are deemed safer. Following this, the site will be capped after complete remediation

(EPA, 2012).

When the site was first put on NPL, remediation was slow and minimal

remediation actually took place. A fence was installed to keep trespassers away. Nothing

was done to prevent fumes or any remnants of the chemicals in the air from reaching the

adjacent properties. Although the state’s lack of funding caused this issue, more should

have been done remedially to prevent this.

The plan that was decided upon for Price’s Pit, although adequate, was not a

complete approach. Everything involved in the process would be self-contained and

connected to the Atlantic County Utility Authority’s pump station (EPA 2012). This

approach handles the affected groundwater but capping does not remediate contaminants.

In addition to the groundwater cleanup on site, a second issue that must be dealt

with is the removal of the contaminated soil on the property to the south, adjacent to the

landfill. Investigations revealed that the disposal of trash, construction material, and other

debris were found on site from landfill operations (EPA 2012). The main plan to be

implemented is to excavate the soil, as deep as 20 feet in particular locations.

Remediators are looking to install a cap on the property following excavation, which is

13

not an adequate measure (EPA 2012). Also, during the operations, an air monitoring

system will be installed to evaluate volatile organic compound concentrations and dust in

the air that could harm the workers or surrounding communities.

The plans to remove contaminated soil and cap the site are feasible, but are not

the most appropriate option because the contaminants are not entirely treated. The soil on

the south end of the property will be left untreated and could, perhaps, leach back into the

groundwater in the future. An option for this site, because of the presence of VOCs, could

be to complete a full chemical remediation of contaminated soils using air stripping in the

unsaturated zone of the soil. This is an in situ process and the induced air flow causes

evaporation of VOCs present, and desorption of chemicals at the surface. All mobilized

organic vapors could be collected via a path to a withdrawal well where they would be

removed (Shah, Hadim, Korfiatis, 1995). The sandy soil’s pore space in this location

easily accommodates the movement of air and VOCs through the soil. As for the trace

metals found on site, a sulfur-based precipitation treatment option is available. The

solubility of the metals found, lead and cadmium, are pH dependent, and typically require

a pH of 4 to 9 in order to solubilize. This pH condition is met at this site because the pH

falls within this range. The reagent, calcium polysulfide (CaS4), reacts with metals to

precipitate less soluble, nontoxic sulfides (Jacobs, Hardison, Rouse, n.d.). This chemical

treatment is more efficient and productive than capping because the contaminants are

treated and the product is nontoxic.

14

IV. Site 3: Savage Municipal Water Supply in Milford, New Hampshire

Site History

The third superfund site, Savage Municipal Water Supply, is located in Milford,

New Hampshire. Four industrial plants, including Hendrix Wire and Cable Corporation,

Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, OK Tool Company, and New England Steel

Fabricators, Inc. contributed to the contamination between 1940 and 1980.

Approximately 45% of the town’s water was supplied by Savage until 1983. In 1984, the

site was listed on NPL following the contamination discovery through a statewide

drinking water sampling program (EPA, 2012).

Pollutants Found

The notable contaminants found on site include heavy metals, such as lead,

chromium, and nickel, as well as VOCs, such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE),

trichloroethylene (TCE), 111-trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride (EPA, 2001). The

dangers of these contaminants vary: chromium is a group 1 known carcinogen, nickel is a

group 2 reasonably anticipated human carcinogen, and lead is a group 2 probable

carcinogen with neurotoxic effects (ATSDR, 2008). The VOCs found at this site,

including PCE and TCE, are group 2 probable carcinogens while vinyl chloride is a

group 1 known carcinogen, which was previously discussed. PCE is also the most

prominent and extensive chemical found on site with concentrations exceeding 100,000

ppb (EPA, 2001).

15

Lot Characteristics

In order to remediate Savage Water Supply completely, the site originally had two

Operable Units, although, in 2010, a third was added:

(1) The first operable unit involved the groundwater which was contaminated

with dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and had the highest concentration of

contaminants. The soil on site is mostly composed of glacial till which is poorly mixed

gravel, medium sand grains and silt.

