EPA 542-R-97-008
PB97-177554
July 1997
Remediation Case Studies:
Bioremediation and Vitrification
VOLUME 5
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Remediation Case Studies:
Bioremediation and Vitrification
Volume 5
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
July 1997
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S. Government.
Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under USACE Contract Number DACA45-96-D-0016 to Radian
International LLC.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of six case studies of bioremediation and two
case studies of vitrification projects prepared by federal agencies. The case studies,
collected under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were
undertaken to document the results and lessons learned from early technology
applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance which
should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation
technologies, and to consider cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application
of innovative technologies. Roundtable member agencies, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of
Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These
agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the
benefits to be realized from greater coordination.
The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology in a
multi-volume set listed below. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-4, and Abstracts,
Volume 1, were published in March 1995, and contain 37 case studies. Remediation
Case Studies, Volumes 5 and 6, and Abstracts, Volume 2, were published in July 1997,
and contain 17 case studies. These 17 case studies cover recently completed full-scale
remediations and large-scale field demonstrations. In the future, the set will grow
through periodic supplements tracking additional progress with site remediation.
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1: Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995;
PB95-182911
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995;
PB95-182929
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995;
PB95-182937
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ
Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005, March 1995;
PB95-182945
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA 542-R-97-008, July
1997; PB97-177554
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies,
EPA 542-R-97-009, July 1997; PB97-177562
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1:
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2:
EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995
EPA 542-R-97-010, July 1997;
PB97-177570
111
-------
Ordering Information
These documents are available free of charge by fax or mail from NCEPI
(allow 4-6 weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax Number: (513)489-8695
Phone Verification: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
In addition, the case studies and case study abstracts are available on the
internet through the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) home page
at: http://www.frtr.gov. The FRTR home page provides links to individual FRTR
members' home pages, and includes a search function. Case studies and abstracts
prepared by EPA are also available through EPA's Cleanup Information Bulletin Board
System (CLU-IN BBS). CLU-IN BBS is available through the internet at
http://clu-in.com, or via modem at (301) 589-8366 (8 Data Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No Parity,
VT-100 or ANSI; Voice help: (301) 589-8368). Case studies prepared by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) are available through the internet, on the Office of
Science and Technology home page, at http://em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/ost/pubs.htm, under
Innovative Technology Summary Reports. Individual Reports prepared by DOE are
available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical
Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; or to the public through the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,
VA 22161 ((703) 487-4650).
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS iv
INTRODUCTION . . 1
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES 7
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern Superfund
Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota 9
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, Cantonment, Florida 41
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern
Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi 75
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat
Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Army
Depot Activity (UMDA) 107
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S.
Department of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina 155
Lasagna Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of
Energy Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky . 185
VITRIFICATION CASE STUDIES 203
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan 205
NRJ-100
0414-01.nrj
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In Situ Vitrification at the U.S. Department of Energy
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge
National Laboratory WAG 7, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
and Various Commercial Sites
225
NRJ-100
0414-Ol.nrj
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost-effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority.
The selection and use of more cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on
the performance and cost of technologies used in the field. To make data more widely
available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. In March, 1995, the FRTR published a four-volume series of
case study reports. At this time, the FRTR is publishing two additional volumes of case
study reports, providing case studies of site cleanup projects using bioremediation,
vitrification, soil vapor extraction, and other in situ technologies.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). The case studies were prepared based on recommended terminology
and procedures from the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation
Projects (EPA-542-B-95-002; March 1995). They present available cost and performance
information for full-scale remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration
projects. The case studies are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and contain
information on site background and setting, contaminants and media treated, technology,
cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The studies
contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and
information. Because full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the
purpose of technology evaluation, data collection on technology cost and performance is
often limited.
This volume contains reports on eight projects. Four of the projects were
full-scale, ex situ projects using bioremediation - two composting, one slurry phase, and
one land treatment. Two of the projects were large scale demonstrations of in situ
bioremediation - one using gaseous nutrient injection and the other a patented process
combining bioremediation and vapor extraction. One of the two vitrification projects is a
final report on the first full-scale remediation of a Superfund site using vitrification
(preliminary results from this project were described in an interim report in 1995;
however, since that time, the melt cooled sufficiently for sampling, and final results are
now available). The other report on vitrification provides a status update on several
vitrification projects.
Table 1 provides a summary including information on technology used,
contaminants and media treated, and project duration for the eight bioremediation and
vitrification projects in this volume. This table also notes highlights of the technology
applications. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media
treated and contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for
some projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. While a
summary of project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for different projects
because of site-specific factors and differences in level of detail. Cost data are shown on
Table 2 as reported in the case studies, and have not been adjusted for inflation to a
common year basis. The dollar values shown in Table 2 should be assumed to be dollars
for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project
duration).
-------
The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled,
where possible, according to an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).1 The
WBS specifies costs as 1) before-treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment
costs. (Table 2 provides some additional information on activities falling under each
category.) In many cases, however, the available information was not sufficiently
detailed to be broken down in this way.
The column showing the calculated treatment cost provides a dollar value
per unit of soil or groundwater treated and, where available, per pound of contaminant
removed. Note that when calculated costs are available on a per cubic yard or per ton
basis, costs cannot be converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk
density data, and, therefore, comparisons using the information in this column may be
complicated.
Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion
schedules, and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in
the case study series represent early applications, and the costs of these technologies are
likely to decrease in the future as firms gain experience with design and operation.
'Additional information on the contents of the WBS and on whom to contact for WBS and related
information is presented in the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation and Vitrification
Site Name, State (Technology)
Contaminants Treated
BTEX
and/Or:
TPtt
Chlorinated
Aliphatics
PAHs
Historical Actwity
{Principal Contaminants)
Media (Quantity)
Prtdect
Duration
Highlights
Bioremediation
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, MN (Land
Treatment)
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, FL
(Composting)
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site,
MS (Slurry-Phase Bioremediation)
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR (Windrow
Composting)
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, SC (In Situ Bioremediation)
U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, KY (Lasagna Soil
Remediation)
Wood preserving of railroad
ties (PAHs, Methylene
Chloride Extractable
Hydrocarbons)
Waste treatment, recycling,
and disposal facility (PAHs,
Toluene, TCE)
Wood preserving with
creosote (Naphthalene,
Benzo(a)pyrene)
Munitions (TNT, RDX,
HMX)
Nuclear material production
and research (TCE, PCE)
Nuclear weapons
production/uranium
enrichment (TCE)
Soil and Sludge
(13,000 yd3)
Soil (19,705 tons)
Soil and Sludge
(14,140 tons)
Soil (10,969 yd3)
Soil and
Groundwater
(not provided)
Soil and Soil Pore
Water (not
provided)'
5/86 - 10/94
11/93 - 9/94
1991 - 1994
3/94 - 9/96
2/92 - 4/93
1/95 - 5/95
Full-scale application of land treatment at a
creosote-contaminated site.
Full-scale application of composting to treat
VOC- and PAH-contaminated soil.
Full-scale application of slurry-phase
bioremediation to treat soil with relatively
elevated levels of PAHs.
Full-scale application of windrow composting to
biodegrade explosives-contaminated soils.
Demonstration, combining biodegradation
(sparging and biostimulation) with SVE to
remediate both soil and groundwater
contaminated with VOCs.
Demonstration of an in situ technology suited to
sites with low permeability soils that combines
several technologies to remediate soil and soil
pore water contaminated with soluble organic
compounds.
Vitrification
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund
Site, MI (In Situ Vitrification)
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, WA,
Oak Ridge (TN), and Others (In Situ
Vitrification)
Agricultural chemicals
mixing, manufacturing, and
packaging (Pesticides,
Metals, Dioxins)
Hanford - Nuclear materials
production; Others - Not
provided (pesticides, metals,
dioxin/furan, PCBs)
Soil and Sediment
(3,000 yd3)
Soil, Sludge, and
Debris (ranged
from 3,100-5,600
tons)
5/93 - 5/94
Information
not provided
First application of ISV at a Superfund site.
Full-scale and field demonstrations of ISV for
variety of media types and variety of
contaminants.
Key:
BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
Project Cost $)*
Quantity Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Project/Technology Costs***
Bioremediation
Burlington Northern Superfund Site,
MN (Land Treatment)
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, PL (Composting)
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, MS (Slurry-Phase
Bioremediation)
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
(Windrow Composting)
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, SC (In Situ Bioremediation)
Not provided
$7,736,700
(T and B combined
- information not
available to
segregate T from B)
T - $2,400,000
A - $500,000
T - $1,989,454
B+A - $3,141,652
Not provided
13,000 yd3
19,705 tons
14,140 tons
(10,500 yd3)
10,969 yd3
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
17,000 Ibs VOCs
Not provided
Not calculated
$170/ton
($230^
$181^
Not provided
Not provided.
Total costs for this project were
relatively high because they include
costs to excavate and temporarily store
approximately 39,000 tons of additional
soil that did not require treatment.
The need for technology research and
development, soil screening, slurry
preparation, and slurry dewatering
increased unit costs for this application.
The semi-arid cool climate, and ready
availability of amendments, at UMD A
contributed to lower costs for
preparatory site work and composting.
Demonstration project: Capital costs
are higher for in situ bioremediation
(ISB) than for pump and treat (PT) with
SVE because of need to install
horizontal wells and for gas mixing and
injection equipment. However,
treatment time for ISB is estimated as 3
years compared with 10 years for PT
with SVE.
Project Cost*
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
v vraxcuKucu v-uai iiu xicauueui^^
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance "Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis after- (A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
treatment costs unavailable.
For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual project costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would affect project costs for a future
application using this technology.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data (Continued)
Site Name, State {Technology)
U.S. Department of Energy Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY (Lasagna
Soil Remediation)
Project Costฎ)*
Not provided
Quantify Treated
Not provided
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Not provided
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
$40-90^ (projected)
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Project/Technology Costs***
Demonstration project: Capital costs
are driven by costs for electrode
construction. The ability to place
treatment zones and electrodes in
relatively close spacing and at
reasonable cost are key drivers for
technology cost-effectiveness.
Vitrification
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, MI (In Situ
Vitrification)
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford
Site, WA, Oak Ridge (TN), and Others
(In Situ Vitrification)
T - $800,000
B - $800,000
A - $164,000
Not provided
5,400 tons
(3,000 yd3)
Parsons: 4,800
tons
Wasatch: 5,600
tons
Private Superfund
Site: 3,100 tons
Not provided
Not provided
$148/ton
($267/yd3)
(based on cost ceiling)
Generic project costs in the
range of $375-425/ton; site-
specific costs not provided
Relatively high soil moisture content
contributed to higher unit cost for in
situ vitrification treatment.
Multiple projects: In general, unit
costs for in situ vitrification are
affected by the local price of
electricity, consumables, labor,
mobilization and startup, and facilities
modifications.
Project Cost*
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
""Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and
after- (A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of
treatment costs unavailable.
""For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual project costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would affect project costs for a future
application using this technology.
-------
-------
BIOREMEDIATION
CASE STUDIES
-------
-------
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern
Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern
Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
Site Name:
Burlington Northern Superfund Site
Location:
Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Other Semivolatiles - Nonhalogenated
- Total PAH concentrations ranged from
33,982 to 70,633 mg/kg
- Individual PAH concentrations ranged up
21,319 mg/kg
- Benzene extractable concentrations ranged
from 66,100 to 112,500 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
May 1986 - October 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Mindy L. Salisbury
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
(ReTeC)
413 Waconta St., Suite 400
StPaul,MN 55110
(612) 222-0841
SIC Code:
2491 B (Wood Preserving using
Creosote)
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Land treatment unit (LTU) constructed
with outer dimensions of 300 x 495 ft
- LTU constructed in layers, over HDPE,
silty sand, gravel, and clean, silty sand base
- 1,100 to 1,500 yds3 spread over LTU each
year, to a depth of 6-8 inches
- Operation included weekly cultivation,
irrigation, lime addition, and cow manure
application
- Treatment conducted from May through
October each year from 1986-1994 (9
"treatment seasons")
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Enforcement Decision
Document Date June 4, 1986
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Tony Rutter
USEPA Region V
77 . Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code HSR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-8961
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process, Surface
Impoundments
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 13,000 cubic yards of soil and sludge
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application of land
treatment at a creosote-
contaminated site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 17 specific constituents) less than 8,632 mg/kg
- Methylene chloride extractable (MCE) hydrocarbons (a replacement for benzene extractables) less than 21,000 mg/kg
- Place a cover over the LTU if cleanup goals not met
Results:
- Cleanup goal of 8,632 mg/kg for total PAHs was met for all nine treatment seasons
- At completion of treatment, total PAH concentration ranged from 608-795 mg/kg throughout the LTU
- Cleanup goal of 21,000 mg/kg for MCE hydrocarbons was not met for any treatment season
- At completion of treatment, MCE hydrocarbon concentration ranged from 24,800-26,900 mg/kg throughout the LTU
- A cover was placed over the LTU after completion of treatment
10
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern
Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota (Continued)
Cost Factors:
No information on actual cost data were provided for this application
Description:
The Burlington Northern site was the location of a railroad tie treating plant that operated from 1907 to 1985. Wood
preserving processes operated at the site involved pressure treatment using a heated creosote/coal tar or creosote/fuel
oil mixture. Wastewater generated from the wood preserving processes was discharged to two shallow, unlined surface
impoundments for disposal. In the 1980s, EPA determined that soil beneath these two surface impoundments, as well
as soil in three other areas at the site (the process, drip track, and black dock areas) were contaminated. Total PAH
concentrations for visibly-contaminated soils in the surface impoundments were measured as high as 70,633 mg/kg, with
individual PAHs measured as high as 21,319 mg/kg. Concentrations of benzene-extractable constituents in the surface
impoundment soils ranged from 66,100 to 112,500 mg/kg.
Based on a consent agreement, EPA issued an Enforcement Decision Document (a predecessor to a ROD) in June
1986, which required Burlington Northern to treat visibly-contaminated soils and sludges using on-site land treatment.
The land treatment unit (LTU) used hi this application had outer dimensions of approximately 300 by 495 feet (150,000
ft2) and an area available for treatment of approximately 255 by 450 feet (115,000 ft2). Each year from 1986 through
1994 (nine years total), between 1,100 and 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sludge were spread over the LTU
to a depth of 6-8 inches. Land treatment was conducted from May through October (the "treatment season"), and
included weekly cultivation, irrigation, lime addition, and cow manure application. The analytical data from the LTU at
the completion of treatment indicate that the cleanup goal was met for total PAHs with the concentration of total PAHs
ranging from 608 to 795 mg/kg throughout the depth of the treated soil and sludge. However, MCE hydrocarbons hi
the treated soil ranged from 24,800 to 26,900 mg/kg, and the cleanup goal was not met. Therefore, a cover was placed
over the LTU.
MCE hydrocarbons were not treated to below the cleanup level because a "plateau effect" limited the extent of
biodegradation of these constituents. However, MCE hydrocarbons are no longer typically used as a performance
measure for land treatment systems. This application demonstrated that treatment efficiency for PAHs decreased with
increasing number of ring structures in the PAH molecule (e.g., two-ring more efficient, four-ring less efficient). The
land treatment application at Burlington Northern was PRP-lead, and no information on actual total costs or unit costs
incurred is provided hi the available references.
11
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page i of 27
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance data for a land treatment application at the Burlington
Northern Superfund site, in Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota. Land treatment was used at the Burlington
Northern site to treat soil and sludge contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
other non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds, including naphthalene, acenaphthylene,
acenapthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b and k)fluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(l,2,3)pyrene, and phenols.
The Burlington Northern site was the location of a railroad tie treating plant that operated from 1907 to
1985. Wood preserving processes operated at the site involved pressure treatment using a heated
creosote/coal tar or creosote/fuel oil mixture. Wastewater generated from the wood preserving processes
was discharged to two shallow, unlined surface impoundments for disposal. In the 1980's, EPA
determined that soil beneath these two surface impoundments, as well as soil in three other areas at the
site (the process, drip track, and black dock areas) were contaminated. Total PAH concentrations for
visibly-contaminated soils in the surface impoundments were measured as high as 70,633 mg/kg, with
individual PAHs measured as high as 21,319 mg/kg (acenaphthene, a two-ring PAH), 7,902 mg/kg
(phenanthrene, a three-ring PAH), and 10,053 mg/kg (fluoranthene, a four-ring PAH). Concentrations of
benzene-extractable constituents in the surface impoundment soils ranged from 66,100 to 112,500
rng/kg.
In April, 1985, a three-party consent agreement for this site was signed by Burlington Northern, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and EPA. Based on the consent agreement, EPA issued
an Enforcement Decision Document (a predecessor to a ROD) in June 1986, which required Burlington
Northern to treat visibly-contaminated soils and sludges using on-site land treatment. In addition, a
RCRA Part B permit was issued for this site which specified that the concentration of methylene chloride
extractable (MCE) hydrocarbons (a replacement for benzene extractables) and total PAHs (the sum of 17
specific PAHs) in the treatment zone would not be greater than 21,000 mg/kg and 8,632 mg/kg,
respectively. While the permit also specified that the treatment zone would be detoxified to "within
Microtoxฎ limits," no quantitative limits were provided in the permit.
The land treatment unit (LTU) used in this application was constructed at Burlington Northern in 1985,
with outer dimensions of approximately 300 by 495 feet (150,000 ft2) and an area available for treatment
of approximately 255 by 450 feet (115,000 ft2). The LTU was constructed in layers, over a base of 100
mm thick HOPE, silty sand ballast, gravel, and clean, silty sand. Two-foot wide leachate collection
drains were installed in the gravel layer, on 100-foot centers. Each year from 1986 through 1994 (nine
years total), between 1,100 and 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sludge were spread over the
LTU to a depth of 6-8 inches. Land treatment was conducted from May through October (the "treatment
season"), and included weekly cultivation, irrigation, lime addition, and cow manure application. In July
and August, 1995, after completion of LTU operation, Burlington Northern placed a cover over the LTU.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
12
-------
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page ii of 27
Soil sampling and analysis were performed at the beginning and end of each of the nine treatment
seasons, and again throughout the depth of the LTU at the completion of treatment. The yearly analytical
data indicate that the average concentrations for MCE hydrocarbons was reduced from 64,000 to 33,000
mg/kg, and for total PAHs from 9,733 to 1,854 mg/kg, over the nine treatment seasons. The analytical
data from the LTU at the completion of treatment indicate that MCE hydrocarbons ranged from 24,800
to 26,900 mg/kg, and total PAHs from 608 to 795 mg/kg, throughout the depth of the treated soil and
sludge. In addition, at the completion of treatment, Microtoxฎ EC 50 testing (5 minute, 15ฐC) showed
residual toxicity ranging from 4.9 to 15.3. As shown by these data, the LTU met the cleanup goal for
total PAHs, but did not meet the cleanup goal for MCE hydrocarbons. According to the Remedial
Action Report, the soil was not treated to "within Microtoxฎ limits"; however, as stated previously,
these limits were not provided in the available information. In addition, the total PAH cleanup
requirement was met for all nine treatment seasons. Because the LTU did not meet the cleanup
requirements for MCE hydrocarbons or toxicity, Burlington Northern was required to implement a
contingency procedure in their permit and place a cover over the LTU.
The land treatment application at Burlington Northern was PRP-lead, and no information on actual costs
incurred (before-treatment, treatment, or after-treatment, as appropriate) is provided in the available
references. In addition, no information is provided on unit costs (e.g., costs per cubic yard of soil and
sludge treated) for this application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
13
-------
Burlington Northern Superftmd Site, Page 1 of 27
| SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Burlington Northern Superfund site
Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
CERCLIS # MND000686196
Enforcement Decision Document Date: June 4, 1986
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with Application? Yes
(refer to Reference 15 for additional information)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with Application? Yes
A SITE program test of slurry phase biological treatment was conducted on a pilot-scale basis in
1991 using contaminated soil from Burlington Northern. Reference 20 contains additional
information on the SITE program test.
Period of Operation: May 1986 - October 1994
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 13,000 cubic yards of soil and sludge
This quantity consists of 8,500 cubic yards of soil and sludge excavated from two surface
impoundments, 3,500 cubic yards of soil excavated from other areas of interest at the site
(process area, drip track area, and black dock area), and 1,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel, and
other soil from stockpile closure activities. [1]
Background
Historical Activity that Contributed to Contamination at the Site: Creosote wood preserving
Corresponding SIC Code: 249IB (Wood Preserving Using Creosote)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Manufacturing Process,
Surface Impoundments
Site History: The Burlington Northern Superfund site (Burlington Northern) is located partly in
Baxter and partly in Brainerd, Minnesota, as shown in Figure 1. Burlington Northern Railroad
operated a railroad tie treating plant at the site between 1907 and 1985. The wood preserving
process used at the site involved pressure treatment using a heated creosote/coal tar or
creosote/fuel oil mixture. Wastewater generated from the wood preserving process was
discharged to two shallow, unlined surface impoundments for disposal. The first impoundment
(referred to as the CERCLA impoundment) was approximately 60,000 square feet in area. This
impoundment filled with sludge and was buried under clean fill in the 1930s. A second
impoundment (referred to as the RCRA impoundment) was used from the 1930s until October
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
-------
Burlington Northern Superfimd Site, Page 2 of 27
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
1982. EPA determined that the use of
these surface impoundments had
resulted in contamination of both the
soil and groundwater beneath the
ponds. Disposal pond soil was
classified as RCRA hazardous waste
K001, under 40 CFR 261.32. [3,23]
The soil at three additional areas at
Burlington Northern also was
determined to be contaminated (the
process area, drip track area, and black
dock area). These areas are shown on
Figure 2. Tie treating operations were
completed in the retort building in the
process area. Creosote used in the
treatment process was also stored in
aboveground tanks in this area.
Following pressure treatment, the ties
were moved to the drip track area for
drying. Treated ties were then
transported to the black dock area for
storage prior to transport off site. [ 1 ]
Burlington Northern
Superfund Site
Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
Figure 1. Site Location
Regulatory Context: In April 1985, a
three-party consent agreement was
signed by Burlington Northern, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and EPA. The consent agreement detailed
specific actions and studies to be undertaken concerning the two surface impoundments and
three additional areas of contaminated soil. Activities included site monitoring, preparing a
treatment study, preparing a feasibility study, submitting closure and post-closure plans, and
implementing corrective actions. Based on the consent agreement, EPA issued an Enforcement
Decision Document (a predecessor to a Record of Decision - ROD) in June 1986, which
identified actions to control the source of contamination, including treatment of soils and
sludges, and to prevent hazardous substances from migrating away from the contaminated site.
The Enforcement Decision Document required Burlington Northern to excavate and treat soils
and sludges which were visibly contaminated and which contained free oils that could migrate to
groundwater. [3]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
15
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 3 of 27
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Remedy Selection: The
following three alternatives
for treatment of
contaminated soils and
sludges were considered for
the site:
On-site land treatment of
contaminated soils and
sludges;
On-site incineration of
contaminated soils and
sludges; and
On-site land treatment of
contaminated soils, and
off-site incineration of
sludges.
LAND
TREATMENT
FACILITY
Figure 2. Additional Areas of Contaminated Soil at
Burlington Northern [1]
On-site land treatment of
contaminated soils and sludges was selected for this site because it was identified as protective
of human health and the environment, and was the lowest cost alternative. [3]
In 1984, bench- and pilot-scale tests were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using land
treatment for the contaminated soils and sludges from the lagoons. The study consisted of six
pilot-scale test plots and six bench-scale reactors which varied in the initial creosote
concentration. These tests showed that land treatment was feasible for remediation of these
materials. [15]
VS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
-------
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 4 of 27
15V :'
Site Management: PRP lead
Oversight: EPA/State
Remedial Project Manager:
Tony Rutter
U.S. EPA Region V
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code HSR-6J
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312)886-8961
Treatment Vendor:
Mindy L. Salisbury
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTeC)
413 Waconta St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55110
(612)222-0841
State Contact:
Fred M. Jenness
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Hazardous Waste Division
Regulatory Compliance Section
Permit and Review Unit
530 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
(612) 297-8470
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology.Innovarion Office
17
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 5 of 27
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix-Processed Through the Treatment System: soil and sludge
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Other
Semivolatiles - Nonhalogenated
The Enforcement Decision Document identified visibly contaminated soils as being heavily
stained, dark brown to black in color, visibly oily, and usually having a pronounced creosote
odor. Table 1 shows the average concentration for PAHs, benzene extractables, and total
phenols in visibly contaminated soils in the CERCLA (pre-1930s) and RCRA (post-1930s)
surface impoundments. In addition, concentrations ranging from 5 to 30 percent for benzene
extractables and 3 to 15 percent for total PAHs were reported for the visibly contaminated soils.
[3]
No analytical data were contained in the available references on the concentrations of specific
constituents in visibly-contaminated soils in the three additional areas of contaminated soil.
Table 1. Average Concentrations for Visibly-Contaminated Soils
in Surface Impoundments [3]
Constituent
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Total 2-Ring PAHs
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Total 3-Ring PAHs
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l ,2,3)pyrene
CERCLA Surface Impoundment
(mg/kg)
3,105
2,280
10,180
15,565
1,505
3,305
1,085
5,895
4,650
5,015
722
889
373
244
303
137
78
111
RCRA Surface Impoundment
(mg/hg)
6,494
3,651
21,319
31,464
2,497
7,902
1,440
11,839
10,053
9,481
1,670
2,392
1,756
461
536
671
192
120
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 6 of 27
[ MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (cont.)
Table 1 (Continued)
Constituent
Total 4- and 5-Ring PAHs
Total PAHs
Benzene Extractables
Total Phenols
CERCLA Surface Impoundment
,;
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
PH
Field Capacity
: Value
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Measurement Method
Information not provided
Information not provided
N/A
Information not provided
N/A - Measurement method not reported for this parameter because resulting value not expected to vary among
measurement procedures.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
19
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 7 of 27
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION!
Primary Treatment Technology Type; Land Treatment
Supplemental Treatment Technology Type; None
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation
In 1985, a land treatment unit (LTU) was constructed at the Burlington Northern site. The LTU
had outer dimensions of approximately 300 by 495 feet (about 150,000 ft2) and an area available
for treatment of approximately 255 by 450 feet (about 115,000 ft2). The LTU was constructed
over the former RCRA surface impoundment (after the visibly contaminated soils and sludges
had been removed). A diagram of the LTU, the leachate collection sump, and the temporary
waste stockpile is shown in Figure 3. [1]
/ \ ......
^_^^^^JJ^^JJO
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3. Land Treatment Unit Constructed at Burlington Northern
[1]
LTU Construction
The LTU was constructed with the following layers, as shown in Figure 4:
A 100-millimeter thick high density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane;
An 18-inch layer of silty sand ballast;
A 6-inch layer of gravel; and
A 24-inch layer of clean, silly sand.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
20
-------
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation (Cont.)
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 8 of 27
Depth
(Inches
Below Surface)
0
LTU Surface
8
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
80
86
102
Material Treated in 1994
Material Treated in 1993
Material Treated in 1992
Material Treated in 1991
Material Treated in 1990
Material Treated in 1989
Material Treated in 1988
Material Treated in 1987
Material Treated in 1986
Clean, Silty Sand
Gravel
Silty Sand Ballast
100-mm HDPE liner
Figure 4. LTU Construction Layers [1]
The HDPE membrane covered the bottom and the side slopes of the LTU. The bottom of the
LTU sloped downward 0.5 percent to the south and west. The LTU was surrounded by
containment berms (3 to 1 side slopes) to prevent surface run-on from entering the treatment
unit. [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
21
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 9 of 27.
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation (Cont.)
The gravel layer operated as a leachate collection system and as a "marking layer" during
treatment. Two-foot wide leachate collection drains on 100-foot centers were located in the
gravel layer, extending through the gravel layer into the sand ballast to within 1 foot of the liner.
The drains were filled with gravel, and perforated pipe wrapped with filter fabric were installed
in the drains to collect leachate. The collection system carried leachate to a sump, which was
filled with 6-inch rounded cobbles and had a capacity of 50,000 gallons. [1, 2]
LTU Operation
Contaminated soil and sludge excavated from the surface impoundments and other areas of
interest at the site were stored in a temporary stockpile located adjacent to the LTU. Starting in
May 1986, between 1,100 and 1,500 cubic yards of soil and sludge were spread over the LTU to
a depth of 6-8 inches each year. Dump trucks were used to transport the contaminated materials
from the temporary stockpile to the treatment area. [1]
Land treatment was conducted from May through October each year (referred to as the treatment
season), and the system was operated for 9 treatment seasons, between 1986 and 1994. Weather
permitting, the treatment area was cultivated weekly to a 12-inch depth with a tractor-mounted
rototiller. Thus, some mixing occurred between the current lift and the previous year's lift. One
reason for this mixing was to increase the microbial population in the current year's lift. An
agricultural disk was used on a periodic basis to level the surface of the LTU. About once every
three years, a 24-inch ripper was used to break up the compacted soil layer beneath the 12-inch
tilling zone. Irrigation of the LTU was performed periodically to maintain a soil moisture
content of approximately 10 percent by weight. Soil pH was maintained between 6.2 and 7.0
with lime addition, and the carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio was maintained near 100:2:1, with
cow manure application. [1,2]
Leachate from the LTU, collected in the sump, was discharged to an on-site equalization tank.
Some of the leachate was applied to the LTU as irrigation water, while the remainder was
discharged to a local sewer system. [1]
After completion of LTU operation, Burlington Northern placed a cover over the LTU during
July and August 1995. EPA reviewed the design documents and approved the design prior to
construction. The closure was approved by EPA on January 8, 1996. [22]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
22
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 10 of 27 ,
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the values
measured for each are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Operating Parameters [1, 5]
Parameter
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
PH
Residence Time
Temperature
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Conductivity
Sulfur
Value ;
Cultivated weekly with rototiller
(weather permitting)
10-12.8% by weight
6.2 to 7.0
6 months
Information not provided
8-58%
Cow manure
C:N:P maintained at 100:2:1
1.76mmhos/cm
0.05%
Measurement Method
N/A
N/A
Saturated paste extraction
N/A
N/A
Calculated - see Table 5
Nitrogen measured using potassium
chloride and water extractions
Saturated paste extraction
N/A
N/A - Measurement method not reported for this parameter because resulting value not expected to vary
among measurement procedures.
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [1, 2, 3, 22]
Start Date
1907
December 1982
August 1985
May 1986
July 1995
End Date
1985
-
October 1985
October 1994
August 1995
- ." -,,. " ' Activity
Burlington Northern conducted wood preserving operations at the
site
Site placed on NPL
Construction of land treatment unit
Land treatment of contaminated soil and sludges
Cover placed over LTU
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
23
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 11 of 27 ,
j TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards [1,23]
A RCRA Part B permit for this site specified the following:
Treatment of the soil and sludge so that the concentration of methylene chloride
extractable (MCE) hydrocarbons and the sum of the concentrations for 17 PAHs in the
treatment zone would not be greater than these values for non-visibly-impacted soils;
and
Detoxification of the treatment zone to "within Microtoxฎ limits". However, no
quantitative limits were specified in the permit.
The first specification corresponds to the following cleanup goals for treated soil and sludge:
MCE Hydrocarbons: 21,000 mg/kg; and
Total PAHs: 8,632 mg/kg.
Total PAHs were identified in this application as the sum of the concentrations for the following
17 PAHs:
Naphthalene;
Acenaphthylene;
Acenaphthene;
Fluorene;
Phenanthrene;
Anthracene;
Fluoranthene;
Pyrene;
Benzo(a)anthracene;
Chrysene;
Benzo(b)fluoranthene;
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene;
Benzo(e)pyrene;
Benzo(a)pyrene;
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene;
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene; and
Benzo(ghi)perylene.
In addition, the permit provided for the following contingency procedures if the LTU did not
meet these cleanup goals at the end of the treatment period:
Extend the closure period and continue operations;
Extend the closure period and modify operations; and
Place a cover over the treatment area to prevent infiltration of liquid through the
treatment zone.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
24
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 12 of 27 .
| TREATENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.) |
Additional Information on Goals [23]
In addition to the cleanup goals described above for treatment of soil and sludge, the following
concentration limits were identified in the Consent Order as "action levels" for groundwater at
Burlington Northern:
30 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for the sum of the following known or suspected
carcinogenic PAHs and heterocycles:
Benzo(a)anthracene;
Benzo(b)fluoranthene;
Benzo(j)fluoranthene;
Benzo(k)fluoranthene;
Benzo(a)pyrene;
7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole;
5-Methylchrysene;
Indeno( 123 -c,d)pyrene;
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene;
Dibenzo(a,h)acridine;
Dibenzo(aj)acridine;
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene;
Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene; and
Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene.
300 ng/L for the sum of the following 22 non-carcinogenic PAHs and heterocycles:
Indene;
2,3-Dihydroindence;
Naphthalene;
1 -Methylnaphthalene;
2-Methylnaphthalene;
Biphenyl;
Acenaphthylene;
Acenaphthene;
Fluorene;
Phenanthrene;
Anthracene;
Fluoranthene;
Pyrene;
Benzo(h)fluoranthene;
Benzo(e)pyrene;
Perylene;
Acridine;
Carbazole;
2,3-Benzofuran;
Benzo(b)thiophene;
Dibenzothiophene; and
Indole.
The following action levels for individual constituents in groundwater were also specified.
However, these action levels were not required cleanup goals:
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
4,
2,
300,ug/L
30/^g/L
Phenol (total)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
Biphenyl
4,
lOO/^g/L
20/ug/L
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
25
-------
Burlington Northern Superfiind Site, Page 13 of 27 ,
ITREATENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data
To assess LTU treatment performance, each lift of contaminated soil and sludge was sampled
immediately after application and then monthly through the end of the treatment season. To
facilitate sampling, the LTU was divided into three areas of approximately equal size. Each
month, two sites were sampled in each of the three areas, resulting in six samples. The sample
from each site consisted of a composite of at least three subsamples from that area. The samples
were analyzed for MCE hydrocarbons and PAHs, and the results for each of these six samples
were averaged. Tables 5 through 9 present the before treatment (from the beginning of each
treatment season, after the new soil lift was applied in May or June), and after treatment (from
the end of each season, in October or November). Analytical results for these samples from the
nine treatment seasons are shown in Tables 5 through 9, as described below:
Table 5 - Treatment Performance Data for MCE Hydrocarbons;
Table 6 - Treatment Performance Data for Two-Ring PAHs;
Table 7 - Treatment Performance Data for Three-Ring PAHs;
Table 8 - Treatment Performance Data for Four- and Five-Ring PAHs; and
Table 9 - Treatment Performance Data for Total PAHs.
Tables 5 through 9 also show the dates on which samples were collected, where available.
At the completion of the last treatment season (1994), samples were collected at four depths in
the LTU to assess residual concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons and PAHs. These samples were
also analyzed for Microtoxฎ EC 50. Table 10 presents the results for these samples. For each of
the four depths sampled, concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons, specific PAHs, and Microtoxฎ
EC 50 are presented for the 1994 treatment season (0-8 inches), 1990-1993 treatment seasons (8-
32 inches), 1986-1989 treatment seasons (32-56 inches), and the soil layer immediately below
the original layer of contaminated material (55-66 inches).
Table 11 summarizes analytical data for selected parameters in the leachate during treatment.
The results are from grab samples collected from the treatment area drain tile leachate. More
detailed data on leachate are presented in Appendix A. Data were collected for MCE
hydrocarbons, 7 PAHs, and 5 acid extractable constituents in the leachate during the 9 treatment
seasons.
U.S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
26
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 14 of 27 ,
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 5. Treatment Performance Data for MCE Hydrocarbons [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Treatment Season
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Average
Before Treatment
Concentration
(rag/kg)
53,000
67,000
74,000
83,000
26,000
53,000
69,000
89,000
62,000
64,000
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
05/20/87
05/04/88
05/11/89
05/21/90
N/A
N/A
05/07/93
06/23/94
-
After Treatment
Concentration
(tag/kg)
22,000
48,000
36,000
47,000
24,000
28,000
29,000
38,000
27,000
33,000
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
10/09/87
10/19/88
10/24/89
N/A
10/27/91
11/11/92
10/18/93
11/03/94
-
N/A - Date sample collected is not available.
Table 6. Treatment Performance Data for Two-Ring PAHs [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Treatment Season
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Average
Before Treatment
Concentration
1 (rag/kg)
2,250
2,848
1,972
2,749
848
1,319
99
3,269
691
1,783
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
05/20/87
05/04/88
05/11/89
05/21/90
N/A
N/A
05/07/93
06/23/94
-
After Treatment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
ND (120)
140
65
ND(ll)
92
3
9
108
65
68
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
10/09/87
10/19/88
10/24/89
N/A
10/27/91
11/11/92
10/18/93
11/03/94
-
N/A - Date sample collected is not available.
ND - Not detected; value in parentheses is the reported detection limit.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
27
-------
Burlington Northern Superfimd Site, Page 15 of 27 .
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 7. Treatment Performance Data for Three-Ring PAHs [1,2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Treatment Season
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Average
Before Treatment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
9,560
8,750
6,032
2,989
2,113
2,423
265
5,927
1,287
4,372
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
05/20/87
05/04/88
05/11/89
05/21/90
N/A
N/A
05/07/93
06/23/94
After Treatment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
445
774
191
448
411
291
163
401
225
372
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
10/09/87
10/19/88
10/24/89
N/A
10/27/91
11/11/92
10/18/93
11/03/94
N/A - Date sample collected is not available.
Table 8. Treatment Performance Data for Four- and Five-Ring PAHs [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Treatment Season
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Average
Before Treatment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
4,350
6,273
4,927
5,149
3,047
2,355
262
4,275
1,566
3,578
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
05/20/87
05/04/88
05/11/89
05/21/90
N/A
N/A
05/07/93
06/23/94
After Treatment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1,330
3,412
2,889
2,059
772
654
392
711
505
1,414
Date Sample
Collected
N/A
10/09/87
10/19/88
10/24/89
N/A
10/27/91
11/11/92
10/18/93
11/03/94
N/A - Date sample collected is not available.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
28
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 16 of 27 .
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 9. Treatment Performance Data for Total PAHs [1, 2, 5. 6, 7, 8, 91
Treatment Season
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Average
Before Treatment;
Concentration
(ing/kg) ,
16,160
17,871
12,931
10,887
6,008
6,097
626
13,471
3,544
9,733
Date Sample
/-' Collected
N/A
05/20/87
05/04/88
05/11/89
05/21/90
N/A
N/A
05/07/93
06/23/94
: After Treatment
Concentration -
(mg/kg)
1,895
4,326
3,145
2,518
1,275
948
564
1,220
795
1,854
Date Sample-
Collected
N/A
10/09/87
10/19/88
10/24/89
N/A
10/27/91
11/11/92
10/18/93
11/03/94
N/A - Date sample collected is not available.
Table 10. Residual Concentrations of MCE Hydrocarbons and PAHs
in the LTU at Completion of Treatment (November 3,1994) [1]
(Parameters
MCE Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Total 2-Ring PAH
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Total 3-Ring PAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene ----..
Total 4-Ring PAH
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
- " Concentration (nig/kg)
Depth Sampled (Inches)
/
0-8>
26,900
2.63
5.02
57.48
65.13
23
105
97
225
189
126
32
35
382
44
20
15.5
8-32z
24,800
2.1
6.85
37
45.95
22
44
62
128
112
77
36
51
276
66
17
20.5
32-S63 ,
25,300
9.2
9.3
31
49.5
36
53
110
199
95
92
33
36
256
87
32
27.5
S6-664
450
0
0.02
0
0.02
0
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.07
0.1
0
0
0.17
0.04
0
0.0275
* Treatment
Goal5
21,000
"*
-
-
-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
29
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 17 of 27
Table 10 (Continued)
Parameters
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Total 5-Ring PAH
Total PAHs
Microtoxฎ EC 50 (5 min,
15ฐC)
Concentration (mg/kg)
Depth Sampled (Inches)
0-81
15.5
12
4.5
12
123.5
795.63
15.3
8-32z
20.5
17.6
5.8
11
158.4
608.35
8.2
32-S63
27.5
22.2
9.3
21.2
226.7
731.2
4.9
S6-664
0.0275
0.13
0
0
0.225
0.565
70
Treatment
Goal5
,
8,632
6
'The 0"-8" depth corresponds to the 1994 treatment season.
2The 8"-32" depth corresponds to the 1990 to 1993 treatment seasons.
3The 32"-56" depth corresponds to the 1986 to 1989 treatment seasons.
4The 56"-66" depth corresponds to the soil layer immediately below the original layer of contaminated material.
'Treatment goal was established for total PAHs only; no treatment goal has been established for individual PAH
constituents or groups of constituents (e.g., 2-Ring PAHs) in soils.
*No quantitative treatment goal has been established for Microtoxฎ.
Table 11. Summary of Concentration Data for Selected Parameters
in Leachate During Treatment [1]
Parameter
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Units
mg/L
Q) Q> Q> fib ซ> M Q>
a. a. 3. a. a. a. 3.
VgfL
ng/L
Mg/L
/zg/L
Mg/L
Groundwater
Action Level
Not specified
4,000
Not specified
2,000
300
300
30
Not specified
4,000
100
20
30
Not specified
Range of
Concentrations
Measured
ND-600
ND-18
ND- 13
ND-52
ND - 5.7
ND - 73.28
ND - 590
ND-18
ND - 5.3
ND-100
ND-22
ND-87
ND-48
Number of
Sampling Events
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
ND - Not detected; detection limit not provided in available references.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
30
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 18 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
Soil/Sludge:
The treatment performance data presented in Tables 5 and 9 show that the cleanup goal for total
PAHs was achieved for all 9 treatment seasons. However, the cleanup goal for MCE
hydrocarbons was not met in any of the 9 treatment seasons. The concentrations of MCE
hydrocarbons in soil before treatment ranged from 26,000 to 89,000 mg/kg, and from 22,000 to
48,000 mg/kg in soil after treatment, all of which are greater than the cleanup goal of 21,000
mg/kg. The median value for MCE hydrocarbons in soil after treatment was 29,000 mg/kg, and
the mean (average) value was 33,000 mg/kg. Because the cleanup goal for MCE hydrocarbons
was not met at the end of the treatment period, Burlington Northern implemented the
contingency procedure of placing a cover over the treatment area to prevent infiltration of liquid
through the treatment zone.
Total PAHs in soil before treatment ranged from 626 to 17,871 mg/kg, and from 564 to 4,326
mg/kg in soil after treatment. The concentrations of total PAHs in the soil after treatment was
less than the cleanup goal of 8,632 mg/kg for all 9 treatment seasons. The median value for total
PAHs in soil after treatment was 1,275 mg/kg, and the mean (average) value was 1,854 mg/kg.
The residual concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons and PAHs (November 1994 samples) did not
vary substantially with depth in the LTU among the treatment seasons, as shown in Table 10.
The concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons varied less than 10% with depth through the top 56
inches of the LTU. The concentrations of total PAHs varied approximately 26% with depth
through the top 56 inches of the LTU.
In addition, data on residual concentrations show that contaminants in the soils treated in the
LTU did not migrate to the uncontaminated soil layer below the LTU. After treatment, the
concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons, total PAHs, and Microtoxฎ EC 50 in the uncontaminated
soil layer in the LTU immediately below the original layer of contaminated material (the 56- to
66-inch layer) were substantially lower than in the layers of treated soil (the 0- to 56-inch
layers).
Analytical data on treatment performance for individual PAH constituents show that treatment
efficiency (measured as a percent reduction in average concentration from before treatment to
after treatment) decreased with increasing number of ring structures in the PAH molecule. For
example, as shown in Tables 6, 7, and 8, two-ring PAHs were reduced an average of 96%, three-
ring PAHs were reduced an average of 92%, and four- and five-ring PAHs were reduced an
average of 60%. Two-ring PAHs were reduced to concentrations below analytical detection
limits for two of the nine treatment seasons.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
31
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 19 of 27
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
Leachate:
Analytical data for leachate collected during treatment were compared with the groundwater
action levels to evaluate the quality of the leachate. These data for the 36 sampling episodes
over a 9-year period are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 1 1 . With the
exception of naphthalene and 2-methylphenol, the range of concentrations measured in the
leachate were below the groundwater action levels. Naphthalene was measured as high as 590
p.g/L (versus an action level of 30 |4.g/L) and 2-methylphenol was measured as high as 87 )j,g/L
(versus an action level of 30
Performance Data Completeness
Data are available for characterizing specific constituents, groups of constituents, and indicator
parameters in the soil before and after treatment for each of 9 treatment seasons in the LTU. In
addition, data are available on leachate quality during the 9 treatment seasons, and on general
operating conditions during the treatment operation.
Performance Data Quality _
Limited information is provided in the available references on the types of QA/QC protocols
used and the QA/QC data that are available concerning this effort. No exceptions to protocol or
limits were identified in this information. In addition, no information is available on the specific
steps involved with the MCE hydrocarbon analysis. [5]
During the earlier treatment seasons (1986-1990), total hydrocarbons were analyzed using a
benzene extraction procedure. The benzene extractable hydrocarbons procedure was based on a
modification of Procedure 503C in Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewaters. 15th edition, for measurement of oil and grease by soxhlet extraction. For this
application, benzene was substituted for freon as the extraction solvent. The benzene extraction
procedure was replaced with a methylene chloride extraction procedure for the latter treatment
seasons (1991-1994). According to Burlington Northern, this revision to the analytical
procedure is not expected to have had a significant impact on the quality of the analytical results,
and results for total hydrocarbons are identified throughout this report as MCE hydrocarbons.
[5,9]
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
32
-------
Burlington Northern Superfiind Site, Page 20 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process [21]
The land treatment application at Burlington Northern was a PRP-lead project, and Burlington
Northern selected ReTeC as the treatment vendor for the project. (The PRP point of contact is
Dave Seep, (817) 333-1946.) No additional information is provided in the available references
on the process used to procure ReTeC for this remediation project, or on the competitive nature
of the procurement.
Treatment System Cost
This is a PRP-lead remediation, and EPA does not have information on the actual costs incurred
for this application. No information is provided in the available references on actual treatment
system costs, including costs for before-treatment activities (e.g., site work), activities directly
attributed to treatment (e.g., system design, construction, and operation), or after-treatment
activities, if any. In addition, no information is provided in the available references on actual
costs per unit (e.g., ton, cubic yard) of soil treated.
Vendor Input
No information was provided by the vendor on site-specific factors that affect project costs for
similar land treatment applications.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
33
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 21 of 27
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The land treatment application at Burlington Northern was PRP-lead, and no information
on actual costs incurred (before-treatment, treatment, or after-treatment) is provided in
the available references. In addition, no information is provided on unit costs (e.g., costs
per cubic yard of soil and sludge treated) for this application.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup goal for total PAHs was met in this application. The concentrations of total
PAHs was reduced in the LTU from before treatment levels ranging from 626 to 17,871
mg/kg to after treatment levels ranging from 564 to 4,326 mg/kg during the 9 treatment
seasons. The concentrations in the soil after treatment were less than the cleanup goal of
8,632 mg/kg for all 9 treatment seasons.
The concentrations of methylene chloride extractable (MCE) hydrocarbons were reduced
in the LTU from before treatment levels ranging from 26,000 to 89,000 mg/kg to after
treatment levels ranging from 22,000 to 48,000 mg/kg during the 9 treatment seasons.
