The Triad Approach was utilized to identify the concentrations of cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) in soil at the site and to determine the remediation options available for the site. Soil sampling using a direct push technology (DPT) rig was conducted between January 27 and February 28, 2003. The initial sampling plan for the site was to advance up to 60 soil borings to delineate the area of contamination. The plan was developed to offer flexibility in the actual number and location of samples collected based upon actual findings during the sampling effort. The data gained from the soil borings advanced in this study indicated that approximately 3,526 cubic yards of soil distributed within three separate areas of the site needed to be remediated. During the soil investigation, analytical data indicated that not all of the proposed boring locations were necessary to delineate soil contamination. A total of 38 soil borings were advanced during the investigation. An on-site laboratory was used to provide quick turnaround analyses of the samples. To allow for quicker turn-around of analytical results without dilutions and multiple analyses, the detection limits for both cis-1,2-DCE and TCE were changed from 50 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) to 500 µg/kg. The quick turn-around time provided data that the collaborative decision-making team could use to guide decisions on the number and locations of samples.
A total of 170 soil samples were collected and analyzed by the on-site laboratory provided by Severn Trent. Soil samples were analyzed for trans-1,2-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and TCE using EPA method 8021B. Seventeen additional samples were submitted to Mitkem Corporation, an off-site laboratory, for analysis of target compound list VOCs.
|Site Name||Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.|
|Location||Springfield Township, Burlington County, NJ|
|Site Type||Chemical Waste Management and Incineration|
|Site Regulatory ID||EPA ID#: NJD002493054|
|Project Lead Organization||EPA Region 2|
|Project Lead Type||EPA Lead|
|Regulatory Lead Program||Superfund Remedial|
|Reuse Objective Identified||No|
Kauffman and Minteer, Inc. operated a waste transportation business. Company-owned tanker trucks were used to transport bulk liquids, including synthetic organic chemicals, plastics, resins, vegetable oils, petroleum oils, and alcohols. From 1960 to 1980, the company discharged wastewater used to clean the inside of its trucks into a drainage ditch and an unlined lagoon on-site. In 1984, a dike that surrounded the lagoon broke, causing wastewater to migrate off-site into a neighboring property and wetlands.
After chemicals were detected in lagoon sediments, shallow groundwater, and on-site soil, the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on March 30, 1989. In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) to identify and screen cleanup alternatives. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1996 with remedies including soil excavation, off-site disposal of sediments, and groundwater monitoring.
During the remedial action phase of the ROD, elevated concentrations of TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were detected in soil and groundwater samples collected at the site. The chemical contamination in the soil was acting as a continuing source of contamination to groundwater.
The Triad Approach was used to refine the conceptual site model (CSM), define the nature and extent of plume, and identify all site areas that required remediation.
A second ROD was signed in 2002, with remedies including in situ treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater, groundwater pump and treat, and monitoring with institutional controls (ICs).
Cis-1,2-DCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 9,300 µg/kg, and TCE was detected in soils at 59,000 µg/kg. Based on the findings of the field approach implemented using the Triad Approach, approximately 3,526 cubic yards of contaminated soil required remediation in three separate areas. DPT soil sample analytical results indicated that soil contamination was present from approximately 28 to 36 feet below ground surface (bgs). These findings were used to assess risks to human health and the environment and support the selection of remedial technologies for the site.
Groundwater contamination at the site had previously been remediated by the responsible party (RP) using groundwater recovery wells. Systematic project planning (SPP) was used to help stakeholders reach a consensus on the approach to further site characterization and remediation. A dynamic work strategy (DWS) allowed adaptive site characterization using real-time decision-making. While exact cost and time benefits have not been quantified, combined on-site laboratory analysis with off-site confirmation laboratory analysis and real-time, collaborative decision making supported cost savings by: (1) requiring only one mobilization, (2) reducing off-site laboratory analysis needs, (3) reducing the time to obtain results and make decisions, and (4) supporting decisions to reduce the number of samples based on actual field data.
The USACE Project Manager used SPP, a Triad best management practice (BMP), to engage all stakeholders and facilitate collaborative decision-making. The SPP process included the creation of a refined CSM. Using the CSM as a basis for project design, steps required to characterize the site and a method to complete the process were identified. Stakeholders collectively decided to use:
The EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) led the site team in developing consensus for the remedial decision. Stakeholders with input to site decisions included EPA, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the City of Jobstown. The site contractor for the RP was CDM Inc.
To investigate the extent of residual soil contamination in the source areas at the site, a DWS sampling plan was developed to collect subsurface soil samples at up to 60 locations. The plan was constructed to offer flexibility in the actual numbers and locations of samples collected, based upon findings and additional data needs identified during the sampling effort.
During the course of the soil investigation, analytical data indicated that not all of the proposed boring locations were necessary to delineate the soil contamination. A total of 38 soil borings were advanced, with a total of 170 soil samples collected. The samples were analyzed by an on-site laboratory with a detection limit of 500 µg/kg; the on-site laboratory supported a quicker turnaround time without dilutions and multiple analyses.
Performing most of the laboratory analysis on-site helped to reduce the time required for field work. Off-site laboratory analysis helped confirm that on-site analyses met data quality objectives. Obtaining information more quickly and using collaborative decision-making, streamlined the site investigation and reduced costs by reducing: (1) the number of boreholes and soil samples required, (2) the number of samples sent for off-site analysis, and (3) field time on the site (labor and equipment rental time).
The Triad Approach investigation leveraged historical site data to design a DPT adaptive site characterization approach. Because site geologic conditions were considered conducive to DPT, it was not necessary to perform a demonstration of method applicability (DMA).
A DPT rig with 4-foot liners was used to fully characterize the boundaries of cis-1,2-DCE and TCE contamination at the site. Soil boring cores were screened with a PID to identify the interval of the boring that would be analyzed. Using a conservative approach, the soil which appeared to have the highest contamination based on PID screening, combined with olfactory and visual observations, was analyzed in the on-site or off-site laboratory.
TQRS not prepared
Soil samples were collected for analysis by an on-site laboratory provided by Severn Trent. All samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the final quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Field quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) were accomplished using appropriate sampling techniques and collection of confirmatory samples, field duplicates, field blanks, and trip blanks. Analytical QA/QC was assessed by internal laboratory checks, calibration checks, method blanks, surrogate spikes, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCS), and matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs).
The samples were entered into a spreadsheet to compare on-site and off-site laboratory (confirmatory) analytical results.
To update this profile, contact Cheryl T. Johnson at Johnson.Cheryl@epa.gov or (703) 603-9045.