(2) The second operable unit was a groundwater plume that extended 6,000 feet

eastward and was bordered by the Souhegan River. The groundwater elevation is 10 feet

below the surface. The direction of the groundwater is affected by the Souhegan River

and various surrounding water supply wells.

(3) The third unit investigated was the bedrock on and surrounding the site (EPA,

2012).

Remediation Technique Evaluation

The EPA performed in situ chemical oxidation using potassium permanganate

(KMnO4) with wells found on operable unit one, as well as additional ones that were

drilled. Through various chemical oxidation steps, potassium permanganate dissociates

and reacts with VOCs in the DNAPL polluted area. Sodium permanganate was also used

because it is very effective at oxidizing organics. To ensure the best remedial outcome,

both potassium and sodium permanganate were used. As a result, “17 of the 34 wells

were either clean or below the clean up standards for the contaminants of concern,”

according to the EPA (EPA, 2012). Through these results, we can determine that the

EPA chose an effective method for remediating VOC contaminants. Permanganates are

especially successful at oxidizing organic compounds with carbon-carbon double bonds

that are found at this site. Unstable intermediates produced by this technique are also

16

effectively converted to carbon dioxide. Oxidation using permanganates is also a

favorable method because it does not create large quantities of groundwater that must be

disposed of. It has a short life cycle, and also allows remediators to save on the cost of

materials, monitoring, and maintenance. The byproducts are safe, and permanganate is

relatively safe as well (Hu and Chou, n.d.).

In operable unit 2, the EPA implemented a pump and treat system, and used air

stripping as a method for water treatment. They constructed four extraction wells in order

to pump contaminated water of the ground. As previously mentioned, air stripping is a

process that pumps oxygen into the water, causing the formation of low pressure bubbles.

These bubbles then react with high pressure VOCs, causing them to penetrate the

bubbles. The bubbles then separate from the water and are contained. In December of

2000, clean up was hindered when workers discovered an accidental leak in the container

of VOCs, which allowed some PCE to re-contaminate water that was being injected.

Following this, the recharge wells were moved further away from the area influenced by

the extraction well (EPA, 2012). The decision to use the technique of air stripping for this

operable unit was practical because it is most effective for VOCs. Removal efficiencies

are approximately 99% effective, but can be improved by adding a second air stripper to

the series. Also, air stripping emissions should be treated at the source using thermal units

(FRTR, n.d.).

Operable unit 3 was added in order to determine the extent of the contamination

of VOCs in the bedrock. Multiple test wells were drilled into the bedrock to determine

whether traces of VOCs were present, which was confirmed. Further remediation will

have to be completed in order to remove any contaminants found (EPA, 2012). The most

17

effective method for these conditions is to drill wells in situ towards the bedrock and

inject permanganate oxidants or Fenton’s reagent (peroxide and catalysts). With Fenton’s

reagents and VOCs, the reaction produces a hydroxide radical that effectively oxidizes

complex organic compounds. This reaction yields carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water

(Stone et. al, n.d.). Also, because the bedrock extends 160 to 200 feet downward,

implementing PRBs would be a difficult, expensive, and ineffective task (EPA, 2001).

Multiple techniques were used for vadose zone soils of operable unit 1. The soil

in this location is primarily composed of glacial till consisting of poorly mixed gravel,

medium sand grains, and silt. Because they are poorly mixed, this makes the soil grains

porous which allows air and other materials to flow through more easily. On site, the

EPA used both soil vapor extraction (SVE), and air sparging. Air sparging is completed

through introducing oxygen into the soil’s vadose zone. SVE is a process involving the

creation of a vacuum system through the soil and the pollutants are extracted through a

well (EPA, 2001). SVE can be dangerous because it is not uncommon for explosions to

occur. Both SVE and air sparging are only possible when the porosity in the soil allows

movement of air, which is found at this site. It is most effective with vaporous

compounds, also present onsite. Savage Municipal Water supply was contaminated with

heavy metals. To remediate these metals, the EPA used basic physical remediation and

excavation only in the most dense and polluted areas (EPA, 2001). Using excavation is

not the only answer, but should be a first step to a more complete plan. A method that

could have been implemented, as discussed previously, is in situ precipitation of metals

as less soluble, nontoxic sulfides using CaS4 (Jacobs, Hardison, Rouse, n.d.).