These values are all greater than the cleanup goal for MCE hydrocarbons of 21,000
mg/kg, and because of this, Burlington Northern implemented a contingency procedure
of placing a cover over the LTU based on a permit provision.
Microtoxฎ analysis showed an EC 50 (5 min, 15ฐC) residual toxicity of 4.9-15.3 in the
treated soil at the conclusion of treatment. However, no quantitative cleanup goal was
specified for this parameter.
Residual sampling of the layer immediately below the original layer of contaminated
material showed that the soil contaminants did not migrate downward in the soil to
below the treated soil during the 9 treatment seasons. The concentrations of MCE
hydrocarbons and total PAHs, and the Microtoxฎ EC 50 value, were substantially lower
in the soil layer in the LTU immediately below the original layer of contaminated
material (the 56- to 66-inch layer) than in the layers of treated soil (the 0- to 56-inch
layers) at the conclusion of treatment.
The residual concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons and PAHs at the completion of
treatment did not vary substantially with depth in the LTU among the treatment seasons.
The concentrations of MCE hydrocarbons varied less than 10% with depth through the
top 56 inches of the LTU. The concentrations of total PAHs varied approximately 26%
with depth through the top 56 inches of the LTU.
VJS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
34
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 22 of 27
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
Treatment efficiency (measured as a percent reduction in average concentration from
before treatment to after treatment) decreased with increasing number of ring structures
in the PAH molecule. Two-ring PAHs were reduced an average of 96%, three-ring
PAHs were reduced an average of 92%, and four- and five-ring PAHs were reduced an
average of 60%. Two-ring PAHs were reduced to concentrations below analytical
detection limits for two of the nine treatment seasons.
With the exception of naphthalene and 2-methylphenol, the range of concentrations
measured in the leachate were below the groundwater action levels. Naphthalene was
measured as high as 590 |J.g/L (versus an action level of 30 |^g/L) and 2-methylphenol
was measured as high as 87 |ig/L (versus an action level of 30
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Burlington Northern placed a cover over the LTU during July and August 1995. EPA
reviewed the design documents and approved the design prior to construction. The
closure was approved by EPA on January 8, 1996.
The vendor indicated that the reason MCE hydrocarbons were not treated to below the
cleanup level is because a "plateau effect" limited the extent of biodegradation of total
extractable hydrocarbons. Although a treatability study indicated otherwise, full-scale
performance- data indicated that total extractable hydrocarbons (as MCE) were
biodegraded only to a level slightly higher than the target treatment goal.
The vendor indicated that the higher than expected MCE hydrocarbon levels and residual
toxicity in the soil at the conclusion of treatment did not reflect a significant threat to
human health or the environment, and expressed their belief that the residual creosote
constituents in the soil were "biostabilized." The vendor suggested performance
standards based on concentrations of specific constituents of interest would be more
appropriate at other sites, instead of those based on MCE hydrocarbons or Microtox
analyses.
While this application did not meet the MCE hydrocarbon cleanup goal, MCE
hydrocarbons are no longer typically used as a performance measure for land treatment
systems.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
35
-------
Burlington Northern Superfimd Site, Page 23 of 27
I REFERENCES
1. Treatment Completion Report for the BNRR former Tie Treating Plant Brainerd, Minnesota.
Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, Overland Park, Kansas by Remediation
Technologies, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. May 1995.
2. Five-Year Review Report. Burlington Northern Brainerd/Baxter Minnesota. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois. January 27,1993.
3. Enforcement Decision Document. Remedial Alternative Selection. Burlington Northern (BN),
Brainerd, Minnesota. June 4,1986.
4. Burlington Northern Consent Order. Region V and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
April 2,1985.
5. 1994 Annual Soils Monitoring Report for the Burlington Northern Railroad Former Tie Treating
Facility. Brainerd, Minnesota. Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, Overland Park,
Kansas. Prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 1995.
6. 1993 Annual Soils Monitoring Report for the Burlington Northern Railroad Former Tie Treating
Facility. Brainerd, Minnesota. Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, Overland Park,
Kansas. Prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 1994.
7. 1989 Annual Soils Monitoring Report for the Brainerd Soil Treatment Facility. Prepared for
Burlington Northern Railroad. Prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 1990.
8. 1988 Annual Monitoring Report for the Brainerd Soil Treatment Facility. Prepared for
Burlington Northern Railroad. Prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 1989.
9. 1987 Annual Monitoring Report for the Brainerd Soil Treatment Facility. Prepared for Glacier
Park Company. Prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 1988.
10. Burlington Northern Railroad Site. Brainerd, Minnesota. Endangerment Assessment. Dr. David
Homer. Not Dated.
11. Remedial Action Master Plan for Burlington Northern Tie Treatment Site. Brainerd, Minnesota.
1 December 1982.
12. Facility Management Plan. Burlington Northern Tie Plant. Brainerd, Minnesota.
MND000686196. Not Dated.
13. Health Assessment for Burlington Northern Railroad Brainerd National Priorities List (NPL)
Site. Brainerd, Minnesota. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease Registry. U.S. Public
Health Service. December 8,1988.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
36
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 24 of 27
I REFERENCES (CONT.)
14. Burlington Northern Railroad Tie Plant Land Treatment Facility. Brainerd, Minnesota. Waste
Application 1987.
15. Treatment Demonstration Report. Creosote Contaminated Soils. Prepared for Burlington
Northern Railroad. Prepared by Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. Document D245.
April 1985.
16. In-Situ Land Treatment of Creosote Pond Sludges and Contaminated Soil. Environmental
Research & Technology, Inc. ERT Document No. PD-245-620. April 1984.
17. 1990 Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report for the Burlington Northern Tie Treating Plant.
Brainerd, Minnesota. Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, St. Paul, Minnesota. Prepared
by Remediation Technologies, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado. February 1991.
18. 1989 Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report for the Burlington Northern Tie Treating Plant.
Brainerd, Minnesota. Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, St. Paul, Minnesota. Prepared
by Remediation Technologies, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado. February 1990.
19. Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report for the Burlington Northern Tie Treating Plant.
Brainerd, Minnesota. Prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad, St. Paul, Minnesota. Prepared
by Remediation Technologies, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado. February 1989.
20. Applications Analysis Report. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of a Slurry-Phase Biological Reactor
for Creosote-Contaminated Soil. USEPA. Office of Research and Development. Washington
D.C. EPA/540/A5-91/009. January 1993.
21. Memorandum from A. Rutter, RPM, to L. Fiedler, U.S. EPA/TIO; Burlington Northern Site;
February 2, 1996.
22. Letter from M. Salisbury, ReTeC, to L. Fiedler, U.S. EPA; "Comments on Draft Remediation
Case Study Report, Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter,
Minnesota;" February 6, 1996.
23. Remedial Action Report for the BNSF Former Tie Treating Plant, Brainerd, Minnesota; prepared
for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad; prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc.;
November 1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian International under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No. DACA45-96-D-0016.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
J /
-------
oo
Burlineton Northern Swperfwd Site. Paซe 25 of 27
Appendix A. Table A-1. Concentrations of Selected Parameters in Leachate During Treatment [1]
Parameter
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Parameter
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Units
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Units
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Grounidwatcr
Action Level
_
4,000
-
2,000
300
300
30
-
4,000
100
20
30
~
Groundwater
Action Level
..
4,000
-
2,000
300
300
30
4,000
100
20
30
-
Sampling Date
06/17/86
3.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
08/07/86
7.9
4
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10/14/86
2.5
3
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
05/20/87
1.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
08/21/87
19
4
3
14
2
2
2
ND
27
5.3
6.5
ND
ND
ND
Sampling Date
North Drain
05/04/88
9
2
ND
ND
1
1
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
South Drain
05/04/88
8
3
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
North Drain
10/19/88
144
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
South Drain
10/19/88
144
2
ND
1
ND
ND
5
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
05/03/89
600
ND
ND
ND
ND
73.28
ND
ND
73.28
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11/16/89
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
590
ND
590
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
05/10/90
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
22
ND
ND
ID - Not detected; detection limit not provided in available references.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, Page 26 of 27.
Table A-l (Continued)
, -5 '
Parameter -
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
- ' , , ^ ! '"
Parameter > t
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Unite ,
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M8/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
i I ^ * i
Units v
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
MS/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
' Groundwater
Action Level
4,000
~
2,000
300
300
30
-
4,000
100
20
30
-
.Groiindwater ,
1 Action Level
~
4,000
-
2,000
300
300
30
-
4,000
100
20
30
-
,) * Sampling Date *
05/21/91 '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
ND
14
ND
30
ND
59
ND
06/26/91 ,
20
6
ND
9
ND
ND
11
ND
26
ND
ND
ND
12
ND
07/25/91 x
20
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
ND
25
ND
24
ND
87
9
08/20/91>
20
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
ND
22
ND
ND
ND
33
ND
09/19/91
ND
14
5
16
ND
6
29
18
88
ND
ND
ND
57
48
10/27/91
ND
18
ND
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
- ' ' . < '' ' - x Sampling Date , - > ' s
Q5/21/91
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
96/29/92
29
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
25
ND
ND
ND
,07/21/92 "
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
72
ND
ND
ND
08/20/92
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
09/17/92
116
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
62
ND
ND
ND
11/11/92
51
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
U)
ND-NCra
, ueieuiun iimii not provided in avaiiaoie reierences.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Burlington Northern Superfumi Site, Page 27 of 27.
Table A-l (Continued)
Parameter
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Parameter
MCE Hydrocarbons
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
TOTAL PAH
Acid Extractables
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Units
mg/L
vsfi*
H&fL
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Pg/L
Mg/L
MB/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Units
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Groundwster
Action Level
4,000
--
2,000
300
300
30
-
4,000
100
20
30
-
Groundwater
Action Level
4,000
~
2,000
300
300
30
~
4,000
100
20
30
-
Stumping Date
05/07/93
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
13
ND
24
ND
ND
ND
06723/94
ND
11
9
21
ND
ND
27
13
81
ND
39
ND
76
ND
06/21/93
123
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
07/26/94
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND
15
ND
27
ND
ND
ND
07/26)93
21
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
08/23/93
96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
43
ND
43
ND
48
ND
ND
ND
09/20/93
153
13
ND
13
ND
ND
29
ND
55
ND
50
ND
32
6
10/18/93
15
18
13
19
ND
ND
43
8
101
ND
73
ND
ND
ND
Sampling Date
08/15/94
11
8
3
13
ND
ND
16
5
45
ND
28
ND
ND
ND
09/07/94
ND
11
6
18
ND
ND
32
ND
67
ND
44
ND
ND
ND
10/13/94
1
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
52
ND
104
ND
64
ND
ND
ND
11/03/94
ND
17
7.8
21
5.7
ND
34
ND
85.5
ND
47
ND
34
10
ND - Not detected; detection limit not provided in available reterences.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co,
Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida
41
-------
Case Study Abstract
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida
Site Name:
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site
Location:
Cantonment, Florida
Contaminants:
Organic compounds - volatiles, halogenated;
volatiles, nonhalogenated (BTEX);
semivolatiles, halogenated and semivolatiles,
nonhalogenated (PAHs)
- Total VOC concentrations ranged from
0.022-38.27 mg/kg
- Total PAH concentrations ranged from
0.578-367 mg/kg
- PCP concentration ranged from 0.058-51
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
November 1993 - September
1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
David Price/Garland Long
Waste Abatement Technology, L.P.
(WATEC)
1300 Williams Drive
Marietta, GA 30066
(770) 427-1947
SIC Code:
4953 W (Waste processing facility,
miscellaneous)
Technology:
Composting
- Treatment structure was 33,000 ft2 modular
building
- Included systems for leachate collection,
aeration, inoculum growth and application,
and wastewater treatment
- Ambient air was drawn down through soil
pile
- Operating parameters included soil oxygen
and moisture contents, pH, and nutrient
levels
- Each batch of soil was treated to less than
the cleanup goals within 14-30 days
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date 3/29/90
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Mark Fite
USEPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8927
Waste Source:
Waste Treatment Plant
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application of composting
to treat VOC- and PAH-
contaminatcd soil
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 19,705 tons of soil
- Lakeland loamy sand
- TPH 300-600 mg/kg
- Moisture content 8%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 17 specific constituents) less than 50 mg/kg
- Total xylenes less than 1.5 mg/kg; benzene less than 10 mg/kg; TCE less than 0.05 mg/kg; DCE less than 0.07
mg/kg; and PCP less than 50 mg/kg
Results:
- Cleanup goal met for all constituents, with total PAHs in treated soil ranging from 3.3-49.9 mg/kg
- Of the 58,559 tons of soil excavated, only 19,705 tons exceeded cleanup goal and thus required treatment
42
-------
Case Study Abstract
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $7,736,700 were reported by the PRP Steering Committee
- The cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was not provided separately from the total project cost, and
therefore a unit cost for treatment was not calculated
Description:
The Dubose Oil Product Co. Superfund site is a former waste treatment, recycling, and disposal facility that operated
from 1979 to 1981. Operations performed at Dubose included thermal treatment of waste oil, petroleum refining
wastes, oil-based solvents, and wood treatment wastes; steam heating of spent iron and pickle liquors; and rock salt
filtration of waste diesel fuel. During a remedial investigation (RI), soil at the site was found to be contaminated with
PAHs at concentrations ranging from 0.578 to 367 mg/kg total PAH, PCP ranging from 0.058 to 51 mg/kg, and VOCs
ranging from 0.022 to 38.27 mg/kg.
A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for this site in March 1990. Composting was selected in the ROD instead of
in situ biological treatment because it was identified as easier to control and more reliable, and because it was believed
that monitoring would be easier to perform. The composting system used at Dubose consisted of a treatment structure,
a leachate collection system, an aeration system, an inoculum growth and application system, and an on-site wastewater
treatment system. Contaminated soil was treated in batches, with each batch containing from 660 to 2,310 tons of soil.
For most of the batches, soil depth ranged from 4.0 to 4.25 feet. Composting activities were performed from May to
November 1993, and site restoration activities were completed by August 1996.
All 359 soil grids in the compost system met the soil cleanup goals established for Dubose. For total PAHs, before-
treatment concentrations ranged from 50.8 to 576.2 mg/kg, while after-treatment concentrations ranged from 3.3 to 49.9
mg/kg (average - 19 mg/kg). For PCP, before-treatment concentrations ranged from 7.67 to 160 mg/kg, while after-
treatment concentrations ranged from 16.5 to 36.3 mg/kg. The primary removal mechanism identified for VOCs in this
application was volatilization, while for PAHs it was bioremediation. Several lessons were learned about operation of
the composting system during this application. For example, the vendor indicated that applying an inoculum mixture
with a fire hose provided for adequate diffusion of soil moisture.
43
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page i of 29
[COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT |
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance data for a composting application at the Dubose Oil Products
Co. Superfund site, in Cantonment, Florida. Composting was used at the Dubose site to treat soil
contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenol (PCP), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, xylene, trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,2-dichloroethene
(DCE). The specific PAHs of interest at Dubose were acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b and k)fluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluorene, fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene,
and 2-methylnaphthalene.
The Dubose site is a former waste treatment, recycling, and disposal facility that operated from 1979 to
1981. Operations performed at Dubose included thermal treatment of waste oil, petroleum refining
wastes, oil-based solvents, and wood treatment wastes; steam heating of spent iron and pickle liquors;
and rock salt filtration of waste diesel fuel. During a remedial investigation (RI), soil at the site was
found to be contaminated with PAHs (total) at concentrations ranging from 0.578 to 367 mg/kg, PCP
ranging from 0.058 to 51 mg/kg, and VOCs ranging from 0.022 to 38.27 mg/kg.
A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for this site in March 1990. The ROD specified treatment of
contaminated soil using composting and identified numerical soil cleanup goals and leachate discharge
standards for the site. Composting was selected instead of in situ biological treatment because it was
identified as easier to control and more reliable, and because it was believed that monitoring would be
easier to perform and samples would be more representative. Composting was also believed to be
approximately equal in cost to in situ biological treatment. Soil cleanup goals included PAHs (total) - 50
mg/kg, PCP - 50 mg/kg, benzene - 10 mg/kg, xylenes (total) - 1.5 mg/kg, TCE - 0.05 mg/kg, and DCE -
0.07 mg/kg. Leachate discharge standards ranged from 1 to 50 \ig/L for the target
constituents/parameters.
The composting system used at Dubose consisted of a treatment structure, a leachate collection system,
an aeration system, an inoculum growth and application system, and an on-site wastewater treatment
system. Contaminated soil was treated in batches, with each batch containing from 660 to 2,310 tons of
soil. For most of the batches, soil depth ranged from 4.0 to 4.25 feet. Soil was aerated to maintain a
pore space oxygen content of approximately 20 percent, and inoculum was added over a period of two
days (typically), until the entire surface area of the soil was moistened. A moisture content of
approximately 15% and a carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio of 120:10:2 was maintained during the
application. Off-gasses collected by the aeration equipment were treated using granular activated carbon
(GAC) adsorbers prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Composting activities were performed from May
to November 1993, and site restoration activities were completed by August 1996.
Soil sampling and analysis were performed for each of 359 grids of soil treated, including analysis for
PAHs (total), PCP, and specific VOCs. Additional sampling and analysis were performed for leachate
contaminants, and for monitoring of contaminants in the ambient air. All soil grids met the soil cleanup
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
44
-------
j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
1 Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfijnd Site, Page ii of 29
goals established for Dubose. For total PAHs, before-treatment concentrations ranged from 50.8 to
576.2 mg/kg, while after-treatment concentrations ranged from 3.3 to 49.9 mg/kg (average - 19 mg/kg).
For PCP, before-treatment concentrations ranged from 7.67 to 160 mg/kg, while after-treatment
concentrations ranged from 16.5 to 36.3 mg/kg. The primary removal mechanism identified for PAHs in
this application was bioremediation; however, volatilization was identified as the primary mechanism for
removal of VOCs, either in handling or through the aeration system. In addition, PAHs and VOCs were
not measured in ambient air monitors at levels greater than their levels of concern for the application.
Actual costs of $7,736,700 were reported by the PRP Steering Committee's oversight contractor for this
application, including approximately $2.5 million for before-treatment activities and $5.25 million for
activities directly attributed to treatment. The $5.25 million expended for activities directly attributed to
treatment corresponds to $266 per ton of soil treated (19,705 tons). This cost is relatively high because
of the relatively large quantity of soil excavated (58,559 tons) but not further treated compared with the
amount of soil treated. Unit costs based on the amount of soil excavated would be approximately one-
third of $266, or $90 per ton of soil excavated. The application at Dubose was PRP-lead, and no
information is provided in the available references on the portion of the $5.25 million cost that represents
activities for excavation of less-contaminated soil that did not require further treatment in this
application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
45
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superflind Site, Page 1 of 29
| SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site
Cantonment, Florida
CERCLIS # FLD000833368
Action Memorandum Date: March 29, 1990
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with Application? Yes (See discussion under remedy selection)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with Application? No
Period of Operation: November 1993 - September 1994
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 19,705 tons of soil [31]
Background
Historical Activity that Contributed to Contamination at the Site: Waste storage, treatment,
recycling and disposal
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953 W (Waste processing facility, miscellaneous)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Waste Treatment Plant
Site History: [1,31]
The 20-acre Dubose Oil Products Company Superfund site (Dubose, or DOPC) is a former waste
storage, treatment, recycling, and disposal facility located approximately two miles west of
Cantonment, Florida, as shown in Figure 1. Site operations began in 1979, and included thermal
treatment of waste oil, petroleum refining wastes, oil-based solvents, and wood treatment wastes;
steam heating of spent iron and steel pickle liquors; and rock salt filtration of waste diesel fuel.
Site operations ceased hi 1981, and the site owner began closure of the site at that time. Closure
activities included excavation of buried drums, operation of an aeration system to remediate on-
site drainage ponds, and movement of contaminated material with heavy equipment. In March
1982, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now called the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection - FDEP) conducted an Interim Status Standards Compliance
Inspection at the site. In April and May 1982, EPA and FDEP sampled the site and found buried
metal objects, contaminated springs and leachate seeps, and an oil sheen on the North Pond.
In November 1984, FDEP directed an outside contractor (OH Materials Company) to excavate
an on-site pond and fill it with contaminated soils and sediments. Between November 1984 and
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
46
-------
' Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 2 of 29
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
May 1985, the contractor excavated an
area of the site and lined it with a 36
millimeter (mm) PVC liner. The
depression was filled with site soils to
approximately 20 feet above
surrounding grade and covered with a
30 mil PVC cover. An estimated
38,000 cubic yards of soil was placed in
the former pond area, referred to as the
soil "vault". The vault was
approximately 170 feet long by 170 feet
wide by 35 feet deep.
In October 1987, a consent agreement
was signed by FDEP and the DOPC
potentially responsible party (PRP)
steering committee (DOPCSC).
Following the consent agreement, the
PRP Steering Committee tasked a
consultant (Engineering-Science) to
conduct a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) for the site.
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site
Cantonment, Florida
Figure 1. Site Location
The RI was conducted in 1988, and revealed contamination above health-based levels in the
vault soils, shallow aquifer beneath the site, on-site surface water, and sediment. The RI
identified the primary contaminants of concern in the soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethene, benzene, toluene, and
xylenes and semivolatile organic compounds including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and phenols (e.g., pentachlorophenol, or PCP).
Regulatory Context: [1] A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for this site in March 1990.
The ROD identified remedial actions for this site, including:
Excavation of the top 20 feet of vault soils, shown in the RI to be uncontaminated, and
placement of those soils into a ravine area at the site;
Transformation of a hog barn area into a process area, and installation of a batch
bioremediation (composting) system at that location;
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
47
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 3 of 29
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Excavation of the remainder of the vault soils in separate batches, treatment of the
batches using bioremediation, followed by disposal in the ravine area;
Drainage and filling of the on-site ponds;
Placement of a 2-foot topsoil layer over the ravine and former pond area, grading and
vegetation;
Installation of surface water runoff controls to accommodate seasonal precipitation;
Groundwater monitoring;
Additional soil sampling during remedial design to confirm location of "hot spots" of
contaminated soil outside of the vault; and
Deed restrictions to preclude inappropriate future use.
The ROD identified numerical soil cleanup goals and leachate discharge standards for this site
(see discussion under treatment system performance).
Remedy Selection: [1,30, 31] Composting was selected as the remedy for the Dubose site from
10 alternatives. The ROD indicated that composting would be easier to control and more reliable
than in situ biological treatment. In addition, the ROD indicated that monitoring the
effectiveness of composting would be easier than for in situ treatment, because the mixing and
turning of soil piles will make the soil more homogeneous and soil grab samples more
representative. The ROD also indicated that composting would be approximately equal in cost
to in situ biological treatment.
As part of the RI, Engineering Science was tasked to conduct bench-scale treatability studies on
the effectiveness of biological remediation for on-site soils. Engineering Science conducted the
following four types of treatability studies using contaminated soil from the containment vault:
in-situ column, serum bottle, biometer, and mesocosm experiments. The mesocosm experiments
showed that composting could be used to reduce the concentrations of all contaminants of
concern at Dubose. [33]
Pilot-scale treatability testing was attempted six times during this project. However, soil
excavated for pilot-scale tests was found to contain too low a concentration of target compounds,
and no pilot-scale testing was completed.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
48
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 4 of 29 .
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Mark Fite
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8927
Treatment Vendor:
PRP Steering Committee Oversight Contractor:
Kenneth Stockwell
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
57 Executive Park South, N.E., Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30329-2265
(404)235-2351
David Price/Garland Long
Waste Abatement Technology, L.P. (WATEC)
1300 Williams Drive
Marietta, GA 30066
(770)427-1947
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
49
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 5 of 29
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: organic compounds - volatiles, halogenated; volatiles,
nonhalogenated (BTEX); semivolatiles, halogenated and semivolatiles, nonhalogenated (PAHs)
During the RI, analyses of 278 soil and sediment samples were made to determine the nature and
extent of contamination in the DOPC vault. Analysis of materials in the vault indicated a general
stratification of contaminants, with the highest concentration of volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds present at 25-30 feet below the top of the vault. Table 1 shows the range of
contaminants measured in the soil vault during the RI. In this application, total PAHs were
defined as the sum of the following 17 constituents: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno( 1,2,3-
cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, and 2-methylnaphthalane. [31]
Table 1. Range of Contaminants Measured in Soil Vault During RI [31]
Contaminant/Parameter
VOCs
Total PAHs
PCP
Range of Concentrations (mg/kg)
0.022 - 38.27
0.578 - 122.4
0.058-51
In addition, analyses of
soils outside the vault were
performed, and several
small areas of contaminated
soil were characterized,
including areas in the
western berm of the vault
and an on-site silo. The
maximum total PAH
concentration measured in
the soils outside the vault
was 367 mg/kg. [6,31]
Figure 2 shows the location
of the soil vault, western
berm and silo area "hot
spots" at the DOPC site.
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 2. Location of Soil Vault and Hot Spots at DOPC Site
[6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
50
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 6 of 29
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.) |
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology and the values
measured for each are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [17]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
pH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Moisture Content
. " " " Value; '
Not provided
Not provided
6.9 to 7.9
300 - 600 mg/kg
8%
- Measurement Method
-
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Measurement method not reported for this parameter because resulting value not expected to vary
among measurement methods.
Although detailed soil classifications and particle size distribution information is not provided in
the available references, the RPM indicated the soil was a Lakeland loamy sand. [32]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
51
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 7 of 29
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type; Composting
Supplemental Treatment Technology Type;
Post-treatment (air) - carbon adsorption; post-treatment (water) - chemical, filtration
Compost System Description and Operation
The composting system used at DOPC consisted of a treatment structure, a leachate collection
system, an aeration system, an inoculum growth and application system, and an on-site
wastewater treatment system. Soil was piled approximately 4.0 to 4.25 feet deep in the treatment
structure, and ambient air was drawn downward through the soil pile. A soil oxygen content of
approximately 20% was maintained for this application. The inoculum solution was prepared
using native soil microbes, and sprayed over the soil pile using a fire hose. Soil moisture was
maintained at approximately 15%.
Figure 3 shows the layout of the major equipment at the site, including the location of the soil
disposal area.
SECURITY
FENCE
I ._^/L INOCULUM GROWTH
^ -^___ I '** AND APPLICATION
~ J STORAGE AREA
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 3. Layout of Major Equipment at DOPC [6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
52
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superftmd Site, Page 8 of 29
(TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) Jjg:',:.. ,.! ;:: : ;,; ,,,;~~I|
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
System Design
Treatment Structure [17]
The treatment structure used at DOPC was a 33,000 square foot modular pre-engineered building
(approximately 220 by 150 feet) that included three separate units (bays) positioned side by side.
The structure was an aluminum I-beam frame structure with reinforced PVC fabric tensioned
between the beans. Figure 4 shows a side view of the treatment structure. This structure was
leased from Sprung Instant Structures of Fontana, California.
The floor of the structure was covered with a continuous 40 mm low density polyethylene
(LDPE) liner which was anchored on top of a continuous 4 foot high wall around the facility.
The wall inside of the structure was made of pressure treated lumber reinforced with welded wire
mesh.
ALUMINUM I-BEAM
FRAME
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 4. Side View of Treatment Structure [17]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 9 of 29 .
Leachate Collection System [17]
A leachate collection system was used to collect leachate generated from rainwater which blew
in from the sides of the open end structure, from excess inoculum mixture which leached out of
the soil, and from excess water draining from wet soil placed in the treatment structure.
The treatment structure was designed to incline east at a slope of 1%, and north at a slope of 1%,
such that leachate would collect at the northeast corner of the structure. To assist in leachate
collection, a composite drainage material was installed on top of the LDPE liner, consisting of a
high density polyethylene (HDPE) capillary grid with a continuous 6 ounce non-woven
geotextile attached to both sides. The geotextile acted as a fabric filter to keep solids out of the
capillary grid. Eighteen (18) inches of filter sand were placed on top of the composite drainage
materials to protect the liner and help leachate to drain to the collection system.
At the north end of the facility, a 2 foot deep by 2 foot wide leachate collection trench was
installed. This trench was filled with number 68 stone, and transported leachate by gravity along
the slope to the east end of the facility. Leachate was discharged from the trench to a concrete
sump, located outside of the structure, and from there pumped to an on-site wastewater treatment
system.
Aeration System [17, 32]
The aeration system used at DOPC, shown in Figure 5, pulled air through the soil placed inside
the treatment structure, and consisted of pipes and valves, a moisture separator, a blower unit,
and two vapor phase carbon vessels. This system also extracted VOCs from the soil.
Approximately 3,000 feet of aeration piping were installed throughout the treatment structure on
top of the composite drainage mat, and below the 18 inches of filter sand, as shown in Figure 6.
The pipes were 4-inch diameter perforated 3034 PVC wrapped in polyester pipe sock, and
spaced approximately 10 inches apart.
The blower unit used at DOPC was a 15 horsepower Rotron EN12 explosion proof regenerative
blower, which pulled approximately 300 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air at a vacuum at 80 to
90 inches of water.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
54
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 10 of 29
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) KftVr: ; ... |
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
LEACHATE COLLECTION TRENCH
AERATION PIPE IS 4' PERFORATED PVC WRAPPED IN
POLYESTER PIPE SOCK, EACH LEO INDEPENDENTLY
VALVED AND SPACED 10" APART
\
N
!
VAPOR PHASE
DRAINAGE TO /f CWKW ADSORPTION
LEACHATE SUMP CIO
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 5. Layout of Aeration System Used at DOPC (top view) [17]
Figure 5. Layout of Aeration System Used at DOPC [17]
4- it 4- POSTS -
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 6. Location of Aeration Piping at DOPC [17]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
55
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 11 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
The VOC-containing air discharged from the blower passed through two Carbtrol W-2 vapor
phase carbon adsorbers plumbed in parallel. Each of these units contained 300 pounds of
granular activated carbon (GAC) and were designed to treat a maximum air flow of 250 cfm.
According to WATEC, a total of 1,800 pounds of GAC were used in this application. VOCs in
the carbon exhaust were monitored daily, and carbon switchouts were made as appropriate to
avoid VOC breakthrough. WATEC reported that they had given consideration to recirculating
air from the carbon exhaust to the soil stockpile, but decided that the system was performing
adequately without doing so and therefore they chose to not perform recirculation.
Inoculum Growth and Application System [17,18]
The inoculum growth and application system consisted of two inoculum growth tanks, an
inoculum mixing tank, and a pump and fire hose for dispensing the mixture. A schematic of this
system is shown in Figure 7. Two 2,000-gallon polyethylene tanks were used to grow the
inoculum, using indigenous site soil, water, nutrients, and air. Indigenous site soil was found to
contain sufficient microbial activity to support the composting process. Inoculum was allowed
to grow for at least 7 days before use in the treatment structure.
The inoculum mixing tank was a 5,000-gallon polyethylene tank equipped with a Lightnin
Vector 1-1/2 horsepower high speed mixer operated at 750 rpm. A portion of the inoculum from
the growth tank was mixed with additional nutrients and water in this tank. The inoculum
mixture was pumped from the mixing tank using a Pulsafeeder centrifugal pump and a firehose
and nozzle at 20 gallons
per minute.
INOCULUM GROWTH TANK
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 7. Inoculum 'Growth and Application 'System Schematic
[17]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
56
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 12 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) JjjJBHMP^l _ .]
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
It was anticipated that a cometabolite (molasses) would need to be added to the mixture in this
tank to support the microbial population, however, this proved unnecessary. The treatment
vendor identified several possible reasons for this, including higher than expected soil TPH
concentrations, and smaller than expected concentrations of high ring contaminants and PCP.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment System [31]
The on-site wastewater treatment system consisted of the following components:
A 250,000-gallon influent storage tank;
A 6,000-gallon iron oxidation reactor tank and clarifier;
Two multimedia (gravel, garnet, sand, and anthracite) filters each rated at 50 gpm;
Two granular activated carbon (GAC) filters rated at 200 gpm and operated at 50 gpm to
provide an empty bed contact time of 25 minutes through each filter; and
A 10,000-gallon effluent storage tank.
System Operation F31]
Each of the three bays in the treatment structure was used as a treatment cell, and soil was treated
in each cell on a batch basis. A batch of soil contained between 660 and 2,310 tons of soil,
depending upon the size of the bay and the depth of the soil being treated. For most of the
batches, soil depth ranged from 4.0 to 4.25 feet.
Soil from the vault or other hot spots was transported to the treatment cells and spread in the cell.
The soil in the cell was then marked into 165 cubic yard grids. Each grid was sampled and
analyzed for VOCs, PCP, and PAHs. Grids that contained VOCs, PCP, or PAHs at
concentrations greater than the soil cleanup goals (see discussion under cleanup goals and
standards) were left in the treatment cell. Soil in grids that did not exceed any of the cleanup
goals was removed from the cell and transported to the soil disposal area, as shown in Figure 3.
Soil was moved in and out of the facility with a 2-1/2 or 4-1/2 yard rubber tire front end loader.
Of the 58,559 tons of soil excavated at the DOPC site, 19,705 tons were treated using the
composting system. The other 38,854 tons of soil excavated met the soil cleanup standards and
did not require treatment.
Aeration of the soil was accomplished using an aeration system sized to introduce a soil pore
volume once every 90 minutes, and to maintain a pore space oxygen content of approximately 20
percent. Air flow rate was maintained at between 250 and 300 cfrn for the application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
57
-------
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 13 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
Inoculation of the soil was performed by adding the inoculum mixture to the soil relatively
slowly, at about 20 gallons per minute and continued until the entire surface area of the cell was
moistened. Generally, a batch was inoculated over a period of two days to provide time for the
water to soak into the soil, while minimizing surface puddling or runoff. A soil moisture content
of approximately 15% and a carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio of 120:10:2 was maintained
during this application.
Leachate collected from the soil was treated in the on-site wastewater treatment system to
remove excess nutrients and other contaminants.
Early in the project, the treatment vendor was concerned that simply applying the inoculum
mixture to the top of the soil mass with a fire hose may not allow for adequate diffusion of soil
moisture to the bottom of the soil mass. To address this concern, they conducted a field pilot test
of the soil moisture in a batch at various depths before and after application. The test showed
that after 24 hours, soil moisture was relatively homogenous (plus or minus 2 percent)
throughout the soil mass, and that there was adequate diffusion of moisture throughout the soil
mass.
Disposition of Treated Soil [31]
According to the PRP steering committee oversight contractor, the composting system treated all
soil batches to the cleanup levels within 14 to 30 days. In addition, the contractor stated that
88% of the soil was
treated to meet the
cleanup goals within
14 days; however, no
data supporting this
percentage are
provided in the
available references.
As shown in Figure 8,
contaminated soil was
transported from the
soil vault or other hot
spot to the treatment
structure. Treated
soil was then
transported to an on-
site soil disposal area.
SCALE NOT AVAILABLE
Figure 8. Schematic Showing Movement of Soil [18]
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
58
-------
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Compost System Description and Operation (cont.)
. Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 14 of 29
System Shutdown
After all soil piles were treated to meet the cleanup standards, the treated soil was sampled and
excavated, piping and liner materials were removed, and the soil beneath the liner was sampled
to verify that contaminants had not migrated beneath the liner. The excavation was then
backfilled with treated soils (which had been stored in the ravine area at the site) to above grade,
and a limited quantity of topsoil was placed on top of the excavation. The site was graded,
erosion control measures were installed, and vegetation was applied. The ROD had required
Dubose to apply two feet of topsoil over all the excavation, however, the actual quantity of
topsoil applied was less than two feet. It is not known if this difference in topsoil quantity had
any affect on vegetation growth. No information was provided in the available references on
why the actual quantity used differed from the ROD specification.
Health and Safety [32]
All work at the site was performed using Level B personal protective equipment (e.g., supplied
air respiration). The vendor monitored work zone and breathing zone ambient air contaminants
throughout the remediation, and reportedly never identified any elevated concentrations that
would have required them to implement their contingency plan.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the values
measured for each are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Operating Parameters [3, 17, 18, 31]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
pH
Residence Time
Temperature
Oxygen Uptake Rate
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Soil Amendments
Soil Loading Rate
Soil Oxygen Content
Value
250 to 300 cfin
No mixing in compost pile
15%
6.9 to 7.9
14 to 30 days/batch
ambient
not measured
not measured
C:N:P:120:10:2
660 to 2,3 10 tons/batch
soil depth 4.0 to 4.25 feet
approximately 20% (one soil
volume every 90 minutes)
Measurement Method
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
not available
N/A
N/A
N/A - Measurement method not reported for this parameter because resulting value not expected to vary
among measurement methods.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
59
-------
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 15 of 29
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [1, 31,32]
Start Date
January 1979
March 1982
November 1984
June 1986
October 1987
February 1988
March 1990
May 1993
November 1993
September 1994
August 19, 1996
September 1996
End Date
November 1981
May 1982
May 1985
-
-
October 1988
-
November 1993
September 1994
August 1, 1996
-
-
Activity
Waste storage, treatment, recycling, and disposal facility operated
by DOPC
EPA and FDEP inspect and sample site
Contaminated soil excavated and placed in on-site vault
DOPC listed on NPL
Consent agreement reached by FDEP and DOPCSC
Remedial investigation performed
ROD signed
Site preparation activities performed
Soil vault excavation and treatment activities performed
Site restoration and remediation facilities demolition performed
Final site inspection performed.
Final Remedial Action Report issued (approved February 1997)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
60
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfiind Site, Page 16 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The ROD identified soil cleanup goals and leachate discharge cleanup standards for total PAHs,
PCP, total xylenes, benzene, TCE, and DCE, as shown in Table 5. [1]
Table 5. Cleanup Goals and Standards [1]
^
Constituent/Parameter ,
Total Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Total Xylenes
Benzene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
1,1-Dichloroethene (DCE)
Soil Cleanup Goal
(rag/kg)
50
50
1.5
10
0.050
0.070
Leachate Discharge
\ Standard (ng/L)
10
30
50
1
3
7
Additional Information on Goals
Cleanup goals for constituents/parameters in the soil were based on either leaching potential or
health-based criteria, as follows [1]:
Leaching potential: Total PAHs, total xylenes, TCE, and DCE.
Health-based criteria: PCP and benzene.
Treatment Performance Data
As discussed under treatment system description, soil placed in the treatment cells was divided
into grids, then analyzed to determine if the grid contained levels of constituents of concern
above the cleanup goals. Only soil in grids where the contaminants exceeded the cleanup goals
was treated. Treatment performance data consist of soil samples for 286 grids of soil from the
soil vault, 68 grids of soil from the west berm, and 5 grids of soil from the silo (359 grids total),
and air emission samples at and near the perimeter of the site.
Soil Samples F31.321
A total of 359 grid samples were analyzed for benzene, DCE, TCE, total xylenes, PCP, and total
PAHs. Of the 359 grids, 56 (16%) contained total PAHs at concentrations greater than the
cleanup goal (50 mg/kg) and 102 contained VOCs, primarily xylenes, in excess of the VOC
cleanup goals. The 56 grids exceeding the total PAH cleanup goal contained 8,783 tons of soil.
Table 6 shows the grid number and contaminant concentrations before- and after-treatment for
the 56 grids that exceeded the total PAH cleanup goal. The 102 grids exceeding the cleanup goal
for VOCs contained 10,922 tons of soil. Thus, 19,705 tons of soil (8,783 tons for PAHs and
10,922 tons for VOCs) required treatment.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
61
-------
r
Dubosc Oil Products Co. Supcrfund Site, Page 17 of 29
Table 6. Before- and After-Treatment Concentrations for 56 of 359 Grids [31]*
Grid No.
UVS
LVS
Cleanup Goal
118
133
137
138
148
151
163
164
165
167
168
169
171
175
188
192
198
202
219
221
224
226
233
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
WB14
013
024
036
025
026
035
029
030
031
032
037
038
034
040
042
044
048
052
066
067
068
069
072
074
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
083
102
Btfore-Trcataitnt Coneentrttiwns (me/kg)
Total
PAH*
50
59.02
63.2
67.7
51.7
543
63.9
55.6
61.4
53.3
122.2
73.2
123.4
58.0
59.7
57.0
51.7
53.0
109.2
52.5
59.7
84.3
53.6
106.3
96.0
60.8
132.1
222.6
78.0
232.50
73.6
111.1
62.0
246.2
105.7
PCP
50
7.67
43.3
26
17.9
31.1
29.7
92.7
104.6
Total
Xylcnes
1.5
21.6
1.4
1.4
0.47
0.19
0.45
6.36
10.9
4.0
0.15
0.41
0.29
58.6
5.8
0.07
0.68
11.1
17.4
4.00
5.31
5.43
11.9
0.97
48.9
5.70
15.5
69.5
0.18
22.5
17.1
23.5
24.5
13.9
Benzene
10
0.05
0.3
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.50
TCE
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.0
0.05
0.47
0.07
0.14
DCE
0.07
After-Trwtoent Concentrates (rag/kg)
Total
PAHs
SO
19.8
15.1
11.1
9.2
11.1
18.0
24.5
32.6
22.2
4.1
13.1
31.1
21.5
3.9
35.1
17.5
3.3
27.6
15.6
5.6
3.3
28.5
15.6
49.9
30.2
15.5
18.0
12.6
15.7
PCP
50
22.3
21.1
18.6
17.9
Total
Xylenes
1.5
0.40
0.2
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.13
0.4
0.26
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.13
1.05
0.36
0.53
0.09
0.65
0.11
0.65
0.04
0.03
0.14
0.10
Benzene
10
0.03
TCE
0.05
0.01
0.04
DCE
0.07
is)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 18 of 29
Table 6 (Continued)
Grid No,
UVS
LVS
Cleanup Goal
WB16
251
255
256
258
259
260
261
263
266
267
268
273
274
275
281
282
286
WB29"
WB40
WB41
WB43
103
086
089
090
091
092
093
094
096
099
100
101
106
107
108
111
112
116
118
120
121
122
Before-Treatment Concentrations (mg/kg)
Total
,ฅAHs
50
55.1
175.3
60.1
78.7
61.2
576.2
66
119.2
66.5
117.2
68.0
297.7
50.8
51.9
139.1
186.8
101.3
76.4
69.9
166.6
200.3
191.6
POP
SO
20.1
27.0
17.3
97.4
100
44.6
16.8
160
Total
, Xylenes
1.5
0.30
4.12
0.420
2.50
22.5
16.6
10.9
28.5
9.0
0.44
0.64
44
1.05
8.0
24.2
29.4
16.8
21.1
0.33
0.49
2.03
Benzene
10
0.02
TCE
0.05
0.25
0.80
0.01
' DOE*
a i \
0.07
' After-Treatment Concentrations (mg/kg) f
Total K
PAHs
50
3.8
4.5
26.9
36.3
23.1
49.9
25.4
21.9
15.5
13.4
18.6
44.5
4.2
POP ,
50
16.5
36.3
Total,
Xylenes
1.5
0.16
0.13
0.57
0.05
0.95
0.56
0.76
0.455
0.49
0.56
.Benzene
10
TCE ,
0.05
DCE
1
0.07
o\
This table shows analytical results only for the 56 of 359 grids that contained total PAHs at concentrations exceeding the cleanup goal (50 mg/kg). UVS means upper vault samples and LVS means
lower vault samples. Where no data are shown (blanks in table), analytical result was below detection limit.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 19 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
The treatment vendor calculated the average concentrations for 17 PAHs measured in grids 101
through 221 before-treatment and after 14 days of treatment. The average concentrations for
these constituents in grids that required treatment are shown in Table 7. In addition, for grids
101 through 221, which consisted of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil, the treatment
vendor estimated that 9,900 cubic yards (50%) required treatment, including 2,970 cubic yards
(15%) for total PAHs and 6,930 cubic yards (35%) for VOCs.
The treatment vendor indicated that, while the primary removal mechanism for PAHs was
bioremediation, the primary removal mechanism for VOCs was volatilization, either in handling
or through the aeration system. Before- and after-treatment data for the 102 grids exceeding the
cleanup goal for VOCs are not presented in this report because the vendor believes these
constituents were removed through volatilization rather than bioremediation.
According to the RPM, the soil was handled at least twice before undergoing composting, and
there may have been some limited amount of fugitive losses during such handling. However, no
data were collected to evaluate potential fugitive losses. In addition, work zone and breathing
zone ambient air monitoring data for VOCs was collected throughout the remediation. These
data never triggered the requirement to implement a contingency plan which would have had to
be implemented if elevated concentrations were identified. The only contaminants measured in
the ambient monitoring system were phenanthrene and naphthalene, and these contaminants
were measured at concentrations less than their contingency levels. During aeration, all VOCs
extracted from the soil were treated using the GAC system prior to release to the atmosphere.
Air Emission Samples T311
Air emission samples were collected at four air monitoring stations, each consisting of a volatile
organic sampler (Xontech sampler) and a semi-volatile sampler (PS-1). Air monitoring was
planned as a contingency measure in the event of a release or suspected release of airborne
contaminants, and for monthly documentation during soil excavation/ transport activities.
No contingency monitoring was required by events occurring during the project. Monthly
monitoring was performed over nine 24-hour periods when contaminated soil
excavation/transport activities were underway.
According to the DOPCSC oversight contractor, analytical results of the air emission samples
indicated all contaminants of concern were present at levels below levels of concern. These data
are not provided in the available references, but are available in the detailed files for the project.
[34]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
64
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 20 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 7. Soil Treatment Results for Individual PAHs [18]'
. Constituent
/
' 3~?
Average Concentration in Soil
Before Treatment (rag/kg) -
/Average" Concentration in Soil
After 14 Days of Treatment
; , :(mfg/kg) -
Two-Ring PAHs
Naphthalene
2-Methyl Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
1.48
1.11
BDL
4.15
BDL
0.26
BDL
0.74
Three-Ring PAHs
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
5.2
16.5
26.4
0.89
3.6
7.94
Four- and Five-Ring PAHs
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
9.56
5.52
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.28
4.35
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
'This table shows average concentrations for only those grids within grid numbers 101 through 221 that required
treatment for PAHs.
BDL - Below Detection Limit.
Performance Data Assessment
As discussed under treatment performance data, 56 of the 359 soil grids excavated at the DOPC
site (corresponding to 8,763 of 58,559 tons of soil) required treatment for total PAHs. The
analytical data for these soil grids summarized in Table 6 show that before-treatment
concentrations of total PAHs ranged from 50.8 mg/kg to 576.2 mg/kg, with 21 of the 56 grids
containing total PAHs at concentrations more than twice the soil cleanup goal for total PAHs (50
mg/kg). The after-treatment concentration data shown in Table 6 indicate that all 56 grids met
the soil cleanup goals for total PAHs, PCP, total xylenes, benzene, TCE, and DCE. Total PAHs
in the 56 treated soil grids ranged from 3.3 mg/kg to 49.9 mg/kg, and the average concentration
of total PAHs in the treated soil was 19 mg/kg.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
65
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 21 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
In addition, for these 56 soil grid samples, PCP before-treatment concentrations ranged from
7.67 mg/kg to 160 mg/kg, and after-treatment concentrations ranged from 16.5 mg/kg to 36.3
mg/kg; total xylenes before-treatment concentrations ranged from 0.07 mg/kg to 69.5 mg/kg, and
after treatment concentrations from 0.03 mg/kg to 1.05 mg/kg; and TCE before-treatment
concentrations ranged from 0.01 mg/kg to 1.0 mg/kg, and after treatment concentrations from
0.01 mg/kg to 0.04 mg/kg. Benzene and DCE were not measured at concentrations greater than
their soil cleanup goals in these 56 grids.
Analytical data for individual PAHs shown in Table 7 indicate that the majority of PAHs
measured at detectable concentrations in the soil in grid numbers 101 through 221 before
treatment were two- and three-ring constituents. Six of the seven two- and three-ring PAHs
shown in Table 7 had detectable concentrations before treatment, averaging up to 26.4 mg/kg for
anthracene (a three-ring PAH), while only two of the ten four- and five-ring PAHs had detectable
concentrations. Also as shown in Table 7, two- and three-ring PAHs showed approximately 80%
reduction in average concentration after 14 days of treatment for these grids, while four- and
five-ring PAHs showed less than 50% reduction in average concentration over the same time
period.
Before- and after-treatment data for the 102 grids exceeding the cleanup goal for VOCs are not
presented in this report because the vendor believes these constituents were removed through
volatilization rather than bioremediation.
Performance Data Completeness
Treatment performance data are available to characterize the before- and after-treatment
concentrations for total PAHs, PCP, total xylenes, benzene, TCE, and DCE in the soil excavated
at the DOPC site; and the range of operating parameters monitored in this application. In
addition, the PRP steering committee oversight contractor reported that air emission monthly
monitoring samples are available for nine 24-hour periods during excavation/transport activities.
No data are available to link specific operating parameters with treatment performance data for
individual batches (e.g., residence time, application of inoculum).
Performance Data Quality
The treatment vendor performed extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
procedures as part of this remedial activity. QA/QC procedures included development of a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP - Ref. 12), use of standard EPA analytical procedures,
such as SW-846 Method 8270 for PAHs and PCP and 8010/8020 for VOCs, and use of trip
blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. No exceptions to the QA/QC
procedures were noted by the vendor for this treatment application. [31]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
66
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 22 of 29
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The PRP Steering Committee selected WATEC as the remedial action treatment vendor and
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. as the oversight contractor. WATEC designed, constructed,
and operated the composting process at the DOPC site, and Parsons performed oversight
activities, including sample collection and analysis, and preparation of a remedial action report.
No information is provided in the available references on the competitive nature of the two
procurements; how many bids were provided for each function; or what was the basis for
contractor selection.
Treatment System Cost
Actual costs of $7,736,700 were reported by the PRP steering committee's oversight contractor
for this application, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 shows the specific activity and corresponding
cost as reported by the oversight contractor.
Table 8. Costs Reported by PRP Steering Committee [31]
; Activity
Oversight by PRP Group
Remedial design
RI/FS
North pond effluent
Vault and north pond dike
Air monitoring
Groundwater and surface water monitoring
Site security fencing
Vault cover replacement
Repair of north pond dike
Miscellaneous (accounting, hog barn demolition,
entrance road construction, tire disposal)
O&M of leachate treatment
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition and
Removal
Remedial action/construction
DOPCSC remedial action oversight
TOTAL
Actual Cost ($) ,
17,500
820,000
940,000
18,500
5,000
57,200
450,000
9,300
35,500
18,600
46,600
42,500
26,000
4,780,000
470,000
7,736,700
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
67
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 23 of 29
| TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)|
Cost Data Quality
The costs for specific activities shown in Table 8 represent actual costs for those activities as
reported by the PRP steering committee oversight contractor. No information was contained in
the available references on the components of these specific activities, or the costs for those
components (e.g., for the $4.78 million expended on remedial action/construction).
VendorInput
WATEC reported that a performance-based specification would be better suited for these types
of projects. They reported that the design package on which they bid was not subsequently
implemented, and that such changes would be accommodated more easily with a performance-
based specification. [32]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 24 of 29
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Actual costs of $7,736,700 were reported by the PRP Steering Committee's oversight
contractor for this application including $4,780,000 for remedial action/construction
activities.
Costs included the following WBS cost elements: mobilization and preparatory work,
monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis, site work, surface water collection and
control, drums/tanks/structures/miscellaneous demolition and removal, and operation
(short-term, up to 3 years).
Based on the cost information provided by the PRP, costs for activities directly attributed
to treatment could not be separated from before- and after-treatment costs, and therefore
unit costs for activities directly attributed to treatment were not calculated or available
for this application. The cost of $4,780,000 provided by the PRP includes costs for
excavation, storage, sampling, and analysis, which are considered before-treatment cost
elements, costs for disposal, which is considered an after-treatment cost element, as well
as costs directly attributed to treatment. No information was provided to disaggregate
the remedial action/construction cost into discernible costs and activities.
The RPM for this application expressed a preference for contracts which allow for
flexibility in remedial design, stating that the use of a flexible design including
temporary treatment structures in this application resulted in significant cost savings.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Soil cleanup goals for all 19,705 tons of soil treated at the DOPC site were met in this
application. Of the 58,559 tons excavated, 19,705 tons required treatment because one
or more constituents were measured at concentrations greater than the cleanup goals,
including 8,783 tons containing total PAHs at concentrations greater than the cleanup
goals, and 10,922 tons containing VOCs (primarily xylenes).
The analytical data for the 8,763 tons of soil that required treatment for total PAHs
(corresponding to 56 sampling grids) indicate that before-treatment concentrations of
total PAHs ranged from 50.8 mg/kg to 576.2 mg/kg, with 21 of the 56 grids containing
total PAHs at concentrations more than twice the soil cleanup goal for total PAHs (50
mg/kg). Total PAHs in the 56 grids after treatment ranged from 3.3 mg/kg to 49.9
mg/kg, and the average concentration of total PAHs in the treated soil was 19 mg/kg.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
69
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 25 of 29
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
For these 56 soil grid samples, PCP before-treatment concentrations ranged from 7.67
mg/kg to 160 mg/kg, and after-treatment concentrations ranged from 16.5 mg/kg to 36.3
mg/kg; total xylenes before-treatment concentrations ranged from 0.07 mg/kg to 69.5
mg/kg, and after treatment concentrations from 0.03 mg/kg to 1.05 mg/kg; and TCE
before-treatment concentrations ranged from 0.01 mg/kg to 1.0 mg/kg, and after
treatment concentrations from 0.01 mg/kg to 0.04 mg/kg. Benzene and DCE were not
measured at concentrations greater than their soil cleanup goals in these 56 grids.
Analytical data for individual PAHs indicate that the majority of PAHs measured at
detectable concentrations in approximately one-third of the grid samples before
treatment were two- and three-ring constituents. Six of the seven two- and three-ring
PAHs had detectable concentrations before treatment, averaging up to 26.4 mg/kg for
anthracene (a three-ring PAH), while only two of the ten four- and five-ring PAHs had
detectable concentrations.
Analytical data indicated that two- and three-ring PAHs showed approximately 80%
reduction in average concentration after 14 days of treatment, while four- and five-ring
PAHs showed less than 50% reduction in average concentration over the same time
period.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The primary removal mechanism for VOCs was volatilization, either in handling or
through the induced draft aeration system, and the primary removal mechanism for
PAHs was bioremediation. In addition, according to the treatment vendor, no VOCs or
PAHs were detected in the leachate at the influent to the wastewater treatment facility,
indicating that contaminants were not "washed" from the soil in this application.
According to the RPM, the soil was handled at least twice before undergoing
composting, and there may have been some limited amount of fugitive losses during
such handling. However, no data were collected to evaluate potential fugitive losses,
and work zone and breathing zone ambient air monitoring data for VOCs collected
throughout the remediation never triggered Dubose to implement their contingency plan.
The only contaminants identified in the ambient monitoring system were phenanthrene
and naphthalene, and these contaminants were measured at concentrations less than their
contingency levels.
The composting system treated soil to the cleanup levels within 14 to 30 days on a batch
basis. The overall process of excavating and treating soil at the DOPC site was
completed within a 10 month period.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
70
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 26 of 29
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Other Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
A co-metabolite was not required to be used for inoculum growth in this application,
contrary to the original plan. The treatment vendor identified several possible reasons
for this, including higher than expected soil TPH concentrations, and smaller than
expected concentrations of high-ring contaminants and PCP.
The treatment vendor found that applying the inoculum mixture to the top of the soil
mass with a fire hose was adequate for maintaining the moisture content of the soil mass.
A field pilot test showed that soil moisture was relatively homogeneous throughout the
soil mass (plus or minus 2 percent) within 24 hours after inoculum application.
The treatment vendor identified several items that required unexpected maintenance
during system operation, including the moisture separator and the aeration piping. The
quantity of rain experienced during this application exceeded original predictions, and
the moisture separator capacity was frequently exceeded. The vendor modified the
operation of the moisture separator during the application by installing a control panel
and automatic drain so the unit would drain and re-start automatically. Also, some of the
aeration piping occasionally was crushed, because of the relatively thin layer of sand
protecting the piping and the use of heavy equipment in the treatment structure.
The RPM noted a problem with planting grass as the final cover over this site, saying
that the treated soil was not supporting the growth of Bahia grass, and that there was a
need to place topsoil over the treated soil before planting grass.
I REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Superfund Record of Decision: Dubose Oil Products Co., Cantonment, FL, ROD ID
#EPA/ROD/R04-90/071, March 29, 1990.
Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume I - Specifications,
for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. February 1993.
Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume II - Cleanup Goal
Verification Plan, for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. February
1993.
Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume III - Air
Monitoring Plan, for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. February
1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
71
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfiind Site, Page 27 of 29
Hi REFERENCES (CONT.)
5. Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume IV - State and
Local Permit Plan, for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. January
1993.
6. Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume V - Health and
Safety Plan, for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. January 1993.
7. Plans and Specifications for the Remedial Action Final (100 Percent), Volume VI - Contingency
Plan, for the Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science. February 1993.
8. Site Specific Safety, Health, and Emergency Response Plan, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products
Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science,
Inc. Waste Abatement Technology, L.P. June 1993.
9. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site,
Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. June 1993.
10. Construction Staging Plan, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC
Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement Technology, L.P. June
1993.
11. Excavation Plan for Waste Material Silo Hot Spot Excavation, and Vault Excavation to Recover
Treatability Test Soil, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, for
DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement Technology, L.P.
July 1993.
12. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 2, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment,
Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement
Technology, L.P. September 1993.
13. Excavation Plan for Waste Material, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site,
Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. October 1993.
14. Plan for Demobilization of Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant, Dubose Oil Products Company
Site, Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. October 1993.
15. Wastewater Sampling and Analysis Plan, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site,
Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. December 1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
72
-------
1 Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Page 28 of 29
REFERENCES (CONT.)
16. Soil Sampling and Analysis Plan, Revision 2, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment,
Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement
Technology, L.P. December 1993.
17. Operation and Maintenance Manual fqr Soil Bio-Treatment, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products
Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science,
Inc. Waste Abatement Technology, L.P. March 1994.
18. Bio-Remediation Documentation Report, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site,
Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. June 1994.
19. Pond Dewatering Plan, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, for
DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement Technology, L.P.
July 1994.
20. Bio-Treatment Facility Decommissioning Plan, Revision 1, Dubose Oil Products Company Site,
Cantonment, Florida, for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste
Abatement Technology, L.P. August 1994.
21. Final Site Grading Plan, Revision 2, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida,
for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement Technology,
L.P. August 1994.
22. Dubose Oil Products Company Site Monthly Progress Report, for Dubose Oil Products Company
Site. Engineering-Science, Inc. September 1994.
23. Final Site Grading Plan, Revision 3, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida,
for DOPC Steering Committee and Engineering-Science, Inc. Waste Abatement Technology,
L.P. November 1994.
24. Analytical Reports, for WATEC. ATEC Associates, Inc.
25. Analytical Results, Dubose Oil Products Company Site. Engineering-Science, Inc. December
1993.
26. Analytical Reports, for WATEC. ATEC Associates, Inc.
27. Analytical Reports, for WATEC. ATEC Associates, Inc.
28. Analytical Reports, for WATEC. ATEC Associates, Inc.
29. Notes from telephone conversation, Linda Fiedler, EPA/TIO, and Mark Fite, RPM, May 3, 1995.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
73
-------
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfimd Site, Page 29 of 29
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
I REFERENCES (CONT.)
Meeting Notes. Meeting on 9/25/95 between Tim McLaughlin, Radian Corporation, and Mark
Fite, RPM.
Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida - Draft Remedial Action Report,
Prepared for Dubose Oil Products Company Steering Committee, Prepared by Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, July 1995.
Comments provided by Mark Fite, RPM (by telephone), to Richard Weisman, Radian, February
27, 1997.
Material concerning Treatability Study, provided by Mark Fite, RPM, March 4, 1997.
Remedial Action Report, Dubose Oil Products Company Site, Cantonment, Florida, prepared by
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., September 1996.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian International under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No. DACA45-96-D-0016.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
74
-------
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood
Preserving Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi
75
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi
Site Name:
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site
Location:
Canton, Mississippi
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
- Total PAH concentrations approximately
4,000 mg/kg
- Total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
ranged from approximately 1,000-2,500
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
1991-1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendon
Douglas E. Jerger/Pat Woodhull
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
16406 U.S. Route 224 East
P.O. Box 551
Findlay, OH 45840
(419) 425-6175
SIC Code:
2491 B (Wood Preserving using
Creosote)
Technology:
Slurry Phase Bioremediation
- System included a power screen, slurry mix
tank, 4 bioreactors, and dewatering unit
- Bioreactors were 38 ft diameter and 24 ft
high, and equipped with diffusers and a
blower for aeration, and an impeller for
mixing and suspension
- Each bioreactor had a 180,000 gal capacity
- 61 batches were treated, with each batch
consisting of 160-180 yd3 of material
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Action Memorandum Date
9/30/90
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
R. Donald Rigger
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3931
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process/Surface
Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application of slurry phase
bioremediation to treat soil with
relatively elevated levels of PAHs
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 14,140 tons (10,500 cubic yards) total
- Clay: 55%; sand: 40%; and gravel: 5%
- Various types of debris were present in the excavated materials
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 16 specific constituents) less than 950 mg/kg
- Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)-equivalent carcinogenic PAHs less than 180 mg/kg
- Cleanup goals based on an LDR treatability variance
Results:
- Cleanup goal met for total and B(a)P-equivalent PAHs
- Average total PAH concentrations reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg
- Average B(a)P-equivalent PAH concentrations reduced from 467 to 152 mg/kg
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $2,900,000 included treatment, design engineering, treatability, and pilot-scale testing
- Of this total, approximately $2,400,000 were for activities directly attributed to treatment
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $170/ton
76
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi (Continued)
Description:
The Southeastern Wood site was the location of a creosote wood preserving facility that operated from 1928 to 1979,
and included three unlined wastewater treatment surface impoundments. Bottom sediment sludge from the
impoundments was found to contain PAHs at levels of approximately 4,000 mg/kg, and was identified as a RCRA K001-
listed hazardous waste. PAH concentrations measured included acenaphthene at 705 mg/kg, naphthalene at 673 mg/kg,
and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) at 224 mg/kg.
A slurry phase bioremediation system was operated at Southeastern Wood from July 1991 until 1994, and consisted of a
power screen, a slurry mix tank, four slurry phase bioremediation reactors (bioreactors), and a slurry dewatering unit.
The bioreactors were 38 feet in diameter and 24 feet in height, and were equipped with a blower for aeration and an
impeller for mixing and keeping the slurry in suspension. The bioreactors were operated on a batch basis, and each
batch was monitored during treatment to evaluate performance with respect to the cleanup goals. Treatment
performance data are available for 13 of the 61 bioreactor batches, and show that the average total PAH concentration
was reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg, which corresponds to a treatment efficiency of 93 percent. The average B(a)P-
equivalent concentration was reduced from 467 to 152 mg/kg, or 67 percent.
This application showed that treatment efficiency was greater for PAH constituents with 2-4 rings, and lower for PAHs
with 5-6 rings. The design of the treatment process was modified significantly from the original plans, including addition
of a desanding process. Operating problems identified in this application included foam production in the bioreactors,
and achievability of LDR treatment standards (which lead to a need for a treatability variance).
77
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page i of 27
| COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT |
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance data for a slurry phase bioremediation application at
the Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund site, in Canton, Mississippi. Slurry phase
bioremediation was used at the Southeastern Wood site to treat soil and sludge contaminated
with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including acenaphthene, acenaphthylene,
anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b and k)fluoranthenes, benzo(ghi)perylene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno( 1,2,3-
cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.
The Southeastern Wood site was the location of a creosote wood preserving facility that operated
from 1928 to 1979, and included three unlined wastewater treatment surface impoundments.
Bottom sediment sludge from the impoundments was found to contain PAHs at levels of
approximately 4,000 mg/kg, and was identified as a RCRA KOOl-listed hazardous waste. PAH
concentrations measured included acenaphthene at 705 mg/kg, naphthalene at 673 mg/kg, and
benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) at 224 mg/kg.
The application at Southeastern Wood was completed as a removal action, under an action
memorandum signed in September 1990. A slurry phase bioremediation system was operated
from July 1991 until 1994, and consisted of a power screen, a slurry mix tank, four slurry phase
bioremediation reactors (bioreactors), and a slurry dewatering unit. The bioreactors were 38 feet
in diameter and 24 feet in height, and were equipped with a blower for aeration and an impeller
for mixing and keeping the slurry in suspension. Cleanup goals for this application were
developed based on the results of laboratory and field pilot tests and a site-specific health-based
risk analysis, and consisted of the following: total PAHs - 950 mg/kg, and B(a)P-equivalent
PAHs - 180 mg/kg. These goals were provided in an LDR treatability variance for this
application.
The bioreactors were operated on a batch basis, and each batch was monitored during treatment
to evaluate performance with respect to the cleanup goals. Treatment performance data are
available for 13 of the 61 bioreactor batches, and show that the average total PAH concentration
was reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg, which corresponds to a treatment efficiency of 93
percent. The average B(a)P-equivalent concentration was reduced from 467 to 152 mg/kg, or 67
percent. The analytical data indicate that the majority of biodegradation occurred during the first
5 to 10 days of treatment, and the cleanup goal for total PAHs was met for 12 of the 13 batches
within approximately 19 days of treatment.
Approximately $2,900,000 were expended in this application, consisting of $2,400,000 for
activities directly attributed to treatment (mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, and
operation), and $500,000 for after-treatment activities (site restoration). The cost for activities
directly attributed to treatment corresponds to $170 per ton ($230 per cubic yard) of soil and
sludge treated (14,140 tons, or 10,500 cubic yards).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
78
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 1 of 27
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site
Canton, Mississippi
CERCLIS # MSD0008258558
Action Memorandum Date: 9/30/90
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Removal
Treatability Study Associated with Application? Yes
(see additional information under Background and Operation below)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with Application? No
Period of Operation: 1991-1994
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 14,140 tons (10,500 cubic yards) of soil
and sludge
Background
Historical Activity that Contributed to
Contamination at the Site: Creosote wood
preserving
Corresponding SIC Code: 2491B (Wood
Preserving Using Creosote)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to
Contamination: Manufacturing Process, Surface
Impoundment/Lagoon
Site History:
The Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site
is an abandoned wood preserving facility located in
Canton, Mississippi, as shown in Figure 1. The
facility was used for creosote wood preserving
activities between 1928 and 1979. In 1986, EPA
initiated an emergency response action at the site to
stabilize three unlined surface impoundments
which were overflowing.
The impoundments were dewatered and bottom
sediment sludge was excavated and stabilized using
approximately 70 cubic yards of cement kiln dust.
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site
Canton, Mississippi
Figure 1. Site Location [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
79
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 2 of 27
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Excavation was based on a visual assessment of contamination. EPA sampled this material in
April 1989, and found it to be contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), at
levels of approximately 4,000 mg/kg, as shown in Table 1. The contaminated material from the
lagoon was classified as a RCRA K001-listed hazardous waste (bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processes which used creosote). The excavated
material was stockpiled on site for further treatment. [1, 2, 12]
Regulatory Context: This application was conducted as part of a removal action at the site.
Cleanup goals were developed based on the results of bench-scale and field pilot studies using
bioremediation and a site-specific health-based risk analysis.
Remedy Selection: Slurry-phase bioremediation was selected for this application on the basis of
cost. In addition, slurry-phase bioremediation was identified as preferable to land treatment
because it was believed to treat the soil in a shorter period of time and to achieve lower
concentrations in the residual soil. [4,9]
Table 1. Concentrations of PAHs in Excavated Material* [12]
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Concentration (mg/kg)
705
78.8
2.44
496
513
9.8
224
305
27.05
419
32.2
64.1
673
266
ND (0.36)
3,815
ND - Not detected. Value in parentheses is the reported detection limit.
*SampIe collected April 4,1989.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
80
-------
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 3 of 27
I'"Ml iiiiwii
Site Management: Fund-Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator:
R. Donald Rigger
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-3931
Vendor:
Douglas E. Jerger/Pat Woodhull
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
16406 U.S. Route 224 East
P.O. Box 551
Findlay, OH 45840
(419) 425-6175
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
81
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 4 of 27
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: soil (ex situ) and sludge (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
The excavated material at the site contained PAH concentrations of approximately 4,000 mg/kg
dry weight for total PAHs and from 1,000 to 2,500 mg/kg dry weight carcinogenic PAHs. Total
PAHs are defined as the sum of the 16 constituents listed below. Carcinogenic PAHs are defined
as the total concentration of the seven PAHs marked with an asterisk: [3]
Acenaphthene;
Acenaphthylene;
Anthracene;
Benzo(a)anthracene*;
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*;
Benzo(ghi)perylene;
Benzo(a)pyrene*;
Chrysene*;
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*;
Fluoranthene;
Fluorene;
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene*;
Naphthalene;
Phenanthrene; and
Pyrene.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology and the values
measured for each are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [2,9,12]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution*
Bulk density (of stockpiled material)
Ash
Sulfur
Free liquids
Total Solids
Value
Information not provided
>10 mesh (gravel) 5%
<10->200 mesh (sand) 40%
<200 mesh (clay) 55%
1.83gm/cm3.
66.8%
0.08%
None
71.5%
Measurement Method
Information not provided
Information not provided
ASTM-D1298
ASTM-D482
ASTM-D129
SW-846-9095
SM-209F
"Information was not provided in the available references on whether this distribution was for soil excavated from
the site and/or treated in the bioreactors.
Various types of debris were present in the contaminated soil and sludge excavated at the site.
The debris included large stones, plastic sheeting, concrete, and railroad ties. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
82
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 5 of 27
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type: Slurry phase bioremediation
Supplemental Treatment Technology Type:
Pretreatment (Solids): screening, mixing
Post-Treatment (Solids): dewatering
Slurry Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation
The slurry phase bioremediation system used at Southeastern Wood Preserving included a power
screen, a slurry mix tank, four slurry phase bioremediation reactors (bioreactors), and a slurry
dewatering unit. This system, shown in Figure 2, was used to separate out the larger particles
(greater than 200 mesh, or 0.0029 inches) from the stockpiled soil and sludge, and to biologically
treat the remaining soil and sludge particles (less than 200 mesh).
As shown on Figure 2, soil and sludge from the stockpile were power-screened to remove debris
greater than 0.5 inches such as large stones, plastic sheeting, and railroad ties. The power-
screening step removed approximately 450 cubic yards of material.
f200 mesh
materials
Soil and
Sludge from
Stockpile ,
(10,500 cubic
yards, 14,140
tons)
Slurry Mix Tank/Soil Washing
Compartment No.1
Mixer
Compartment No.2
Shaker Screen
Compartment No.3
Hydrocyclone/Mixer
yards, 9,9<
tons)
! ! H
12 mesh to 0.5 200 mesh to 12 NSSSJฃ!,riy
Inch materials mesh materials chamSsP
<1500 cubic yards, (1500 cubic yards, /STrsant
1825 tons) 1825 tons) 'dSSamSd'
Stockpiled on Site Stockpiled on Site agent) "
)5
Bioreactors
ฎ
i
-
Slurry
Dewatering
Exces
Wale
Treated
ปSoMand
Sludge
ฉ Sampling Location
Figure 2. Slurry Phase Bioremediation System
Used at Southeastern Wood Preserving [6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
83
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 6 of 27
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Slurry Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (Cont.)
Soil and sludge that passed the power screening step were loaded into a slurry mix tank for soil
washing. The mix tank contained three compartments:
Compartment No. 1 - Water was added to slurry the solids.
Compartment No. 2 - The slurry was pumped to a shaker screen to remove debris
between 12 mesh (0.0661 inches) and 0.5 inches. Approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
debris were removed by the shaker screen.
Compartment No. 3 - A hydrocyclone removed approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
materials (sand) and other materials between 200 mesh and 12 mesh.
In addition, nutrients and slurry conditioning chemicals (including a dispersant and defoaming
agent) were added and mixed with the slurry in this compartment.
Materials removed by the shaker screen and hydrocyclone were stockpiled on site.
The slurry mixing/soil washing process was performed on a batch basis, with 20-30 minutes of
processing time per batch.
Bioreactors [1,2,16,26]
Four closed-top bioreactors were used in this application. Each bioreactor was 38 feet in
diameter and 24 feet in height, and was equipped with diffusers and a blower for aeration and an
impeller for mixing and keeping the slurry in suspension. Each bioreactor had an operating
capacity of 180,000 gallons. The system was operated on a batch process, with each batch
consisting of 160 to 180 cubic yards of material. Sixty-one batches were treated in this
application, consisting of 17 batches in reactor 1, 23 batches in reactor 2,14 batches in reactor 3,
and 7 batches in reactor 4. During treatment, the slurry in the reactors was monitored daily for
pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other biological monitoring parameters, such as nutrient
and biomass concentrations. Operating parameters and values for this application are shown in
Table 3.
Excess water generated in the bioreactors was occasionally removed from the reactors. This
excess water was first sampled, and, as appropriate, discharged to a POTW.
Operation [2,9,10]
Construction of the treatment facilities began in January 1991 and was completed in mid-April
1991. Demonstration testing began at that time and consisted of batch treatment of 700 cubic
yards of soil. By late June 1991, the treatment vendor had demonstrated that the soil could be
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
84
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 7 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Slurry Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (Cont.)
treated in the reactors to the cleanup standards set in the contract. During the demonstration
tests, the vendor also evaluated the performance of a land treatment unit (LTU) for this
application. However, soil applied directly to the LTU did not meet the cleanup standards within
this timeframe. In order to complete the demonstration test and receive EPA authorization to
proceed with the project, the vendor decided to forego applying soil directly to the LTU and
treated all soil in the reactors.
Operation of the full-scale soil treatment system began in July 1991. During full-scale operation,
the vendor refined the operation by adding a slurry mix tank/soil washing (desanding) operation.
The vendor found that keeping sand-sized particles in suspension in the reactors was extremely
difficult, and they removed the sand prior to pumping the slurry to the reactors. The sand was
analyzed separately and subject to the same clean up criteria as the fine grained particles.
Soon after full-scale operation began, the vendor began to have problems meeting the clean up
standards within the anticipated 30 to 35 day reactor residence time. Specifically, problems were
encountered with two compounds, pyrene and phenanthrene, which both have a K001 treatment
standard of 1.5 mg/kg. The vendor identified non-homogeneity in the contaminated soil
stockpile as the cause. During this early period of system operation, reactor residence time was
running in the 60 to 80 day range. This problem was resolved by modifying the cleanup
standards to be based on total PAH concentrations (i.e., the sum of 16 specific PAHs). This was
accomplished by removing the K001 treatment standards - see additional discussion under
Cleanup Goals.
Progress of the bioremediation process was measured using oxygen uptake rate (OUR). When
the OUR showed a significant decline, the vendor would collect samples for chemical analysis.
The vendor noted that there was a problem with foam production during bioreactor operation.
Foam would overflow the bioreactors, and the vendor had trouble containing the overflow. To
correct this problem, the combination of dispersant and defoamer was revised, including addition
of a lignin.
The bioreactors were located outdoors, and operated year round, but were not heated. The
vendor specified that during the colder winter months, much slower degradation was observed.
The bioreactor temperature ranged from 15ฐC to 21 ฐC during the winter months. During the
spring, summer, and fall, bioreactor temperatures ranged from 25 ฐC to 40ฐC.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
85
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfimd Site, Page 8 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Slurry Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (Cont.)
Air Dispersion Modelling [11]
To assess emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PAHs from the bioremediation
process, the treatment vendor performed air dispersion modelling. The vendor modelled off-
property ground-level VOC and PAH concentrations using the EPA Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) dispersion simulation model. The results of the modelling showed that proposed activities
would not result in any exceedence of accepted long-term exposure screening levels for this
application.
Slurry Dewatering [9]
After treatment in the bioreactors, the slurry was transferred to a slurry dewatering unit, which
was a 425-foot long, 160-foot wide, and 6-foot deep high density polyethylene (HDPE)-lined
cell. The water recovery system, consisting of drain tiles in coarse sand, was sloped to a sump to
collect excess water. Excess water was pumped to a 350,000-gallon water management tank and
was reused for slurry preparation. Soil remaining in the slurry dewatering unit was tilled to
further dry the treated material.
Treated soil and sludge were placed in a lined, capped disposal cell on site. Debris and sand
were also placed in the cell.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the values
measured for each are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Bioreactor Operating Parameters [1,2,16]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate (SCFM)
PH
Residence Time (days)
System Throughput (yd3 per batch)
No. of Batches Treated
Temperature (ฐC)
Biomass Concentration (cfu/ml)
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Operating Volume (gallons)
Impeller Speed (RPM)
Solids Loading %
Initial Defoamer (mg/L)
Initial Dispersant (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Value
350 ฑ 100
7.2 ฑ 1.0
8 to 29
160 to 180
61
15-40
107 - 10s
Not measured
180,000
900
20
200
1,000
>2.0
Measurement Method
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Information not provided
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
86
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfimd Site, Page 9 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance (cont.)
Table3. (Continued)
Parameter -,
NH4-N (mg/L)
P04-P (mg/L)
Value
60 ฑ20
10
Measurement Method
Information not provided
Information not provided
N/A - Measurement method not reported for this parameter because resulting value not expected to vary
among measurement methods.
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [1,2]
Start Date
1928
April 1989
September 1990
January 1991
April 1991
July 1991
; ', End Date;
1979
April 1991
June 1991
1994
:' . '- -.ซ: '. >, i,. Activity -
Southeastern Wood Preserving operated as creosote wood treatment
facility
Initial samples collected from excavated materials
Action memorandum signed
Treatment facility construction
Demonstration tests performed
Slurry phase bioremediation of soil and sludge performed
No additional details on the timeline for this application (e.g., for bioremediation activities) are
provided in the available references.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
87
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superftmd Site, Page 10 of 27
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The results of laboratory and field pilot tests and a site-specific health-based risk analysis were
used to develop the following cleanup goals for this application:
950 mg/kg dry weight soil solids total PAHs; and
180 mg/ky dry weight soil solids of benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) - equivalent carcinogenic
PAHs.
Total PAHs were defined in this application as the sum of the concentrations for the 16
constituents shown in Table 7. EPA used published toxicity-equivalent factors to calculate the
B(a)P-equivalent of the carcinogenic PAHs (the carcinogenic PAHs are identified in Table 7). In
calculating B(a)P-equivalent concentrations, the concentration of each PAH is multiplied by a
factor which is equal to its carcinogenicity relative to benzo(a)pyrene. The resulting weighted
concentrations are summed to calculate the B(a)P-equivalent carcinogenic PAH value. [6, 7]
In addition, the cleanup goals allowed 15% of the treated soil to have a total PAH concentration
less than 1,100 mg/kg, and 25% of the treated soil to have a B(a)P-equivalent concentration less
than 230 mg/kg. [2,6]
Additional Information on Goals
At the beginning of this application, soil was classified as RCRA hazardous waste K001.
However, in February 1992, soon after full-scale operation began, an LDR treatability variance
was obtained so that the soil would not need to be treated to meet the LDR treatment standards
for K001. The treatability variance was obtained under 40 CFR Section 268.44, and resulted in
the cleanup goals for total and carcinogenic PAHs shown above. Additional information is
provided in reference 10 on the process used to obtain the variance. [10, 26]
Treatment Performance Data
Treatment performance data are available from 13 of the 61 bioreactor batches. Slurry samples
were collected at the start of biotreatment and on a periodic basis during treatment. The
sampling point for slurry samples is marked on Figure 2 with an "X." No additional information
on how samples were collected is provided in the available references.
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
88
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 11 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 5 presents the initial concentrations of PAHs in the slurry, and Table 6 presents the
concentrations of PAHs in the slurry after treatment had occurred. [NOTE: No information is
provided in the available references to explain how specific days were selected for use in
calculating treatment efficiency - e.g., how Day 10 was selected for calculating treatment
efficiency for bioreactor batch Rl B5; what data were used to select this day; or why treatment
continued beyond this date.] Tables 5 and 6 show the concentrations of 16 individual PAH
constituents measured in each of the bioreactor batches, as well as the sum of the concentrations
for all 16 PAHs and for the 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and the B(a)P-equivalent for the sum of the 16
PAHs. The average concentration of each PAH is also shown on these tables. Figures 3 through
8 show the total PAH concentrations as a function of time for the first six batches shown in
Tables 5 and 6, based on data in References 2 and 24.
Table 7 presents a summary of the PAH treatment performance data for the first six batches
according to the number of rings in the PAH constituent (two, three, four, or five and six ring
PAHs). This table shows the cleanup goals for this application, and the average results for PAHs
at the start of treatment (from Table 5) and after treatment (from Table 6). The treatment
efficiency included in the table was calculated based on the reduction in concentration for these
average results.
No data are provided in the available references to characterize the performance of the soil
washing step.
Performance Data Assessment
For the 13 batches with available data, the average total PAH concentration was reduced from
8,545 mg/kg to 634 mg/kg, which corresponds to a treatment efficiency of 93 percent. The
average B(a)P-equivalent concentration was reduced from 467 mg/kg to 152 mg/kg, or 67
percent. Carcinogenic PAHs showed a similar reduction, from 1,160 mg/kg to 374 mg/kg, or 67
percent.
Table 6 shows that 12 of the 13 bioreactor batches met the cleanup goal of 950 mg/kg for total
PAHs; for the 12 batches, total PAH concentrations ranged from 421 mg/kg to 898 mg/kg. For
batch Rl B7, the total PAH concentration on Day 20 was 1,126 mg/kg, exceeding the maximum
cleanup goal. According to the OSC, further treatment was performed on this batch, however,
additional data on treatment performance for this batch are not provided in the available
references. [26]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
89
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving SupcrfUnd Site, Page 12 of 27
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracenel!
Benzo(b)fluoranthenec/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*c
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrenec
Chrysene0
Dibenzo(ah)anthracenec
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenec
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent
Table 5. Concentrations of PAHs in Slurry at Start of Treatment [2, 24]
Rl
B5
RIBS
Bioreactor/Batcn ID#
Rl
B9**
RIB10
R2B9
R2BIO
R1B4
R1B6
R1B7
R2BS
R2B6
R2B7
R2BS
Concentration (rag/kg Dry Weight)
642
34
1,050
224
367
21
92
228
15
1,060
181
30
19
220
878
5,061
956
245
968
ND
(163)
1,560
287
337
ND
(163)
ND
(163)
302
ND
(163)
1,570
669
ND
(163)
ND
(163)
1,250
1,080
8,512
1,171
585
692
28
2,140
283
278
33
105
301
ND(40)
1,950
499
40
ND(40)
395
1,220
8,004
1,027
295
892
ND(59)
2,280
237
296
ND(59)
100
247
ND(59)
1,850
661
ND(59)
ND(59)
2,030
1,010
9,751
939
334
1,280
ND(223)
2,340
370
345
ND(223)
ND(223)
397
ND(223)
2,210
1,040
ND(223)
ND(223)
1,300
1,610
11,561
1,447
818
981
ND(51)
2,330
277
304
ND(51)
98
302-
ND(51)
1,610
732
ND(51)
ND(51)
988
1,090
8,840
1,032
318
465
ND(155)
1,540
327
233
ND(155)
ND(155)
316
ND(155)
1,590
195
ND(155)
ND(155)
253
1,130
6,694
1,109
570
574
37.2
1,720
279
323
ND(32.7)
98.2
297
ND(32.7)
1,850
204
35.4
ND(32.7)
279
1,270
7,016
1,049
268
723
31.9
1,620
230
344
20.8
87.4
254
14.6
1,260
663
28.2
24.7
1,360
974
7,636
958
245
508
ND(50.5)
1,580
245
290
ND(50.5)
81.5
225
ND(50.5)
1,490
281
ND(50.5)
ND(50.5)
272
950
6,023
892
283
1,440
ND(373)
2,870
597
710
ND(373)
ND(373)
573
ND(373)
3,470
483
ND(373)
ND(373)
639
2,430
14,331
2,440
1,313
846
ND
(67.1)
2,020
241
287
ND
(67.1)
94.7
257
ND
(67.1)
1,810
850
ND
(67.1)
87.3
2,710
989
10,326
947
349
949
ND(120)
1,490
279
349
ND(120)
ND(120)
310
ND(120)
1,630
833
ND(120)
ND(120)
1,680
1,080
8,960
1,118
VO
o
'Carcinogenic PAHs.
*Sum of b and k isomers reported.
**The vendor specified that some concentration values were estimated for this batch. However, which values were estimated was not specified.
ND - Not detected. Value in parentheses is the reported detection limit. For calculation of averages and totals, '/2 the detection limit was used for values that were not detected.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 13 of 27
Table 6. Concentrations of PAHs in Slurry After Treatment [2,24]
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracenec
Benzo(b)fluorantheneฐ/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*ฐ
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrenec
Chrysenec
Dibenzo(ah)anthracenec
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenec
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent
Bioreactor/Batch ID# ซ ,, ,
RIBS
Day 10
RIBS
Day 13
R1B9
Day 10
R1B10
Day 10
R2B9
Day 11
R2B10
Day 27
R1B4
Day 33
R1B6
Day 11
R1B7
Day 20
R2B5
Day 20
R2B6
Day 17
R2B7
Day 13
R2B8
Day 23
! Concentration (rag/kg Dry Weight) . , , '
ND(7)
11
104
10
155
23
52
24
10
25
14
28
ND(7)
27
25
515
279
123
ND(14)
13
55
ND(14)
240
26
80
55
ND(14)
32
ND(14)
33
ND(14)
14
18
601
422
144
ND(16)
ND(16)
102
ND(16)
131
25
74
30
ND(16)
26
ND(16)
31
ND(16)
23
30
520
282
133
9
19
230
20
254
ND(7)
95
41
ND(7)
31
25
31
9
79
48
898
445
146
ND(7)
14
135
10
259
ND(7)
91
33
ND(7)
37
16
24
ND(7)
30
46
709
421
140
ND(13)
23
100
16
213
29
82
31
20
43
15
40
ND(13)
31
33
689
402
211
ND(11.3)
12.1
115
16.5
138
22
63.6
57.1
ND(11.3)
41.3
ND(11.3)
28.3
ND(11.3)
22.3
40.4
579
309
112
ND
(6.06)
6.63
125
ND
(6.06)
95
13.9
46
31.1
ND
(6.06)
21
16.2
17.9
ND
(6.06)
24.6
11.7
421
196
74
ND
(34.5)
ND
(34.5)
229
ND
(34.5)
476
ND
(34.5)
83.4
69.6
ND
(34.5)
40.2
ND
(34.5)
ND
(34.5)
ND
(34.5)
53.9
36.2
1,126
681
224
ND
(10.3)
10.5
84.1
12
149
18
38.9
18.2
ND
(10.3)
37
ND
(10.3)
23.6
ND
(10.3)
19.9
29
461
247
84
ND(27.3)
ND(27.3)
39.6
ND(27.3)
282
ND(27.3)
82.9
61.6
ND(27.3)
26
ND(27.3)
33.1
ND(27.3)
11.3
14.7
646
487
185
ND(12.3)
ND(12.3)
89.3
ND(12.3)
166
14.8
49.8
33.8
ND(12.3)
21.4
ND(12.3)
19
ND(12.3)
20.7
28
480
281
249
ND(22.7)
ND(22.7)
68.2
ND(22.7)
226
ND(22.7)
70.6
57.4
ND(22.7)
24.9
ND(22.7)
30.7
ND(22.7)
15.9
17
591
407
156
"Carcinogenic PAHs.
* Sum of b and k isomers reported.
ND - Not detected. Value in parentheses is the reported detection limit. For calculation of averages and totals, Vi the detection limit was used for values that were not detected.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfiind Site, Page 14 of 27
Table 7. Summary of PAH Treatment Performance Data [2]
Constituent
Two Ring PAHs
Naphthalene
Three Ring PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Four Ring PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene*
Chrysene*
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Five and Six Ring PAHs
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene*
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene*
Total PAHs
Carcinogenic PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent
Cleanup Goal
(mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
950
N/A
180
Average
Concentration
at Outset of
Treatment***
(mg/kg)
48
909
52
1,950
630
1,031
280
296
1,708
1,148
321
**
50
98
47
53
8,621
1,095
433
Average >
Concentration
After
Treatment***
(mg/kg)
6
6
15
121
14
34
12
36
32
33
209
**
18
79
9
31
655
376
150
i / |
'" Treatment
Efficiency (%)
88
99
71
94
98
97
96
88
98
97
35
**
64
19
81
42
92
66
65
*Carcinogenic PAHs.
**Combined with benzo(b)fluoranthene.
***Concentration values are averages from first six batches shown on Tables 5 and 6, and are reported as mg/kg dry
weight.
N/A - Not applicable. No cleanup goal established for this constituent/group of constituents.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
92
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page IS of 27
J?
ra 5000
o 4000
.g -TUWW -
&
1i 3000
o
o
O 2000
ฐ- 1000 -
| 950 '
H 0.
X
\
Cleanup Goal N.
012345678 910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Time (days)
Figure 3. Total PAH Concentration vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch Rl B5 [2]
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4. PAH Concentration vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch Rl B8 [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
93
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfiind Site, Page 16 of 27
-85 9000
H 8000
JJ- 7000
J 6000
1 5000
| 4000
O 3000
< 2000
I 1000
I 958
Cleanun Goal
anqnGoi
234567!
Time (days)
Figure 5. PAH Concentration vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch Rl B9 [2]
10 11
12
"S>
CL
ฃ
9000 ,
8000 .
7000 ,
6000 ,
5000 .
4000 ,
3000 ,
2000 ,
s^
^s.
Tl
\
\
\
\
\
Cleanup Goal \_
*
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time (days)
Figure 6. PAH Concentration vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch Rl BIO [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ofllce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Ofllce
94
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 17 of 27
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
S
.1 8000
ง
o
O 4000
9000
8000
7000
Figure 7. PAH Concentrations vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch R2 B9 [2]
I
.S 6000
I 5000-
\
I
O
O
4000
3000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Time (days)
Figure 8. PAH Concentrations vs. Time
Bioreactor/Batch R2 BIO [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 18 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
Nine of the 13 batches met the cleanup goal of 180 mg/kg for B(a)P-equivalent; the batches that
met the cleanup goal ranged from 24 to 156 mg/kg. According to the OSC, further treatment
was also performed on the four batches that did not appear to meet the cleanup goal for B(a)P
(R2 B20 at 211 mg/kg; Rl B7 at 224 mg/kg; R2 B6 at 185 mg/kg; and R2 B7 at 249 mg/kg).
However, additional data on treatment performance for these batches are not provided in the
available references. [26]
As shown in Figures 3 through 8, the majority of the biodegradation occurred during the first 5 to
10 days of treatment, and the cleanup goal for total PAHs was met for 12 of the 13 batches
within approximately 19 days of treatment.
The data in Table 7 show that the number of ring structures in the PAH constituent (two, three,
four, or five and six rings) affected the treatment efficiency. The concentrations of constituents
with two to four rings were reduced 71% to 99%, while five and six ring constituents were
reduced 19% to 81%. These results are consistent with reports in the technical literature that
show that higher molecular weight PAHs (e.g., five and six ring structures) are more difficult to
biodegrade than two to four ring structures. [8]
Performance Data Completeness
Analytical data for 16 PAHs are available for 13 of the 61 batches processed through the
treatment system during the course of remediation. Data are available for specific days during
each batch treatment, as well as for the range of operating conditions over the course of the
treatment application.
Performance Data Qualify
Limited information is contained in the available references on performance data quality. A
quality assurance program plan (QAPP) for this application was developed by a commercial
analytical laboratory (Analytical Services Corp.). The QAPP addressed project organization and
responsibilities, QA objectives, sampling procedures, sample custody, analytical procedures, and
other items.
PAH slurry samples were centrifuged and extracted following SW846 Method 3540. PAH
concentrations were quantified using gas chromatography with a mass spectrometer detector
following SW846 Method 8270. As shown in Appendix A, detection limits for individual PAHs
ranged from 5 mg/kg to 223 mg/kg for the first six batches shown in Table 5 for this application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
96
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 19 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT. )|
Performance Data Quality (cont.)
The vendor noted two problems related to performance data quality for this application.
Problems were noted concerning implementation of the sampling plan, and for sample extraction
and quantification. These problems were resolved by developing an approved sampling plan,
and by performing audits on the extraction and analytical methodology.
According to the OSC, the vendor evaluated two potential methods for PAH sample extraction
(soxhlet and sonic extraction) and found "significant differences" in analytical results based on
method used. Based on these results, the analytical method was standardized and written into the
contract. [26]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
97
-------
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 20 of 27
The contract for remediation services at Southeastern Wood was competitively procured by
EPA. For this procurement, EPA's Contracting Officer (CO) obtained a deviation from the EPA
Acquisition Regulations which allowed a negotiated procurement without submission of
technical proposals. Performance specifications were used instead of specifying a technology.
Twelve bidders submitted proposals for different technologies and price was the determining
factor for award. The contract was awarded to OHM Remediation Services Corporation. EPA
required the vendor to perform a technology demonstration at the site to ensure that the
technology would be feasible. The contract with OHM was a firm fixed price (lump sum)
service contract. Additional information on the procurement process for this application is
provided in Reference 4. [4]
Treatment System Cost [1,2,12]
Tables 8 and 9 present the costs for the slurry phase bioremediation treatment application at
Southeastern Wood. In order to standardize reporting of costs across projects, costs are shown in
Tables 8 and 9 according to the format for an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
The WBS specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5 after-treatment cost elements, and 12
cost elements that provide a detailed breakdown of costs directly associated with treatment.
Tables 8 and 9 present the cost elements exactly as they appear in the WBS, along with the
specific activities as provided by the treatment vendor.
As shown in Table 8, the vendor provided actual cost data that shows a total of $2,400,000 for
activities directly associated with treatment of 14,140 tons (10,500 cubic yards) of soil and
sludge (i.e., excluding after-treatment cost elements). This total consists of costs for
mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, and operation. Included in this total are costs for
treatment of 61 batches at $18,700 per batch. The total costs for activities directly attributed to
treatment corresponds to $170 per ton ($230 per cubic yard) of soil and sludge treated. In
addition, the vendor provided cost data that show a total of $500,000 for after-treatment
activities (site preparation and closure). The vendor provided no information on before-
treatment activities, such as for monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis in this application.
[3,19]
Table 10 shows actual costs provided by the vendor for slurry preparation, slurry phase
biological treatment, and dewatering on a per ton of material basis. This table shows that the
relatively largest costs associated with this system are for the slurry preparation process. [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
_
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 21 of 27
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (Cont.)