18

Overall, the EPA chose adequate, effective methods to remediate this site,

excluding metal remediation. Because most of the pollutants are VOCs, this site is ideal

for using these chemical remediation techniques. Also, because most of the pollutants

were found in the vadose zone, air sparging was an appropriate method.

V. Site 4: Frontier Hard Chrome in Vancouver, Washington

Site History

The fourth and final superfund site, Frontier Hard Chrome Incorporation, located

in Vancouver, Washington, resides on the floodplain of the Columbia River. Prior to its

usage, the floodplain was filled with hydraulic dredge material and construction rubble.

The site was previously in the possession of several chrome plating companies beginning

in 1958. It was first owned by Pioneer Plating until 1970 and was later purchased by

Frontier Hard Chrome, which operated until 1983. In 1982, the Washington State

Department of Ecology found the company to be in violation of illegal and hazardous

waste disposal. Nearby wells were surpassing the federal drinking water standard for

chromium (EPA, 2001).

Pollutant Found

Hexavalent chromium is known to be highly toxic through direct exposure from

air particulate and ingestion of contaminated water (EPA, 2001). Chromium (VI), as

discussed briefly, is a class 1, known carcinogen, and is most associated with lung cancer.

Conditions such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, respiratory tract polyps, dermatitis,

derangement of the liver cells, necrosis, lymphocytic and histocytic infiltration, among

others, are also associated with chromium exposure (ATSDR, 2008). At this site, the

primary concern for chromium (VI) is its highly mobile nature which allows for its

movement into water used for drinking.

19

Lot Characteristics

The soil and hydrological properties of the Frontier Hard Chrome site have been

studied extensively by the EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The

entire area of concern is approximately 28,000 feet2 and 25 feet in depth (EPA, 2001).

The two operable units of this site are comprised of (1) the soil and (2) the groundwater:

(1) The soil found on site is composed of silt and sand particles that aid in the

mobilization of chromium. Generally, sandy soils are very porous which easily allows for

contaminants to flow with water infiltration. Because of the site’s proximity to the

Columbia River, there are also many underlying silt deposits that must be taken into

account. The structure of the soil in this location is also unsorted so contaminants are not

easily contained (EPA, 2001).

(2) The hydrology of the site is very important in determining the area of the

plume that would exceed the critical threshold of 5,000 ug/L. The groundwater level at

the site was measured at approximately twenty feet below the surface and is considered

shallow. The contaminant plume found in this water extended approximately 1000 feet

south of the main site. This plume had reached as far as 2000 feet south, however, once

the industrial wells on site were no longer in use, the flow of groundwater was altered

from a southwesterly direction to a southerly (EPA, 2001).

Remediation Technique Evaluation

The first operable unit at the site is the contaminated soil, which holds

approximately 30% of its moisture, has a fairly low bulk density, and is low in organic

matter content (EPA, 2002). Because chromium is easily leached, the most favorable

remediation technique would be chemical reduction to an immobile physical state.

Originally, the EPA intended to use an ex situ stabilization method, however, this was not

20

well suited for the site - hexavalent chromium leaches with continued water percolation

and is also highly mobile (EPA, 2001). The soil’s low cation exchange capacity also acts

as a contributing factor because the soil does not have an affinity for adsorbing chromium

cations.

The first remediation technique that the EPA implemented was in situ reduction,

which was suitable for the site because the reducing agents were easily injected into the

sandy-silty soil surface. The soil’s low cation exchange capacity was not high as well,

therefore, the immobilization of chromium through reduction occurred. The compounds

injected into the soil were able to reduce naturally occurring iron which creates a

treatment barrier that reacts with chromium. Through this implementation, the hexavalent

chromium was successfully converted into trivalent chromium, which is both immobile

and insoluble (EPA, 2001).