Table 8. Treatment Activity Cost Elements According to the WBS* [3]
' Cost Elements
(Directly Associated With Treatment)
Mobilization/Set Up (Design Engineering)
Startup/Testing/Permits (Treatability and Pilot-
Scale Testing)
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years) (soil
screening and slurry preparation, slurry
treatment, slurry dewatering, and project
administration and support)
TOTAL TREATMENT ACTIVITY COST
Cost($)
100,000
200,000
2,100,000
2,400,000
Actual or Estimated
(A)or(E)
A
A
A
A
Table 9. After-Treatment Cost Elements According to the WBS* [3]
'\ ' Cost 'Elements ' '
Site Restoration (site preparation and closure)
TOTAL AFTER-TREATMENT COST
Cost($)
500,000
500,000
Actual or Estimated
(A)or(E)
A
A
Table 10. Unit Costs for Treatment of Soil and Sludge at
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site [1]
,', !!
; - ' Process _ -{
Slurry Preparation
Slurry Phase Biological Treatment
Dewatering Process
Total for Slurry Phase Biological Treatment System
Cost per Dry Ton of
Material Treated ($)
50-60
40-55
20-30
110- 145
Actual or Estimated
(A)or(E)
A
A
A
A
*Cost figures rounded up to the nearest $100,000.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
99
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 22 of 27
| TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)|
Cost Data Quality
The cost data presented above are actual costs for this application as reported by the treatment
vendor, and are believed to accurately represent the costs associated with this application.
Vendor Input
The vendor specified three variables that have a significant impact on the cost of remediation
using this technology: the slurry phase reactor solids concentration, residence time in the
reactors, and the percentage of material removed in the slurry preparation/soil washing process.
According to the vendor, increasing the solids concentration in the reactors increases the amount
of soil treated per batch. This results in a decrease both in the total number of batches treated
and the cost per ton of treatment. In addition, longer batch residence times reduce the system
throughput and, therefore, increase the cost of treatment. The higher the percentage of material
that is removed by the slurry preparation/soil washing process, the lower the cost for the
bioreactors, since less material will remain to be biologically treated. [3]
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
100
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 23 of 27
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The total project cost for slurry phase bioremediation at Southeastern Wood, including
treatment, design engineering, treatability and pilot-scale testing, site closure, and
project administration was $2,900,000. Of the total, $2,400,000 were for costs directly
attributed to treatment, and $500,000 were for after-treatment activities.
The $2,400,000 for costs directly attributed to treatment corresponds to $ 170 per ton
($230 per cubic yard) of soil and sludge treated.
According to the OSC, this treatment process, which combined soil washing with
biotreatment, would be more cost-effective at a site with 50 to 60% sand than at
Southeastern Wood, which had only 10-15% sand. At a site with 50% sand, the waste
volume would be cut in half, reducing the amount which had to be biotreated.
According to the OSC, the treatment vendor invested significant amounts of time and
resources for research and development on this application, including extensive
treatability testing.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Cleanup goals for total PAHs and B(a)P-equivalent PAHs were met in this treatment
application. The cleanup goal for total PAHs was specified as 950 mg/kg and for B(a)P-
equivalent PAHs as 180 mg/kg, with allowances for a portion of the treated soil to be at
levels slightly greater than these values.
For the 13 bioreactor batches with available data, the average total PAH concentration
was reduced from 8,545 mg/kg to 634 mg/kg, which corresponds to a treatment
efficiency of 93 percent. The average B(a)P-equivalent concentration was reduced from
467 mg/kg to 152 mg/kg, or 67 percent. Carcinogenic PAHs showed a similar reduction
from 1,160 mg/kg to 374 mg/kg or 67 percent.
Biodegradation primarily occurred during the first 5 to 10 days of treatment, and the
cleanup goal for total PAHs in 12 of 13 batches was met within approximately 19 days
of treatment.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
101
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 24 of 27
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
The number of ring structures in the PAH constituent were found to affect treatment
efficiency. .Concentrations of constituents with two to four rings were reduced 71% to
99%, while five and six ring constituents were reduced 19% to 81%. These results are
consistent with reports in the technical literature that show that higher molecular weight
PAHs (e.g., five and six ring structures) are more difficult to biodegrade than two to four
ring structures.
Temperature was identified by the vendor as a factor which affected degradation rates.
Degradation was slower during the winter months than during the spring, summer, and
fall.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
According to the OSC, the design of the treatment system was modified significantly
from the original plans, including addition of a desanding process. At the beginning of
full-scale operation, the vendor found that keeping sand-sized particles in suspension in
the reactors was extremely difficult, and therefore they removed the sand prior to
pumping the slurry to the reactors.
According to the vendor, there were several problems with the operation of this
technology. These included foam production in the bioreactors during this application.
Foam would overflow the bioreactors, and the vendor had trouble containing the
overflow. The problem was resolved by revising the combination of dispersant and
defoamers used in the slurry preparation, including adding a lignin. In addition, the
vendor had problems with treating the soil to meet the K001 treatment standard of 1.5
mg/kg for pyrene and phenanthrene. This problem was resolved by modifying the
cleanup standards to be based on total PAH concentrations (i.e., the sum of 16 specific
PAHs) instead of individual constituent standards.
According to the vendor, there were variations caused by sampling and analytical
methods in this application. According to the OSC, the vendor evaluated two potential
methods for PAH sample extraction (soxhlet and sonic extraction) and found "significant
differences" in analytical results based on method used. Based on these results, the
analytical method was standardized and written into the contract.
To assess emissions of VOCs and PAHs from the bioremediation process, the treatment
vendor performed air dispersion modelling. The vendor modelled off-property ground-
level VOC and PAH concentrations using the EPA Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
dispersion simulation model. The results of the modelling showed that proposed
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
102
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superftind Site, Page 25 of 27
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Other Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
activities would not result in any exceedence of accepted long-term exposure screening
levels for this application.
According to the OSC, soil in the slurry dewatering unit was very soft and could not
have supported equipment to till the soil. Therefore, while post slurry-treatment using
land treatment was considered, it was determined that this would not be feasible without
amending the soil to increase its bearing capacity. Therefore, land treatment was not
performed.
I REFERENCES
1. Jerger, D.E. and P.M. Woodhull. "Slurry-Phase Biological Treatment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Wood Preserving Wastes," For Presentation at the 87th Annual Meeting and
Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994.
2. Letter from Douglas E. Jerger, OHM Corporation, to EPA RCRA Docket, regarding Docket
Number F-92-CS2-FFFFF, March 7, 1994.
3. Woodhull, P.M. and D.E. Jerger. "Bioremediation Using a Commercial Slurry-Phase Biological
Treatment System: Site-Specific Applications and Costs." Remediation. Summer 1994.
4. USEPA OSWER/TIO. Procuring Innovative Treatment Technologies at Removal Sites:
Regional Experiences and Process Improvements. 542/R-92/003. August 1992.
5. Telephone conversation of Tim McLaughlin, Radian Corp., with Douglas Jerger, OHM
Remediation Services Corp. May 24, 1995.
6. Jerger, D.E., Erickson, S.A., and Rigger, R.D. "Full-Scale Slurry Phase Biological Treatment of
Wood Preserving Wastes at a Superfund Site." Not dated.
7. Nisbet, I.C., and P.K. Laboy, "Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 16. 290-300. 1992.
8. DOD Environmental Technology Transfer Committee. Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide. Second Edition. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable.
October 1994.
9. Meeting Notes. Meeting between Tim McLaughlin, Radian, and Don Rigger, OSC, Atlanta
Georgia, September 26,1995.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
103
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Page 26 of 27
BB REFERENCES (CONT.) |
10. Memorandum from Greer C. Tidwell, Regional Administrator, to Donald J. Guinyard, Director,
Waste Management Division, regarding Approval of Treatability Variance for the Southeastern
Wood Treating Site. February 18, 1992.
11. Michael Sullivan & Assoc., Inc., "Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site Remediation,
Canton, Mississippi, Air Dispersion Modeling." July 1991.
12. OHM Remediation Services Corp. Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract.
September 26,1990.
13. Correspondence from William E. Beck, Senior Project Manager, OHM Remediation Services
Corp., to Don Rigger, Project Officer, EPA Region IV, regarding Confirmation of telecon
regarding Invoice No. 9782-007, Southeast Wood Preserving Site, Canton, MS, OHM Project
No. 9782. January 17, 1994.
14. Memorandum from Pat Stamp, Laboratory Quality Assurance Specialist, Laboratory Evaluation
& Quality Assurance Section, to Francis J. Garcia, On-Scene Coordinator, Emergency Response
& Removal Branch, Waste Management Division, regarding Southeastern Wood Site, Quality
Assurance Program Plan for Analytical Services Corporation Laboratory. August 6, 1993.
15. Correspondence from David J. Cady, Senior Project Manager, OHM Remediation Services
Corp., to Sharyn Erickson, Contracting Officer, USEPA, Region IV, regarding USEPA Contract
No. 68-SO-4001, Requisition/Project No. WO-86007-F4, Southeastern Wood Preserving Site in
Canton, Mississippi, OHM Remediation Services Corp. Project No. 9782, Request for Contract
Reformation - Funding Availability. August 19,1993.
16. Summary of Bioremediation Batches Invoiced to Date, U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-SO-4001,
Southeastern Wood Preserving Site, Canton, Mississippi, OHM Project No. 9782; Compilation
Date: June 16,1994.
17. Correspondence from Sharyn A. Erickson, Contracting Officer, USEPA, Region IV, to Michael
A. Szomjassy, V.P., S.E., Region, OHM Remediation Services Corp., regarding EPA Contract
68-SO-4001, for Southeastern Wood Preserving. April 14, 1993.
18. Correspondence from Sharyn A. Erickson, Contracting Officer, USEPA, Region IV, to David J.
Cady, OHM Remediation Services Corp., regarding Revised Price Breakdown for Southeastern
Wood Preserving Contract 68-SO-4001. July 27, 1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
104
-------
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superrund Site, Page 27 of 27
HH REFERENCES (CONT.)
19. Correspondence from William E. Beck, Senior Project Manager, OHM Remediation Services
Corp., to Sharyn Erickson, Contracting Officer, USEPA, Region IV, regarding USEPA Contract
68-SO-4001, Requisition/ Project No. WO-86007-F4, Southeastern Wood Preserving Site in
Canton, Mississippi, OHM Remediation Services Corp. Project No. 9782, Revised Breakdown of
Contract Price Incorporating Contract Modification No. 2. December 30,1993.
20. Breakdown of Contract Price. July 7,1991.
21. Memorandum from Patrick M. Tobin, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV, to Richard J.
Guimond, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
regarding Request for a Removal Action Ceiling Increase for the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Site in Canton, Madison County, Mississippi, Site ID# 1L. September 15,1993.
22. Information on OHM Remediation Services Corp. regarding Southeastern Wood Preserving.
Not dated.
23. Memorandum from V. Kansal, S&A Section Chief, to R. Singhvi, EPA/ERT, regarding
Document Transmittal Under Work Assignment #4-699. January 6,1993.
24. Analytical Data. Southeastern Wood Preserving, Project 9782. Not dated.
25. Correspondence from Sam Mabry, Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Mississippi Department
of Natural Resources, to Pat Tobin, Waste Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, regarding analytical results from Southeastern Wood in Canton, Mississippi.
October 8, 1987.
26. Comments provided by Don Rigger, OSC, received March 8, 1996, on Draft Cost and
Performance Report, Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund site, Canton, Mississippi, November 30,1995.
Analysis Preparation __ _
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian International under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No. DACA45-96-D-0016.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
105
-------
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat Explosives-
Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA)
107
-------
Case Study Abstract
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat Explosives-Contaminated
Soils at Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA)
Site Name:
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
(UMDA)
Location:
Hcrmiston, Oregon
Contaminants:
Explosives
- Primary soil contaminants include 2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene (TNT); Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trmitro-i,3,5-triazine (RDX); Octahydro-
l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX);
and 2,4,6-Trinitrophenyhnethyhiitramine
(Tetryl)
- TNT and RDX soil concentrations ranged
from 100 to 2,000 ppm; and HMX from <1
to 100 ppm
- Contamination present in top 6 ft of soil
Period of Operation:
March 1994 - September 1996
(anticipated end date)
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale remediation
Vendor:
Wilder Construction Co. (Phase I)
Biorcmcdiation Services, Inc.
(Phase H)
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Composting (Windrow)
- Soil excavated and stored on site (Phase I)
- Soil treated inside 200 x 90 ft structure
(Phase H)
- Moisture content maintained at 30-35%
- Turning frequency was once every 24 hrs
for first 5 days followed by less frequent
turning on subsequent days
- Composting batches required approximately
22 days to reach cleanup goals
- Full-scale treatment based on 3 trial tests
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: September 1992
Point of Contact:
Remedial Project Manager
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Hermiston, OR
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
First full-scale application of
windrow composting to biodegrade
explosives-contaminated soils
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 10,969 cubic yards (13 windrows with 810 cubic yards each and 1 windrow with
439 cubic yards)
- Predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine sand
- Soil pH gradually increased from 7 (at ground surface) to 8.5 at 5 ft below
ground surface
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Concentrations of explosives in soil of less than 30 ppm for each of target compounds - TNT and RDX
Results:
- Windrow composting generally reduced the levels of target explosives to below the cleanup goals
- Average concentrations prior to composting were 190 ppm for TNT and 227 ppm for RDX
- 27 x 30 cu. yd. grids sampled in each batch
- Through 11 batches, only 2 of almost 300 grids did not meet cleanup goal after initial phase of treatment
108
-------
Case Study Abstract
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat Explosives-Contaminated
Soils at Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA) (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Actual total project cost of $5,131,106, corresponding to a unit cost of $346 per ton from mobilization to
demobilization
- Phase I cost $1,320,162 (soil excavation and storage)
- Phase II cost $3,810,944 (soil treatment)
- Costs specific to biological treatment ($1,989,454) correspond to unit cost of $181/cubic yard soil treated
Description:
From approximately 1955 to 1965, the UMDA operated a munitions washout facility in Hermiston, Oregon, where hot
water and steam were used to remove explosives from munitions casings. About 85 million gallons of heavily-
contaminated wash water were discharged to two settling lagoons at the site. The underlying soils and groundwater
were determined to be contaminated with explosive compounds, primarily TNT, RDX, and HMX, and the site was
placed on the NPL in 1987.
Windrow composting was used for a full-scale remediation at UMDA, with treatment taking place from July 1995 to
September 1996 (anticipated completion date per September 1996 report). A total of 10,969 yd3 of contaminated soil
were treated at UMDA, in 14 batches. Analytical results indicated that average concentrations were reduced from 190
to <30 ppm for TNT, and from 227 to <30 ppm for RDX. Through 11 batches, only two of almost 300 grids did not
meet the cleanup goal (30 ppm) after an initial phase of treatment.
Detailed information on actual costs for this application are provided in the report. Actual costs are shown according to
an interagency Remedial Action-Work Breakdown Structure (RA-WBS). Factors affecting costs that were identified for
this application included climate, soil characteristics, and amendment availability and cost. For example, the semi-arid
cool climate and sparse vegetation at UMDA contributed to fairly low preparatory site work cost. Amendment
availability and cost are significant factors for composting and are driven by the proximity, seasonally, quality, and
consistency of the materials to be used. At UMDA, the majority of the amendments were readily available in the
Umatilla area.
109
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page i of 42
Executive Summary
This report documents the cost for the first full-scale use of windrow composting to remediate
explosives-contaminated soils. The results of this cost report will allow managers of other sites
with explosives-contaminated soils to estimate the cost of remediation using the windrow
composting technology, assuming similar site-specific variables. Estimates for sites with
different site conditions (e.g., nature and extent of contamination, soil type, climate) and
remedial action goal must scale subelement costs according to individual site characteristics.
The 1992 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Umatilla Army Depot
Activity (UMDA), located in Hermiston, Oregon, concluded that although both incineration and
composting constitute technically effective remediation methods for reducing explosives
concentrations in soils, windrow composting appears to be more cost-effective based on
preliminary trial tests and small-scale demonstration data (9). As a result, the 1992 Record of
Decision selected windrow composting to remediate contaminated soils from two munitions
washout lagoons at UMDA.
The remediation effort at UMDA was performed in two phases by two separate contractors.
Phase I work included excavation of the contaminated soils from the lagoons, erection of a soil
storage building, and stockpiling of the excavated soil in the storage building. Phase II work
included preparation of three trial tests to determine the optimal amendments mixture, full-scale
production composting, demobilization, and site restoration. The total volume of soil excavated
and subsequently remediated was 10,969 cubic yards. This total soil volume is an increase of 40
percent over the original estimated 6,339 cubic yards.
This cost report concludes that windrow composting costs $346 per ton of contaminated soil at
UMDA. This unit cost is based on all costs associated with Phase I and Phase II and does not
include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) cost for support and contracts. Explosives
concentrations were as high as 88,000 parts per million (ppm) for TNT and 1,900 ppm for RDX
before treatment. The 1992 Record of Decision, which presents the selected remedial action,
specifies the cleanup ;goal of <30 ppm each for TNT and RDX. Both TNT and RDX achieved
explosives reduction after treatment to below the 30 ppm cleanup limit.
This report presents cost data using the Remedial Action-Work Breakdown Structure (RA-
WBS), the standard cost methodology for remediation work accepted by the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, which includes the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department
of Defense. The three largest cost elements for the remediation project at UMDA, in order, are:
Table ES-1. Summary of Largest Cost Elements
WBS Item
33.11
33.01
33.03
Activity
Biological Treatment
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Site Work
% of Total Phase 1 and
Phase II Cost
39%
25%
10%
110
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page ii of 42
The USAGE cost for support (engineering, supervision, administration) and contracts (Invitation
for Bid and Request for Proposal) was also significant at 21 percent of total project cost (Phase I
plus Phase II plus USAGE cost). The USAGE cost for support and contracts represents a fixed
cost; that is, this cost is independent of project duration or volume of contaminated soil to be
treated. Mobilization & Preparatory Work and Site Work (e.g., clearing and grubbing) also
represent fixed costs at UMDA because the costs do not vary with soil volume. Although Site
Work is a fixed cost at UMDA, this cost will vary at other sites given different site conditions
(e.g., vegetation, site area, topography). Biological Treatment, however, is a variable cost
because its subelement costs will vary according to site specific conditions (e.g., nature and
extent of contamination, soil type, climate, regional labor rates, amendments availability) and the
remediation goal (e.g., extent of explosives reduction, volume of contaminated soil).
Ill
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 1 of 42
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present the cost data for the first full-scale use of windrow
composting to treat explosives-contaminated soils at the Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA)
in Hermiston, Oregon. The results of this report will allow managers of other explosives-
contaminated sites to evaluate the cost benefits of using windrow composting and estimate the
cost for remediation using this technology for treatment. Although preliminary economic
analyses and pilot scale demonstrations of windrow composting have been completed to indicate
cost savings and explosives reduction, this report documents actual field cost data from a full-
scale remediation effort. Cost data are presented using the Remedial Action Work Breakdown
Structure (RA-WBS), a standard cost methodology for remediation work accepted by the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable, which includes the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Department of
Defense. The RA-WBS identifies project-specific cost elements (either fixed or variable, defined
in section 4.2.1) that can be scaled to estimate costs at other sites considering the use of windrow
composting to remediate explosives-contaminated soil. In addition to documenting cost, this
report offers some recommendations to optimize overall cost at other sites.
1.2 Scope
This report documents the costs associated with the first full-scale use of windrow composting to
treat explosives-contaminated soils at UMDA. The UMDA Record of Decision directed the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to apply windrow composting to remediate the explosives-
contaminated soils from two washout lagoons at UMDA. Cost data presented in this report were
provided by the USAGE contractors performing the excavation and remediation.
This report does not include a comparative evaluation of this innovative technology against
other treatment methods, including incineration, but it is important to note the unit cost of
incineration in order to confirm the cost effectiveness of windrow composting. Historically,
incineration has been the selected method of treatment, effective in destroying 99.99 percent
of explosive contaminants (9). However, incineration is costly at $740 per ton for treating less
than 10,000 tons of soil (4). The unit cost of incineration decreases with increased soil volume to
be treated due to high up-front capital costs. Preliminary studies for windrow composting show
that it can be 97 to 99 percent effective in destroying explosive contaminants and be cost-
effective at an estimated $326 per ton for 10,000 tons of contaminated soil over a project
duration of 2 years (8). This report uses actual cost data to identify unit cost (dollars per ton of
contaminated soil).
112
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 2 of 42
2,0 Background Information
A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RLTFS) was prepared in 1992 by the U.S. Army
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), now the U.S. Army Environmental
Center (USAEC), to evaluate alternative methods for remediating explosives-contaminated soils
at UMDA. This initiative was undertaken in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Superfund, to gather
information and initiate the cleanup process. The RI/FS concluded that although both
incineration and composting are effective methods for reducing explosive concentrations in the
contaminated soils to acceptable levels, composting using a windrow system is more cost-
effective than incineration for the situation at UMDA. A September 1992 Record of Decision
(ROD) selected windrow composting to remediate the contaminated soils from two washout
lagoons at UMDA.
2.1 Site History
UMDA was established in 1941 as an Army ordnance depot to store and handle munitions.
UMDA operated an onsite explosives washout plant from the 1950s until 1965. The plant
processed munitions to remove and recover explosives using a pressurized hot water system.
Water used in the washout process was recycled during plant operation, and the washout system
was flushed and drained weekly. The spent washwater was then discharged into two adjacent
infiltration/evaporation lagoons, an acceptable industrial practice at that time. An estimated 85
million gallons of effluent were discharged into the lagoons during the period of plant operation.
Residual explosives contained in the washwater were later found to have contaminated the soil
and groundwater under the lagoons. The lagoons were placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in 1987.
2.1.1 Site Description
UMDA occupies nearly 20,000 acres of land and straddles Umatilla and Morrow counties in
northeastern Oregon (Figure 2-1). The contaminated lagoons, designated the north and south
lagoons, are located in a depression in the central part of UMDA (Figure 2-2) and are rectangular
in shape. The north lagoon measures 51 feet by 98 feet at the top and 39 feet by 80 feet at the
bottom. The south lagoon measures 42 feet by 98 feet at the top and 27 feet by 80 feet at the
bottom. All measurements are approximate. The sides are sloped approximately 35 degrees.
Both lagoons are approximately 6 feet deep, with sandy bottoms and gravel sides. A gravel berm
15 feet wide separates the lagoons. (See Figure 2-3 for dimensions of the lagoons.)
113
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 3 of 42
\
V .Sunnysida
Y.ซm. County
Walla Walla County j
( .Walla Walla j
-H
,n^
KSckili) County
I -siteT^*"*
.
\J UMDASite^ j/ N*
~
LOCATION MAP
N
0 10^_^_2p
Scal.inMiloj
Source: (9)
Figure 2-1. Facility Location Map, UMDA
114
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 4 of 42
LEGEND
585 Surface elevations
Figure 2-2. Location of Explosives Washout Lagoons, UMDA
Source: (9)
115
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 5 of 42
Building 489
Explosives
Washout
Plant
NOR
Not to Scale
Figure 2-3. Explosives Washout Lagoons and Washout Plant Area, UMDA
Source: (9)
The remainder of this section provides site-specific information on the climatology, soils, surface
hydrology, and geology and hydrogeology at UMDA. This information is important in
establishing the environmental conditions at UMDA, which will in various degrees affect the
determination of cost at other regions.
Climatology
The area is characterized by a semi-arid, cold desert climate (9). Average annual precipitation is
8 to 9 inches, with rainfall occurring mostly between November and March. The evapo-
transpiration rate is high, at 32 inches per year. Average temperature at UMDA is 75ฐF during
the summer and 35ฐF during the winter. Wind data, routinely collected at the Pendleton
Municipal Airport, located 30 miles east of the UMDA facility, indicate mean wind speed of 8 to
11 miles per hour with prevailing west and southwest winds.
116
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 6 of 42
Soils
The soils surrounding the lagoons are predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine
sand. Quincy fine sand is a very deep, excessively drained soil formed in mixed sand. Soil
permeability is high, and water-holding capacity is low. Soil pH gradually increases with depth
from about 7 (neutral) to 8.5 (basic) at 5 feet below the ground surface (9). Vegetation is scarce
around the lagoons, increasing the risk of wind erosion. Soil organic matter is generally less than
0.5 percent. Quincy loamy fine sand exhibits similar characteristics. Found on slightly flatter
slopes, it has slightly more silt and clay in the upper layer, resulting in a higher water holding
capacity than Quincy fine sand.
Surface Hydrology
There are no perennial streams within the UMDA facility because of the high permeable nature
of the soils. Runoff is diverted away from the lagoons by the raised berms, and any water
collected in the lagoons infiltrates very quickly. Surrounding rivers include the Columbia River,
located approximately 3 miles north of the northern boundary of UMDA, and the Umatilla River,
located approximately 1 to 2 miles east of UMDA (9).
Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology at UMDA is characterized by three distinct geological units: unconsolidated glacial
flood gravels (alluvium), which range in thickness from 50 feet to 154 feet in areas surrounding
the lagoons, based on topographic variation; cemented basalt gravel/weathered basalt, ranging in
thickness from 14 feet to 28 feet, with underlying gravels 30 to 50 feet thick; and basalt, which
ranges in thickness of 89 feet to 106 feet (9).
The depth to groundwater varies seasonally, from 44 feet to 49 feet below the bottom of the
lagoons. Groundwater flows predominantly towards the northwest. Groundwater well sampling
indicate low levels of explosives contamination from the lagoons. Groundwater treatment is
being evaluated separately (9).
2.1.2 Contaminants of Concern
The principal explosives from the munitions were
4 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT);
4 Hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (commonly referred to as Royal Demolition
Explosive or RDX);
4 Octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine (commonly referred to as High
Melting Explosive or HMX); and
4 2,4,6-Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine (Tetryl).
The munitions also contained 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), 2,6-dinitrotoluene (2,6-DNT),
trinitrobenzene (TNB), dinitrobenzene (DNB), and nitrobenzene (NB), occurring as either
impurities or degradation products of TNT.
117
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 7 of 42
Contamination by TNT, RDX, HMX, TNB, and 2,4-DNT were most frequently detected in the
soil. TNT and RDX concentrations were highest, typically ranging from 100 to 2,000 parts per
million (ppm) to a depth of 3.5 feet and generally less than the cleanup level of <30 ppm below
3.5 feet. The maximum concentration of TNT was detected in the top inch of soil at 88,000 ppm.
HMX concentrations ranged from below detection (<1 ppm) to 100 ppm at a depth of 4 to 6 feet.
TNB concentrations ranged from 2 ppm to 47 ppm, while 2,4-DNT concentrations were low
(below detection [<1 ppm] to 5 ppm). Tetryl, 2,6-DNT, DNB, and NB were rarely if ever
detected, and then only at low (<5 ppm) concentrations.
The 1992 ROD which presented the selected remedial action, in accordance with CERCLA, for
the Explosive Washout Lagoons Soils at UMDA specifies the reduction of TNT and RDX
concentrations of 30 ppm or less for each contaminant. Because of the much lower
concentrations and total quantities of the other contaminants, they were not considered in
establishing remedial goals. Previous studies have also shown that reduction of TNT and RDX
indicate a commensurate reduction of other explosives to levels which would pose no significant
risk to human health and the environment.
2.2 Technology Description
Composting is a natural process in which microorganisms biologically degrade organic materials
under controlled conditions. The main advantage of composting, as compared to incineration, is
cost. Composting also minimizes the risk of releasing hazardous products into the atmosphere.
Both of these attributes make it a more acceptable remediation approach to public stakeholders.
Composting has been performed for many years for the treatment of municipal waste and
wastewater sludges, but its application to explosives-contaminated soils is innovative.
Composting is initiated by mixing biodegradable organic matter with bulking agents and other
amendments. Bulking agents (e.g., sawdust, wood shavings) enhance the porosity of the mixture
to be composted while amendments, such as agricultural and animal waste, provide nutrients to
sustain microbial growth. The use of bulking agents can significantly increase the final volume
of targeted material, which may have an impact on its redistribution at the site if space is limited.
Composting usually occurs under aerobic (with oxygen), thermophilic (temperatures ranging
from 55ฐC to 60ฐC) conditions. Other control parameters (besides oxygen content and
temperature) are moisture content, compost pH, type and concentration of organic constituents,
and concentration of inorganic nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus).
In composting using a windrow system, the soil and amendment mixture are formed into
elongated piles (windrows) on an impervious surface and turned periodically. Windrows are
typically 4 to 6 feet high and 10 to 12 feet wide, with length of the windrow determined by the
size constraints of the pad surface or work area. The windrow piles are mechanically turned on a
regular basis to aerate the mixture, distribute heat and moisture, and ensure even composting.
The next chapter (Chapter 3) details the application of windrow composting at UMDA.
118
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 8 of 42
2.3 Project Description
The remediation project, supported by USAGE, was conducted in two phases. The phased
procurement approach employed at UMDA came about, in part, because of a requirement
imposed by CERCLA which stipulates that physical onsite remedial action must begin within 15
months of the issuance of the ROD which was signed in September 1992. Pressed with the
possibility of receiving a Notice of Violation (NOV) and other penalties if the deadline was not
met, the USAGE opted to divide the project into two phases. Phase I would cover the routine
excavation and construction portion and be offered in the faster Invitation for Bid (IFB)
solicitation format while Phase n, which would cover the entire remediation process, would be
offered using the more lengthy Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation process. By dividing the
remediation work effort, USAGE was successfully able to prepare and award the IFB for Phase I
prior to the deadline, thereby effectively negating any associated violation or penalty. However,
this contracting strategy also introduced some duplication of effort (and therefore, costs), given
that two contracts now existed where only one had originally been envisioned.
Phase I, which has been completed, was performed by Wilder Construction Company and
included the excavation of the soils from the lagoons, erection of a soil storage building, and
stockpiling of the excavated soils in the storage building. Phase II, which is currently under way,
is being performed by Bioremediation Services Incorporated. This portion of the project
included the preparation of three trial tests to determine optimization of amendment mixture,
equipment and operating procedures; full-scale production composting; demobilization; and site
restoration. Details of the project, by Phase, are provided in Chapter 3. Events are presented in
chronological order to establish a reference to time of year and length of activity.
119
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 9 of 42
3,0 Remediation Process
3.1 Phase I
Analytical results from composite borehole samples taken around the lagoons were used to
estimate an approximate volume of 6,339 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil. A Contaminated
Soil Storage Building (CSSB) was built to accommodate this soil volume for storage and
subsequent treatment in Phase n. Post excavation survey of the lagoons revealed thin seams of
soil contamination extending beyond the initially excavated area. The Phase I contractor, Wilder
Construction Company (WCC), then excavated the additional soil, which was placed in the
remaining areas (designated for later use as the treatment area) of the CSSB and on an adjacent
asphalt pad, with a reinforced polyethylene liner for cover. The total volume of soil excavated by
WCC was 13,245 cy (10,845 cy of contaminated soil plus 2,400 cy of clean soil), an increase of
50 percent over the estimated volume. This increase in volume triggered a chain of events that
significantly affected the cost of the remediation and is discussed in subsequent sections as well
as in the summary of costs in Chapter 4.
3.1.1 Planning and Contracting
After extensive planning, design, and contract preparation on the part of the USAGE, the IFB for
Phase I was released, and WCC successfully responded. Initial activity under the contract
included the preparation and submission of a number of preconstruction submittals and
implementation plans. After receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP) on November 24, 1993, WCC
prepared and submitted the Remedial Action Management Plan (RAMP), which consisted of the
following components: Work Plan; Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP); Contractor Quality
Control Management Plan; Environmental Protection Plan; Spill Prevention Plan; Control and
Countermeasures Plan; Security and Access Control Plan; Hazard Analysis; WCC Safety
Program and Field Supervisor's Safety and Health Manual; Letters of Authorization and
Appointment; Resumes and Certifications; Equipment Specifications; and Construction Layout
Plans.
3.1.2 Site Setup
As the RAMP was undergoing review, the demarcation of the work zones, as provided in the
SSHP, took place. These controlled zones included an Exclusion Zone (EZ), where
contamination does or could occur; a Contamination Reduction Zone (CRZ), where
decontamination will occur; and a Support Zone (SZ), which is a clean zone outside the CRZ.
Only after being clearly delineated with colored tapes, fences, rope, and other barricades could
site work commence.
After establishment of the controlled zones on March 14, 1994, the mobilization of construction
equipment, facilities, and personnel took place hi preparation for site setup work. Initial
activities onsite included the clearing and grubbing of work areas, construction/upgrade of roads
and decontamination pads to include sumps for wastewater collection/reuse during composting,
120
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 10 of 42
establishment of temporary support facilities, hookup of temporary utilities, and construction of
an asphalt pad for use in and around the storage building. An existing pad at the site, which was
intended to be used, had to be replaced because its slope was too steep. This pad replacement
necessitated a contract modification.
With concrete footings in place and foundation ready, assembly of a 200-foot by 90-foot
prefabricated metal building known as the CSSB was completed on June 16, 1994 (Figure 3-1).
This building was designed to accommodate storage of the initial estimated volume of
approximately 6,400 cy of soil and subsequent processing activities. The CSSB prevented runoff
and wind erosion of the contaminated soil in Phase I and was intended to accommodate
composting operations during Phase II. Immediately adjacent to the CSSB, additional pad space
was dedicated to the Material Process Area (MPA), where material stockpiling, processing, and
drum handling would occur. In addition, ecology blocks (interlocking concrete blocks used to
form retaining or barrier walls) were placed around the inside perimeter of the building (Figure
3-1) to contain and separate contaminated soil stockpiles. The SSHP required air monitoring
(Figure 3-2) and dust and vapor control systems in the CSSB to ensure minimum air quality and
safe working conditions. To provide ventilation and adequate air flow, 16 louvered exhaust fans
were also installed in the CSSB (Figure 3-3).
Figured-!. Empty CSSB, UMDA
121
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 11 of 42
Figure 3-2. Treatment Building Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring, UMDA
MSA Model 260Combination methane and oxygen monitoring station equipped with audio
and visual alarms to notify personnel in the event preset safety levels are exceeded.
Figure 3-3. Powered Ventilation Fans, UMDA
Immediately after the CSSB was completed, WCC also decontaminated and removed the steel
overflow trough, which allowed the spent rinsewater from the explosives washout plant (Bldg.
489 in Figure 2-3) to flow into the lagoons. The inlet and outlet ends of the concrete sump (refer
to Figure 2-3), located at the base of the stationary portion of the trough, were sealed with non-
shrink grout.
122
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 12 of 42
3.1.3 Excavation and Transport
With the soil storage building completed, work focused on the excavation of the contaminated
soil from the lagoons (Figure 3-4), which continued from June 21 to July 11, 1994. The
contaminated soil was transported via dump truck through a decontamination pad (concrete
staging pad sloped to a sump for the collection of all contaminated runoff liquid upon pressure
washing of vehicle undercarriage and wheels) to the MPA above the lagoons adjacent to the
CSSB. WCC unloaded and screened the soil to remove rocks and debris in preparation for
storage in the CSSB. Any non-contaminated soil that was excavated was stockpiled adjacent to
the lagoons. Contamination of soil was verified by onsite analysis using EPA Method 8515 for
TNT and Method 8510 for RDX. Personnel and perimeter air monitoring was performed during
excavation and screening to ensure that airborne concentrations were below the maximum safe
limits of 0.25 mg/m3 for TNT and 2.5 mg/m3 for respirable dust (Figure 3-5).
Figure 3-4. Lagoon Excavation, UMDA
Figure 3-5. Perimeter Air Monitoring, UMDA
Portable upwind/downwind integrated air sampler used to monitor respirable dust and airborne
concentrations of TNT and RDX.
123
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 13 of 42
On July 11, 1994, WCC suspended excavation work because they were nearing maximum
contract soil volume. This suspension occurred despite the appearance of a telltale reddish lens
at the sides of the excavated area of both lagoons, indicating the residual presence of TNT.
Efforts were temporarily redirected to the removal of storage drums from Buildings 411, 412,
and 413 per contract modification. The storage drums were left over from previous RI/FS work
at the site and contained either soil, water, or clothing. The drums containing soil were
transported to the material handling area and screened in the same manner as the excavated soil;
the drums containing water were set aside for inclusion in Phase II composting; and the drums
containing clothing were shipped offsite for disposal.
WCC resumed excavation on July 25,1994 after receiving a contract modification to excavate
the additional volume of contaminated soil that did not achieve the <30 ppm cleanup level for
TNT and RDX. Excavation under this contract modification was completed on August 1, 1994,
with an additional day of soil screening required to screen the backlog of stockpiled soil. The
contract modification also addressed the disposition of the soil contained in the drums. After
sampling analysis for TNT or RDX indicated no levels >30 ppm, they were sealed and returned
to Bldg. 412 pending decision on final disposition.
As reddish lenses of TNT-contaminated soil were still observed in the excavated lagoons, WCC
returned, once again, to continue excavation of three stratified layers of contaminated soil in the
four sidewalls of both lagoons. The three contaminated layers of soil were separated by non-
contaminated soil. Excavation of both contaminated and non-contaminated soil from the
sidewalls of the lagoons totaled 3,300 cubic yards. Another contract modification ($147,000)
addressing the additional excavation, screening, sampling and analysis, and stockpiling was
prepared to accommodate the total 10,845 cy of contaminated soil actually excavated.
Due to this unforeseen increase in soil volume, WCC was directed by USAGE to store the excess
contaminated soil outside the CSSB on the asphalt pad because the CSSB, which was designed
and built to accommodate the original estimate of 6,339 cy, was at capacity prior to completion
of soil excavation. Ecology blocks were used for containment and a reinforced 18-mil
polyethylene liner was secured with sandbags for cover. This final excavation was completed on
September 6,1994.
3.1.4 Chemical Analysis
In accordance with the Contractor Quality Control Management Plan, rigorous onsite analyses
for TNT and RDX within pre-established grids were performed using EPA Method 8515 for
TNT and Method 8510 for RDX to guide excavation depths and widths where the cleanup level
of <30 ppm had not yet been attained. Furthermore, composite samples were regularly taken,
prepared, and shipped offsite to a chemical laboratory for confirmatory analysis using EPA
Method 8330.
After the final excavation of the stratified layers, onsite analysis and confirmatory analysis of 40
discrete samples taken from 8 grids in the bottom of the lagoons indicated that cleanup criteria
had been met for TNT but not for RDX. Further review of the analytical data by USAGE
124
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 14 of 42
indicated that the sampling and analytical process protocols had not been properly followed,
prompting an additional 40 samples to be obtained and analyzed. This additional work triggered
yet another contract modification and an extension of approximately 4 weeks to accommodate
laboratory analysis. While the second sample batch was being analyzed (and ultimately
accepted), WCC effected temporary closure of the lagoons by laying in approximately 2 feet of
gravel and performing a final grading of the excavated area.
3.1.5 Decontamination, Demobilization, and Site Restoration
Decontamination, demobilization, and site restoration of Phase I activities began after excavation
was completed. All equipment was decontaminated and inspected; utilities were cut off and
removed; and all temporary and supporting facilities were either properly disposed of and/or
removed from the site. Phase I closeout occurred on September 20, 1994. A timeline of Phase I
activities is provided below in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Phase ITimeline
Activity
Notice to proceed
Site Setup
Excavation and Transport
Chemical Analysis
Decontamination,
Demobilization, and Site
Restoration
Start Date
November 24, 1993
March 14, 1994
June 21, 1994
June 21, 1994
September 14, 1994
Finish Date
June 16, 1994
September 6, 1994
September 14, 1994
September 20, 1994
3.2 Phase II
As mentioned in Section 2.3, some duplication of effort was inevitable because of the use of two
contracts. Much of this duplication was evident in Phase II, beginning with the contract
preparation on behalf of the USAGE followed by Bioremediation Services Incorporated's (BSI)
preparation of the first of two RAMPs for Phase n and the subsequent remobilization of the site.
A second RAMP was required in Phase n to incorporate the results of the trial tests as well as the
comments regarding RAMP I. Furthermore, the chain of events and added costs associated with
the increased soil volume in Phase I were also apparent in Phase n.
3.2.1 Planning and Contracting
The contract for Phase n of the remediation effort was awarded to BSI upon completion of a
protracted selection, evaluation, and award process. After receiving a NTP on June 13, 1994,
BSI prepared the first RAMP containing the following subdocuments: Composting Treatment
Trial Test Plan; Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP); Contractor Quality Control Management
Plan; Environmental Protection Plan; Ventilation Plan; Network Analysis Plan (Integrated
Project Activity Duration Spreadsheet); and Temporary Treatment Building Plan. USAGE
issued approval of the Final RAMP I on November 18, 1994.
125
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 15 of 42
3.2.2 Site Setup
As BSI reestablished work zones per the SSHP, they also mobilized construction equipment,
facilities, and personnel in preparation for site setup work. Initial site activity began on
December 19,1994, and included the following: grubbing and clearing of work areas,
construction of roads and decontamination facilities, establishment of a field office, installation
of an onsite laboratory, hookup of temporary utilities, and preparation of a baseline air
monitoring survey.
The existence of the additional volume of excavated contaminated soil prompted USAGE to
exercise one of its contract options to lease temporary building storage space from BSI for the
soil. BSI provided the space in the form of three tents (owned by BSI) erected adjacent to the
CSSB. The tents provided for storage of all contaminated soils so that the CSSB could be
emptied and used solely as the treatment facility. All soil, except the first batch of soil intended
for treatment, would be moved from the CSSB and the adjacent asphalt pad into the BSI tents to
provide adequate ventilated space for BSI's turning equipment in the treatment building.
The BSI tents were leased to USAGE with a contract modification of $487,000, which includes
the costs for a 2-year lease on the BSI tents, site setup of the tents, and demobilization of the
tents. Site setup for the tents included clearing, grabbing, and grading in preparation for an
asphalt pad on which the tents were placed. The tents provided 42,250 square feet of soil storage
space to accommodate the storage of all excavated soil stored in the CSSB and on the nearby
asphalt pad. The tents were delivered to the site on January 30, 1995, and were erected by
February 9, 1995. The movement of all contaminated soil (including the soil stored in the CSSB
and the soil stockpiled on the adjacent asphalt pad) into the tents was delayed because one of
BSI's subcontractors was unable to ensure all employees had proper hazmat certifications. After
this was rectified, the soil transfer process began on March 7,1995, and concluded the following
day in preparation for the trial tests (Figure 3-6).
Figure 3-6. Contaminated Soil Being Moved into Storage Tents, UMDA
126
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 16 of 42
3.2.3 Trial Tests
Prior to full-scale composting, three small trial test windrows were constructed in the CSSB.
BSI conducted the trial tests to: (1) determine the timeliness and effectiveness of composting at
reducing TNT and RDX concentrations; (2) correlate field data (using EPA Method 8515 for
TNT and Method 8510 for RDX) and laboratory data (using EPA Method 8330) of the test
windrows; (3) plan alternative actions, if necessary, to improve degradation rates if action levels
of 30 ppm for TNT and RDX were not achieved within 40 days; and (4) determine the optimum
turning frequency for full-scale operations. BSI monitored a number of physical characteristics
during the trial tests including temperature, pH, moisture level, and gas/vapor production. These
physical tests helped BSI determine optimum pile turning frequency.
During the trial test, BSI employed an intense regimen of sampling and analysis, using EPA
Method 8515 for TNT and Method 8510 for RDX for onsite analysis and Method 8330 for
laboratory confirmational analysis. The increased number and frequency in sampling was
performed to determine TNT and RDX concentrations at specific sampling locations and time
intervals within the three windrowed compost piles. Three test piles were prepared, in part, to
accommodate three different turning strategies. The loading ratio of contaminated soil (30%) to
amendments (70%) were the same for all three test piles (see below). The turning frequencies for
the first two windrows were 24- and 72-hours, while the third windrow underwent a varied
turning cycle: every 24 hours for the first 10 days, every 72 hours for the next 10 days, and at 168
hours for the final 10 days. Samples were taken and analyzed from all of the windrows at the
start of the test period and then at 5-day intervals for 30 days until the average concentrations of
TNT and RDX were determined to be statistically below 30 ppm. The optimum turning
frequency was the varied turning cycle, with frequent turning during the first 3 to 5 days followed
by less frequent turning. Frequent turning of the windrows improves the biodegradation process
and is most effective over the initial 3 to 5 days when the decomposition rate is greatest. As the
process continues, the biodegradation process is not affected by a reduction in the turning
frequency.
The trial tests, consisting of 120 cy of contaminated soil (each windrow containing 40 cy of
contaminated soil), were conducted using 30 percent soil by volume, with the remaining 70
percent composed of amendments. BSI blended the amendments at approximately a
1:3:5.4:5.4:6.5 ratio of chicken manure:potato waste:alfalfa:sawdust:cow manure. BSI used the
same soil loading rate and the same amendments at the same ratio used in a previous preliminary
treatability study performed at UMDA.
The trial tests began on March 20, 1995, after all necessary equipment had been checked and
calibrated and adequate amendments had been bought, delivered, and properly blended (specific
procedures and equipment used in the composting process employed at UMDA are discussed in
Section 3.2.4). By April 10, 1995, (11 days after initiation of composting) onsite analysis of the
trial windrows by EPA Method 8515 for TNT and Method 8510 for RDX indicated that virtually
all contaminants were at nondetectable levels. BSI took confirmatory samples to verify cleanup
levels via EPA Method 8330 on April 13, 1995. The trial tests were completed on April 19,
1995.
127
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 17 of 42
As required by the contract, BSI prepared and delivered the second RAMP (RAMP n) which
incorporated the results of the trial tests as well as comments regarding RAMP I on April 24,
1995. Draft RAMP E included a Production Composting Treatment Plan and Revegetation Plan
to effect contract closeout. After USAGE review and comment, a final RAMP n was prepared,
submitted, and approved on July 3,1995, clearing the way for full-scale production composting
to begin.
3.2.4 Full-Scale Composting
While the trial test confirmed the prescribed amendment mixture, soil loading rate, moisture
content (30 to 35 percent) by weight, and turning frequency (every 24 hours the first 5 days
followed by less frequent turning on subsequent days), it also revealed that the originally
scheduled processing time could be significantly reduced from 40 days to approximately 22 days
(8 to 10 days of which were spent waiting for offsite laboratory confirmatory analysis). BSI
calculated the total contaminated soil to be 10,969 cy (as opposed to WCC's estimated volume of
10,845 cy). BSI, therefore, planned to construct 13 windrow batches, each containing 810 cy of
soil (10,530 cy) and 1 batch containing 439 cy. These volumes were calculated based on the
operational constraints of the apparatus that was used to turn windrows during the trial tests,
which were conducted within the 200-foot by 90-foot CSSB. Because Phase I work started prior
to the contract award of Phase n, there was no interface between the Phase I and Phase n
contractors. Consequently, the CSSB was not designed to accommodate the turning radius of
BSI's specialized turning machine (the "Wendy"). BSI began full-scale production composting
on July 18,1995.
The Process Flow Diagram shown in Figure 3-7 depicts the entire process used for all 14 batches,
beginning with preparatory soil screening in the upper left corner. BSI determined that screening
conducted during Phase I was inadequate for composting. All contaminated soil was rescreened
to remove large chunks of construction debris and rocks (Figures 3-8 and 3-9).
128
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 18 of 42
Combined
Soil & Amendment
(compost)
Screener
Amendments
Soil
Sawdust
Potato
Waste
Cow
Manure
Alfalfa
Chicken
Manure
Compost Turning
(Wendy)
RECLAIMED SOIL
Treatment Building
(CSSB)
II
On-site Laboratory
Source: (2)
Figure 3-7. Process Flow Diagram, UMDA
129
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 19 of 42
%*^^8^C^
rlT^t-^^K''ฎ^
Figure 3-8. Screening Oversized Rocks and Concrete, UMDA
Figure 3-9. Screened Soil Inside Storage Building, UMDA
With amendments procured and stored (Figures 3-10 and 3-11), mixing of the prescribed blend
was initiated with retrieval of the selected amendment from the appropriate bin (Figure 3-12).
The amendments were always premixed before they were mixed with the contaminated soil.
This two step process encouraged early initiation of microbial activity. The mixing of
amendments was performed using the front-end loader/Roto-Mix system. Amendments were
loaded into the Roto-Mix hopper which was mounted on four load cells connected to a digital
scale allowing precise and rapid batching of each amendment. BSI established a correlation
between weight of amendments and required volumes. Once loaded, the Roto-Mix combined the
130
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 20 of 42
three actions of folding, cutting, and shearing to ensure thorough amendment homogenization
(Figure 3-13).
Figure 3-10. Vendor Delivering Alfalfa, UMDA
Figure 3-11. Stored Amendments Separated by Ecology Blocks, UMDA
131
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 21 of 42
Figure 3-12. Pulling Amendments for Mixing, UMDA
Figure 3-13. Mixed Amendments, UMDA
The mixed amendments were then loaded into a "maulwauf soil mixing unit located on the
Materials Processing Area (MPA) (Figure 3-14) with the front-end loader. Screened
contaminated soil was also loaded into a soil hopper driven by the maulwauf. The maulwauf
132
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 22 of 42
conveyed the amendment mixture to a shredder chamber, where it was mixed with contaminated
soil in a 7:3 volumetric ratio. The compost was then carried by belt conveyor and discharged
onto the MPA for loading into the CSSB for treatment. Using a front-end loader, the material
was arranged into a windrow measuring 165 feet by 55 feet by 7 feet
Toilets
\
Site Map
Temporary Buildings (Tents) Phase II
Contaminated Soil Storage Area
Asphalt Materials
Processing Area (MPA)
Roto-Mix
Maulwauf
Figure 3-14. Site Map, UMDA
To ensure compost homogenization, oxygenation, and sufficient contact between
microorganisms and contaminants, the windrows were turned every 24 hours for the first 5 days
of treatment then less frequently on the following days. BSI used a compost turning machine,
called the "Wendy" (Figure 3-15) to turn the windrows. The process of turning introduced
oxygen and removed heat. Although the compost turning machine leaves the windrow largely
intact upon turning, any necessary reshaping was done by a front-end loader.
133
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at LJMDA, Page 23 of 42
Figure 3-15. Turning of a Windrow, UMDA
3.2.5 Chemical Analysis
During the course of the composting operation, monitoring of the material for temperature,
percent oxygen, percent moisture, pH, and explosives concentration was performed regularly.
Temperature was monitored intermittently via probes placed in and along the length of the pile.
Oxygen, which had been determined from previous studies to drop to an equilibrium level
rapidly after turning, was monitored daily using a hand-held meter attached to a probe. Percent
moisture, as well as pH, were monitored twice a week with moisture being added as needed to
maintain optimum conditions.
The remaining contaminant level was determined using EPA Method 4050 for TNT and Method
4051 for RDX during onsite analysis. EPA Method 8330 was used for confirmatory laboratory
analysis. Although Methods 8515 and 8510 were effective in determining contaminant levels in
explosives-contaminated soil, Methods 4050 and 4051 exhibited better correlation with
laboratory analysis data (Method 8330) after nitrogen rich amendments are mixed with the
contaminated soil. The colorimetric technique used in Methods 8515 and 8510 experienced
interference from the nitrogen rich amendments. In contrast, the immunoassay technique used in
Methods 4050 and 4051 takes advantage of the ability of antibodies to selectively bind to specific
target compounds present at low concentrations in the sample matrix. This change in onsite
analysis was approved by USAGE on June 26, 1995, so subsequent onsite analyses were
conducted using Method 4050 for TNT and Method 4051 for RDX, while Method 8330 was still
used for confirmatory laboratory analysis. In accordance with the Phase II Contractor Quality
Control Management Plan, onsite analyses for TNT and RDX were conducted after the soil had
been initially mixed with the amendments and periodically thereafter until the cleanup goal of
<30 ppm was met. Average concentrations of contaminant taken from archived compost samples
collected from day 0 during trial test composting were 190 ppm for TNT and 227 ppm for RDX.
Once the cleanup level was attained, as indicated by onsite analysis (Figure 3-16), confirmational
134
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Pagฉ 24 of 42
sampling was conducted. Two discrete random grid samples (Figure 3-17) representing a
maximum of 30 cy of contaminated soil (grid size) were taken from each grid and sent to an
offsite chemical laboratory for confirmatory analysis using EPA Method 8330.
Figure 3-16. Onsite Analysis (TNT/RDX), UMDA
Using test protocols based on Methods
8515 (TNT), and 8510 (RDX).
Figure 3-17. Split Sample Preparation, UMDA
Preparation as required by QA/QC plan for
offsite confirmatory analysis using Method 8330.
A grid is equivalent to 30 cubic yards of contaminated soil, so a batch containing 810 cubic yards
of contaminated soil would have 27 grids. Two random samples are taken from each grid over
the whole windrow for a total of 54 samples. If only one or two grids fail the <30 ppm cleanup
level, then only those grids are re-sampled. If more than two grids fail, then additional treatment
is resumed to facilitate further degradation before additional sampling occurs.
BSI experienced only two failed grids on separate windrows during treatment. In Batch 3, a grid
sample showed mean concentrations of both TNT and RDX at 33.5 ppm. A second sampling
indicated that TNT and RDX were below 30 ppm, suggesting that the first sample contained an
explosive speck. A second instance of a failed grid occurred in Batch 11 (see Figure 3-18), with
concentrations of 46.5 ppm for TNT and 61 ppm for RDX. The other 26 grids in Batch 11 were
below the 30 ppm action level. The failed grid was segregated from the other batches and
135
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 25 of 42
incorporated into a subsequent batch for further treatment. Once laboratory analysis confirmed
that both TNT and RDX were below 30 ppm, the composting batch was transferred out of the
CSSB (Figure 3-19) and stockpiled under cover (Figure 3-20) for eventual return to the
excavated area.
Figure 3-18. Segregated Failed Grid Batch, UMDA
Figure 3-19. Loading Treated Soil, UMDA
136
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 26 of 42
Figure 3-20. Temporary Treated Soil Stockpile, UMDA
Batch 1 was completed on August 23, 1995,23 days after windrow construction. Similar
processing times for the remaining batches have been recorded. Project completion has been
revised to occur on or around September 1, 1996, approximately one year ahead of the original
project schedule.
3.2.6 Demobilization/Site Restoration
Once a composting batch is completed, the treated soil is transferred by dump truck to a final
stockpile area adjacent to the lagoons. The USAGE will transfer the soil back into the lagoons
after a separate groundwater remediation effort is complete. Because the volume of material will
have increased by approximately 75 percent due to the addition of the amendments, a mounding
effect will occur. This mound is anticipated to be capped with a foot or two of common borrow,
graded, and seeded with rye or other suitable vegetative cover. Additional closeout activities will
include the decontamination and demobilization of all equipment, disconnection of utility
hookups and services, and recycling of all asphalt materials. Any waste will be removed from
the site and use areas will be restored. BSI's submission of a closeout report is anticipated on or
about September 1, 1996. Table 3-2 shows the timeline of Phase H activities.
Table 3-2. Phase IITimeline
Activity
Notice to proceed
Site Setup
Trial Tests
Full-scale Composting
Chemical Analysis
Demobilization/Site
Restoration
Start Date
June 13, 1994
December 19, 1994
March 20, 1995
July 18, 1995
March 20, 1995
September 1996*
End Date
February 9, 1995
April 19, 1995
September 1996*
September 1996
December 1996*
*Anticipated
137
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 27 of 42
4.0 Summary of Costs
4.1 Remedial ActionWork Breakdown Structure (RA-WBS)
Methodology Overview
All cost data collected for this report have been organized according to the format specified by
the Remedial Action-Work Breakdown Structure (RA-WBS). This cost methodology provides a
common language that can be used to ensure clear communications among those who work on a
project, including accountants, supervisors, foreman, engineers, regulatory officials, and legal
professionals. The Interagency Cost Estimating Group (ICEG) developed this method of cost
reporting for tracking full-scale remediation projects because it facilitates widespread use and
comparability across agencies and various media. The ICEG is composed of cost and project
management professionals with a broad spectrum of experience in environmental restoration.
Those professionals represent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department
of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and
the U.S. Air Force. The group has been augmented at tunes by individuals from the private
sector and other Federal agencies.
The standard RA-WBS contains a comprehensive list of predefined cost elements (tasks, items,
or products) that have been identified through experience as required to accomplish a typical
project. The list can be arranged in spreadsheet format and defines each cost element, including
its unit of measure, and assigns each element a unique number composed of up to five sets of
two-digit numbers. The spreadsheet organizes the elements such that related items are grouped
together to form a hierarchy. The lower the level on the hierarchy, the more detailed the items
become. The RA-WBS hierarchy has five levels of detail. Level 1 defines the project as a
hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) remedial action project. Level 2 lists major
work categories generally found in a remediation construction project. At Level 3, items that are
used to accomplish Level 2 categories appear, while Levels 4 and 5 represent further detail of
cost items associated with the project. Table 4-1 provides an example of a completed RA-WBS
for a fictional project.
138
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA. Page 28 of 42
Table 4-1. Work Breakdown Structure Reporting Example
PROJECT COSTS (X $1 ,000)
33.01
33.01.02
33.01 .02.01
33.03
33.03.04
33.03.04.04
33.03.04.10
33.03.04.90
33.03.05
33.03.05.01
33.03.05.02
3303 10
33.03.10.01
33.03.10.03
33.03.10.30
33.05
MOBILIZATION AND
PREPARATORY WORK
Mobilization of Personnel
Relocation of Personnel
SITE WORK
Roads/Parkina/Curbs/Walks
Concrete Surfacing
Signs
Sewage Vents
Fencing
Fencing
Gates
Fuel Line Distribution
Fuel Line Distribution
Connections/Fees
Tests
SURFACE WATER COLLECTION
AND CONTROL
COST
$ 48
$400
$50
COST
$ 48
$100
$ 50
$250
COST
$48
$ 50
$ 11
$ 39
$ 45
$ 5
$200
$ 20
$ 30
UNITS
4
100
22
3
4500
100
20000
50
5
UNIT
COST
12/EA
0.5/CY
0.5/EA
13/EA
0.01 /LF
0.05/LF
0.01 /LF
0.4/EA
6.0/EA
An important feature of the RA-WBS is the ability to add additional cost categories where
needed to customize the cost reporting. These cost elements are added by the user into "blank"
areas located throughout the structure. For example, preparation of a RAMP did not appear as a
line item in the existing RA-WBS structure and was added in the appropriate location under
Element Number 33.01Mobilization and Preparatory Work. Because windrow composting of
explosives-contaminated soils is considered an innovative technology, several cost elements
were not included in the existing structure. Instead, they were added in appropriate locations
using the "nonstandard element" notation indicated by the number 9x, where x was replaced with
a digit corresponding to the number of item(s) added. Separate WBS spreadsheets were prepared
for Phase I and Phase TJ.
4.2 Assumptions and Limitations/Level of Documentation
Cost data used in this report came exclusively from the original contract, contractors' requests
for payment, and the corresponding payment records prepared by USAGE. Contract files were
accessed to determine original contract pricing as well as financially significant modifications to
the contracts. The format in which the contractors provided cost data was not readily converted
for inclusion into the RA-WBS and as a result, caused some difficulty. Future data collection
could be facilitated if remedial action contractors reported cost in the RA-WBS or similar format.
139
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 29 of 42
As this project was funded via government appropriations on a fiscal year basis, no debt service
or carrying cost is included. Because projects conducted at other government installations may
also be subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility design
requirements applied at UMDA, any discussion of potential cost reduction associated with
variations of applicable regulation(s) has been foregone. It is important to note, however, that at
an EPA Regional Administrator's discretion, the RCRA facility design requirements may be
waived.
Additional sources of information for this cost report included the Best and Final Offer (BAFO)
solicitation packages submitted on behalf of each contractor, RAMPs submitted under the
respective contracts, monthly progress reports, and daily and weekly quality control reports
provided by the contractors and onsite USAGE representative. To the extent practicable, this
report uses actual payment figures.
4.2.1 Fixed Costs vs. Variable Costs
This report identifies the various cost elements as either "fixed" or "variable." As used in this
report which applies to the UMDA remediation effort, fixed costs refer to those costs incurred at
UMDA that do not vary with the volume of soil treated. Mobilization and Preparatory Work
represents a fixed cost because this activity must be done to accomplish the work, and its cost is
irrespective of soil volume. That is, mobilization and preparatory work must be done to treat 1
ton or 10,000 tons of soil, and its dollars will remain relatively the same for either volume. This
report considers analytical work (Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis) as a variable cost
since the total dollars associated with this cost element is directly related to the volume of soil;
that is, more soil increases the number of tests, and inherently the total dollars. The sum of all of
the fixed costs represents the minimum cost for operations at UMDA. Variable costs (e.g.,
amendments, sampling) are calculated by multiplying the unit variable cost with the number of
units (e.g., tons, cubic yards, samples) processed. Total cost for processing soil at UMDA is then
the summation of all variable costs and all fixed costs. At UMDA, the unit cost (dollars per ton)
for treatment of small soil volumes would be high due to the high up-front fixed costs and low
treated soil volume. The unit cost for treating larger soil volumes at UMDA increases marginally
at first, then levels off as fixed costs are spread over static unit cost of processing soil.
To estimate the unit cost at other sites, some cost elements identified here as "fixed" for UMDA
will change based on site-specific conditions. Therefore, cost elements identified as "fixed" for
UMDA will not represent the actual cost at another site. This report identifies Site Work as a
fixed cost, because the cost for clearing and grubbing of the area did not change with the volume
of soil treated. However the fixed cost for Site Work at UMDA ($526,294, combined cost for
Phase I and Phase H) will not be the same for another site unless it has the same vegetation, same
soil, same topography, and same surface area as UMDA. A site with considerable vegetation,
high slopes, and no existing roads will experience a higher cost for site work than a site that is
clear of vegetation, relatively flat, and with existing roads.
The unit variable costs (e.g., cost of each laboratory sample, cost of alfalfa per ton) at UMDA
can be translated to other sites with similar conditions. Unit cost for some of the variable cost
140
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 30 of 42
elements will also vary at other sites according to factors such as type of contaminants and
concentration of contamination, type of amendments used, availability of amendments, cost of
amendments, and regional labor rates. These factors will cause the unit variable costs to differ
from UMDA even before factoring in the number of units (e.g., soil volume, number of samples).
4.3 Cost BreakdownPhase I
Each of the eight general work areas appearing in the RA-WBS for Phase I is represented in
Table 4-2 below indicating activity, total cost, percentage of Phase I cost, as well as percentage
of the combined Phase I and Phase n cost ($5,131,106). Table 4-2 identifies the cost elements as
fixed or variable costs. Fixed costs do not vary with project duration or the volume of
contaminated soil to remediate, while variable costs change according to site specific variables
(e.g., nature and extent of contamination, soil characteristics, climatic conditions) and with the
soil volume to remediate (i.e., overall project cost rises with increased volume of soil). Figure 4-
1 shows graphically the HTRW level 2 costs.
Table 4-2. Phase I Cost Breakdown
Work Area
33.01
33.02
33.03
33.08
33.10
33.20
33.21
Activity
Mobilization and Preparatory
Work1
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis *
Site Work '
Solids Collection Containment
2
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Misc.
Demolition and Removal 2
Site Restoration '
Demobilization '
PHASE 1 TOTAL COST
Cost
$257,000
$87,478
$506,294
$403,578
$39,812
$21,000
$5,000
$1,320,162
% of Phase 1
Cost
19.47%
6.63%
38.35%
30.57%
3.02%
1.59%
0.38%
% of Phase 1
and II Cost
5.01%
1.70%
9.87%
7.87%
0.78%
0.41%
0.10%
25.73%
Notes:
Fixed Costs
Variable Costs
141
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 31 of 42
SITE
RESTORATION
AND
DEMOBILIZATION
2%
MOBILIZATION
AND
PREPARATORY
WORK
19%
DRUM REMOVAL
3%
SOLIDS
COLLECTION
AND
CONTAINMENT
31%
MONITORING,
SAMPLING,
TESTING, AND
ANALYSIS
7%
SITE WORK
38%
Figure 4-1. Phase ITotal Cost
The four largest areas of cost concentration occurring in Phase I are: Site Work at 38 percent,
Solids Collection and Containment at 31 percent, Mobilization and Preparatory Work at
19 percent, and Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis at 7 percent. The balance of the
general work categories in Phase I comprise approximately 5 percent of the Phase I cost
(Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition and Removal at 3 percent, Site Restoration
and Demobilization at 2 percent). Drum removal was unique to UMDA and will probably not
occur at other sites.
Given that the primary thrusts of Phase I were to construct a storage building, excavate the
contaminated soil, and relocate the material to the storage building, the distribution of the costs
are consistent with the tasking.
The breakdown of cost provided via record of payment and request for payment histories, did not
always lend itself to ready categorization in the RA-WBS format. RA-WBS elements
33.01.01Mobilization of Construction, Equipment & Facilities and 33.01.02Mobilization of
Personnel had to be included in the subsequent RA-WBS element 33.01.04Setup/Construct
Temporary Facilities due to WCC's practice of grouping these costs together.
Additional considerations in examining costs associated with Phase I activity at UMDA include
RA-WBS work area 33.03, Site Work, where the demolition cost associated with the removal of
142
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 32 of 42
the asphalt pad appears. Depending on the facility, existing pad sites may be present and should
be included in the site selection evaluation to avoid or reduce demolition cost. RA-WBS
category element 33.03.02, Clearing and Grubbing, was not applicable at UMDA. Because of
the climate at UMDA (semi-arid cold desert) and sparse flora, very little work was required to
prepare the site for activity. This cost may differ at another facility with rugged terrain or heavy
vegetation or both. Managers considering project design and project costs should weigh the cost
of treating onsite versus transporting soil to a more suitable site for composting, if they expect
extensive site work.
RA-WBS category element 33.03.90 represents another instance where a lump sum entry was
provided by WCC under the heading "General Field Requirements" with no further clarification.
The standard RA-WBS does not include such a heading, therefore, it was grouped under site
work, given its name, but was entered as a 9x or "nonstandard element" in the RA-WBS. Due to
lack of data, no further cost differentiation was possible in this area.
The chain of events associated with the increased soil volume, described in Chapter 3, initially
appears in the Phase I RA-WBS work area 33.02, Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
under category element 33.02.09, as additional sampling totaling $9,920. The increased
excavation and transport costs for this additional soil appear later in RA-WBS work area 33.08
Solids Collection and Containment under subelements 33.08.01Excavation of Contaminated
Soil, 33.08.90Screening, and 33.08.91Transport Contaminated Soil to Storage Building.
Although dispersed between the three subelements, this activity accounted for the most
significant contract modification to Phase I.
4.4 Cost BreakdownPhase II
Each of the eight general work areas appearing in the RA-WBS for Phase II is represented in
Table 4-3, indicating activity, total cost, percentage of Phase II cost, and percentage of the
combined Phase I and H costs ($5,131,106). Table 4-3 also identifies the cost elements, or
activities, as fixed or variable costs. Figure 4-2 graphically identifies the primary cost elements
in Phase n.
Figure 4-3 illustrates total project cost including Phase I, Phase H, and all work on behalf of
USAGE in preparing, supervising, and administering the Remedial Action Contracts.
.143
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 33 of 42
Table 4-3. Phase II Cost Breakdown
Work Area
33.01
33.02
33.03
33.11
33.19
33.20
33.21
33.90
Activity
Mobilization and Preparatory
Work1
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis 2
Site Work '
Biological Treatment 2
Disposal (Commercial) '
Site Restoration '
Demobilization '
Settle Miscellaneous Claims 2
PHASE II TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST PHASE l&ll
Cost
$1,258,701
$423,481
$20,000
$1,989,454
$8,950
$9,960
$78,480
$21,918
$3,810,944
$5,131,106
% of Phase II
Cost
33.03%
11.11%
0.52%
52.20%
0.23%
0.26%
2.06%
0.58%
% of Phase 1
and II Cost
24.53%
8.25%
0.39%
38.77%
0.17%
0.19%
1.53%
0.43%
74.27%
Notes:
Fixed Costs
Variable Costs
SETTLE
MISCELLANEOUS
CLAIMS
1%
DEMOBILIZATION
2%
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
52%
MOBILIZATION AND
PREPARATORY
WORK
33%
MONITORING,
SAMPLING, TESTING,
AND ANALYSIS
11%
SITE WORK, SITE
RESTORATION,
DISPOSAL
1%
Figure 4-2. Phase IITotal Cost
144
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 34 of 42
PHASE I TOTAL COST
20%
USAGE CONTRACT
PREPARATION COST
10%
PHASE II USAGE SUPPORT
9%
PHASE I USAGE SUPPORT
3%
PHASE II TOTAL COST
58%
Figure 4-3. Total Cost by Phase
The three largest areas of cost concentration occurring in Phase n include Biological Treatment
at 52 percent, Mobilization and Preparatory Work at 33 percent, and Monitoring, Sampling,
Testing and Analysis at 11 percent. The balance of the general work areas in Phase II comprise
four percent of the Phase n cost (Demobilization at two percent, Site Work, Site Restoration and
Disposal [Commercial] at one percent, and Settlement of Miscellaneous Claims at one percent).
Given that the primary thrusts of Phase n were to perform (1) trial tests to ascertain optimization
of amendment mixture, equipment, and operating procedures; (2) full-scale production
composting; and (3) demobilization and restoration, the cost elements of biological treatment,
mobilization, and preparatory work and analytical chemistry are consistent with the tasking.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, much of the duplicative effort occurred at the beginning of Phase II.
Within the RA-WBS category elements 33.01.03 through 33.01.05, numerous instances of
duplication are evident. Considerable duplicative effort and cost might have been avoided if a
single procurement had been used.
Furthermore, the chain of events associated with the increased soil volume resurfaces in RA-
WBS category element 33.01.04Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities, where the $486,970 for
leased storage tents appear. This item constitutes the second largest modification to the Phase n
contract, surpassed only by the $697,642 cost increase for the biological treatment and testing of
the additional soil. Another expenditure that was incurred as a result of the additional soil
excavation was the cost of transferring it from the temporary pile into the storage tents. This
activity cost $66,101.
14,5
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 35 of 42
RA-WBS category element 33.02.06Sampling Soil and Sediment (onsite analysis) and RA-
WBS category element 33.02.09Laboratory Chemical Analysis represent additional cases
where only lump sum entries were provided by BSI with no further clarification. Although
dedicated categories exist within the standard RA-WBS for each of the entries, further detail
pertaining to cost per sample and number of samples taken would be helpful in future cost
estimating.
4.5 Unit Cost Breakdown
Unit cost for the UMDA remediation by windrow composting is $346 per ton of contaminated
soil (Total Phase I and Phase n cost: $5,131,106 -f-14,808 tons of contaminated soil). Tonnage
was derived using 100 pounds per cubic foot of soil present at the site, as communicated via
phone by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on June 20,1996 (6).
4.5.1 Lowest Unit Cost Possible
The use of two contractors at UMDA resulted in some duplication of effort, and therefore costs.
Although this two-phase approach at UMDA was unavoidable, other sites should attempt to use a
single contractor for both excavation and remediation. The unit cost of $346 per ton of
contaminated soil at UMDA incorporates this duplication of costs, particularly in the areas of
Mobilization and Preparatory Work, Site Restoration, and Demobilization. In addition, the lack
of interface between the two contractors resulted in additional work and added costs (e.g., re-
screening the soil, temporary storage tents). By theoretically eliminating (or reducing) some
costs associated with duplicated efforts, the unit cost could be as low as $299 per ton of
contaminated soil at UMDA.
A single contractor would require only one mobilization, one site restoration, and one
demobilization. At UMDA the demobilization of Phase I and the mobilization of Phase n
caused some significant overlap. RA-WBS work category 33.01, Mobilization and Preparatory
Work for Phase I could be reduced by $154,000, retaining the higher cost of mobilization in
Phase II plus the costs for the RAMP in Phase I. Though a single contractor may only prepare a
single RAMP to address both excavation and remediation, that RAMP would be extensive; thus,
the cost of preparing the additional RAMP in Phase I is retained in the mobilization cost. RA-
WBS work categories 33.20 and 33.21, Site Restoration and Demobilization, could be reduced
by $9,960 and $5,000, respectively (these reductions are the lower of Phase I and Phase n costs
for these elements).
Additionally, there are some costs in Phase II that are incurred as a result of the lack of interface
between the two contractors. Because Phase I work started before the Phase n contract was
awarded, WCC could not anticipate the appropriate size of the CSSB to accommodate the size
and turning radius of BSFs specialized equipment. The lease of the temporary tents ($486,970)
was somewhat excessive, considering that the overflow of excavated soil was adequately stored
outside with a reinforced 18-mil polyethylene liner for cover on an asphalt pad by the Phase I
contractor. The contaminated soil in the soil storage building could have been stored in a similar
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 36 of 42
fashion, with a reduced cost. This would also reduce the cost of transferring the soil (say, in
half) by only moving soil in the building.
Alternatively, a future contractor may evaluate the feasibility of simultaneously excavating and
remediating. A backhoe operator would excavate one batch of soil at a time for processing.
During the biodegradation period of a batch, onsite analysis could be done in the contaminated
area to identify the area to excavate for the next batch. This "assembly line" approach would
eliminate the need for any storage facility.
Finally, the Phase n contractor had to re-screen the contaminated soil because the Phase I
contractor (already paid in full by USAGE to do the screening) did not screen to an adequate
particle size. This screening added $16,000 to the Phase II contract, which could have been
avoided with a single contractor.
Table 4-4. Potential UMDA Cost Savings
WBS#
33.01 .04
33.20
33.21
33.01.04.91
33.01 .90
33.01 .91
Activity
Mobilization and Preparatory Work:
Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities
Site Restoration
Demobilization
Temporary Storage Tents
Transfer Soil into Storage Tents
Additional Screening to Remove Concrete
Debris
TOTAL Potential Cost Savings
Cost
$154,000
$ 9,960
$ 5,000
$486,970
$ 33,050
(50% of $66, 101)
$ 16,000
$704,480
Considering the potential cost savings identified in Table 4-4, above, the unit cost of the UMDA
windrow composting could be as low as $299 per ton of contaminated soil, a 14% cost savings.
4.5.2 Unit Variable Cost
Unit cost has been used in this report to mean total cost of remediation per ton of contaminated
soil. In addition, each cost element and subelement can be broken into a unit dollar cost. In
Appendices A and B, unit costs are provided for variable cost elements such as amendments and
analytical testing, so that they may be applied to other sites. Alternatively, fixed costs are
generally provided in a lump sum value. At UMDA, fixed costs account for 58% ($2,165,385)
of the combined Phase I and Phase II total cost. This value represents the minimum cost to
operate before any soil is treated.
Table 4-5 identifies some of the variable cost elements, with the associated unit cost. Managers
of other sites similar to UMDA can estimate variable costs by scaling the unit variable costs,
shown below in Table 4-5, according to number of samples, volume of soil, etc. Some unit costs
147
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 37 of 42
below will vary at different sites according to different factors (e.g., test methods used, types of
amendments used, availability of amendments, etc.).
Table 4-5. Examples of Unit Variable Costs at UMDA
WBS#
33.02.06
33.02.09
33.08.01
33.08.90
33.08.91
33.11.07.01.08
Activity
Sampling Soil and Sediment (onsite analysis)
First 61 Samples
Over 61 Samples
Laboratory Chemical Analysis
First 42 Samples
Over 42 Samples
Excavation of Contaminated Soil
Screening
transport Contaminated Soil to Storage Building
Amendments
Sawdust
Alfalfa
Chicken Manure
Cow Manure
Potato Waste
Units
EA
EA
EA
EA
CY
CY
CY
LS
CY
TON
TON
TON
TON
Cost/Unit 1
_
$ 28
$ 25
$ 225
$ 250
$ 17
$14.02
$ 5.59
$16.75
$109.00
$48.45
$16.00
$22.50
4.6 Sensitivities
A number of factors can directly or indirectly affect costs. These factors include physical
parameters such as climate, soil characteristics, and contaminant level as well as economic
parameters such as labor rates, availability and cost of amendments, and site accessibility and
infrastructure. Some of these factors are discussed below.
Climate and Soil
At UMDA, the semi-arid cool climatecoupled with the sparse vegetation of grasses and low
brushallowed for a fairly low preparatory site work cost. The soils, which generally consist of
fine to coarse sands and gravels with an occasional lens of silt, were also readily excavated.
Other sites will naturally vary in climate (precipitation, temperature, wind conditions, and
relative humidity) and soils (clay content, rock, and chemistry). The sites will therefore require
more extensive clearing, grading, and excavation with higher associated cost.
Labor
The cost of labor can vary considerably by location. Qualified equipment operators are required
to operate all the machinery used in the windrow composting process. Typically, when heavy
construction equipment is bid, the price includes the operator; however, at UMDA the
"maulwalf' and "Wendy" machines were classified as specialized equipment and commanded an
even higher premium for their operation. Attention should be given to becoming familiar with
applicable wage rates in the region of activity and ensuring qualified individuals are available.
148
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 38 of 42
Amendments
Amendment availability and cost are significant when reviewing composting cost variables. Two
important considerations are the proximity and seasonality of the materials to be used. At
UMDA, the majority of the amendments were readily available in the Umatilla area. Several
large potato processors were nearby, and processing occurred year-round. The adjoining
counties also contained a number of livestock feedlots, making cow manure readily available. A
large commercial egg supplier was present in Pasco, Washington, where a constant supply of
chicken manure was available; however, transportation from the supplier for all amendments to
the site (approximately 50 miles) did influence cost. Alfalfa was grown locally with harvest
occurring from late June to early September. Alfalfa was available year-round, but in limited
quantities and elevated prices. Sawdust was the most difficult amendment to obtain because
logging operations had ceased in the immediate vicinity. Although relatively unaffected by
seasonal changes, the sawdust had to be transported from Hood River, Oregon, a distance of
approximately 100 miles, thereby influencing its cost. Availability, seasonality, and quality and
consistency are equally important when considering amendment materials and sourcing.
Site
Site location, accessibility, and infrastructure also contribute to cost. Terrain posed little or no
difficulty at UMDA, given the modest relief characteristics, and even though the setting is rural,
an adequate infrastructure is present. Paved roads are within a mile of the lagoons, with gravel
roads covering the remaining distance. Sufficient water is available from the installation hydrant
system, while a transformer, installed at the lagoons and tied into existing service, provides
necessary power. Interstate access is immediate; UMDA is situated at the intersection of 1-82
and 1-84. The site should be fairly level to avoid costly earthwork and preferably cleared for the
same reasons. The increase in the volume of treated soil due to the addition of 70 percent
amendment should also be considered for its impact on redisposition at the site. An area within
close proximity to the contaminated area would be ideal for site setup to avoid long hauling
distances.
149
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 39 of 42
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this report is to document the costs for the first full-scale use of windrow
composting to treat explosives-contaminated soils at UMDA. A previous preliminary analysis
conducted for a small-scale demonstration study at UMDA estimated the unit cost for windrow
composting at $326 per ton of contaminated soil for 10,000 tons of soil over a project duration of
2 years (8). This report concludes that the unit cost for full scale remediation at UMDA is $346
per ton of contaminated soil for 14,808 tons of soil over a project duration of two and a half years
(from mobilization of Phase I to demobilization of Phase II). Although this report does not
attempt to make an economic comparison of windrow composting to incineration, it clearly
demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of this innovative technology over its historic alternative
(estimated cost for incinerating approximately 14,000 tons of contaminated soil is $540 per
ton [4]).
The cost data for this remediation work is presented using the RA-WBS. Table 5-1 below
identifies the largest cost elements of the RA-WBS for the UMDA remediation.
Table 5-1. Summary of Largest Cost Elements
WBS Item
33.11
33.01
33.03
Activity
Biological Treatment
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Site Work
% of Total Phase 1 and
Phase II Cost
39%
25%
10%
The total Phase I and Phase n cost ($5,131,106) does not include the USAGE cost for support
(engineering, supervision, administration) and contracts (Invitation for Bid in Phase I and
Request for Proposal in Phase n). The USAGE total cost for "doing business" (support and
contracts) at UMDA was significant at $1,385,000, or 21% of the total project cost (Phase I plus
Phase U plus USAGE costs). USAGE costs represent fixed costs. Mobilization and Preparatory
Work and Site Work also represent fixed costs that are independent of project duration or volume
of contaminated soil to be treated. Biological treatment costs will vary according to site specific
variables (e.g., nature and extent of contamination, soil characteristics, amendments availability,
and regional labor rates) and processing rates.
Based on the results presented in this report, managers of other sites with explosives-
contaminated soils can estimate the cost of remediation using the windrow composting
technology. Estimates will come closest to actual costs for sites with similar site conditions
(contaminated soil volumes, climate, soil type) and similar remedial action goals as UMDA.
Estimates for sites with different conditions and different remedial action goals must scale
subelement costs according to individual site characteristics.
In addition to documenting cost, this report provided some recommendations for possibly
optimizing cost at future remediation sites. Those recommendations are re-iterated here:
-------
Cosf Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 40 of 42
In accordance with contract requirements, the remediation contractor should perform
on-site trial tests prior to full-scale production composting to: (1) ensure proper
equipment operation; (2) determine effectiveness of treatment; (3) correlate field data
from onsite analysis (Methods 8515 and 8510 or alternatively, Methods 4050 and
4051) with laboratory data (Method 8330); and (4) determine optimal amendments
mixture, loading rate, and turning frequency. At UMDA, incorporation of trial test
results increased processing rates, reduced treatment times, and created the potential
for significant savings.
Since the loading rate of amendments (70%) to contaminated soil (30%) is high, the
contractor may select the specific amendments to substantially reduce cost. Both the
unit amendment cost and their combined effect on reducing the composting process
time reduce overall cost. For windrow composting, the contractor selects
amendments based on a number of criteria including, but not limited to: carbon to
nitrogen (C:N) ratio, moisture content, pH, homogeneity, texture, porosity, total
metabolic energy, rate of carbon substrate use, seasonal availability, regional
availability, and cost.
Although the use of two contractors was unavoidable at UMDA, it is not
recommended for future remediation sites. The USAGE was approaching a deadline
imposed by CERCLA to begin on-site remedial action within 15 months of the
issuance of the September 1992 ROD. To avoid a NOV and other penalties, the
USAGE opted to perform the work in two phases. Therefore the Phase I and Phase II
contractors duplicated certain cost elements (e.g., Mobilization and Preparatory
Work, Site Work, Site Restoration, Demobilization). This duplication of effort is
reflected in the costs.
For future cost reporting of windrow composting operations, contractors should use
the RA-WBS and report costs for subelements to the lowest level of detail to refine
the effects of site-specific variables.
13 t
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 41 of 42
6.0 References
(1) Bioremediation Services Incorporated (BSI). Phase II, Contaminated Soil Remediation,
Explosives Washout Lagoons, Umatilla, Oregon. Contract No. DACA67-94-C-0031.
Remedial Action Management Plan I (RAMP I). October 1994.
(2) Bioremediation Services Incorporated (BSI). Phase II Contaminated Soil Remediation
Explosives Washout Lagoons, Umatilla, Oregon. Contract No. DACA67-94-C-0031. Best
and Final Offer (BAFO). March 1994.
(3) Bioremediation Services Incorporated (BSI). Phase II, Contaminated Soil Remediation,
Explosives Washout Lagoons, Umatilla, Oregon. Contract No. DACA67-94-C-0031.
Remedial Action Management Plan II (RAMP U). July 1995.
(4) Keehan, K. Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with
Explosive or Radioactive Wastes. Chapter 5, p. 29. EPA Document No. EPA/625/R-
93/013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research and
Development. September 1993.
(5) Logistics Management Institute. Environmental Restoration: Remedial Action Work
Breakdown Structure. December 1994.
(6) Nelson, Mike. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Telephone communication with Chris
Cubbage. June 20, 1996.
(7) U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC). Windrow Composting Demonstration for
Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Depot Activity. Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-
93043. Prepared by Roy F.Weston, Inc. April 1993.
(8) U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC). Windrow Composting Engineering/Economic
Evaluation. Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93050. Prepared by Roy F. Weston Inc. May
1993.
(9) U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA). Feasibility Study for
the Explosives Washout Lagoons (Site 4) Soils Operable Unit. Umatilla Depot Activity
(UMDA) Hermiston, Oregon. Final Report. Report No. CETHA-BC-CR-92017. Prepared
by CH2M Hill and Morrison Knudsen Environmental Services. April 1992.
(10) U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA). Evaluation of
Composting Implementation. Final Report. Prepared by Remediation Technologies Inc.
August 1990.
152
-------
Cost Report: Windrow Composting at UMDA, Page 42 of 42
(11) Wilder Construction Company. Phase I, Contaminated Soil Remediation, Explosives
Washout Lagoons, Umatilla, Oregon. Contract No. DACA67-93-B-0088. Final Remedial
Action Management Plan (RAMP). June 1994.
Report Preparation Information
Cost Report: Wiridrow Composting to Treat Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla
Army Depot Activity (UMDA), Report No. SFIM-AE-ET-CR-96184, Contract No. MDA
970-89-C-0019, Subtask 04-26, September 1996.
Prepared for: U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), SFIM-AEC-TSD, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401 and Defense Evaluation Support Activity (DBSA),
2251 Wyoming Boulevard, S.E., Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-4658.
Prepared by: TRW Inc., 1755 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square 5, Suite 202,
Arlington, VA 22202 and Walcoff & Associates Inc., 12015 Lee Jackson Highway, Suite
500, Fairfax, VA 22033.
153
-------
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S. Department
of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
155
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S. Department
of Energy j, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Savannah River Site (SRS),
M Area Process Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
Location:
Aiken, South Carolina
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Trichloroethene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethene (PCE)
- TCE concentrations in the ground water
ranged from 10 to 1031 Mg/L, and PCE
from 3 to 124 /ig/L
- TCE concentrations in the sediments
ranged from 0.67 to 6.29 mg/kg, and PCE
from 0.44 to 1.05 mg/kg.
Period of Operation:
February 1992 to April 1993
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Terry Hazen and Brian Looney,
Prin. Inv., WSRC,
(803) 725-6413, (803) 725-3692
Caroline Teelon, (Licensing
Information), WSRC,
(803) 725-5540
SIC Code:
9711 Rational Security)
3355 (Aluminum Forming)
3471 (Metal Finishing)
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation (ISB)
- Combines gaseous injection of air and
nutrients (N, P, CH4) into ground water
with soil vacuum extraction
- Provides for sparging/biodegradation of
VOCs in the ground water
- Uses horizontal wells to provide more
effective access to subsurface contamination
- Horizontal wells installed at 176 ft below
ground surface (bgs) (saturated zone - used
for injection) and 75 ft bgs (vadose zone -
used for extraction)
Cleanup Authority:
State: Air discharge and
underground injection control
(UIC) permits for the SRS are
in place with the South
Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC).
Points of Contact:
Kurt Gerdes, DOE,
(301) 903-7289
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Surface impoundment (unlined
settling basin)
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
ISB combines biodegradation
(sparging and biostimulation) with
SVE to remediate both soil and
ground water contaminated with
VOCs
Type/Quantify of Media Treated:
Soil (sediment) and Ground Water
- Water table located at 120 ft bgs
- Vadose zone well radius of influence estimated to be greater than 200 ft
- Saturated zone well influence extended as far as 100 ft from well
- Vadose zone soils consists of sand, silt, clay, and gravel, with layers ranging up
to 18% silt and clay
- Saturated zones consist of several layers of sand with silt and clay beds
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The demonstration was covered by permits issued by the SCDHEC, includbg an air quality permit and a UIC permit
(because of the addition of methane and nutrients).
- Groundwater protection standards of 5 ppb for TCE and PCE, and 200 ppb for TCA, were identified for Area M
156
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S. Department
of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken,
South Carolina (Continued)
Results:
- Almost 17,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed or degraded over 384 days of operation (12,096 Ibs extracted and 4,838 Ibs
biodegraded)
- Mass balance data showed that bioremediation destroyed 40% more VOCs than simple air sparging
- ISB reduced VOC concentrations in the ground water below the 5 ppb cleanup goals for TCE and PCE; overall
groundwater concentrations were reduced by up to 95%
- VOC concentrations in most sediments were nondetectable; soil gas concentrations decreased by more than 99%
Cost Factors:
- No information is provided on the capital or operating costs for the ISB demonstration at SRS
- An analysis of capital and operating costs for an ISB application was made by LANL in a comparison with
conventional pump and treat with SVE
- The LANL analysis showed that ISB had capital costs approximately 30% greater than PT/SVE, operating costs 10%
lower, and would require 3 yrs instead of 10 yrs to remediate the demonstration site
Description:
From 1958 to 1985, Savannah River Area M conducted manufacturing operations including aluminum forming and metal
finishing. Process wastewater from these operations containing solvents (TCE, PCE, and TCA) was discharged to an
unlined settling basin at Savannah River, which lead to contamination of ground water and vadose zone soils. Full-scale
treatment of groundwater began in 1985. Treatment of vadose and saturated zones has been the subject of several
demonstrations (e.g., in situ air stripping), including this investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of in situ
bioremediation (ISB) technology.
ISB combines gaseous injection of air and nutrients (N, P, CH4) into ground water with soil vacuum extraction
technology. This provides for sparging and biodegradation of VOCs in the ground water, and extraction of VOCs from
the vadose zone. At SRS, two horizontal wells were used to provide more effective access to subsurface contamination.
Horizontal wells were installed at 176 ft bgs (in the saturated zone - used for injection) and 75 ft bgs (in the vadose
zone - used for extraction).
Almost 17,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed or degraded at SRS over 384 days of ISB operation. This total consists of
12,096 Ibs of VOCs extracted and 4,838 Ibs biodegraded. Mass balance data showed that bioremediation destroyed 40%
more VOCs than simple air sparging, and that it reduced VOC concentrations in the ground water below the 5 ppb
cleanup goals for TCE and PCE. Overall TCE and PCE groundwater concentrations were reduced by up to 95%. In
addition, VOC concentrations in most sediments were nondetectable, with soil gas concentrations decreased by more
than 99%.
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
Technology Description
In Situ Bioremediation (ISB), which is the term used in this report for Gaseous Nutrient Injection for In Situ Bioremediation, remedi-
ates soils and ground water contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) both above and below the water table. ISB
involves injection of air and nutrients (sparging and biostimulation) into the ground water and vacuum extraction to remove VOCs
from the vadose zone concomitant with biodegradation of VOCs.
The innovation is in the combination of 3 emerging technologies: air stripping, horizontal wells, and bioremediation via gaseous
nutrient injection with a baseline technology, soil vapor extraction, to produce a more efficient in situ remediation system.
'HC1
Injection point for
air/methane
Compressed
Vacuum
Blower
Catalyst
Catalytic Oxidizer
Heating Elements
I Extraction of air containing volatile compounds
lotted Liner
Compressor
Horizontal wells provide a more effective access to subsurface contamination.
The air sparging/gaseous nutrient injection process eliminates the need for surface ground water treatment systems'and treats the
subsurface, both unsaturated and saturated zones, in situ.
The air sparging/gaseous nutrient injection process stimulates the growth of indigenous microorganisms in the contaminated zone
to degrade and mineralize VOCs. Soil vapor extraction can be combined with the injection process to strip the higher concentra-
tion, more easily removed contaminants from the subsurface. The injection/extraction system can be designed to meet site spe-
cific needs.
.The types of sites most likely to apply ISB will contain moderately permeable, relatively homogenous sediments contaminated with
VOCs, especially if both an extraction and injection component is utilized. However, the presence of clay strata does not preclude
its use. In fact, the bioremediation component may be well applied to enhance degradation and/or removal of VOCs from lower
permeability zones.
Page
U.S. Department of Energy
158
-------
SUMMARY
continued
Technology Status
A full-scale demonstration was conducted as part of the Savannah River Integrated Demonstration: VOCs in Soils and Ground
Water at Nonarid Sites.
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Site
M Area Process Sewer/Integrated Demonstration Site
Aiken, South Carolina
February 1992 to April 1993
A group of nationally recognized experts from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, industry, and academia met regularly for 3 years to provide unique insights for
planning, execution, and evaluation of this technology demonstration.
The demonstration site was located at one of the source areas within the one-square mile VOC ground water plume. Prior to appli-
cation of ISB, trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) concentrations in ground water ranged from 10 to 1031 ug/L
and 3 to 124 ug/L, respectively. TCE and PCE concentrations in sediments ranged from 0.67 to 6.29 mg/kg and
0.44 to 1.05 mg/kg. The site is underlain by a thick section of relatively permeable sands with thin lenses of clayey sediments.
Appendix A describes the site in detail.
Key Results
Almost 17,000 Ibs. of VOCs were removed or degraded over 384 days of operation. The vacuum component of ISB removed
12,096 Ibs. VOCs and the biological component degraded and mineralized an additional 4,838 Ibs. VOCs.
Mass balance calculations indicate that bioremediation destroyed 40% more VOCs than simple air sparging (i.e, in situ air strip-
ping).
Gaseous nutrient injection of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus was achieved simultaneously for the first time and demonstrated
better mass transfer than previous methods of liquid nutrient injection.
this nutrient injection strategy stimulated a specific functional group of bacteria that is known to degrade specific contaminants.
No toxic intermediates were produced by the bioremediation strategy. Contaminants were completely mineralized.
The best operating campaign used continuous air and nutrient injection (N & P) plus the pulsed addition of 4% methane.
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) completed a cost-benefit analysis showing that ISB could reduce costs by over 30% com-
pared to the baseline technology of an integrated Soil Vapor Extraction/Pump- and-Treat System (SVE/PT).
ISB could reduce the time required to remediate a site by 5-7 years compared to the baseline technology of SVE/PT.
The ISB process is patented by the Department of Energy and has been licensed to six commercial vendors with 13 new applica-
tions pending. Two companies are using the technology in the field. Licenses are available through the Westinghouse Savannah
River Company (WSRC).
Contacts 'nnmtmm^^^^nmmm^^^mmm^m^mmmmm^^^^mmmm^m -... ~
Technical
Terry Hazen and Brian Looney, Principal Investigators, WSRC, (803) 725-6413 and (803) 725-3692.
Management
Kurt Gerdes, DOE EM-50, DOE Integrated Demonstration Program Manager,
(301)903-7289.
Jim Wright, DOE Plumes Focus Area Implementation Team Manager, (803)725-5608.
Licensing Information
Caroline Teelon, Technology Transfer Office, WSRC, (803)725-5540.
Page 2
159
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Overall Process Schematic
'HCI
Injection point for
air/methane
Compressed
Natural Gas
V
Vacuum
Blower
Catalyst -
Catalytic Oxidizcr
Healing Elements
I Extraction of air containing volatile compounds
1 i *" ^-
Iotled Liner
Compressor
4 4
Contaminated Zone ,
4 04 4
Waier
Table
* Air, methane, nitrous oxide, and triethyl phosphate were injected through the lower horizontal well, below the water table.
An air/contaminant mixture was extracted from the upper horizontal well, above the water table.
Offgas treatment used catalytic oxidation for the demonstration, but other technologies are available for the treatment of offgases.