The in situ reactive barrier technology that was used for groundwater treatment

was compatible with the given site circumstances. The flow of groundwater was mapped

appropriately through topography analysis which allowed the EPA to locate exact

contaminant plume movement. The reduction of the soluble hexavalent chromium as it

passed through the reactive barrier was effective at creating an insoluble product. The

only negative concern for this barrier was that the oxidation-reduction reaction produces

a byproduct of sulfate, which should have been a higher priority in the decision making

process. Because this groundwater is used for drinking purposes, this could pose as a

significant issue (EPA, 2001). The groundwater in the aquifer was also tested for

particular parameters to determine whether barriers were a suitable option. The electrical

conductivity ranged between 19 to 440 microsiemens, which is considered high for

21

groundwater (EPA 2002). This data showed that there are high quantities of reduced iron

naturally in the sediments, which can be used in an oxidation-reduction reaction, making

the reactive barrier a sufficient option for implementation. Tests for determining the mass

of reducible iron were completed. They showed that there was sufficient reducible iron in

the sediment cores to be able to install a reactive barrier.(EPA,2002) A bench scale test

was also completed which also supported barrier implementation because the soil had

higher permeability with increasing depth. (EPA,2002) This indicates that the barrier

would be the best solution because chromium would most likely enter into the aquifer.

High amounts of dissolved oxygen provide for an oxidative environment to support

chromium reduction (EPA, 2002).

Other pollutants on site were not considered a risk and no actions took place to

remediate them. TCE and PCE were discovered but the additional risk was said to be

negligible, although exposure levels were not zero (EPA, 2001). The EPA should have

utilized an air stripping method to remediate these VOCs in the saturated zone of the site.

They may not have been remediated because it is possible that these chemicals could

have aided in the oxidizing environment found in the aquifer.

The EPA, overall, chose an appropriate method for this site because laboratory

tests supported that most of the groundwater contamination was found in the upper

portion of the aquifer. This lowered the cost of installing a barrier wall on the site.

Hydraulic conductivity analyses showed that the soil was porous, so if injections of

sodium dithionite were utilized, hexavalent chromium would have been immobilized

(EPA, 2001). Iron concentrations in the aquifer zone supported a reducible environment

as well. A second condition that was not considered for the sodium dithionite injections

22

was its reactivity with present organic matter. This could have caused problems because

the solution may not have reacted with chromium in the soil if TCE or other organics

were present.

The site, following remediation, was found to be in suitable condition for future

light industrial activity. As for drinking water, the reduced chromium is less mobile and

insoluble and will not pose a threat. The immobility of the pollutant in the soil also makes

it less likely to be inhaled or directly exposed to in the environment. The oxidation-

reduction reactions that were implemented must be monitored in the future for potentially

high concentration of sulfate, however. Overall, the EPA used all laboratory results

suitably to devise an appropriate chemical remediation method that protects human health

and the environment, reduces toxicity and mobility of the pollutant, has a long term

effectiveness, has permanent results, is compliant with ARARs, and has a state

acceptance at a lower cost than alternatives (EPA, 2001).

VI. Conclusion

The aforementioned superfund sites are each associated through a commonality of

chemical remediation. Their techniques were discussed and their appropriateness and

suitability were evaluated. Overall, the techniques implemented at the Price’s Pit site

were the most mediocre in terms of contaminant treatment. Capping a site should never

be a recommended option. The most suitable technique was completed at Frontier Hard

Chrome with chemical reduction and a PRB. The site’s future land use was taken into

account during remediation planning, as well as drinking water contamination concerns.

23

VII. References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ToxFacts for PCE. (1997). Retrieved

on April 5, 2012 from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=264&tid=48.

04/02/2012

Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2001). ToxFacts for Toluene.

Retrieved on April 5, 2012 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.

asp?id=160&tid=29

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ToxFacts for TCE. (2003). Retrieved

on April 2, 2012 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts19.pdf

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2006). 1,1,1- Trichlororethane.

Retrieved on April 2, 2012 from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=43

1&tid=76.

Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2008). Chromium Toxicity. Retrieved

on April 3, 2012 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=10&po=10

Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2011). Cadmium. Retrieved on April

2, 2012 from www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=15#12

Chirenje T. (2012). Class Lecture: Remediation Notes. Biotechnology and Remediation

Lecture from Richard Stockton College, Galloway, New Jersey.

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Contamination of the Cohansey Aquifer by

Price's Pit. Retrieved on April 5, 2012 from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee

/epa/eerm.nsf/vw AN/EE-0098-02.pdf/$file/EE-0098-02.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Price Landfill #1. Retrieved on April 5, 2012

from http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200427c.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). Record of Decision for Reich Farm. Retrieved

on March 29, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/

r0288070.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Record of Decision: Savage Municipal Water

Supply. Retrieved on April 4, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods

/fulltext/r0191059.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant

Difference: Reich Farm. Retrieved on March 29, 2012 from

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0298136.pdf.

24

Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). EPA Superfund Record of Decision

Amendment: Frontier Hard Chrome Inc. Retrieved on April 3, 2012 from

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a1001503.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Remediation System Evaluation: Savage

Municipal Water Supply Superfund Site. Retrieved on April 4, 2012 from

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/rse/savage.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). In Situ Redox Manipulation Bench-Scale

Tests: Remedial Design Support for ISRM Barrier Deployment. Retrieved on

April 3, 2012 from http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c218

96330b4898825 687b007a0f33/9e8d464bb0780587882565280056f5d1/

$FILE/FHCbench-rev1.PDF

Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Five-Year Review-Reich Superfund Site.

Retrieved on March 29, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/

fiveyear/f03-02008.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Cost and Performance Summary Report: In

Situ Chemical Reduction at the Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site. Retrieved

on April 3, 2012 from costperformance.org/pdf/fhc_final_7-26-05.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2010.) Community Update: Price Landfill Superfund

Site. Retrieved on April 5, 2012 from www.pleasantville-

nj.org/pdf/PriceFCommunity UpdateAll.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). CERCLA Overview. Retrieved on March 31,

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Reich Farm Fact Sheet. Retrieved on March

29, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200662c.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). In Situ Oxidation Guidance. Retrieved on

March 21, 2012 from http://www.clu in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/ In_Situ

_Oxidation/cat/Guidance.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Price Landfill Superfund Site Retrieved on

April 5, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/pricelandfill

/price_lf _communityupdate010912.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Savage Municipal Water Supply. Retrieved on

April 4, 2012 from http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/701b6886f189

ceae85256bd20014e93d /83c7d221bb30028c8525691f0063f6f4!OpenDocument

25

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Summary of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund).

Retrieved on March 31, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cercla.html

FRTR. (n.d.). Technology: Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate. Retrieved on

April 4, 2012 from http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-46.html

Hu GJ, Chou R. (n.d.). In Situ Application of Potassium Permanganate Solution for

VOCs-Impacted Groundwater Cleanup – The Regulatory Perspective. Retrieved

on April 4, 2012 from http://www.containment.fsu.edu/cd/content/pdf/344.pdf

Jacobs J, Hardison RL, Rouse JV. (n.d.). In-situ Remediation of Heavy Metals Using

Sulfur- Based Treatment Technologies. Retrieved on April 5, 2012 from

http://www.ebsinfo.com/Article-HV01-In-Situ-MetalsRemediation.pdf

McLaughlin S. (n.d.) Remediation Investigations/Feasibility Study and Record

of Decision. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from

http://reichfarmss.blogspot.com

Seher G. (2011). Price's Pit History. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from

http://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/2011/04/prices-pit-history.html

Shah FH, Hadim HA, Korfiatis GP. (1995). Laboratory Studies of Air Stripping of

VOC-Contaminated Soils. Journal of Soil Contamination 4: 1- 17

University of Kentucky. (n.d.). What Is Environmental Remediation? Retrieved on March

31, 2012 from http://www.chem.uky.edu/research/atwood/remed.pdf

26

VIII. Appendix

Figure 1: Map of Reich Farm Contamination (McLaughlin, n.d.)

Figure 2: Map of Price’s Pit Contamination (Seher, 2011)