Indigenous methanotrophic bacteria can oxidize methane via a series of enzymes (e.g., methane monooxygenase). Methane
monooxygenase, an extremely powerful oxidizer, induces the formation of TCE-epoxide from TCE. TCE epoxide is extremely
unstable and spontaneously breaks down. The final and almost immediate end product is carbon dioxide and chloride salts.
Appendix B provides detailed information about the horizontal well installations and the monitoring wells installed.
Aboveground System i
Notes:
* Air-water separator removes debris and moisture
from the air stream. System includes a day tank
to drain water from separator for treatment at M-
Area air stripper.
"Demonstration generated VOCs that were treat-
ed by electrically heated catalytic oxidation of the
offgas.
Demo Site Layout
Air/Water
Sepervtor
Process Schematic and i-jipinecring Schematic
PageS
U.S. Department of Energy
160
-------
SECTION 3
PERFORMANCE
Demonstration Plan
Performance of the technology has been assessed using information from the full-scale demonstration at SRS. Six different oper-
ational modes were tested during the demonstration.
Major elements of the demonstration included:
initial vapor extraction of vadose zone gases (20 days),
addition of air sparging by simultaneous air injection into the saturated zone and vapor extraction from the vadose zone (33
days),
a planned series of nutrient additions:
1 % methane addition (107 days),
4% methane addition (79 days),
pulsed 4% methane addition operated at long and short intervals (94 days),
continuous addition of gaseous nutrients in the form of 0.07% nitrous oxide and 0.007% triethyl phosphate in air in combi-
nation with pulses of 4% methane (94 days).
assessment of the behavior of injected methane in air through an inert gas (helium) tracer test, and
comparison of microbiological assays for monitoring and control of in situ bioremediation.
Treatment Performance [^^^^^^^^^s^. =3
Summary
Air-nutrient injection/extraction removed VOCs from the subsurface and degraded VOCs in place.
Biostimulation and biodegradation occurred in situ without producing toxic daughter products.
Increases in indigenous methanotrophs and in C02 concentrations in soil gas and extraction well gas imply significant micro-
bial community degradation of methane and TCE.
Decreases in methane and TCE in the subsurface coincided with increases in densities of methanotrophs (up to 7 orders of
magnitude) and free chloride ion as a result of biodegradation.
Addition of continuous 4% methane initially stimulated microbial populations but led to nutrient depletion, which then
decreased the microbial population.
Addition of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients with pulsed methane resulted in enhanced and sustained microbial growth that
optimized bioremediation and mineralization of TCE and PCE in ground water and sediments.
ISB has demonstrated reduction of VOC concentrations in ground water below the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum of 5 ppb for
TCE/PCE. Overall ground water concentrations decreased by as much as 95%.
Cleanup of VOCs in the vadose zone was very effective. Most sediments contained nondetectable concentrations of VOCs after
the demonstration was completed. Soil gas concentrations decreased by more than 99%.
Average daily emissions from the offgas stream were less than the minimum detection of 1.9 lb./day. Greater than 94% of VOCs
were treated by the catalytic oxidation unit.
Key System Parameters
Horizontal Well Placement
The lower injection horizontal well was placed below the water table (120 feet) at a depth of 175 feet with a screened length
of 310 feet.
The upper extraction horizontal well was placed in the vadose zone above the water table at a depth of 80 feet with a
screened length of 205 feet.
Vacuum Applied
Air was extracted continuously from the upper vadose zone horizontal well (AMH-2) at 240 scfm.
Air Injection
Air plus nutrients were injected into the lower aquifer horizontal well (AMH-1) at 200 scfm.
Nutrient Injection Campaigns
1% methane was initially injected continuously.
Methane concentration was increased to 4%.
Page 4
161
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
PERFORMANCE
continued
Mefhane injection was maintained at 4% but it was applied in pulses.
Pulsed 4% methane injection was supplemented with continuous injection of 0.07% nitrous oxide and 0.007% triethyl phos-
phate in air to supply nitrogen and phosphate required for sustained microbial growth and metabolism.
Microbial Activity
Prior to ISB, subsurface ground water and vadose zone bacterial populations were low, and the microbial population was
under nutrient stress.
The addition of methane specifically stimulated the growth of methanotrophs, the bacteria primarily responsible for degrada-
tion of TCE.
Biostimulation
Evidence of biostimulation: densities of methanotrophs and methylotrophs in the ground water increased as TCE decreased.
Amount of VOCs Removed or Degraded in Place
IVIrlT"02C ME/Methanotrophs A UT/Methylotrophs TCE
700
600
500
i"****
*ง. 400
3: '
HI
Q 300
I-
200
100
o S
A!rJ
,"
m
*
ป
A
A *
A
A
*
A
A i
A
.
1%CH4_
4% CH4_
~"i^
m
A A
A
PULSING^
~Bซ
P
a
g A
A e
A
A
A *
1
u
9
1
ff
A A .A
A
A
N&P+Pulsing_
r i
10000000
1000000
100000
i
muป 10000
1 A A 1000
A A
A A 100
.
10
1
Post-Test 0
r o
DAYS
'Almost 17,000 Ibs. of VOCs were removed over 384 days of operation.
The vacuum component of ISB removed 12,096 Ibs. VOCs and the biological component degraded and mineralized an addi-
tional 4,838 Ibs. VOCs. Figures showing the concentrations of TCE and PCE in the sediments before and after the demon-
stration (following) were used to calculate the mass degraded in place.
PageS
U.S. Department of Energy
162
-------
PERFORMANCE
continued
Concentration of TCE in Sediments Before and After ISB
Sediment data are known to underestimate the amount of VOCs at the demonstration site, but can be used to develop a sense
of relative amounts of contamination removed or degraded in place during the demonstration.
The total sediment inventory for both TCE and PCE decreased by 24%.
Concentration of PCE in Sediments Before and After ISB
Sediment data are known to underestimate the VOCs at the demonstration site, but can be used to develop a sense of relative
amounts of contamination removed or degraded in place during the demonstration.
1 The total sediment inventory for both TCE and PCE decreased by 24%.
Page 6
163
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
PERFORMANCE
continued
Results of Helium Tracer Test
- - CH4 Input - - - CH4 Expected (He projected)
'CH4 Observed
42
63
189 210
231
84 105 126 147 168
Time (days)
Actual and Predicted Methane Based Upon Helium Tracer Over Time
A helium tracer test was used to predict the fate of the injected methane.
Based on helium breakthrough curves, the amount of methane that should have been observed in the extraction well was
calculated.
More than 50% of the injected methane was removed before it reached the extraction well.
Mterobial metabolism consumed the methane that did not reach the extraction well.
Zones of Influence
The extraction well in the vadose zone created a zone of influence estimated to be greater than 200 ft based on pressure mea-
surements.
Electrical resistance tomography was used to map a sparge zone of influence in the saturated zone. These data showed that flow
paths were confined to a complex three-dimensional network of channels, some of which extended as far as 100 feet from the
injection well.
Methane was detected at distances over 500 feet from the injection well.
Page?
U.S. Department of Energy
164
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOG1
Technology Applicability <******-*am^^mmmmmiii^a^ . '",",: i
ISB via Gaseous Nutrient Injection has been demonstrated to remediate soils, sediments, and ground water contaminated with
VOCs both above and below the water table. The gaseous nutrient injection system can be designed for application only in the
unsaturated zone as an add-on to the bioventing process.
The geometry of horizontal well treatment conforms to typical subsurface contaminated zones, which are often relatively thin but
laterally extensive areas.
ISB is not well suited for extremely low permeability sites if injection and extraction is utilized. Some permeability is required to
deliver the nutrients to the indigenous microorganisms.
At some sites ISB could be most effective when used in conjunction with in situ air stripping, that is in situ air stripping is applied
first at a site to quickly remove high concentrations of contaminants from source areas and then ISB is applied as a polishing step
to remove contaminants present at lower concentrations. At other sites ISB only would be utilized, thus minimizing the amount of
contaminants removed from the subsurface needing treatment as offgas at the surface.
ISB has demonstrated that it can clean up ground water to drinking water standard concentrations. Sufficient information on
cleaning up an entire site to these standards is not available.
Commercialization and intellectual property information is included in Appendix D.
Competing Technologies E
ISB with Gaseous Nutrient Injection is competitive with conventional baseline technologies of pump-and-treat and pump-and-treat
combined with soil vapor extraction. Numerous other physical/chemical, thermal, and biological technologies are also either avail-
able or under development to treat VOC-contaminated soils and ground water either in situ or above ground.
> The effectiveness of ISB was compared with performance data from air sparging and soil vapor extraction alone (VOCs removed
through the offgas treatment system). This comparison was used as the basis of the cost analysis discussed in Section 5.
1 Air sparging in vertical wells and in well recirculation technologies have been implemented at similar sites across the U.S. and in
Europe. Thermal technologies have more often been applied at sites with less permeable sediments. Deep soil mixing has been
applied at sites with shallower contamination.
Technology Maturity i ^
Stimulation of indigenous methanotrophic bacteria by injection of methane in water was demonstrated at a small sandy field site at
Moffett Field in California, forming the technical basis for the design of this demonstration. However, the Moffett Field demonstra-
tion involved addition of nutrients as liquids rather than gases. The SRS demonstration was the first gaseous nutrient injection
demonstration designed for stimulation of methanotrophs.
Much laboratory and bench-scale work has been completed to verify the technical basis for the demonstration.
ISB via Gaseous Nutrient Injection is currently being applied at two industrial sites and is planned for implementation at the
Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill and the M-Area Integrated Demonstration Site. It has also been proposed at a number of
other industrial sites.
A market survey on horizontal environmental wells was completed in 1993. Key results of that study included:
- Since 1987, over 100 horizontal environmental wells have been installed in the U.S.
- 25% of the wells have been used for ground water extraction, 25% for soil vapor extraction, and 50% for other purposes,
such as air injection, bioventing, and petroleum recovery.
- 80% of the horizontal wells have been installed at vertical depths of 25 feet or less.
- The rate of horizontal well installations has increased significantly in the last two years possibly because of more widespread
recognition of advantages and improvements in drilling techniques, which have made installation more cost effective. A cur-
sory update of the 1993 survey has shown that between July 1993 and December 1994 more than 50 horizontal environmen-
tal wells were installed.
Paged
165
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 5
COST
introduction
> Information in this section was prepared from data provided by the SRS VOCs in Soils and Ground Water at Non-arid Sites
Integrated Demonstration to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, tasked by the DOE Office of Technology Development to per-
form an independent cost analysis of the technology being demonstrated.
1 The mass of contaminant removed or degraded by in situ biological processes is difficult to quantify.
Mass balance determinations relied upon data collected by sampling and analyzing sediment, air, and ground water sam-
ples, and by contaminant plume modeling.
1 The conventional technology of integrated pump and treat combined with soil vapor extraction (PT/SVE) was used as the base-
line technology, against which ISB was compared. To compare the two remediation systems, a number of assumptions were
made:
PT/SVE would remove the same amount of VOCs as the vacuum component of ISB when operated for the same time period.
4 vertical SVE and 1 PT wells would have the same zone of influence as 2 horizontal wells used for ISB.
Volatilized contaminants from both technologies are sent to a catalytic oxidation system for destruction.
Capital equipment costs are amortized over the useful life of the equipment, which is assumed to be 10 years, not over the
length of time required to remediate a site.
Capital Costs E
Capital costs for the baseline technology are comparable with the innovative technology of ISB.
The cost to install horizontal wells for ISB exceeds installation costs of vertical wells. However, horizontal drilling costs are
decreasing as the technology becomes more widely used and accepted. If horizontal wells can clean a site faster, significant
dollars will be saved on operating costs.
Rxed equipment costs for ISB include gas mixing and injection equipment for providing the nutrients required for stimulation
of the bioremediation portion of the innovative technology.
Capital Costs '
Site Cost
Equipment Cost
Design and Engineering $1
Mobile Equipment
Well Installation
Other Fixed Equipment
Mobilization Cost
Total Capital Equipment and
Mobilization Costs
ISB
$5,400
$9200
$18,000
$183,000
$183,732
$43.075
$452,407
PT/SVE
$7,500
$32,000
$18,000
$50,690
$168,665
$64.613
$341,468
Operating Costs
' The annual operating costs are comparable between the baseline and the innovative remediation technology.
1 However, the treatment time is estimated to be 10 years to remediate'the demonstration site using the baseline PT/SVE and only
3 years using ISB. Actual treatment times, are estimates and field experience indicates that the PT/SVE estimate is on the opti-
mistic side, when the objective is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum of 5 ppb for TCE/PCE.
Page 9
U.S. Department of Energy
166
-------
COST
continued
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Monitoring/Maintenance
Consumable Cost
Demobilization Costs
"otal Operational and Maintenance
Costs
ISB
$71,175
$122,215
$43.075
$236,465
PT/SVE
$71,175
$123,595
$64.613
$259,383
1 Consumable and labor costs are approximately 85% of the total cost per pound of the VOCs remediated for both technologies.
Equipmei
18.0%"
Consumables
37.0% Equipment
12.0%
Consumables
34.0%
Labor
54.0%
KBR($21/lbReHEdiated) PT/SVE ($31/LB Remediated)
1 The length of time that the ISB system operated determines the quantity of VOCs remediated. The demonstration was operated
for 384 days.
1 Mass balances calculated that 41% more VOC destruction occurred with ISB than with air sparging (using the same operating
parameters) because of biological remediation.
1 A model developed by LANL during the demonstration predicts that after 3 years the quantity remediated would have been 90%.
1 The worst case scenario would be no additional destruction because of biological stimulation, but this would still produce a reduc-
tion in remediation cost over the baseline technology.
35
30
"S
8
3 25
-------
SECTION 6
REGULATORY/POLICY ISSUES
Regulatory Considerations t
Permit requirements for the demonstration were controlled by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) and included 1) an Air Quality Permit and 2) an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit issued by the
South Carolina Board of Drinking Water Protection. A NEPA checklist was also prepared; a categorical exclusion was granted.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) certification was required to transport methane to the remediation site.
1 Permit requirements for future applications of ISB are expected to include:
An air permit for discharge of treated vapor extracted from the subsurface,
CERCLA and/or RCRA permitting depending on site specific requirements,
Underground injection permits for the injection of methane and nutrients into the subsurface,
NEPA review for federal projects, and
U.S. DOT certification for transportation of methane to the remediation site.
> Permit requirements will differ from state to state.
1 Groundwater protection standards (GWPS) have been established as part of a RCRA permit for the M-Area. The GWPS' are
based upon EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Specific goals for contaminants of greater concern are:
Compound . Cnnnfintration (pph)
TCE
PCE
TCA
5
5
200
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction t
Worker Safety
Health and safety issues for the installation and operation of ISB are essentially equivalent to those for conventional technolo-
gies of pump-and-treat or soil vapor extraction.
Additional permitting and training were required for transportation and delivery of methane and for the operation of the methane
injection system.
Methane concentrations were always far below the explosive limit to minimize any danger to onsite workers. A process hazards
review was completed to ensure safe operations.
Level D personnel protection was used during installation and operation of the system.
Community Safety
ISB with an operational offgas treatment system does not produce any significant routine release of contaminants.
No unusual or significant safety concerns are associated with the transport of equipment, samples, waste, or other materials
associated with ISB.
Careful and thorough monitoring of the subsurface sediments and ground water shows that potential harmful or disease-causing
microorganisms are not present or stimulated by ISB at the demonstration site.
Environmental Impacts
ISB systems require relatively little space, and use of horizontal wells minimizes clearing and other activities that would be
required to install a comparable vertical well network.
Visual impacts are minor, but operation of the vacuum blower and compressor create moderate noise in the immediate vicinity.
Nutritional enrichment does not promote the growth of harmful microbes at the demonstration site.
Page 11
U.S. Department of Energy
168
-------
REGULATORY/POLICY ISSUES
continued
Socioeconomic Impacts and Community Perception
ISB has a minimal economic or labor force impact.
The general public has limited familiarity with ISB; however, the technology received positive support on public visitation days at
SRS.
Bioremediation in general is viewed by the public as a "green" technology, which enhances naturally occurring processes to
destroy contaminants.
Page 12
169
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 7
LESSONS LEARNED
Design Issues
E
Gaseous nutrient injection represents a significant new delivery technique for in situ bioremediation.
Rates of air extraction (or whether to extract at all) and rates of air/nutrient injection must be tailored to site specific needs.
The bundle-tube pressure sensors installed along Horizontal Wells 1 and 2 to measure injection/extraction efficiency are inexpen-
sive and recommended for future applications.
Factors that will control injection protocols, remediation system siting, and monitoring include site geology (especially permeability
and heterogeneity), concentrations of native nutrients (such as total organic carbon), natural oxidation potential of the subsurface
(i.e. aerobic or anaerobic conditions).
The filter pack on all the horizontal wells is made up of natural formation solids, principally because of collapse around the bore-
hole. This may diminish well efficiencies. Well design must be tailored to the ultimate use of the well. Prepacked screen should
only be used if necessary because it adds significantly to the cost.
A horizontal well in the unsaturated zone removes water from the formation; the water can collect in the well, reducing its effective
length. Wells must be designed to channel water away from low areas.
Careful alignment of the injection and extraction wells is probably not necessary because the zone of influence of the extraction
well is far greater than that of the injection well and because subsurface heterogeneities strongly influence air flow.
Implementation Considerations
1
Separate components of the system may be utilized for a particular application or the system may be used in total as demonstrat-
ed at the Savannah River Site.
For example, the system can be used with or without horizontal wells.
Another option involves design of a system that does not have the vapor extraction component. In this case, biodegradation
of contaminants is optimized but no contaminants are removed via a physical process.
At some sites the addition of methane may not be required at all or at least initially, because there is naturally a sufficient car-
bon source for the indigenous methanotrophs.
> The optimum operating campaign involved pulsed injection of methane (4%) combined with continuous injection of air with nutri-
ents (nitrogen and phosphorus).
1 Automated control and monitoring functions added significantly to the ease and cost of operation of the system.
1A pulsing regime for the gaseous nutrients can be designed to accomplish both aerobic and anaerobic degradation simultaneous-
ly. For example, at SRS both TCE and PCE were biodegraded. This required both aerobic and anaerobic degradation. It is
believed that anaerobic pockets were created in the subsurface, which led to degradation of PCE within an overall aerobic sys-
tem.
1 Horizontal drilling methods must be tailored to specific site conditions with special considerations for the type of drilling fluid,
drilling bit, drilling methodology, casing installation, etc.
Technology Limitations/Needs for Future Development
l
Long-term performance data from several years of operation varying operating parameters are required to assess the need for
design improvements and to better quantify life-cycle costs.
Better monitoring methods for determining mass balance and microbiological health of the subsurface population are required to
facilitate implementation of ISB.
It is possible that subsurface injection of gases below the water table can induce ground water flow. In such a case, ISB could
accelerate lateral migration of contaminants in certain geologic settings. If clay layers or other geologic features constrict vertical
flow, it may be necessary to use ISB in conjunction with a pump-and-treat system for hydraulic control.
1 There was no evidence of plugging of the wells as a result of the increased subsurface biomass that resulted from the subsurface
injection of nutrient gases.
1 More experience with environmental horizontal drilling under a variety of subsurface conditions will ensure better well installations
at reduced costs.
Page 13
U.S. Department of Energy
170
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
continued
Technology Selection Considerations ' * * =3
The cost of adding methane injection to an air sparging system is relatively low and easily recovered (nearly all water samples
showed greater than 90% mineralization of TCE and PCE by methanotrophs after nutrients were added to the system).
This technology yields significant economic and efficiency gains over conventional baseline technologies for remediation of ground
water and sediment contaminated with chlorinated solvents.
One application of the ISB system can be as a polishing technique after high concentrations are removed by In Situ Air Stripping
using horizontal wells. This approach would likely be used at sites where initial contaminant concentrations are high. On the
other hand, the biological component may be most effective at sites with lower contaminant concentrations, ultimately targeting
attainment of drinking water thresholds.
The role of horizontal wells in improving the efficiency of remediation was assessed. Remediation efficiency may be enhanced by
increased surface area for reaction, similarity of well profile and contaminant plume geometry, borehole access to areas beneath
existing facilities, and drilling along facility boundaries to control plume migration. However, each site must be assessed for the
utility of horizontal wells.
Successful ISB requires good contact between injected air and contaminated soils and ground water. An optimal geologic setting
would have moderate to high saturated soil permeability, a fairly homogeneous saturated zone to allow for effective injection of
gaseous nutrients, and sufficient saturated thickness. Vadose zone characteristics would be moderate to high permeability and
homogeneity.
ISB using horizontal wells may be most applicable in linearly shaped plumes that are relatively thin.
Page 14
171
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
APPENDIX A
DEMONSTRATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
(Site History/Background
The Savannah River Site's historical mission has been to
support national defense efforts through the production of nuclear
materials. Production and associated research activities have
resulted in the generation of hazardous waste by-products now
managed as 266 waste management units located throughout the
300 mile2 facility.
The A and M Areas at Savannah River have been the site of
administrative buildings and manufacturing operations,
respectively. The A/M-Area is approximately one mile inward
from the northeast boundary of the 300 milea Savannah River
Site. Adjacent to the site boundary are rural and farming
communities. Specific manufacturing operations within the M-
Area included aluminum forming and metal finishing.
Site Layout
M-Area Process
Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration
Site
M-Area
A-014 Outfall/
Tim's Branch
HWMF/Settling
Basin
The M-Area operations resulted in the release of process
wastewater containing an estimated 3.5 million Ibs. of solvents.
From 1958 to 1985,2.2 million Ibs. were sent to an unlined settling
basin, which is the main feature of the M-Area Hazardous Waste
Management Facility (HWMF). The remaining 1.3 million Ibs. were
discharged from Outfall A-014 to Tim's Branch, a nearby stream,
primarily during the years 1954 to 1982.
Discovery of contamination adjacent to the settling basin in 1981 initiated a site assessment effort eventually involving
approximately 250 monitoring wells over a broad area. A pilot ground water remediation system began operation in
February 1983. Full-scale ground water treatment began in September 1985.
High levels of residual solvent are found in the soil and ground water near the original discharge locations.
Technologies to augment the pump-and-treat efforts, for example soil vapor extraction, ISAS, and bioremediation, have
been tested and are being added to the permitted corrective action.
I Contaminants of Concern E
Contaminants of greatest concern are:
1,1,2-trichloroethylene (TCE)
tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)
Property at STP*
Empirical Formula
Density
Vapor Pressure
Henry's Law
Constant
Water Solubility
QctarjoI-Water
Coefficient; Kow
Units
g/cm3
TCE
acH=ccfc
1.46
mmHg 73
aWrn3/mcte9.9E-3
mg/L
-
1000-1470
195
'STP = Standard Temperature and Pressure;
PCE
1.62
19
2.9E-3
150-485
126
1atm,25ฐC
TCA
1.31
124
1.6E-2
300-1334
148
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Approximately 71% of the total mass of VOCs released to both the settling basin and Tim's Branch was PCE, 28%
was TCE, and 1% was TCA.
The estimated amount of dissolved organic solvents in ground water in concentrations greater than 10 ppb is between
260.000 and 450,000 Ibs and is estimated to be 75% TCE. This estimate does not include contaminants sorbed to
solids in the saturated zone or in the vadose zone. The area of VOC-contaminated ground water has an approximate
thickness of 150 feet, covers about 1200 acres, and contains contaminant concentrations greater than 50,000 ug/L.
DNAPLs found in 1991 present challenges for long-term remediation efforts.
Vadose zone contamination is mainly limited to a linear zone associated with the leaking process sewer line, solvent
storage tank area, settling basin, and the A-014 outfall at Tim's Branch.
___^___^^^__^___n__ PageAl _
U.S. Department of Energy
172
-------
DEMONSTRATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
continued
B Contaminant Locations and Hydrogeologic Profiles
Simplified schematic diagrams show general hydrologic features of the A/M Area at SRS.
Vadose Zone and Upper Aquifer Characteristics
0'
35'
60'
'90'
Ground Surface
130'
160'
Water Table
////////////////////A
(figure modified from Reference 12)
~ Legend
Water Table Q Semiconfined Aquifer
f~l Unsaturated Zone Bi Confined Aquifer
Sediments are composed of sand, clay and gravel.
Clay layers are relatively thin and discontinuous, with the
exception of the clay layers at 160-foot depth and a thicker
zone of interbedded clay and sand found at 90-foot depth.
The water table is approximately 135 feet below grade.
A moderate downward gradient appears to exist beneath
the M-Area. Vertical flow rates have been estimated to be
2 to 8 ft/year.
Radial flow outward from a ground water plateau under most
of the A/M-Area exists. Flow is approximately 15 to 100
ft/year.
Hvdroqeoloaic Units
Aquifer
Unit
Vadose Zone
Description Thickness
Poorly sorted mix of sand, cobbles, silt and clay -57 ft -
Moderate to well-sorted, fine to medium sand 0-97 ft
containing some pebbles; 13% silt and clay
MnHpratolv/ tn u/nll-enrtoH moriii im canH- 1 Rฐ/~ cilt VI.RS ft -
\
Water Table Unit
Upper
Lost Lake Aquifer
Lower
Crouch Branch
Confining Unit
16-34 ft
and clay
Moderate to well-sorted fine sand with some
calcaneous zones; 25% silt and clay; 14% silt and
clay beds
Well-sorted fine to medium sand; 16% silt and
clay; 7% silt and clay beds.
Discontinuous clay beds containing 70% silt & clay
Moderate to well-sorted medium sand; 17% silt 4-44 ft
and clay; 7% silt and clay beds
Clay, clayey silt, and poorly sorted fine to coarse, 32-95 ft
clayey sand; 62% silt and clay; contains 2 major
clay layers the lower of which is 10-56 ft thick and
is the principal confining unit for lower aquifer
zones
Crouch Branch Aquifer Very poorly to well-sorted, medium to coarse
sands; 5% sand and clay beds; an important
production zone for water supply wells in the M-
Area
152-180 ft'
Page/12
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
DEMONSTRATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
continued
Contaminant Locations and Hydrogeologic Profiles (continued)
Metal-degreasing
solvent wastes were
sent to the A-014 outfall
and, via the process
sewer, to the M-Area
settling basin. Data
from hundreds of soil
borings, ground water
monitoring wells, and a
variety of other
investigative techniques
have established a well-
documented VOC
plume in both the
vadose and saturated
zones.
TCE Ground Water Plume (Top View)
Data from 15 feet below water table in
the third quarter of 1990.
2000 ft,
CD 8,000-16,000 ug/L
El 16,000-24,000 ug/L
M 24,000 - 32,000 ug/L
B 32,000 - 40,000 ug/L
40,000 - 48,000 ug/L
> 48,000 ug/L
(figure modified from Reference 6)
TCE Concentrations in Soil (West-East Cross-Section)
Concentration and lithology data from 1991 along an approximately 200-ft cross-section across the
integrated demonstration site. Concentration contours of TCE in sediments are based on analysis of over
1000 sediment samples. Highest concentrations of TCE occur in clay zones. These data were collected
before the in situ air stripping demonstration was conducted and do not represent pre-test conditions for
the in situ bioremediation demonstration.
Typical
Borehole
Lithology
Surface
50-
100-
~>
Water Table
x
'SS
Sand
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand
Clay
(figure modified from Reference 6)
Legend
soil concentrations LTDiootoi,oooug/kg M& 5.000 to 10.000 units uo/ka
in uglkg H 1,000 to 5,000 ug/kgB>10,000 ug/kg
Page A3
U.S. Department of Energy
174
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION DETAID
System Configuration
Wells 1&2 are paired wells targeting contaminated
sands. They are semiparallel in the subsurface, one
in the vadose zone and one in the saturated zone.
'Legend
f
Horizontal Horizontal well
well surface plan view
borehole subsurface
profile
Abandoned
Process Sewer
Line
M-Area
Settling Basin
Cross-Sectional View of Well #2 n
Surface
Water Table
Installed in Saturated zone
Screened Length =205 ft.
Diameter=4.5 in.
^Cross-Sectional View of Well #1 -,
Surface
Water Table
i
176ft
* BS<^ 1
Installed in Saturated zi
Screened Length = 310
Diameter = 2.4 in.
L
120ft-w
me
ft.
100 ft
(all data taken from Reference 6)
Horizontal Well Close-Ups
Well # 1
Well #2
Ground Surface
2 3/8 in diameter steel tubing
Top of pocket assembly at 7 ft.
Pup joints and subassembly
8 5/8 in diameter steel surface casing
k Inflatable pocker assembly
\iAi
Kick-off
point
at 115 ft
15 in diameter borehole
Top of whipstock at 121.8 ft
8 5/8 in diameter steel surface casing
Perforated steel tubing for screen
End of screen at 450 ft
Bottom of whipstock 121.2 ft
480ft.
Ground Surface
L^"8 5/8 in diameter steel surface casing
Cement "baskets" 14 & 15 ft
entralizer
Top of screen at 25.12 ft
hipstock window at 14 ft
16 in diameter borehole
6 1/2 in diameter borehole
4 1/2 in diameter stainless steel
wirewrapped screen
(0.010 in screenings)
Bull-nose plug
Kick-off
point
at 25 ft
caved in at 205 ft
Bottom of whipstock at 31.2 ft
7
263ft
PageBI
US. Department of Energy
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION DETAIL
continued
I Horizontal Well Installation Techniques
The techniques used to directionally drill and install a horizontal well depend on the location and purpose of the well.
Petroleum industry technology was used to install Wells 1 and 2 at the Savannah River Site; however, this technology is
no longer used. Current installation techniques include the following:
1. Pipeline/Utility River Crossing System- Based on a mud rotary system used to drive a downhole drill assembly,
including a drilling tool, a hydraulic spud jet with a 2-degree bend to provide directional drilling or a downhole motor
depending on the lithology to be drilled.
2. Utility Industry Compaction System -Down hole drill assembly consists of a wedge-shaped drilling tool and a
flexible subassembly attached to the drill string. The borehole is advanced by compaction, forcing cuttings into the
borehole wall. Reduced volumes of water are introduced to cool the drill bit; no circulation of drilling fluid is
accomplished.
3. Hybrid Petroleum Industry/Utility Industry Technology - Modified mud rotary system with bottom hole assembly
comprised of a survey tool, steerable downhole motor, and expandable-wing drill bit. Drilling fluids are used. Curve is
drilled and pipe is installed in curve before horizontal is drilled. Only one company provides this type of drilling system.
Operational Requirements
* Design and management of ISO systems require expertise in environmental, chemical, mechanical, and civil
engineering as well as hydrogeology and environmental regulations. Automation of system operations with a real-time
problem notification system reduced the manpower requirements significantly over that required for the earlier in situ air
stripping demonstration. Operation of multiple systems of the scale implemented at the Savannah River Site can be
performed by a 1/6 full-time equivalent technician per system. Larger systems or extensive monitoring activities would
require additional staff.
Monitoring Systems
Monitoring wells and vadose zone piezometers had previously been installed at the site for the ISAS demonstration.
-Ground Water Monitoring Well Clusters -i iVadose Zone Piezometer Clusters
Twelve borings were completed adjacent to 4-in.
monitoring well clusters in the locations shown on
the following page.
One well from each cluster was screened in the
water table at elevations ranging from 216 to 244 ft.
The second well in the cluster was screened in
the underlying semiconfined aquifer at elevations
ranging from 204 to 214 ft.
Four borings were completed at two times during
the ISB demonstration: after the 1% methane
campaign and after the end of the pulsing
campaign.
Three borings were cored adjacent to
piezometer clusters in the vadose zone.
Three piezometer tubes having lengths of
approximately 52 ft, 77 ft and 100 ft were installed
into each borehole.
Geophysical Monitoring
ERT was performed in five borings. ERT maps the behavior of subsurface fluids as they change in response
to natural or remedial processes.
Several single-point flow sensors were placed between the injection and extraction wells Oust below the water
table) to measure ground water flow in the area most affected by the ISB process.
Page B2
U.S. Department of Energy
76
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION DETAIL
continued
Monitoring Systems (continued)
Sampling/Monitoring Locations
Legend
HW Well Head
MW Cluster
Vadose Zone Piezometer
Cluster
Flow Sensor
Electrical Resistance Tomography
Well
Well #2
ouiiuiti i uue&
Each horizontal well was filled
with a bundle of six tubes
encased in a perforated pipe
or well screen. Each tube
terminated at a discrete
distance from the surface for
sampling or monitoring at
different locations along the
well bore.
Cross-Sectional
View at Well Head
xx GrXJ [I in perforated pipe
s' _ " * 1/8 in stainless steel
*.<- --~~~ tube Ground Surface
4 22.2 ft from surface
58.5ft 98.7ft 138.8ft 179.0ft 219.2ft
^ i I i 1 -
75ft
, Page B3
US. Department of Energy
177
-------
APPENDIX C
PERFORMANCE DETAIL
Operational Performance
Maintainability and Reliability
No functional problems encountered during
demonstration; system was operational
approximately 90% of all available time.
Operational performance over long periods
(years) not yet available.
Demonstration Schedule
Operational Simplicity
Monitoring performance of ISB is more difficult
than monitoring performance of baseline pump-and-
treat technology; however, systems have been
automated and can be operated and maintained in
the field typically by 1/6 full-time equivalent
technician. Staffing requirements are detailed in
Appendix B.
Major Milestones of the Demonstration Program
1992 February March April August
October 1993 Ja
/
nuary April
f* *
$ ,-/
Sampling, Monitoring, Analysis, and QA/QC Issues
Objectives
Gather baseline information and fully characterize site
Evaluate removal efficiencies with time
Evaluate subsurface microbial ecologies
Identify and evaluate zones of influence
BaselineJChafacterizatlon
Baseline characterization was performed before the demonstration to gather information on the geology,
geochemistry, hydrology, and microbiology of the site. The distribution of contaminants in soils and sediments in the
unsaturated zone and ground water was emphasized. These data were compared with data on soil collected during
and after the demonstration to evaluate the effectiveness of ISB.
Continuous cores were collected adjacent to monitoring well and vadose zone boreholes. Sediments for VOC
analysis were collected at 5-ft intervals and at major lithology changes. Samples for microbiological
characterization were collected every 10 ft.
Water samples were collected and analyzed for VOC content and microbial characteristics from monitoring well
clusters and at discrete depths adjacent to monitoring well clusters.
Geologic cross-sections were prepared using gamma ray, sp, resistivity, density, and neutron geophysical logs
and core logs.
Page C1
U.S. Department of Energy
173
-------
PERFORMANCE DETAIL
continued
Sampling, Monitoring, Analysis, and QA/QC Issues (continued)ฃ
oling & Monitorinp
Pressure Monitoring
Vacuum Monitoring
Vapor Sampling
Ground Water
Sampling
Microbiological
Sampling
Helium Tracer Test
: Lacation(s) "
vadose zone piezometers
injection well
extraction well
extraction well bundle tube:
vadose zone piezometers
extraction well
bundle tube
monitoring well clusters
monitoring well clusters
vadose zone piezometers
extraction well
> Frequency
weekly
2 x daily
2 X daily
weekly
weekly
2 X daily
weekly
biweekly
biweekly
weekly
2 x daily
Technique
measured at surface using magnehelic or
slack-tube macrometer
measured at wellhead using pressure gauge
measured at wellhead using vacuum gauge
measured at surface
ampled through a septum on the vacuum side
of a vacuum pump using gas-tight syringes
>ame as above
same as above
sampled using documented Savannah River
Site (SRS) well sampling protocols
sampled using documented SRS well
sampling protocols
sampled using 500-ml disposable syringes
and transferred to 30-ml preevacuated serum
trials
Analytical Methods and Equipment
Vapor grab samples were analyzed in the field using both a Photo Vac field gas chromatograph (GC)
and a GC fitted with flame ionization and electron capture detectors. Analysis was performed
immediately after collection.
Bulk water parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and oxidation
reduction potential, were measured using a Hydrolab.
VOC analysis of water and sediment samples was performed on-site using an improved quantitative
headspace method developed by Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Analyses were performed
on an HP-5890 GC fitted with an electron capture detector and headspace sampler.
Helium tracer samples were analyzed using a helium mass spectrometer modified to sample serum
vials at a constant rate.
QA/QC Issues
Vapor samples were analyzed immediately after collection and GC analysis of soil and water
samples were completed less than 3 weeks after collection.
Duplicate analysis was performed for nearly every water and sediment sample collected.
Approximately 161 samples were analyzed off-site using standard EPA methods to corroborate
onsite testing which used the improved quantitative headspace method described earlier. Cross-
comparison showed that the quantitative headspace analysis generated equivalent to superior data.
GC calibration checks were run daily using samples spiked with standard solutions.
Performance Validation
Samples analyzed onsite by nonstandard EPA methods were sent offsite for confirmatory analysis
using EPA methods. Results from these analyses confirmed the findings of Savannah River efforts.
The effectiveness of horizontal wells for environmental cleanup has been demonstrated by their use in
vapor extraction and ground water/free product recovery systems which are also discussed in Appendix D.
Page C2
U.S. Department of Energy
179
-------
APPENDIX D
COMMERCIALIZATION/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Intellectual Property
Primary Sponsor
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Technology Development
Existing/Pending Patents
Several parties, including national laboratories, industry, academia, EPA, USGS, USAF, participated in the development and
implementation of the ISB system. These participants are listed on the next page.
- Patent 5,326,703, "Method and System for Enhancing Microbial Motiiity," 1C. Hazen and G. Lopez de Victoria, assignors to
the U.S. as represented by the U.S. DOE.
Patent 5,324,661, "Chemotactic Selection of Pollutant Degrading Soil Bacteria," T.C. Hazen, assignors to the U.S. as repre-
sented by the U.S. DOE.
- Patent 5,384,048, "Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater," T.C. Hazen and C.B. Fliermans, assignors to the U.S. as
represented by the U.S. DOE.
-Patent Submitted 2/94, "Contactor System for Phosphorus Addition to Support Gas Phase Environmental Bioremediation,"
B.B. Looney, T.C. Hazen, S. Pfiffner, and K. Lombard.
Related patents include:
- Patent 4,832,122, "In Situ Remediation System and Method for Contaminated Groundwater," J.C. Corey, B.B. Looney, and D.S.
Kaback, assignors to the U.S. as represented by the U.S. DOE.
- Patent 5,186,255, "Flow Monitoring and Control System for Injection Wells," J.C. Corey, assignor to the U.S. as represented by the
U.S. DOE.
- Patent 5,263,795, "In Situ Remediation System for Groundwater and Soils," J.C. Corey, D.S. Kaback, and B.B. Looney, assignors
to the U.S. as represented by the U.S. DOE.
-Patent 4,660,639, "Removal of Volatile Contaminants from the Vadose Aone of Contaminated Ground," M.J. Visser and J.D.
Malot, assignors to the Upjohn Company. WSRC paid a one-time license fee to the assignee for the use of the process with hori-
zontal wells.
-Patent 5,006,250, "Pulsing of Electron Donor and Electron Acceptor for Enhanced Biotransformation of Chemicals," P.V.
Roberts, G.D. Hopkins, L. Semprini, P.L. McCarty, and D.M. McKay, assignors to the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University.
Licensing Information
ซISBR is commercially available through the WSRD Technology Transfer Office
To date, 19 licenses have been applied for and six licenses have been granted.
Page D1
U.S. Department of Energy
180
-------
CQMMERCIALIZATION/INTELECTUAL PROPERTY
continued
Collaborators
Government
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Site
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Academia
Stanford University
University of South Carolina
University of Illinois
University of Washington
Utah State University
Georgia State University
University of Minnesota
University of Cincinnati
Industry
Gas Research Institute
Radian Corp.
Eastman Christiensen
Westinghouse
E. I. duPont de Nemours Inc.
Michigan Biotech Institute
Envirex Inc.
Bechtel Inc.
Graves
O'Brien and Gere
Monitoring Testing Service
General Engineering Lab
Tren Fuels
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.
Terra-Vac
Page 02
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
APPENDIX E
REFERENCES
1. T. C. Hazen 1991. Test Plan for In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration of the Savannah River Integrated Demonstration Project,
DOE/DTD TTPNo.:SR 0566-01. WSRC-RD-91-23.88 pp., WSRC Information Services, Aiken, SC.
2. T. C. Hazen 1993. Preliminary Technology Report for In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration (Methane Biostimulation) of the
Savannah River Site Integrated Demonstration Project, DOE/OTD. WSRC-TR-93-670. 39 pp. WSRC Information Services,
Aiken, SC.
3. T. C. Hazen 1995. Level 2 Summary Technology Report for In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration (Methane Biostimulation) of
the Savannah River Site Integrated Demonstration Project, DOE/OTD. in press.
4. D. S. Kaback, B. B. Looney, J. C. Corey, and L. M. Wright, III 1989. Well Completion Report on Installation of Horizontal Wells
for In Situ Remediation Tests. WSRC-RP-89-784. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC.
5. R. P. Saaty and S. R. Booth 1994. In Situ Bioremediation: Cost Effectiveness of a Remediation Technology Field Test at the
Savannah River Integrated Demonstration Site. Los Alamos National Laboratory report No. LA-UR-94-1714.
6. B. J. Travis and N. D. Rosenberg 1994. Numerical Simulations in Support of the In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration at
Savannah River. 43p. Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report: LA-UR94-716.
7. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories 1994. PROTECH Technology Information Profile for In Situ Bioremediation, PROTECH
database.
8. Science Applications International Corporation 1993. Turnover Plan for the Integrated Demonstration Project for Cleanup of
Contaminants in Soils and Groundwater at Non-Arid Sites, SRS.
9. D. D. Wilson and D. S. Kaback 1993, Industry Survey for Horizontal Wells, WSRC-TR-93-511. WSRC Information Services,
Aiken, SC.
10. C. A. Eddy Dilek et al. 1993. Post-Test Evaluation of the Geology, Geochemistry, Microbiology, and Hydrogeology of the In Situ
Air Stripping Demonstration Site at the Savannah River Site. WSRC-TR-93-369 Rev.O. WSRC Information Services, Aiken SC.
11. E.l.duPont de Nemours 1982. Preliminary Technical Data Summary M-Area Groundwater Cleanup Facility, Savannah River
Laboratory.
12. A. L. Ramirez and W. D. Daily 1995. Electrical Resistance Tomography During In Situ TCE Remediation at the Savannah River
Site, Journal of Applied Geophysics.
13. Martin Marietta Hazwrap in conjunction with Stone and Webster and CKY1995. (prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy)
In Situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells, Innovative Technology Summary Report.
Page E1
U.S. Department of Energy
132
-------
This report was prepared by:
Colorado Center
for
Environmental Management
999 18th Street, Suite 2750
Denver, Colorado 80202
Contact: DawnKaback
(303)297-0180Ext. Ill
in conjunction with:
Hazardous Waste Remedial
Actions Program
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
P.O. Box 2003
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606
Randall Snipes/Scott Colbum
(615)435-31287(615)435-3470
Assistance was provided by the
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Technology Center
Environmental Sciences Section
-------
-------
Lasagna Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of Energy
Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, Kentucky
185
-------
Case Study Abstract
Lasagna Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of Energy
Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, Kentucky
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Cylinder Drop Test Area
Location:
Paducah, Kentucky
Contaminants:
Trichloroethene (TCE)
- TCE concentrations in clay soil ranged
from 1 ppb to 1760 ppm
- Average TCE concentration was 83.2
- Highest TCE concentrations (200 - 300
ppm) found 12-16 ft below surface
Period of Operation:
January - May 1995
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Sa V. Ho, Monsanto, (314) 694-5179
Steven C. Meyer, Monsanto,
(314) 275-5946
Joseph J. Salvo, GE, (518) 387-6123
Stephen H. Shoemaker, DuPont,
(713) 586-2513
SIC Code:
Not Available
Technology:
Integrated in situ technology
- patented technology developed by an
industrial consortium consisting of
Monsanto, GE, and DuPont
- combines electroosmosis, biodegradation,
and physicochemical treatment processes
- electrodes energized by direct current cause
water and soluble contaminants to move
through treatment layers
- treatment zones decompose or adsorb
contaminants
- water collected at the cathode is recycled to
the anode for acid-base neutralization
Cleanup Authority:
EPA and State of Kentucky
Points of Contact:
Skip Chamberlain, DOE,
(301) 903-7248
Dave Biancosino, DOE,
(301) 903-7961
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Kelly Pearce, DOE,
(304) 285-5424
Waste Source:
Not Available
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Lasagna is an in situ technology
suited to sites with low permeability
soils that combines several
technologies to remediate soil and
soil pore water contaminated with
soluble organic compounds
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and soil pore water
- 4 ft layer of gravel and clay overlaying 40 ft layer of sandy clay loam with
interbedded sand layers
- low organic content
- 15 ft wide x 10 ft across x 15 ft deep
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- A cleanup standard for TCE in soil was set at 5.6 ppm.
- No air permits or Underground Injection permits were needed.
- The demonstration was granted a categorical exclusion under the NEPA.
185
-------
Case Study Abstract
Lasagna Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of Energy
Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, Kentucky (Continued)
Results:
- Treatment reduced TCE concentrations in test zone on average from 72.6 to 1.1 ppm (a 98% reduction)
- An electroosmosis flow rate of 4 L/hr was achieved, and 3 pore volumes of water were transported during a 4-month
operating period
- In probable DNAPL locations, TCE was reduced to less than 1 ppm, except for one deep location near an untreated
zone that was reduced to 17.4 ppm (diffusion from untreated deep zones suspected)
- Results from the field demonstration were used to develop plans for expanded treatment at Paducah
Cost Factors:
- No data are provided on the capital or operating costs for the field demonstration
- DuPont analyzed the costs for using Lasagna to treat TCE-contaminated clayey soil, and estimated that costs would
range from $40 to 90/yd3 of soil for a 1-acre site, ranging from 1-3 years for remediation
- Major cost elements include electrode construction; other factors include electrode spacing, placement of electrodes
and treatment zones, soil properties, depth of contamination, required purge water volume, cleanup time, and cost of
electrical power
- DuPont benchmarked unit costs for Lasagna compared with other in situ technologies which required more than 30
years to remediate a site (in situ treatment zones using iron filings, pump and treat, in situ aerobic biological
treatment, and surfactant flushing) and determined that Lasagna is within the range of unit costs for these
technologies ($25-75/yd3)
Description:
Lasagna is an in situ technology that combines electroosmosis, biodegradation, and physicochemical treatment
processes to treat soil and soil pore water contaminated with soluble organic compounds. The technology was
developed by an industrial consortium consisting of Monsanto, GE, and DuPont and patents for the technology and the
trademark have been granted to Monsanto. The technology is suited for sites with low permeability soils. The process
uses electrokinetics to move contaminants in soil pore water into treatment zones where the contaminants can be
captured or decomposed.
At the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Lasagna was demonstrated on a clayey soil contaminated with TCE, with an
average concentration of 83 ppm. Treatment reduced TCE concentrations in a test zone from on average 72.6 to 1.1
ppm (a 98% reduction). An electroosmosis flow rate of 4 L/hr was achieved, and 3 pore volumes of water were
transported during a 4-month operating period. Results from the field demonstration were used to develop plans for
expanded treatment at Paducah (scheduled for June 1996, per report dated April 1996).
-------
SECTION
SUMMARY
Technology Description
Lasagna is an integrated, in situ remediation technology being developed by an industrial consortium
consisting of Monsanto, E. I. DuPontde Nemours & Co., Inc. (DuPont), and General Electric, with
participation from the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management, Office of
Science and Technology (EM-50), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research
and Development (Figure 1).
Lasagna remediates soils and soil pore water contaminated with soluble organic compounds.
Lasagna is especially suited to sites with low permeability soils where electroosmosis can move water
faster and more uniformly than hydraulic methods, with very low power consumption. The process uses
electrokinetics to move contaminants in soil pore water into treatment zones where the contaminants can
be captured or decomposed. Initial focus is on trichloroethylene (TCE), a major contaminant at many
DOE and industrial sites. Both vertical and horizontal configurations have been conceptualized, but
fieldwork to date is more advanced for the vertical configuration. Major features of the technology are
electrodes energized by direct current, which causes water and soluble contaminants to move into or
through the treatment layers and also heats the soil;
treatment zones containing reagents that decompose the soluble organic contaminants or adsorb
contaminants for immobilization or subsequent removal and disposal; and
a water management system that recycles the water that accumulates at the cathode (high pH) back
to the anode (low pH) for acid-base neutralization. Alternatively, electrode polarity can be reversed
periodically to reverse electroosmotic flow and neutralize pH.
DuPont (Anaerobic Biodegradation/
Vertical Zone Installation)
DOE (Site Selection and
Field
General Elec
(EK and Physipปc
Treatment)
EPA (Hydrofracture/
Biodegradation)
ntegrated in-situ
Remediation Technology
Monsanto (LasagnatfElectro-
Osmosis/Biodegradation)
Figure 1. Major components of the Lasagna technology.
U.S. Department of Energy
188
-------
Technology Status
A proof-of-concept field demonstration was conducted at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Paducah, Kentucky.
U. S. Department of Energy
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Cylinder Drop Test Area (SWMU 91)
Paducah, Kentucky
January 1995 through May 1995
The demonstration was sponsored by the DOE EM-50 Industrial Program through the Morgantown Energy
Technology Center.
The PGDP site consists of a 4-ft layer of gravel and clay overlaying a 40-ft layer of sandy clay loam with
interbedded sand layers. The clay soil had been contaminated with TCE at concentrations ranging from
1 ppb to 1760 ppm. Because of its very low organic content, the soil adsorbed very little TCE. The zone
to be remediated measured 15-ft wide by 10-ft across and 15-ft deep, with average contamination of
83.2 ppm. The highest TCE concentrations (200-300 ppm) were found 12-16 ft below the surface. Steel
panels were used as electrodes and the treatment zones consisted of wick drains containing granular
activated carbon to adsorb the TCE. A plastic-wrapped shed was built above the test area, and a vent fan
directed soil off-gas to an in-line filter for TCE capture.
Two patents covering the technology have been granted to Monsanto, and the term Lasagna has also
been trademarked by Monsanto. Developing the technology so that it can be used with assurance for site
remediation is the overall objective of the sponsoring consortium.
Key Results
Soil samples taken throughout the test site before and after the test indicated an average removal
efficiency of 98% for TCE, with some samples showing greater than 99% removal. TCE soil levels
were reduced to an average concentration of 1.2 ppm.
Flow rate by electroosmosis was 4 L/h, and three pore volumes of water (between adjacent
treatment zones) were transported during the 4-month operating period.
Dense, non-aqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) locations were cleaned to 1-ppm levels except for a 15-ft
deep sample that was reduced to 17.4 ppm (Note that because treatment zones were only 15-ft
deep, diffusion from untreated deep zones may have contributed to the 17.4-ppm result.)
A TCE mass balance at test conclusion accounted for about 50% of TCE. Differences may be a
result of passive diffusion (5%), evaporation (5%), in situ degradation of TCE during the test, or
incomplete extraction of TCE from the activated carbon prior to analysis. About 20% (12 of 64) of the
wicks were sampled. Given the highly nonuniform TCE concentrations in the soil and the limited
sampling, a mass balance of 50% is an excellent result.
Based on the initial field tests, treatment costs for a typical 1-2-acre site with contamination to a
depth of 40-50 ft were estimated to be about $50-$90/yd3 of treated soil.
Phase II
A commercial-scale development demonstration (Phase lla) is planned for the Paducah site in 1996, using
iron filings in the treatment zones to dechlorinate the TCE in situ. The goal is to reduce soil contamination
to 5.6 ppm or less in the 20 ft x 30 ft x 45-ft deep treatment zone. If successful, this will be followed by a
139
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
full-scale first application demonstration (Phase II) encompassing the entire contaminated region (105 ft *
60 ft * 45-ft deep), with treatment accomplished in 12 to 24 months.
Contacts
Technical
Sa V. Ho, Principal Investigator, Monsanto, (314) 694-5179
Steven C. Meyer, Project Manager, Phase IIA, Monsanto Enviro-Chem, (314) 275-5946
Joseph J. Salvo, General Electric, (518) 387-6123
Stephen H. Shoemaker, DuPont, (713) 586-2513
Management
Skip Chamberlain, DOE EM-50 Program Manager, (301) 903-7248
Jim Wright, DOE Plume Focus Area Manager, (803) 725-5608
Kelly Pearce, DOE Contract Representative, (304) 285-5424
Paducah Site Support
Myrna Redfield, DOE EM-40 Program Manager, (502) 441-6815
Fraser Johnstone, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems Project Manager, (502) 441-5077
Jay Clausen, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems Technical Manager, (502) 441-5070
U.S. Department of Energy
190
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Vertical Proces Schematic
The Phase I field test of Lasagna had electrodes and treatment zones arranged as shown in Figure 2.
DuPont and its subcontractor, Nilex Corporation, used an oversized mast and mandrel system to
accommodate carbon-filled wick drains 18-in. wide by 2-in. thick. The wick drains were made by wrapping
permeable geotextile fabric around a spacer material to create a conduit for groundwater flow. A wick was
installed by inserting it through the steel emplacement mandrel that had been driven into the soil to the
desired depth using a 10-ton vibratory hammer (Figure 3). A steel drive shoe placed over the leading
edge of the hollow mandrel facilitated penetration to a depth about 15 ft below grade. Steel plate
electrodes and geomembrane insulating panels were emplaced using the same mandrel.
APPLIED ELEC TRICAL
A. Horizontal Configuration
borehole
ground surface
7^| Granular Electrode
POTENTI.
contaminated
soil
Degradation Zone
Granular
Electrode
B. Vertical Configuration
Degradation contaminated Degradation
Zone soil Zone
Note : electro-osmotic flow is reversed upon switching electrical polarity.
Figure 2. Horizontal and vertical Lasagna configurations.
191
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
Figure 3. Wicks being installed in hollow mandrel.
The treatment zones were installed with layers of soil 21-in. thick between each zone. Two wicks in each
row contained a special sampling cassette that could be retrieved for TCE analysis during or after the
experiment. A wick with a sampling cassette was also installed in the control zone at the west end of the
unit, and this zone was isolated hydraulically by a surrounding wall of sheet piling.
Operating Characteristics of Phase I Demonstration
Initial power
Power after one month
Electroosmotic flow rate
Initial soil temperature
Temperature at test end
138 volts, 41 amperes
105 volts, 40 amperes (remained stable at this level)
4-5 L/h
15ฐC (at the 10-ft depth)
45.2ฐC (at the core, the hottest spot),
25-30ฐC (average soil temperature)
Electroosmotic conductivity, pH, conductivity trends, power requirements, temperature trends, and
operational stability were predicted from laboratory and pilot-scale experiments and mathematical
modeling and then confirmed in the field.
Phase Ha Treatment Plans
Phase lla. scheduled to begin in June 1996, will modify the Phase I configuration by using zero-valent iron
in the treatment zones to chemically reduce TCE to non-toxic end productschloride ion, ethane, ethene,
and other hydrocarbons. Laboratory studies by General Electric have shown that reduction rates are
considerably enhanced by increasing temperature, making the soil heating that accompanies Lasagna
an added benefit. Phase lla will also test the ability of the technology to work at greater depth45 ftand
will assess the use of wider spacing (up to 7 ft) between treatment zones to reduce costs.
Features of Phase lla include the following:
The test plot will be 20 ft x 30 ft * 45 ft deep.
U.S. Department of Energy
192
-------
Electrodes will be 30 vol % iron filings mixed with 70% carbon (coke) granules
(46 wt % iron and 54% coke on dry weight basis).
Treatment zones 2-in. thick will be 8% by volume iron filings mixed with kaolin clay (35 wt-% iron and
65% clay on dry weight basis).
The spacing array will be electrode <--7 ft->|<~5 ft-->|<--2 ft-->|<--7 ft~> electrode (where |
represents the treatment zone).
The Nilex mandrel will be driven, filled with slurry (no wicks), and the mandrel removed.
An in situ probe will periodically measure TCE concentration as treatment progresses.
Phase lla will operate 3-6 months to obtain data for a go/no-go decision on the complete Phase II.
Target levels of 5.6 ppm TCE will not be reached in Phase lla, and treatment of this zone would
continue as part of Phase II.
If the full Phase II treatment goes forward, a test array, about 105 ft x 60 ft x 45-ft deep will be used over a
time span of 12 to 24 months. Cost objectives include a treatment cost of $50-$90/yd3. Costs are
expected to be lower if treatment time can be extended, thereby permitting use of fewer treatment zones
(wider spacing) and/or less electrical power. More economical emplacement methods (e.g., jet grouting)
could also reduce treatment costs.
U.S. Department of Energy
193
-------
SECTION 3
PERFORMANCE
Phase I Treatment Performance
This first field experiment demonstrated the following aspects of Lasagna technology.
Electroosmosis can effectively transport groundwater contaminated by TCE to treatment zones where
TCE is captured by adsorption on activated carbon.
More than 98% of TCE can be removed from soil after just three pore volumes of water have been
moved between adjacent treatment zones. Sampling of one wick showed that most TCE was
captured after the first two pore volumes. Except at very low depths, little additional TCE was trapped
by the third pore volume.
The probable presence of residual DNAPL was indicated by pretest soil samples that showed TCE
concentrations greater than 225 ppm. In these likely DNAPL locations, TCE levels were reduced to
less than 1 ppm (except for a deep sample near the untreated zone that was reduced to 17.4 ppm),
indicating that Lasagna technology could be effective for DNAPL TCE.
TCE removal from the soil is summarized in Figure 4 by results of the pretest and posttest analyses of soil
cores. Very high and uniform removal of TCE from the treated soil between 4- and 15-ft depths is
indicated. The location of the bore holes can be seen in the map of electrodes and treatment zones
(Figure 5). Soil samples taken either outside of or deeper than the test zone (below 15 ft) showed
substantial amounts of TCE present. This sharp contrast demonstrates the remarkable effectiveness of
Lasagna treatment.
120
o.
Q.
100--
5 80-
CD
O
O
O
LJLJ
e
CD
O)
CD
60--
40--
20--
% Reduction
Pre-Lasagna
I I Post-Lasagna
100%
90%
80%
70%
Soil Boring
Figure 4. Average trichloroethylene (TCE) concentrations pre- and post-Lasagna.
U.S. Department of Energy
194
-------
Control
Area
LP15
Anode C1 C2 C3
tP05
_*
4
Calhodo
Carbon Wickdrain
Carbon Wickdrain with Sampling Cartridge
Pre-Treatment Soil Boring Location
Post-Treatment Soil Boring Location
Monsanto Soil Boring Location
Figure 5. Locations of core samples from the Phase I Lasagna field experiment.
195
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY AND
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Applicability!
Low permeability soils with water-soluble contaminants (organics, inorganics, or mixed wastes) could
be remediated using Lasagna technology.
Field experiments at PGDP are staged to quantify performance variables and determine cost
effectiveness for in situ TCE remediation.
Phase I results indicate that electroosmosis can remove residual DNAPL TCE from soil, with
concentrations reduced to approximately 1 ppm after 4 months of treatment.
Phase II tests will evaluate in situ degradation of TCE by reaction with zero-valent iron and the
compatibility of this process with electroosmotic transport.
Competing Technologies
For contaminants in low permeability soils, removal or destruction of the contaminants is generally made
difficult by the slow, nonuniform transport of water or air through the soil. This limits the effectiveness of
other in situ methods such as pump and treat, vapor extraction, or bioremediation.
A number of soil heating/vapor extraction technologies have been demonstrated at DOE sites (some on
soils of low permeability), with treatment cost estimates ranging from $65/yd3 (DOE 1995a), to $88/yd3
(DOE 1995b), to $123/yd3 (Dev and Phelan 1996). (The referenced reports should be consulted for
details.)
Barriers that prevent the further spread of contaminants may be effective remedies in cases where
drinking water supplies are not endangered by the contamination. However, once a plume is identified
and characterized, public pressure often demands that the offending source be removed or destroyed.
Also, barrier technology for plumes has not yet been shown to be feasible, effective, or cost-efficient.
(Freeze and McWhorter)
Use of treatment zones for in situ destruction of contaminants gives Lasagna a competitive advantage
over other electrokinetic methods that extract contaminants for aboveground treatment or disposal.
Because treatment zones eliminate the need for aboveground waste handling, and are presumably
cheaper to make and install than electrodes, their use imparts cost advantages.
In situ chemical oxidation with reagents such as potassium permanganate or hydrogen peroxide has been
proposed as a way of degrading DNAPLs in situ, with reagent delivery accomplished by soil mixing or
fracturing in conjunction with oxidant solution injection. Cost estimates of $130 to $200/m3 have been
made for the technology based on limited full-scale data (TCE treated with hydrogen peroxide at 80%
removal efficiency) (Gates, Korte, and Siegrist). A recently issued report summarizes the results of the
demonstration of in situ soil mixing for volatile organic contaminant remediation that was conducted at the
Portsmouth, Ohio, DOE site (DOE 1996).
U.S. Department of Energy
196
-------
SECTION 5
COST
Introduction
DuPont has completed an engineering evaluation and cost analysis of the vertically configured Lasagna
treatment process using a cost optimization model. Input parameters included soil properties, depth of
contamination, cost for emplacing electrodes and treatment zones, required purge water volume, cleanup
time, and cost of electrical power. For TCE contamination in clay, costs are estimated to range from $40
to $90/yd3 of soil for a 1-acre site.
The cost-optimized electrode spacing for electroosmosis is 3-6 m for most soils. This allows cleanup
within a reasonable time (less than 5 years) while avoiding soil overheating. Electrode construction is a
major factor in overall application costgenerally 20 to 40%. Lasagna reduces the cleanup time and
power input by inserting treatment zones between the electrodes. The ability to emplace treatment zones
and electrodes in relatively close spacing and at reasonable cost is critical to the cost-effectiveness of the
technology.
The technology implementation cost for Lasagna as conducted in the Phase I test (steel plate electrode
with wick drains and carbon-filled treatment zone) is estimated at $80-$90/yd3 for remediation in 1 year,
$50-$60/yd3 if 3 years are allowed for remediation. Comparable estimates for the Phase II mode of
operation are $60-$70 (1 year) and $40-$50 (3 years). Deeper contamination, although involving more
technically challenging emplacement, costs less because of the larger volumes remediated per area of
electrode.
A hypothetical case wherein mass-produced, prefabricated materials were emplaced by the mandrel
technology was also considered by DuPont. This best possible case lowered implementation costs to
$30-$40 (1-year case) and $20-$30 (3-year case), depending on the depth of contamination. Wide
adoption of the technology would presumably be needed to stimulate the development of these new
materials.
In all of the above cases, only the direct costs associated with technology application are included.
Additional variable costs related to licensing fees, site costs imposed because of regulations, analytical
costs, etc. are not included.
Cost Savings Versus Alternative Technologies
DuPont has benchmarked a number of in situ technologies over the last 3 years. These include
in situ treatment zones using iron filings for dehalogenation of chlorinated solvents,
pump and treat of contaminated groundwater,
in situ aerobic biological dechlorination, and
surfactant flushing.
Costs for these technologies, some of which require more than 30 years to remediate a site, are between
$25 and $75/yd3. Lasagna is within the range of these competing technologies with an implementation
cost (over 3 years) of about $50/yd3, using the mandrel/tremie-tube method of emplacement as proposed
for Phase II.
10
197
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 6
REGULATORY/POLICY ISSUES
Regulatory Considerations i
Communication with regulators should be established early in the development process for new
remediation technologies. For the PGDP demonstrations of Lasagna, early contact with EPA and state
of Kentucky regulators led to determinations that
no air permits were needed (negligible amounts of TCE would be vaporized by the electrical heating of
soil);
no underground injection permit was needed (water would be recycled from cathode to anode, not
injected at depth);
the soil cleanup standard of 5.6 ppm achieved the maximum contaminant level (5 ppb in water) for
TCE at the point of exposure;
the PGDP security fence could be established as the point of exposure for consumption, thereby
serving as the basis for the soil cleanup standard; and
the demonstration would be granted a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy
Act (no environmental impact).
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
The intermediate degradation products of TCE reduction should be monitored as well as TCE. Water
cleanup targets for c/s-dichloroethylene (70 ppb) and vinyl chloride (2 ppb) suggest that vinyl chloride will
be the more significant health risk concern.
No permit was needed for the electrical installation, but site inspection by a qualified electrical engineer
and lock-out/tag-out training for site personnel were required
U.S. Department of Energy
198
11
-------
. SECTION?
LESSONS LEARNED
Design Issues
Phase I results indicate that electroosmosis can flush TCE from clay soil with the passage of two or
three pore volumes of water between adjacent treatment zones. More flushing may be required when
greater amounts of DNAPL are present.
Partial plugging of the cathode siphon tubes during the first month of Phase I testing caused water to
overflow the cathode wicks. Pinched tubes can be prevented by better design or more robust tubing.
Implementation Considerations
Iron corrosion was the dominant anode reaction for the first 3 months of power application, but water
electrolysis apparently occurred in the 4th month, lowering the pH near the anode to 2-3. Electrode
polarity reversal may be a desirable option to mitigate this effect for long-term power applications.
Technology Limitations/Needs for Future Development jro .. >-. i
Phase II testing will address a number of design and operational issues, including treatment zone
spacing, effectiveness of zero-valent iron degradation of TCE when used in conjunction with
electroosmosis, and emplacement of vertical granular electrodes and treatment zones to 45-ft depths
by the mandrel/tremie-tube method. Greater amounts of DNAPL TCE are also anticipated, possibly
requiring more electroosmotic flushing than was used in Phase I.
Lasagna is potentially capable of treating multiple contaminants in soil, but treatment chemistry and
procedures will have to be developed to assure compatibility of the treatment processes for individual
contaminants.
Hydraulic fracturing and slurry emplacement of horizontal electrodes and treatment zones offer
promise for Lasagna treatment of deep zones of contamination, butissues of good electrical contact
to electrodes and trapping of gases generated by electrolysis need to be resolved by the technology
developers, EPA and the University of Cincinnati.
Bioremediation in Lasagna treatment zones is an option that has been demonstrated in the
laboratory by Monsanto and is now being evaluated by EPA, Monsanto, and others for field
implementation. This will require further development.
Future Technology Selection Considerations
Lasagna is a modular technology, and plans to remediate the entire PGDP Cylinder Drop Test Area
(SWMU 91) assume that the Phase Ha configuration can be used in six adjacent, like-sized areas that
would be treated concurrently in Phase II.
Site evaluations and negotiations are proceeding with Department of Defense sites interested in
collaborating with the consortium on a demonstration of the horizontal configuration of Lasagna,
probably using bioremediation in the treatment zones.
Improvements in treatment zone emplacement technology may be possible through the use of
cheaper materials with the mandrel/tremie-tube technology or through the use of jet grouting. DuPont
will explore these options as part of the Phase II development work.
12
199
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Athmer, C. J., et al. 1996. Large Scale Field Test of the Lasagna Process, Monsanto draft Topical
Report.
Brackin, M. J., etal. 1996. Development of Degradation Processes, Monsanto draft Topical Report.
Brodsky, P. H., and S. V. Ho 1995. In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Soils, U.S. Patent 5,398,756,
issued March 21,1995.
Clausen, J. L, etal. n.d. DNAPL Site Characterization and Lasagna Technology Demonstration at Solid
Waste Management Unit 91 of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, KY, DOE report
KY/EM-128 (to be published).
Dev, H., and J. M. Phelan 1996. "In Situ Electrical Heating for the Decontamination of Soil," presented at
the American Power Conference, Chicago, III., April 10, 1996 (to be published).
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995a. "Dynamic Underground Stripping," Innovative Technology
Summary Report, DOE-EM-0271.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995b. "Six-Phase Soil Heating," Innovative Technology Summary
Report, EM/OST.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. "In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing," Innovative Technology Summary
Report, EM/OST.
Freeze, R. A., and D. B. McWhorter. "A Framework for Assessing Risk Reduction Due to DNAPL
Mass Removal from Low Permeability Soils," in In Situ Remediation of DNAPL Compounds in Low
Permeability Media: Rate/transport, In Situ Control Technologies, and Risk Reduction, DOE-EM-xxxx
(to be published).
Gates, D. D.( N. E. Korte, and R. L. Siegrist. "In Situ Chemical Degradation of DNAPLs in Contaminated
Soils & Sediments," in In Situ Remediation of DNAPL Compounds in Low Permeability Media:
Rate/transport, In Situ Control Technologies, and Risk Reduction, DOE-EM-xxxx (to be published).
Ho, S. V. "Electro-osmosis Remediation of DNAPLs in Low Permeability Soils," in In Situ Remediation
of DNAPL Compounds in Low Permeability Media: Rate/transport, In Situ Control Technologies, and
Risk Reduction, DOE-EM-xxxx (to be published).
Ho, S. V., and P. H. Brodsky 1995. In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Heterogeneous Soils, U.S.
Patent 5,476,992, issued December 19, 1995.
Ho, S. V., et al. 1993. "Innovative Soil Remediation Technology," in Proceedings, American Chemical
Society I&EC Special Symposium, Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 27-29, 1993, pp. 731-734.
Ho, S. V., et al. 1995a. "Integrated In-Situ Soil Remediation TechnologyThe Lasagna Process,"
Environ. Sci. Tech., 29(10).
U.S. Department of Energy
200
13
-------
Ho, S. V., et al. 1995b. "Development of the Integrated In-Situ Lasagna Process," in Proceedings of the
Environmental Technology Through Industry Partnership Conference, vol. II., ed. V. P. Kothari,
DOE/METC-96/1021, vol. 2, DE96000552, pp. 455-472.
Ho, S. V., et al. 1996. Laboratory and Pilot Scale Experiments of Lasagna Process, Monsanto draft
Topical Report.
Hughes, B. M., et al. 1996. Evaluation ofTCE Contamination Before and After the Field Experiment,
Monsanto draft Topical Report.
Quinton, G., et al. 1996. Cost Analysis, Monsanto draft Topical Report.
Odom, J. M. 1996. Lab-scale Development of Microbial Degradation Process, Monsanto draft Topical
Report.
Orth, R. G., and D. E. McKenzie 1996. TCE Degradation Using Non-Biological Methods, Monsanto draft
Topical Report.
Shapiro, A. P. 1996. Electrokinetic Modeling, Monsanto draft Topical Report.
Shapiro, A. P., et al. 1996. TCE Degradation Using Non-Biological Methods, Monsanto draft Technical
Report. .
Shoemaker, S. H., etai. 1996. Evaluation of Treatment Zone Formation Options, Monsanto draft
Technical Report.
14
201
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
This report was prepared by:
S.A.I.C.
555 Quince Orchard Rd
Suite 500
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878
Contact: Dennis Kelsh
(301)924-6130
under contract and in conjunction with:
HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM
Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606
managed by
LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400
Contact: Scott Colburn
(423) 435-3470
and in conjunction with:
The Colorado Center for Environmental Management
999 18th Street
Suite 2750
Denver, Colorado 80202
Contact: Dawn Kaback
(303) 297-0180 ext. 111
202
-------
VITRIFICATION
CASE STUDIES
203
-------
-------
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan
NOTE:
This report is the final version of the EPA Cost and Performance Report for this application, and
supersedes the interim version of this report published in Volume 4 of this series in March 1995.
This final version reflects the most recent sampling of the vitrified material.
205
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan
NOTE: This report is the final version of the EPA Cost and Performance Report for this application, and supersedes the
interim version of this report; published in Volume 4 of this series in March 1995. This final version reflects the most
recent sampling of the vitrified material. ^^^
Site Name:
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Supcrfund Site
Location:
Grand Ledge, Michigan
Contaminants:
Pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxin
- Pesticide concentrations ranged up to
340,000 ng/kg (4,4'-DDT)
- Zinc concentration 150,000 fig/kg
- 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration 1.13
Period of Operation:
May 1993 to May 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale, cleanup
Vendor:
James E. Hansen
Gcosafc Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland,WA 99352
(509)375-0710
SIC Code:
2879 (Agricultural Chemicals, NEC)
Technology:
In Situ Vitrification
- 9 melt cells, each 26x26 ft square and 16 ft
deep
- Air emissions controls included an off-gas
collection hood, quencher, water scrubber,
and thermal oxidizer
- 8 melts required to vitrify the soil
- Melts ranged from 10 to 19.5 days
- Melts required approximately one year to
cool sufficiently to sample
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Action Memorandum Date
9/21/90
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Len Zintak
USEPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-4246
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
First application of ISV at a
Supcrfund site
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and sediment
- 3,000 cubic yards (5,400 tons)
- Silty clay
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup requirements identified for both soil and off-gasses
- Soil cleanup requirements were as follows: chlordane: 1 mg/kg; 4,4"-DDT: 4 mg/kg; dieldrin: 0.08 mg/kg; and
mercury: 12 mg/kg ^
Results:
- Confirmation coring samples indicated that vitrified materials met soil cleanup requirements for pesticides and
mercury
- Pesticides and mercury in vitrified material and soil beneath vitrified material were below detection limits
- Stack gas emissions met off-gas cleanup requirements ___^^_
Cost Factors:
- Contractor's costs were specified in terms of a ceiling of $1,763,000
- Of this total, approximately $800,000 were for activities directly attributed to treatment
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $267/yd3
206
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises,
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan (Continued)
Description:
The Parsons site is a former agricultural chemicals mixing, manufacturing, and packaging facility. Soils and sediments at
the Parsons site were contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins. ISV treatment of approximately 3,000 yd3
of contaminated soils and sediments at the Parsons site, consisting of eight melts, was performed from May 1993 to May
1994. This was notable for being the first full-scale application of ISV treatment at a Superfund site.
Confirmation coring sampling could not be performed until after the ISV melt had cooled, approximately one year after
treatment was completed. Three corings, or drill holes, were performed in locations selected to represent the ares with
potential residual contamination. The confirmation coring sampling results indicated that the vitrified material in all
three drill holes had mercury and pesticide concentrations below detection limits, and therefore that the vitrified
material met the cleanup goals for this application. Also, analytical data for volatiles and semivolatiles in the
containment soil beneath the three drill holes were reported as below detection limits, indicating that volatiles and
semivolatiles were not present in the soil beneath the vitrified material.
This application demonstrated that final sampling of vitrified material needs to allow adequate time for the melt to cool
(e.g., one year). In addition, the vendor identified several operational issues (e.g., decomposition of particle board
forms, irregular melt shapes) during treatment of the first few cells at Parsons. The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling for
the ISV treatment application at Parsons was $1,763,000, including $800,000 for vitrification, which corresponds to $267
per cubic yard of soil treated.
207
-------
Parsons Chemlcal/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 1 of 16
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for an in situ vitrification (ISV) treatment
application at the Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site (Parsons) in Grand
Ledge, Michigan. The Parsons site is a former
agricultural chemicals mixing, manufacturing,
and packaging facility. Soils and sediments at
the Parsons site were contaminated with
pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins.
ISV treatment of approximately 3,000 yds3 of
contaminated soils and sediments at the
Parsons site, consisting of eight melts, was
performed from May 1993 to May 1994. This
was notable for being the first full-scale
application of ISV treatment at a Superfund
site.
Treatment performance data for this applica-
tion include SITE program results for surface
soil samples and stack gas emissions, results
for "typical" stack gas emissions provided by
the vendor, and confirmation coring analytical
results.
Confirmation coring sampling could not be
performed until after the ISV melt had cooled,
approximately one year after treatment was
completed. Three corings, or drill holes, were
performed in locations selected to represent
the areas with potential residual contamina-
tion. Samples were collected in the vitrified
material and in the containment soil approxi-
mately 3 to 4 feet beneath the bottom of the
glassified material. Vitrified material was
analyzed for mercury and pesticides using a
I SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Identifying Information;
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Grand Ledge, Michigan
CERCLIS # MID980476907
Action Memorandum Date: 21 September
1990
TCLP, while containment soil was analyzed for
volatiles and semivolatiles using a total waste
analysis. The confirmation coring sampling
results indicated that the vitrified material in
all three drill holes had mercury and pesticide
concentrations below detection limits, and
therefore that the vitrified material met the
cleanup goals for this application. Also,
analytical data for volatiles and semivolatiles
in the containment soil beneath the three drill
holes were reported as below detection limits,
indicating that volatiles and semivolatiles were
not present in the soil beneath the vitrified
material.
In addition, the SITE program results and
results for typical stack gas emissions show
that this application met the soil cleanup
standards and off-gas emission ARARs for this
application. The stack gas emissions for
chlordane and 4,4'-DDT were several orders
of magnitude lower than the ARARs. A volume
reduction of approximately 30% for the test
soil was achieved in this application, based on
the results from analyses of soil dry density.
The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling for the
ISV treatment application at Parson's was
$1,763,000, including $800,000 for vitrifica-
tion, which corresponds to $270 per cubic
yard of soil treated. The estimated before-
treatment costs for this application of
$800,000 were high because of the need to
excavate and stage the wastes prior to treat-
ment.
Treatment Application;
Type of Action: Removal
Treatability Study associated with applica-
tion? Information not available at this time
EPA SITE Demonstration Program test
associated with application? Yes (see
Reference 41)
Period of operation: 5/93 - 5/94
Quantity of material treated during applica-
tion: 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
and sediments (5,400 tons) [41]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
108
-------
Parsons Chemlcal/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 2 of 16
I SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
figure 1. Site Location
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Mixing, manufac-
turing, and packaging of agricultural chemicals
Corresponding SIC Code: 2879 (Agricultural
Chemicals - not elsewhere classified)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Manufactur-
ing process
Site History: The Parsons site, located near
Grand Ledge, Michigan, as shown in Rgure 1,
is a former agricultural chemicals mixing,
manufacturing, and packaging facility. Materi-
als handled during Parsons' operation in-
cluded pesticides, herbicides, solvents, and
mercury-based compounds. Parsons occupied
the property from April 1945 until 1979. The
site is presently owned by ETM Enterprises, a
manufacturer of fiberglass. [2]
Wash water from Parsons' operations was
discharged through floor drains to a catch
basin leading to the county drain system. The
county drain system flows to an unnamed
creek which ultimately empties into the Grand
River. In 1979 and 1980 the Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (MDNR) collected
sediment samples from the unnamed creek
and a ditch located on the north boundary of
the site. Elevated levels of lead, mercury,
arsenic, and pesticides, including dichloro-di-
phenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane
were detected in the samples. A hydrogeo-
logical investigation, performed during 1980,
identified a septic tank and leach field system
as the source of contamination. The septic
tank and leach field were subsequently
excavated in 1983.
Parsons was included in the Tier 3 dioxin
screening under the National Dioxin Study
conducted in 1984. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) was detected in the
ditch sediments at the site at a concentration
of 1.13 ppb at the surface and 0.56 ppb at a
depth of 18 inches below the surface. [2, 27]
Regulatory Context: An action memorandum,
dated September 21, 1990, was approved by
EPA to conduct a removal action at the
Parsons site. The removal actions proposed
for the site included [2]:
Developing and implementing a site
safety plan and security measures;
Implementing a site air monitoring
program;
Characterizing, excavating, and staging
all contaminated soils to facilitate the
ISV process;
Conducting a study to confirm that
contaminated soils have been re-
moved to acceptable levels;
Treating on-site waste in a staging
area utilizing ISV; and
Completing site restoration in excava-
tion and treatment areas.
Cleanup requirements for the site were
established for near-surface vitrified materials
and air emissions, as discussed below under
cleanup goals and standards. [25]
Remedy Selection: Several options were
considered for cleanup of the Parsons site,
including ISM incineration, and stabilization.
ISV was selected as the remedy because this
technology was determined to be capable of
reducing volume by 20 to 30%, decreasing the
toxicity to near zero, and permanently immo-
bilizing the hazardous substances on the site.
ISV was also identified as less expensive than
on-site incineration. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
209
-------
Parsons ChemicaVETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 3 of 16
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator:
Len Zfntak
US. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-4246
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Treatment System Vendor:
James E. Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 375-0710
Type of Matrix processed through the
treatment system: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups: Pesticides,
heavy metais, and dioxin
The maximum concentrations measured in the
soil at Parsons for specific contaminants are
shown in Table 1. [27]
Table 1. Maximum Contaminant Concentrations In Soil[27]
Contaminant
Maximum
Concentrations In Soli
g-BHC (Lindane)
Bis{2-ethylhejqrt} phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Dieldrln
Endosulfan sulfate
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercury
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
Zinc
78000
28000
6400
89000
48000
37000
340000
87000,
1300
1200
2600
34000
850
1100
990
1400
1.13
150000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
210
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 4 of16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost
or performance for this technology and their
measured values are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [4, 11]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
Moisture Content
Soil Dry Density
Value
Silty Clay
Not Available
Not Available
1,48 tons/yd3
Measurement Procedure
Not Available
-
-
Not AvaBabte
The soil at Parsons was reported to be difficult
to work with under very wet and very dry
conditions. Wet conditions caused the soil to
become highly fluid and exhibit a noticeable
suifurous odor. Under dry conditions, the soil
became concrete-like. The soil also had a very
high moisture content, and the soil moisture
contained a high level of dissolved solids. [25]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
In Situ vitrification
Supplemental Treatment Technology;
Post-treatment (air) using quench, scrubber,
and thermal oxidizer
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation
In situ vitrification (ISV) is an immobilization
technology designed to treat media contami-
nated with organic, inorganic, and radioactive
contaminants. The primary residual generated
by ISV is the vitrified soil product. Secondary
residuals generated by ISV include air emis-
sions, scrubber liquor, carbon filters, and used
hood panels. [41]
System Description
The ISV system used at Parsons consisted of 9
melt cells, as shown in figure 2, an air emis-
sions control system, and associated equip-
ment. The melt cells were installed in a 16-
foot deep treatment trench; each cell was 26
feet by 26 feet square. The trench was de-
signed with a cobble wall and drain system to
direct perched water that flowed into the site
around the melt cells. [25]
The air emissions control system used at
Parsons consisted of an off-gas collection
hood, a quencher, a water scrubber, and a
thermal oxidizer. The thermal oxidizer was
added midway through the project to help
control stack gas odors. [25]
Associated equipment used at the Parsons
site included electrical transformers, capacitor
tanks, natural gas metering equipment, and
thermocouples and other monitoring equip-
ment. [13]
The following technology description is an
excerpt from the SITE Technology Capsule
[41]:
"The ISV Technology [used at Parsons] oper-
ates by means of four graphite electrodes,
arranged in a square and inserted a short
distance into the soil to be treated. A sche-
matic of the Geosafe process is presented in
figure 3.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
211
-------
Parsons Chemica!/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 5 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Intercept trench
(installed mid-project}1
CobUowatlwith-
droin underneath
Perched water
flow direction
9
7
5
MRMHBKi
f*1"
W
8
<
6
4_
^"ซ
3
2
1
^^
? Concrete
walls
' 26' X 26'
melt cell
(typ)
Pumping sumps
figure 2. Plan View of Treatment Cells [25]
ISV uses electrical current to heat (melt) and
vitrify the treatment material in place. A
pattern of electrically conductive graphite
containing glass frit is placed on the soil in
paths between the electrodes. When power is
fed to the electrodes, the graphite and glass
frit conducts the current through the soil,
heating the surrounding area and melting
directly adjacent soil.
Molten soils are electrically conductive and
can continue to carry the current which heats
and melts soil downward and outward. The
electrodes are allowed to progress down into
the soil as it becomes molten, continuing the
melting process to the desired treatment
depth. One setting of four electrodes is
referred to as a "melt." Performance of each
melt occurs at an average rate of approxi-
mately three to four tons/hr.
When all of the soil within a treatment setting
becomes molten, the power to the electrodes
is discontinued and the molten mass begins to
cool. The electrodes are cut near the surface
and allowed to settle into the molten soil to
become part of the melt. Inorganic contami-
nants in the soil are generally incorporated
into the molten soil which solidifies into a
monolithic vitrified mass similar in characteris-
tics to volcanic obsidian. The vitrified soil is
dense and hard, and significantly reduces the
possibility of leaching from the mass over the
long term.
The organic contaminants in the soil undergo-
ing treatment are pyroryzed (heated to
decomposition temperature without oxygen)
and are generally reduced to simple gases.
The gases move to the surface through the dry
zone immediately adjacent to the melt, and
through the melt itself. Gases at the surface
are collected under a stainless steel hood
placed over the treatment area and then
treated in an off-gas treatment system. The
off-gas treatment system comprises a
quencher, a scrubber, a demister, high effi-
ciency particulate air (HEPA) filters, and
activated carbon adsorption to process the
off-gas before releasing the cleaned gas
through a stack. A thermal oxidizer can be
used following the off-gas treatment system
to polish the off-gas before release to the
atmosphere. A thermal oxidizer was utilized
during the SITE Demonstration at the Parsons
site."
System Operation
Eight melts were required to vitrify the soil in
the nine melt cells. These melts were per-
formed at the Parsons site from June 1993 to
May 1994. As shown on Table 3, these melts
ranged in duration from 10 to 19.5 days, and
consumed from 559,200 to 1,100,000
kilowatt-hours of electricity per melt. The
melts required approximately one year to be
sufficiently cooled to sample. [10-24] Confir-
mation borings were collected in April 1995
(see discussion under "Treatment Performance
Data").
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
111
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 6 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Power
conditioning
ttt
Utility or
diesel
generated
power
Off-gas hood
Power to electrodes
Electrode location
Gas flow
(if necessary)
ffgure 3. Ceosafe In Situ Vitrification Process [41]
Scrubber water flow
Off-gas treatment
system
To atmosphere
Table 3. Operational Data [10-24]
Melt*
1
2
3
4
5
!6** ' .
7
8
Cell*
1 and part of 2
Z and part of 3
part of 3, 4 and 7
7 and part *>f 4, 5,
and S
5 and part of 4, 6,
and 8
8 and' part of 5, 7,
and 9
6 and part of 5, 8,
and 9
9 and part of 6
and 8
Soil Treated*
(cubic yards)
300
330
621
672
655
377
575
426
Duration of Melt
(toys)
19.5
14
16.7
16
16
to
14
11,5
power Consumed
(kilowatt-hours)
1,100,000
934,000
1,018,000
996,000
1 ,084,800
559,200
836,985
640,800
Natural Gas
Consumed in
Thermal Oxldtzer
(cubic feet)
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
4,100,000
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
N/A - Not applicable; thermal oxidizer not installed until after Melt #4 complete.
* Quantities shown are Ceosafe estimates of contaminated and clean soil treated; total quantity of soil
treated greater than 3,000 cubic yards of'contaminatedsoil because treatment of clean soil occurred In this
application.
* "SITE Demonstration Program test.
"" . U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'5 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
ง Technology Innovation Office 213
-------
Parsons Chemlcal/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 7 of 16
I
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Clean fill (soil)
Particle board
Cobble
Figure 4. Side \AewofTypicalISV Treatment Cell [41]
The SITE Technology Capsule provides the
following description of system operation at
Parsons [41]:
"At the Parsons site, the original soil contami-
nation was relatively shallow, five feet or less,
and located in three main areas. To increase
the economic viability of treatment at this site,
the contaminated soil was excavated and
consolidated into a series of nine treatment
cells. The cell walls were built using concrete,
cobble, and particle board as shown in figure
4. The cells were constructed by trenching an
area of the site, installing particle board and
concrete forms, and pouring concrete into the
forms to create the nine cell settings. A one-
foot layer of cobble was placed in the bottom
of each cell, and approximate^ two feet of
cobble was used to surround the exterior of
the cell forms. The use of cobble at the sides
was intended as a means to retard melting out
into adjacent clean soil. The bottom cobble
was used to provide a drainage pathway for
water that was known to be present on-site;
the resultant flow of water was directed to a
drainage trench. After construction, the cells
were filled with contaminated soil from the
site, and topped with a layer of clean soil.
During the treatment of the first few cells,
problems with the cell design were observed.
The intense heat that was melting the soil was
also thermally decomposing the particle board
forms. Analysis of water samples collected
from the diversion system surrounding the
cells identified volatiles (benzene), phenolics,
and epoxies that were released by this de-
composition. The cobble outside of the cells
created porous paths in the vicinity of treat-
ment, thereby increasing the likelihood of
vapors escaping the area outside the hood
and causing irregular melt shapes.
Geosafe responded by excavating the area
outside of the remaining treatment cells and
removing the particle board forms. A refrac-
tory ceramic material with insulating and
reflective properties was placed adjacent to
the exterior of the concrete cell walls. This
helped to control the melt shape, limit fugitive
vapor emissions, and restrict the melt energy
inside the cell boundaries It should be
noted that the use of cobble in treatment cell
construction was unique to the Parsons site
where the configuration and flow of the on-
site groundwater dictated its application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
214
-------
Parsons ChemicaVETM Enterprises Superfund SftePage 8 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Utility requirements for this technology
include electricity, natural gas (if a thermal
oxidizer is used), and water. As expected,
electricity is a major consideration when
implementing ISV. Total power to the elec-
trodes during treatment is approximatery three
MW; the voltage applied to each of the two
phases during steady state processing aver-
ages around 600 volts while the current for
each phase averages approximately 2,500
amps."
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost values measured for each are presented in
or performance for this technology and the Table 4.
Table 4. OperatingParameters [10-24]
, Parameter ^ ^
Soil Treated
Melt Duration
Power Consumption
Value
300-672 cubic yards per melt
1 0- 1 9,5 days per melt
559,200- 1 , 1 00,000 kWh/melt
Measurement Procedure
Vendor estimate
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 5.
Tables. Timeline[1, 10-26]
Start! Date
3/89
9/90
10/90
3/9 i
5/93
<5/93
9/93
11/93
1/94
2/94
3/94
8/94
4/95
End Date
-
- ~
4/91
- ' _ ;
6/93
9/93
11/93
12/93
-
5/94
4/94
date not
provided
-
,;; Activity ' ' , ,", ,
Parsons added to NPL
Action memorandum signed
Site preparation work completed (excavation and staging of 3,000
cubic yards into ISV treatment cells)
Operational acceptance test terminated due to fire
Mobilization of equipment and personnel to site
ISV treatment conducted
ISV treatment suspended for 9 weeks pending discussions about
scrubber solution disposition, stack gas odors, groundwater
disposition, and melt shape
ISV treatment continued
Thermal oxidizer installed to control stack gas odors
ISV treatment continued
SITE Demonstration Program test (Melt #6)
Decontamination* dismantling, and demobilization conducted
Confirmation corings collected
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
215
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 9 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Cleanup requirements were established for soils remaining on site and for off-gasses from the
ISV unit, as shown below in Table 6.
Table 6. Cleanup Requirements [25, 28]
Contaminant
Chlordane
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Mercury
Soil CleanupStandards
(m#kg>
1
1 ' * '
0.08
12
Off-Gas State ARAR
(Ibs/hr) , ,
25
o.oi
0.00028
O.OOP59 ,,,,,,'
Treatment Performance Data
I
Treatment performance data for this applica-
tion include SITE Program data for vitrified
soil, analyses of stack gas emissions, and
confirmation corings. Table 7 shows selected
results from the SITE Demonstration for
vitrified soil and stack emissions in melt #6.
During the SITE Demonstration, three samples
of vitrified soil were collected from the surface
of Cell 8, and analyzed for pesticides and
metals (total and TCLP). Stack gas emissions were
also tested for total hydrocarbons (THC) and
carbon monoxide (CO). During the SITE Demon-
stration, THC and CO were each measured at less
than lOppmv. [41]
Table 8 shows typical stack gas emission perfor-
mance data as reported by the vendor.
Table 7. Selected Results from the SITE Demonstration Program for Melt #6 [41]
Contaminant
Chlordane
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Before-treatment Soil
Total (f/fttg)
<80
2,400-23,100
1, 21 0-8.330
8,380- 10, tOO
37,400-47,600
<50,000
2,220-4,760
TCI*
&SM
<0.5
0,12-6.171
6.5-10.2
MA
NA
NA
NA
After-Treatment Surface Soil
Total {flป*8)
<80
<16
<16
717-5,490
12,500-14,600
Ma** (Ibs/hr)
<0.00001 1
^l&^rjiooozZi ip!" '
<0.0000022
<0,00000 12931
0.0000 1 48-0.0000267
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage IO of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Treatment Performance Data
Confirmation Corings [42]
Confirmation corings were performed in April
1995 after the melt had cooled for approxi-
mately one year. Three confirmation corings
were drilled at the site, consisting of the
following: Drill Hole (DH) 101, positioned on
melt 1, cell 1; DH 102, positioned on melt 3,
between cells 3 and 4; and DH 103, posi-
tioned between melts 5 and 7, cell 5. These
corings locations were selected to represent
the areas with potential residual contamina-
tion. Areas were selected based on an
evaluation of areas which had 1) failed to burn
out bottom thermocouples as planned, and 2)
showed inadequate melt depth, as indicated
by electrode depth below grade level.
Corings were performed as follows: the first 5
feet of overburden in each location was drilled
using a 4 1/4-inch diameter hollow stem
auger. The vitrified material beneath the
overburden (the upper portion of vitrified
material is referred to as the vesicular region)
was first scored using a 2 1/2-inch diameter
tricone rotary bit, and then drilled using a 2 3/
4-inch diameter diamond-impregnated #10
Longyear drill bits. Material beneath the
vitrified material, such as the lower vesicular
region, underlying cobble, and underlying soil,
was drilled using a 3-inch diameter split spoon
sampler with a cable tool driver.
Core sections were collected from several
depths within each of the three coreholes and
anaryzed by EPA's and Geosafe's laboratories.
Table 9 summarizes the depths that were
sampled for each corehole, the type of
material sampled (e.g., glass, soil), and the
corresponding analytical results for the
samples analyzed by Geosafe's laboratory.. No
data are contained in the available references
on the analytical results for the samples
anaryzed by EPA's laboratory.
Table 9. Analytical Results for Confirmation Coring Samples Collected by Ceosafe [42]*
Drill Hole
Identifier
DH-101
DH-lQf
DH-101
DH-lOi
DH-101
DH-tOZ
DH-102
DH-103
DH-103
DH-1O3
DH-103
Sample Depth
(FT)
10
14
18
19
10.5
13,5
17
9
12
i5
16
Sampled Material
Glass
Glass
Containment Soil
Containment Soil
Glass
Glass
Containment Soil
Glass
Glass
Containment Soil
Contaniment Soil
Mercury and
PestkWtai**
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NO
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
Volatiles
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
Semrvofatiles
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND = None Detected (detect/on limit not provided)
NA= NotAnalyzed
*Speciflc pesticides, volatiles, and non-volatiles analyzed for this application were not identified in the available
references.
**Results shown for mercury and pesticides are based on TCLP analysts.
g
5
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
217
-------
Parsons Chemlcal/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 11 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
The treatment performance data in Table 7
shows that the surface soil samples and stack
gas emissions measured during the SITE
Demonstration met the soil cleanup standards
and off-gas State ARARs for this application.
In addition, the typical stack gas emission
data provided by the vendor, as shown in
Table 8, show compliance with the State
ARARs. The data in Table 8 show that the
stack gas emissions for chlordane and 4,4'-
DDT were several orders of magnitude lower
than the ARARs.
The data in Table 7 show a reduction in total
waste analysis concentrations from levels as
high as 23,100 //g/kg to levels less than
11 /^g/kg for chlordane, 4,4-DDT, and dieldrin
in surface soil samples. Concentrations of
metals in a TCLP extract are shown to be
reduced from as high as 21,000 //g/L to levels
less than 5,000 pg/L.
Additional data from the SITE Demonstration
show a volume reduction of approximately
30% for the test soil, based on the results
from analyses of soil dry density.
The confirmation coring sampling results
shown in Table 9 indicate that the vitrified
material in all three drill holes had mercury
and pesticide concentrations below detection
limits, as measured using a TCLP analysis, and
therefore that the vitrified material met the
cleanup goals for this application. Note that
the available references do not state the
specific pesticide constituents analyzed or
provide the detection limits achieved in this
application. Also as shown in Table 9, analyti-
cal data for volatiles and semivolatiles in the
containment soil beneath the three drill holes
were reported as below detection limits,
indicating that volatiles and semivolatiles were
not present in the soil beneath the vitrified
material. Again the specific constituents
analyzed and the detection limits achieved in
this application were not provided in the
available references. The containment soil
samples were collected approximately three
to four feet beneath the bottom of the vitrified
material in each of the three drill holes.
Performance Data Completeness
Data are available to characterize the results
of the ISV application at Parsons, including
data on stack gas emissions, surface soil
Performance Data Quality
samples collected during the SITE Demonstra-
tion, and confirmation boring sampling of the
vitrified material.
Soil sampling and anarysis for the SITE Dem-
onstration was conducted following EPA SW-
846 analytical methods. No exceptions to the
methods were noted in the available refer-
ences. The SITE Technology Capsule, however,
identified a possibility that other, non-EPA
approved, methods may provide more
accurate determinations for metals in vitrified
materials. The vendor reported that all glass and
underlying containment soil samples were ana-
lyzed by IEA Laboratories under "Level II QA/QC
procedures;" no deviations from acceptable
procedures were identified by the vendor.
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
218
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 12 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
EPA contracted with Geosafe Corporation to
construct and operate the ISV system at the
site. Geosafe used several subcontractors to
implement specific aspects of the operation.
Treatment System Cost
Information about the competitive nature of
the procurement process is not available at
this time. [10]
Although final cost information is not yet
available, preliminary treatment system cost
information is available from EPA, as pre-
sented in Tables 10-13. An action memoran-
dum identified cost ceilings for this application
totalling $3,466,967, including $1,763,000
for the cleanup contractor, as shown in Table
10. [1] In negotiating the contract with
Geosafe, EPA established objectives for nine
cost elements, as shown in Tables 11-13. The
delivery order for Geosafe specified a ceiling
value of $1,690,305. The reason for the
discrepancy between the $1,763,000 and
$ 1,690,305 values is not available at this
time. [24]
In order to standardize reporting of costs
among projects, costs are shown in Tables 11-
13 according to the format for an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Tables 11, 12, and 13 present the cost ele-
ments exactly as they appear in the WBS,
along with the specific activities, and unit cost
and number of units of the activity (where
appropriate), as provided in the Contract
Negotiation Cost Objectives. [31]
Table 10. Cost Ceilings Shown in Action Memorandum [1]
Cleanup Contractor
Contingency (45%)
Subtotal
TAT
Extramural subtotal
Extramural Contingency
Total for Extramural Costs
U.S. EPA Direct Costs
EPA Indirect Costs
TOTAL for Intramural Costs
TOTAL for Removal Project
$1,763,000
$264,450
$2,027,450
$716,000
$2,743,450
$411,517
$3,154,967
$120,000
$192,000
$312,000
3,466,967
I
9
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
219
-------
Parsons Chemlcal/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 13 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 11. Be fore-Treatment Cost Elements [Adapted from 31]
Cost Element
Cost Objective
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- Mobilization
- Site Administration
- Site Preparation
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
-Soil
-Glass i
-Air
-Water , , ,
Site Work
- Uncontaminated Soil
- Contaminated Soil
$150,000
$220,000
$4,000
$80,000
$10.000
$130,006
$25,000
$80,000
$100,000
Table 12. Treatment Cost Elements [31]
Cost Element '
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
- Vitrification
Cost Objective;
$800,000
Table 13. After-Treatment Cost Elements [Adapted from 31]
Cost Element
Site Restoration
- Backfill and Grade
- Seeding
- Drainage Structures
Demobilization ,
Cost Objective
$80,000
$4,500
$2,500
$77,000
Cost Data Quality
Limited data are available at this time to
assess the cost for this treatment application.
The cost data shown in this report were
Vendor Input
provided by EPA as contract negotiation cost
objectives.
The vendor stated that the costs for the
application at Parsons were unusually high,
and expects that the costs for future applica-
tions will be lower. Key factors affecting costs
for ISV include: [41]
Cost of the local price of electricity;
Depth of processing;
Soil moisture content; and
Treatment volume.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
220
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 14 of 16
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling
for the ISV treatment application at
Parsons was $1,763,000, including
$800,000 for vitrification operations,
which corresponds to $270 in costs
for vitrification per cubic yard of soil
treated.
The before-treatment costs for this
application of $800,000 were high
because of the need to excavate and
stage the wastes prior to treatment.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Confirmation samples could not be
obtained for this application until after
the melt had cooled. As such, confir-
mation of the cleanup was made
approximately one year after comple-
tion of the technology application.
Confirmation coring sampling per-
formed after the ISV melt had cooled
for approximately one year indicated
that the vitrified material in three drill
holes had mercury and pesticide
concentrations below detection limits,
as measured using a TCLP analysis,
and that volatiles and semivolatiles in
the containment soil beneath the
three drill holes were below detection
limits. These data indicate that the
vitrified material met the cleanup
goals for this application, and that
volatiles and semivolatiles were not
measured in the soil beneath the
vitrified material.
The surface soil samples and stack gas
emissions measured during the SITE
Demonstration (melt 6 of 8), and the
typical stack gas emission results
provided by the vendor,.met the soil
cleanup standards and emissions
standards for this application.
Typical stack gas emissions for chlor-
dane and 4,4-DDT were several
orders of magnitude lower than the
ARARs.
Based on the results of the SITE
demonstration:
1. The total waste analysis concen-
trations in surface soil samples
were reduced from levels as high
as 23,100 jug/kg to levels less than
11 //g/kg for chlordane, 4,4-DDT,
and dieldrin.
2. Concentrations of metals in a
TCLP extract of surface soil
samples were reduced from as
high as 21,000/Jg/L to levels less
than 5,000 ฃ/g/L.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Vitrification was selected as the
remedy based on its potential to
reduce volume by 20 to 30% and
decrease toxicity to near zero. Based
on the results of the SITE demonstra-
tion, a volume of reduction of ap-
proximately 30% was achieved for the
test soil. Based on the results of
confirmation sampling, the level of
contaminants was reduced to below
detectable levels.
Problems with cell design were
observed during treatment of the first
few cells, including decomposition of
particle board forms, volatiles, pheno-
lics, and epoxies in the diversion
system water, and irregular melt
shapes.
Parsons was the first application of
vitrification technology at a Superfund
site.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
221
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 15 of 16
REFERENCES
1. Memorandum, Ceiling Increase
Request for the Parsons Chemical/
ETM Site, Leonard N. Zintak, Jr. to
Valdas V. Adamkus, February 1, 1994.
2. Memorandum, Request for an Exemp-
tion for the $2-million Limit and
Approval for a Removal Action at the
Parsons/ETM Enterprises Site, Valdas
Adamkus to Don R. Clay, September
21, 1990.
3. Amended Action Memorandum,
Request for 12-Month Exemption for
the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Site, Leonard N. Zintak to David A.
Ullrich, August 9, 1991.
4. Memorandum, Time Extension for
Contract #68-50-5001 for the Par-
sons Chemical/ETM Site, Leonard N.
Zintak, Jr. to Robert Oumelle, August
23, 1991.
5. Action Memorandum, Request for
Removal Action at the ETM Enter-
prises Site, Edward C. Burk to Mary A.
Gack, February 2, 1989.
6. Action Memorandum, Request for
Removal Action at Parsons/ETM
Enterprises Site, Edward C. Burk, Jr. to
Basil G. Constantelos, undated.
7. Amendment of Solicitation/Modifica-
tion of Contract, US. EPA to Geosafe
Corp., August 30, 1991.
8. Memorandum, Comment on Issues
Related to Parsons Contract Exten-
sion, Jim Hansen to Len Zintak, August
23, 1991.
9. Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Project Quarterly Status Report #3,
James E. Hansen to Len Zintak, May
29, 1992.
10. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#6, January 5, 1991.
11. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#7, January 21, 1991.
12. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#8, February 13, 1991.
13. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#9, June 16, 1993.
14. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#11, June 17, 1993.
15. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#12, August 6, 1993.
16. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#13, August 10, 1993.
17. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#14, August 21, 1993.
18. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#15, September 9, 1993.
19. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#16, September 18, 1993.
20. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#17, October 7, 1993.
21. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#18, November 24, 1993.
22. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#19, February 25, 1994.
23. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#20, March 27, 1994.
24. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#21, May 22, 1994.
25. In Situ Vitrification Technology Update.
Geosafe Corporation, August 1994.
26. NPL Public Assistance Database,
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc., Michi-
gan, March 1992.
27. Health Assessment for Parsons
Chemical Works, Inc., Grand Ledge,
Eaton County, Michigan, December 2,
1989.
28. Synopsis of Michigan ARARs for the
ETM/Parsons Chemical Vitrification
Project, October 27, 1989.
29. Superfund Fact Sheet Parsons/ETM
Enterprises Oneida Township. Grand
Ledge. Michigan. US. EPA, April 1989.
30. EPA News Release, October 11,1990.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
222
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund SitePage 16 of t<3
REFERENCES (CONT.)
31. Memorandum, Geosafe Corporation
Proposal Negotiation Cost Objectives,
Robert J. Bowden to Lucille Martinez,
July 6, 1990.
32. Memorandum, Geosafe Contract,
Marianne Duffer to File.
33. Site Assessment for Parsons Chemical
Works, Weston-Sper Technical Assis-
tance Team, September 1988.
34. IT Corporation, ERCS Program Man-
agement Office, CERCLA Off-Site
Disposal Report, Parsons Chemicals,
IT Corporation, March 17, 1993.
35. Report on Phase I Hydrogeologic
Investigation, ETM Enterprises, Inc.,
Keck Consulting Services, Inc., Febru-
ary 16, 1981.
36. Order for Supplies or Services, EPA to
Geosafe Corporation, September 29,
1990.
37. Attachment F, United States Patent,
March 15, 1983.
38. In-Situ Vitrification of PCB-Contami-
nated Soils, Final Report, October
1986.
39. In Situ Vitrification of Dioxin-Contami-
nated Soils, Battelle Pacific Northwest
Lab, April 1987.
40. Geosafe Corporation Negotiation
Objectives (undated).
41. SITE Technology Capsule: Geosafe
Corporation In Situ Vitrification Tech-
nology. US. EPA/ORD, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA 540/R-94/520a, November 1994.
42. ISV Coring Investigation Final Report,
April 1995, Provided by M. Haass, P.E.
Geosafe to R. Weisman, Radian,
March 13, 1997.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the US. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian International under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001 and US. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No. DACA45-96-D-0016.
or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
223
-------
-------
In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Various Commercial Sites
225
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Various Commercial Sites
Site Name:
1. U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Hanford Site
2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
WAG 7
Various commercial sites (e.g.,
Parsons, Wasatch)
Location:
1. Richland, Washington
2. Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Commercial sites - various
Contaminants:
Parsons: pesticides (chlordane, dieldrin, 4,4-
DDT), metals (As, Pb, Hg)
ORNL: Radioactive elements (Ce137)
Wasatch: dioxm/furan, pentachlorophenol,
pesticides, VOCs, SVOCs
Private Superfund site: PCBs
Period of Operation:
Information not provided
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale remediation (Parsons,
Wasatch)
Field demonstration (e.g.,
ORNL)
Technical Information:
Craig Timmerman, Geosafe Corp.,
(509)375-0710
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Commercial sites - Information not
provided
Others - Information not provided
Technology:
In Situ Vitrification (ISV)
- Patented process that destroys organics and
some inorganics by pyrolysis
- Uses electricity as energy source
- Remaining contaminants (heavy metals and
radionuclides) are incorporated into
product; product has significantly reduced
leachability
- Vitrified material has 20-50% less volume
than original material
- Hood used to contain and collect off-gasses
from melt
Cleanup Authority:
- Information not provided
about authorities for specific
remediations and
demonstrations
- Detailed regulatory analysis of
ISV provided by CERCLA
criteria
Points of Contact:
J. Hansen, Geosafe,
(509) 375-0710
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
B. Spalding, ORNL,
(423) 574-7265
Waste Source:
Wasatch - Other (concrete
evaporation pond)
Others - Information not provided
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale and field demonstrations
of ISV for variety of media types
and variety of contaminants
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Sludge, and Debris
- Parsons: 4800 tons
- Wasatch: 5600 tons
- Private Superfund site: 3100 tons
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Parsons: regulatory limits for Hg, chlordane, dieldrin, and 4,4-DDT
- Others - information not provided
226
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Various Commercial Sites (Continued)
Results:
- Parsons: contamination reduced to below detection limits (ND) for most constituents
- Wasatch: molten product dip samples and surrounding berm post-ISV samples mostly ND
- ORNL treatability test had a "melt expulsion event (MEE)" where excess water vapor generation upset the melt and
caused overheating of the off-gas collection hood
- Superfund site in Washington State showed DRE for PCBs of greater than 99.9999%
Cost Factors:
- Vitrification operations $375-425/ton
- Ancillary costs: treatability/pilot testing - $50-150K; mobilization - $150-200K; and demobilization - $150-200K
- No information is provided on the capital or operating costs for other full-scale or demonstration projects
Description:
In situ vitrification (ISV) has been used in three large-scale commercial remediations in the United States and in several
demonstrations. The commercial remediations were conducted at the Parsons Chemical Superfund site (see separate
report on Parsons); a Superfund site in Washington State; and at the Wasatch Chemical site. A demonstration of ISV
was conducted at ORNL WAG 7 on Cs!37-contaminated material, where a melt expulsion event occurred .
ISV simultaneously treats mixtures of waste types, contaminated with organic and inorganic compounds. ISV has been
demonstrated at sites contaminated with hazardous and mixed wastes, and achieves volume reductions ranging from 20-
50%. Metals and radioactive elements are bound tightly within the vitrified product. Full-scale remediation at Parsons
met the regulatory limits for chlordane, dieldrin, 4,4-DDT, and mercury. Full-scale remediation at Wasatch achieved
ND for 12 constituents in the molten product dip samples. A TSCA demonstration at a Superfund site in Washington
State showed destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs of greater than 99.9999%. At the ORNL WAG 7
demonstration, a need was identified to take additional precautions when dealing with sites containing large amounts of
free water.
Site requirements for ISV, as identified by the vendor, are a function of: (1) the size and layout for equipment used in
the process; (2) the staging area requirements for treatment cell construction; and (3) the area needed for maneuvering
and operating equipment, excavating soils, and preparing treatment cells. In addition, the properties for fusion, melt
temperature, and viscosity are determined by the overall oxide composition of the soil.
227
-------
SECTION
SUMMARY
Technology Description
In situ vitrification (ISV) is a thermal process for remediation of contaminated soil, sediment, sludge, mill
tailings, and other earthen materials containing hazardous and radioactive contaminants (mixed waste).
ISV Is one of the few technologies that can simultaneously treat wastes with high concentrations of both
organic and inorganic contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, radionuclides) (Figure 1).
Subsidence
Contaminated Soil
Melt
Vitrified Monolith
1600-2000ฐC (soils)
3-5 ton/hr melt rate
5-20 ft depth (single melt)
Limitations exist for organic
content, water recharge
rate, large voids, size and
quantity of debris, and
sealed containers
500-1000 ton melts (typ)
Figure 1. Overview of the in situ vitrification process.
Contaminants are either destroyed, immobilized, and/or removed during ISV treatment. Gases
generated by the ISV process are collected in a hood and treated by an off-gas treatment system before
discharge. Most metals, radionuclides, and other inert materials are retained in the melt (Figure 2).
When cooled, the melt becomes a monolithic structure resembling obsidian or other forms of natural
volcanic rock.
ISV also has a high tolerance for debris and other waste materials that might be in the treatment area
(e.g., wood, scrap metal, concrete, boulders, asphalt, plastics, tires, or vegetation). Underground
structures such as storage tanks, piping, and cribs may be able to be vitrified in place.
Technology Status
The ISV process was conceived in 1980 by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, more than 200 development tests, demonstrations, and
commercial operations of the technology have been conducted, ranging from bench-scale to full-scale
commercial melts at various sites. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
participated in the ISV technology development activities, conducting bench- and pilot-scale testing.
U.S. Department of Energy
228
-------
Organic
Destruction
and/or
Removal
Destruction/^
- Removal '(
immobilization
Organics Heavy Metals
Heavy Metal
Incorporation/
Immobilization
and/or
Removal
Geosafe
Figure 2. Contaminant disposition.
Geosafe Corporation licensed the ISV technology from PNL to apply ISV commercially to known
contaminated soils for environmental restoration and waste treatment needs. Geosafe has successfully
performed three large-scale commercial remediations in the United States and numerous test projects.
The first commercial project was performed at the Parsons Chemical Superfund site and was
included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SITE program. This first remediation
involved soils contaminated by pesticides and metals.
The second commercial remediation was a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) demonstration for
soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This second remediation resulted in the
issuance of a national TSCA Operating Permit for PCBs.
The third remediation project was performed on a Superfund site heavily contaminated with volatile,
semivolatile, and nonvolatile organics, including dioxin, herbicides, and pesticides.
In the three U.S. remediations, the process was evaluated in detail for off-gas emissions, surrounding
adjacent soils, and product quality.
Full-scale ISV operations have been successfully conducted on sites containing significant quantities of
combustibles such as wooden timbers, automobile tires, personal protective equipment, and plastic
sheeting. The process has also been tested in Japan and Australia, where Geosafe subsidiaries have
been licensed to apply the ISV process.
Key Results
ISV simultaneously processes mixtures of waste types, including both organic and inorganic
contaminants.
Treatment is effective in terms of reduction of toxicity/mobility, speed, and permanence.
Substantial (20% to 50% for soils) volume reductions are achieved.
ISV produces a superior residual product in terms of physical, chemical, and weathering properties
and volume reduction.
229
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
ซ ISV is cost-effective on difficult sites.
ISV is effective in achieving on-site and in situ safety and cost benefits.
ISV can treat mixed waste (hazardous and radioactive) directly by thermally destroying organic and
some inorganic components and immobilizing inorganic and most radioactive components in a
vitrified product with outstanding life expectancy.
ISV technology is applicable to earthen materials such as soil, sludge, sediments, mill tailings, and
incinerator ash and has a high tolerance for debris.
Multiple melts are required to treat large areas. When melt settings overlap previous melts, the melts
fuse together into a large vitrified block.
The technology is still under refinement for applications involving liquid-bearing sealed containers or
subsurface conditions where large amounts of water may move through the subsurface to the treatment
zone rapidly. Such conditions may result in an excessive water vapor generation rate, which in turn can
upset the melt and result in melt displacement and overheating of the off-gas collection hood.
Such a melt expulsion event occurred during a recent large-scale treatability test at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) WAG 7 site; however, project personnel performing tasks at the site at the
time were not injured or contaminated during the incident, and air samples that were taken from the
hood perimeter did not show any airborne contamination.
This event has indicated the need for additional precautions related to personnel and equipment safety
when dealing with sites containing large amounts of free water. The means to avoid such occurrences
include dewatering of sites containing large amounts of free water and other methods of preventing
rapid recharge to the treatment zone. The event also confirmed that the high retention of 137Cs and other
radionuclides within the vitrified material minimizes the risk of any radiological release during such
events.
All issues related to the ORNL WAG 7 event are being resolved, and remediation using ISV is expected
to resume at WAG 7 in September 1996.
Contacts
Technical
Craig Timmerman, Manager, Engineering and Technology, Geosafe Corporation, (509) 375-0710 .
Management
James E. Hansen, Vice President, Business Development and Communications, Geosafe Corporation,
(509)375-0710
James Wright, DOE Subsurface Contaminant Focus Area Manager, (803) 725-5608
Site
Brian Spalding, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (423) 574-7265
U.S. Department of Energy
230
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Process Schematic
ISV is a patented process that destroys most organic and some inorganic compounds by thermally
induced decomposition (pyrolysis) in an oxygen-depleted environment in and around the melt zone.
Pyrolyzed compounds are typically broken down to their elemental components. Volatile components
travel to the surface of the melt where they are collected in a hood. Residence time within the hood
allows the components to be oxidized. The remaining volatile components and carryover particulates are
captured and treated by an off-gas treatment system (Figure 3).
To Backup
. \ \ Off-Gas System
Figure 3. Overall in situ vitrification process system.
The volatile contaminants present on the site affect the off-gas treatment system more dramatically than
they affect the rest of the ISV system. For that reason, the off-gas treatment system is modular in
configuration, thus allowing treatment of the off-gas to be site specific. Contaminants that remain in the
molten soil (heavy metals and radionuclides) are incorporated into the vitrified product. The vitrified
product is a chemically stable, leach-resistant, glass and crystalline material similar to obsidian or basalt
rock. As a result of densification, volume reductions of 20% to 50% are typical.
To initiate the melt, electric potential is applied to graphite electrodes.
Current initially flows through a starter path of highly conductive graphite and glass frit.
As the starter path heats up, it melts the surrounding soil.
The process produces temperatures of about 1600ฐ to 2000ฐC. Once the soil is molten, it becomes
electrically conductive.
231
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
Continued application of electricity results in Joule heating within the molten soil between the
electrodes.
After the melt is established, the melt zone grows steadily downward and outward through the
contaminated soil. Gases generated are collected and treated before discharge.
The rate of melting and other operating parameters are dependent on soil type, moisture content, and
contaminant loading. A 60-ft-diam hood is placed over the vitrification zone to contain and collect gases
emanating from the melt and adjacent soil. The off-gas treatment system keeps the hood under slightly
negative pressure.
During ISV processing, water vapor and other vapors form in and move through the dry zone adjacent to
the melt toward the ground surface under the hood. The normal pathway for vapor movement is within
the dry zone; however, if relatively high vapor generation rates are experienced, it is possible for vapors
to intrude and move through the melt to the surface. Under extreme conditions of vapor generation,
movement of vapors through the melt can cause undesirable melt disturbances, including partial melt
displacement. Such extreme conditions can occur during the treatment of liquid-bearing sealed steel
containers or when melting below the water table in geologic conditions that may allow rapid intrusion of
water to the treatment zone. Such conditions can be avoided by pretreating liquid-bearing sealed steel
containers so as to violate their seals. Similarly, some means (e.g., pumping, dewatering, or intercept
trenches) may be required to limit or prevent recharge of water to the treatment zone when treating
below the water table.
Ancillary Equipment/Systems
The electric power requirements on site for the ISV process are 4 MW of 3-phase, 60-cycle, ac power at
12.7 or 13.5 kV, from either a utility grid or a diesel generator. The power is converted to 2-phase and
transformed to a variable level in the range of 400 to 4000 V, depending on melt size and conductivity.
The maximum power delivered to the electrodes is 3.5 MW, which results in a maximum melting rate of
about 5 ton/hr. The process requires 700 to 900 kWh/ton of soil treated, including the amount of water in
the soil.
The off-gas treatment train is normally configured as follows: quencher, scrubber, demister, reheater,
high-efficiency particulate air filters, and activated carbon adsorption and/or thermal oxidizer. Scrubbing
system water may require treatment before discharge. Secondary effluents, contaminated equipment,
and contaminated materials produced in the ISV process could possibly be collected and recycled to
subsequent melts, thus minimizing secondary wastes.
U.S. Department of Energy
232
-------
SECTION 3
PERFORMANCE
Demonstration Overview
ISV technology has been demonstrated and transferred to the Geosafe Corporation. Geosafe has had
three commercial remediations and numerous test melts. The first remediation project involved an EPA
SITE program addressing pesticides and metals. The second project was a TSCA demonstration
focusing on PCBs at a private Superfund site. The third demonstration addressed dioxins/furans,
pesticides, herbicides, and considerable debris. The ISV technology performed as expected in these
three applications. Typical performance parameters for ISV applications are summarized as follows:
organic destruction and removal efficiency (ORE): 99.99% to >99.999999%;
metals retention: 98% to > 99.9999% (Pu, U, Ra, Sr, and Cs);
volume reduction: 20% to 50% (soils);
permanence: geologic life expectancy;
teachability: far surpasses Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and product
consistency test (PCT); and
maximum overall treatment effectiveness (reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume).
Performance
The Parsons Chemical Superfund Site remediation project treated 4800 tons of clay soils contaminated
with a variety of pesticides (DDT, dieldrin, and chlordane) and heavy metals (mercury, lead, and
arsenic). The remediation site was independently monitored by EPA's SITE program and evaluated in an
EPA technical report (EPA 1994). As indicated in Table 1, the level of contamination was reduced to
below detection limits in most cases and below the state regulatory limits for all of the contaminants of
concern.
Table 1. Pre- and post-in situ vitrification (ISV) soil contaminant concentrations (ppb)
Contaminant
Mercury
Chlordane
Dieldrin
4,4-DDT
Pre-ISV
24,160
2,010
11,630
72,100
Post-ISV
33
<80
<16
<16
Regulatory limit
12,000
1,000
80
80
Note: Data are from the Parsons site.
A TSCA demonstration project was performed at a private Superfund site in Washington state. The
TSCA demonstration fulfilled the requirements to receive a national TSCA Operating Permit for the
application of ISV to PCB-contaminated soils and debris. Five melts were performed to treat 3100 tons
of contaminated soil and materials. The melts were staged to contain one or more of the following
materials: concrete, asphalt, ruptured drums, and spiked soil up to 17,860 ppm PCBs. Soil adjacent to
the treatment zone was analyzed before and after treatment. The results indicated a decrease in PCB
concentration in the adjacent soil 60 to 90 cm from the melt boundary and no impact in the more distant
233
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
soils. Soil, vitrified product, and off-gas emission testing indicated that a typical ORE of more than
99.9999% was achieved for PCBs.
The Wasatch Chemical Site project involved remediating a concrete evaporation pond containing
5600 tons of contaminated sludge, soil, and debris. Debris consisted of wooden timbers, clay pipe,
sample containers, scrap metal, smashed 55-gal drums, plastic sheeting, protective clothing,
miscellaneous contaminated site soils, and a sludge heel from an evaporation process. Other
contaminants included dioxins/furans, pentachlorophenol, pesticides, volatile organic compounds, and
semivolatile organic compounds. Thirty-seven contiguous melts were performed to treat the complete
volume of contaminated soil and debris. Off-gas analytical results confirmed the complete absence
(nondetection) of dioxins/furans in the off-gasses. Sampling of soil surrounding the berm before and
atter ISV treatment indicated that no contamination migrated outside the melt. In addition, dip samples of
the glass taken during the processing of three melts confirmed that no detectable organic contamination
remained in the treated soil. The results of the pre-ISV melt, dip sampling of the vitrified product, and
pre- and post-ISV surrounding soil sampling are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Wasatch Chemical soil and glass sampling results (ppb)
Contaminant
Dioxin/Furan
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Pre-ISV
levels
12,400
272,918
<100
36,875
34,793
1,137
27
3,600
5,305
2,368
137.5
17,000
Molten
product dip
samples
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Surrounding
berm pre-ISV
0.005
NA
700
850
2.8
7.36
ND
ND
ND
0.5
ND
ND
Surrounding
berm post-ISV
0.004
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
ND
83.4
ND
ND
Abbreviations: ISV = in situ vitrification; NA = not analyzed; ND = not detectable.
Typical residual product properties are summarized as follows:
composition: analogous to natural volcanic rock;
strength: ten times unreinforced concrete;
volume reduction: 20% to 50%;
toxicity reduction: organics are removed/destroyed, and inorganic-bearing residual had acceptable
biotoxicity (EPA);
mobility reduction: surpasses TCLP, and PCT;
wet/dry cycling: unaffected;
freeze/thaw cycling: unaffected; and
life expectancy: geologic time period.
U.S. Department of Energy
234
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY AND
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Applicability ^^^^^^^^smBiM,!, ,. , .... . ' *
ISV is a stand-alone technology that can treat a wide variety of media, including contaminated soils,
sediments, sludges, rocks, sand, silt, and clay that may contain radionuclides, transuranics, fission '
products, organic chemicals, metals, and other inorganic chemicals. Site characteristics should be
favorable for ISV or be able to be modified to make the site suitable.
ISV is a mobile system mounted on three trailers. The hood and remaining equipment are transported
on two additional trailers.
The basic ISV technology can be applied in a number of alternative configurations:
in situ;
staged in situ, where contaminated media and waste have been placed (staged) for treatment, either
above, below, or above and below grade; and
stationary/batch or continuous modes.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the possible configuration alternatives.
Because of this flexibility, ISV may be applied to a broad range of contaminated media situations:
contaminated soils;
buried wastes;
contaminated below-grade structures (e.g., tanks, pipes, cribs, and vaults);
construction and decommissioning debris (e.g., concrete, asphalt, and structural and scrap metal)-
and
mixed waste (e.g., low-level radioactive and transuranic).
In some of these cases, pretreatment (e.g., dynamic disruption) of the contaminated media may be
necessary before ISV processing.
235
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
Contaminated Soil
SUgod Soil
In Situ
Staged In Situ
Contaminated Fill Placed In
Subildence Zone for Treatment
Stacked
Start Below Grade or Take Advantage
of High Volume Reduction
Upper Material Treated, Removed,
then Lower Material Treated
"J-^A Layered
/ w
Deep
Contamination
Figure 4. In situ vitrification treatment alternatives-1.
Material
Feeding
Stationary/Batch
Electrodes Moved Horizontally
Through Contaminated Soil
(Development Required)
Continuous Horizontal
Material
Treated
Material Removed
New Material Material
Staged Treated
Waste Treatment Center
Figure 5. In situ vitrification treatment alternatives-2.
Alternative Technologies
In situ grouting with monitoring.
Retrieving, grouting, and reburial on site with monitoring.
Exhumation and reburial of pit contents in an engineered landfill with monitoring.
In situ barriers for the side walls and floor with monitoring.
Retrieval and thermal desorption with off-gas treatment.
Retrieval and incineration with off-gas treatment. (This alternative is most similar to ISV;
consequently, this method was selected for the cost comparison.)
U.S. Department of Energy
236
-------
SECTION 5
COST
Introduction
The cost estimates used in this report are based on data in the EPA SITE technology report on the
Parsons Chemical Superfund site (EPA 1994).
The primary cost elements include utilities (largely the local price of electricity), consumables, labor,
mobilization and startup, facilities modifications, maintenance, equipment used and remaining on site,
and amortization of transportable equipment. Typical elements of project cost follow. (Note: items that
have a dollar amount assigned to them are items that are typically provided by Geosafe. The other items
are activities that are usually provided by support contractors under contract to the client or under
subcontract to Geosafe.)
Treatability/pilot testing ($50K to 150K).
Remedial design.
Site preparation (power; staging; preconditioning, if any).
Mobilization ($150K to 200K).
Vitrification operations ($375 to 425/ton).
Demobilization ($150K to 200K).
Site restoration.
Long-term monitoring (operations and maintenance).
Power requirements are as follows:
4 MW maximum at 12.7 or 13.5 kV;
3-phase, 60-cycle ac;
Utility grid or diesel generation; and
700 to 900 kWh/ton treated.
ISV consumes 50% to 70% less thermal energy than incineration and 20% less energy than simple
trucking of soil to a landfill.
The cost estimates for treatment using Geosafe technology were based on the following assumptions.
The contaminated soil is staged into treatment cells by an independent contractor before Geosafe's
arrival on-site. Cell preparation and construction are site specific and may be different for each site;
however, it is assumed that each site is prepared in a similar manner to the Parsons site.
The depth of treatment is assumed to exceed the depth of contamination by at least 1 ft to ensure
that the melt incorporates the floor of the cell and beyond.
Treatment takes place 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year. An on-line efficiency factor of 80%
has been incorporated to account for downtime for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and
other unforeseen events.
Operations for a typical shift require one shift engineer and one operator. In addition, one site
manager and one project control specialist are present on-site during the day shift. Three shifts of
workers are assumed to work 8 hrs/day, 7 days/week for 3 weeks. At the end of 3 weeks, a shift of
10
237
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
workers are assumed to work 8 hrs/day, 7 days/week for 3 weeks. At the end of 3 weeks, a shift of
workers is rotated out and a new set of workers replaces them.
The costs presented (in dollars per cubic yard) are calculated based on the number of cubic yards of
contaminated soil treated. Because clean fill and surrounding uncontaminated soil are treated as
part of the melt, the total number of cubic yards of soil treated is higher than the number of cubic
yards of contaminated soil treated. Costs per cubic yard based on total soil treated would, therefore,
be lower than the costs presented in this estimate.
If Geosafe scales its process differently than assumed in this analysis, then the cost of remediation per
cubic yard of contaminated soil will change.
These cost estimates are representative of charges typically assessed to the client by the vendor and do
not include profit. The developer claims these costs were unusually high and expects the treatment
costs for future sites to be less than the treatment costs for the Parsons site.
Table 3 presents a general order of magnitude estimate for the cost of remediating a site. The estimate
represents capital and operating costs based on treating about 3200 yd3 or about 5700 tons of
contaminated soil at the Parsons site.
Table 3. In situ vitrification cost estimates
(based on Parsons site experience)
Volume
(yd3)
970
3200
4400
Cost
($/yd3)
1500
780
670
Cost
($/ton)
833
433
372
Note: The Parsons site had unusually high soil density.
Geosafe notes that the cost estimates prepared by the SITE program are significantly higher than its
own commercial experience. For reference purposes, Geosafe's prices typically fall in the range of $375
to $425/ton for vitrification operations. Mobilization and demobilization of the 100 ton/day system can
cost in the range of $300K to 400K (combined total). Preconditioning of the site may cost additional.
Geosafe finds that the bottom line cost per ton for most sites falls in the range of $400 to $600/ton,
depending on size, location, and site preparation needs.
Cost Comparison
The cost comparisons used in this report are based on data reported by Showalter et al. (1992). The
mobile rotary kiln incinerator was chosen for the baseline because of its flexibility and low capital cost
combined with the minimal decontamination and decommissioning cost at the end of its useful life. The
site developed for this comparison is similar to mixed waste trenches and pits that are found on DOE
property. The site in this comparison is 30-m wide * 90-m long * 5-m deep. The soil is homogeneous
and contaminated with low-level radioactive mixed waste. The soil moisture content is 5%.
The site is considered to be in a flat, readily accessible area and will require only minimum clearing and
leveling before remediation. The perimeter fencing will be 10-ft high with four-strand razor wire topping.
Factors
Capital equipment costs are similar for the two technologies. ISV costs slightly more because of the
decision to generate power on site. (When electric power in sufficient quantities is not available from
U.S. Department of Energy
238
11
-------
an electric utility, a generator must be purchased for on-site.) Purchasing power from a local utility
would eliminate the need to purchase a generator.
Mobilization of the ISV system is much more labor intensive than it is for incineration.
The ISV system includes extensive sampling of the vitrified area to verify that the final waste form is
acceptable. Both estimates include extensive stack sampling and analysis. Incineration incurs more
than twice the cost of ISV in this category because of much larger air flow through the incinerator.
Although incineration operates for a shorter time, it has a higher labor cost during operation. One
reason for this is the increased worker protection requirements for incineration over ISV.
ISV is more expensive in the consumables category.
The cost of secondary disposal is the most expensive component of the cost of incineration. ISV
creates a vitrified mass that may be left in place, while incineration requires that the residual be
moved to monitored storage.
Where secondary disposal is eliminated, the total cost of incineration will be similar to the total cost
of ISV. If only a hazardous organic component had to be destroyed, there would be little or no waste
to be disposed of under incineration. Allowing a minimal cost for secondary waste in each case and
reducing the cost risk factor accordingly results in incineration being roughly $500/m3, slightly less
than ISV, which costs about $600/m3. *
Costs Considered
Examination of the specific cost categories listed in Table 4 highlights the differences in cost. Several
costs have been left out of the analysis, but only after deciding that they would be similar.between the
two processes. Costs included in this analysis are capital (equipment); site preparation; mobilization and
demobilization (mobilize/demobilize, crew relocation, site administration, ISV melt analysis, backfill and
grade, and decommission and dispose); operations (stack sampling, labor, consumables,
subcontractors, and oversight engineer); secondary waste disposal; miscellaneous (includes
environmental impairment insurance); labor and material; performance bonds; and escalation.
Table 4. Cost comparison of in situ vitrification (ISV) and incineration for a
30-m-wide x 90-m-long x 5-m-deep mixed waste site
Cost category
Capital
Site preparation, mobilization, and
demobilization
Operations
Secondary waste disposal
Miscellaneous
Labor, material, and performance bonds
Escalation
Total
ISV: total
scenario cost
($).
1,038,654
1,681,702
3,694,430
1,038,310
307,468
100,954
156,147
8,017,665
ISV: cost
per cubic
meter
($)
76.94
124.57
273.65
76.91
22.78
7.48
11.57
593.90
Incineration:
total
scenario cost
($)
775,557
1,074,212
3,016,930
17,877,816
270,000
345,218
366,367
23,726,100
Incineration:
cost per
cubic meter
($)
57.45
79.58
223.48
1,324.28
20.00
25.57
24.92
1,755.28
Cost Summary
Based on this scenario, ISV is significantly less expensive than incineration. ISV costs about $600/m3
versus roughly $1755/m3 for incineration. Table 4 shows the comparison of the major cost categories.
12
239
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
SECTION 6
REGULATORY/POLICY ISSUES
Regulatory Considerations
Table 5 presents a regulatory analysis of ISV technology using Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980) criteria.
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
The EPA Technology Innovation Office is encouraging the inclusion of ISV technology in remedial
investigations, feasibility studies, records of decision, and remedial design. State regulatory agencies
have accepted the ISV process where demonstrations and remediations have been proposed.
Site preparation or pretreatment steps that include water removal by pumping or diversion and barrier
systems to avoid recharge to the zone to be vitrified may be necessary to reduce the risk of a melt
expulsion event (MEE) at some sites. In an MEE, a buildup of vapor pressure occurs and results in a
sudden intrusion of vapor into and through the ISV melt. Detailed site characterization and quantitative
modeling may be required to evaluate the nature and extent of necessary pretreatment.
Benefits Summary
Safety, regulatory, and other benefits are summarized in Figure 6.
Site
Remediation
Bonnets
Recovery of
Recycle Value
1. Ufe expectancy of vitrified product
2. Ablrty lo havo sHo delated alter remediation
3. Permanent solution
4. Maximum reduction of toxlctty, mobility, volume
5. OnsKe application avoids transport risks
6. In situ application minimizes worker risk
7. Satisfies federal, state, and local regulations
8. Maximum environmental protection
9. Maximum public and workersafety
10. Perceived value by investors
11. Site can be deKsted after remediation
12. Site can be sold and/or reused
13. Early release is possfcle (minimum monitoring)
14. Simultaneous treatment of organlcs/Inorganlcs
15. In situ capabilities
18. Maximum treatment effectiveness
17. High tolerance tor debris
18. Minimum pretreatment requirements
19. vitrified product is no longer hazardous
20. Product may be recycled for various uses
Figure 6. Remediation benefits related to technology features.
Community Reaction
Some stakeholders, primarily those living near sites, have expressed concerns about public and worker
safety. The effectiveness of the ISV process has also been questioned. Close communication and
coordination with local stakeholders early in the planning stage should help identify and address their
concerns.
U.S. Department of Energy
240
13
-------
3
ogjj?
E-g ป&
~
i E
"S f f S "> TJ ti sS'l?
JJ|g8c^JSrao-c=ra
ซ co 9 .2 ^ o a. <" . 91 g
"5 ซ
I~|
a>
ฃ
o
3 TS = J
W S <3- I
< 0) ffij
f I
UJ S
fฃf^|
ป s; o>
2 | S
S P
2 >1
ฐSS
iff
งง!
fiEfi
^
V)
0>
- 5
PI
?s|
III
sai
II
Its
"55 ฐ E .9
*tt "E ^- ฎ
UJ o TO .E
o
,1
to E g a>
*i|I
till
> .o ฃ c
Hi o
111 o m.E
1
o'
8 'g ซ ^> 3
eg c = o i_ to
(DC*OO Cl'ftfO CD
= -scs=cncocg_, >
ti^loSil |
o ~ ? ro^S 8 -a .2 2
Sgsaa|lia|
lii
lll
= co
2 E
H Ig
slfl
C C 3 ง
o ~a x
tss ^ 55 o
co v ซ- i_
^i^-s
c ฃ 2 T>
III I
ซ S
gill!
111ซs
^? *^ ^ C fc
lllil
14
241
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
Tabte 5. (Continued)
C
CO
o
o>
a
o>
(D
KJ
Overall protection of
human health and
the environment
Compliance
wfthARARs
Scrubber water will
likely require
secondary treatment
before discharge to
POT or surface
bodies. Disposal
requires compliance
with Clean Water Act
regulations.
Long-term
effectiveness
Short-term
effectiveness
Some short-term risks
associated with air
emissions are
dependent upon test
material composition
and off-gas treatment
system design.
Staging, if required,
involves excavation
and construction of
treatment areas. A
potential for fugitive
emissions and
exposure exists during
excavation and
construction.
Reduction of loxicity,
mobility, or volume
through treatment
Some treatment
residues (e.g., filters
and personal
protective equipment)
may themselves be
treated during
subsequent
vitrification settings.
Residues from the
final setting, including
expended or
contaminated
processing
equipment, may
require special
disposal
requirements.
Volume of scrubber
water generated is
highly dependent
upon soil moisture
content, ambient air
humidity, and soil
particulate levels in
the off-gas.
Implementablty
The staging of
treatment areas is
recommended for
areas where the
contamination is
limited to shallow
(less than 8 ft) depths.
The soil oxide
composition must
provide sufficient
electrical conductivity
in the molten state
and adequate
quantities of glass
formers to produce a
vitrified product.
Oxides can be added
to soil to correct for
deficiencies.
Ground water should
be diverted away from
treatment areas to
improve economic
viability.
Cost
Moisture content of
the media being
treated directly
influences the cost of
treatment as electric
energy must be used
to vaporize water
before soil melting
occurs.
Sites that require
staging and extensive
site preparation will
have high overall
costs.
Abbreviations used: ARAR =
treatment works.
Source: EPA 1994.
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and POT = publicly owned
Ol
-------
SECTION 7
LESSONS LEARNED
Implementation Considerations
A suitable source of electric power is required for this technology.
Equipment is transportable and can be brought to a site using conventional shipping methods.
Necessary support equipment includes a crane for placing and removing the off-gas hood, and
earth-moving equipment may be needed.
The staging of treatment areas is recommended for areas where contamination is limited to less
than 8 ft to attain economic processing rates.
The overall oxide composition of the soil determines the properties such as fusion and melt
temperature and viscosity. Other constituents needed for acceptable glass formation must be
present in the soil or be added.
Site Requirements
Site requirements for the Geosafe ISV technology are a function of (1) the size and layout for equipment
used in the process; (2) the staging area requirements for the construction of treatment cells (if needed);
and (3) the room required to maneuver equipment for excavating contaminated soils, preparing
treatment cells, and placing and relocating equipment.
Technology Limitations/Needs for Future Development
The maximum acceptable treatment depth with current equipment is 20 ft below ground surface.
Water in the soil is removed by evaporation in advance of the melt. The process may be used in
supersaturated media (e.g., 70 wt % water); however, the removal of water consumes energy and
increases cost. Therefore, it is desirable to maintain the treatment zone at low water levels.
Water vapor generated below grade passes to the surface through the dry zone adjacent to the melt.
If vapor generation rates are very high, some vapor may pass through the melt itself. Excessive
amounts of vapor passing through the melt may cause melt disruption (bubbling) and possible melt
displacement (splattering). Therefore, it is necessary during the remedial design phase of a project
to consider process conditions that will result in acceptable water vapor generation and removal
rates.
Buried steel drums that still have structural and sealing integrity and contain liquids hold the potential
for introducing vapors through the melt disruptively. Site characterization should be sufficient to
assess whether such liquid-bearing drums exist within a site. If they do, then they can be pretreated
by dynamic disruption and/or compaction technologies so that they can be safely processed by ISV
without melt disturbance.
The overall oxide composition of the media being treated determines the melt properties (e.g., fusion
and melt temperature and viscosity). It is essential that the media contain sufficient monovalent'
alkali earth oxides to provide the amount of electrical conductivity required of the melt. The amount
of glass-forming oxides (e.g., silica and alumina) present is a primary determinant of the vitrified
product physical, chemical leaching, and weathering properties. Typical soils throughout the world
possess adequate properties to allow ISV processing and produce a high-quality vitrified product. In
rare cases, additives may be necessary to obtain the electrical conductivity or vitrified product
properties desired.
16
243
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
The heat-removal limitations of the current equipment dictate that the organic content of the
treatment media be less than 10 wt % if operating at full power level. Higher organic loading can be
accommodated by operating at correspondingly lower power levels. Waste containing up to 25 wt %
organics has been treated using existing equipment. Some chemical reduction of ferrous metal
oxides may occur during ISV, resulting in pooling of iron at the bottom of the melt. Geosafe has
performed melts containing up to 37 wt % scrap metal with no difficulty. Similarly, the process is
highly tolerant of debris and rubble, and Geosafe has successfully treated soil containing more than
50 wt % of such materials.
Upon completion of melting, clean backfill soil is placed in the subsidence volume that exists above
the melt (because of volume reduction). The melt surfaces cool sufficiently quickly that heavy
equipment may be operated above backfilled melts in less than 1 day. Sufficient cooling of the
vitrified monolith to enable revegetation can take several months.
Three technology limitation areas warrant further development to increase the potential value of the
technology for DOE needs. These limitations fall into the areas of (1) maximum attainable depth,
(2) applicability to higher organic concentrations, and (3) processibility of liquid-bearing sealed
containers.
Relative to increased depth potential, Geosafe is exploring ways either to melt more deeply from the
surface downward or to initiate melting at deeper depths with completion melting either upward or
downward from the initiation depth. These areas of exploration hold the potential to increase
significantly the depth capability of the technology.
Relative to higher organic concentrations, Geosafe notes that this limitation is equipment related and
is not an inherent limitation of the technology. Higher organic concentrations may be treated by
using off-gas treatment equipment with greater flow and heat-removal capacity. Such equipment
would have to be designed and built for specific site needs.
Relative to the liquid-bearing sealed container issue, Geosafe has explored a number of
pretreatment alternatives that may be used to remove this limitation. In addition, DOE and Geosafe
are pursuing an alternative avenue of investigation. That alternative is designing off-gas collection
hood and treatment equipment that is capable of withstanding the intermittent vapor pressure and
volume surges and elevated temperatures associated with treatment of sealed containers containing
liquids. Note that not all containers of liquids are subject to this limitation; only containers that are
tightly sealed, that contain liquids, and that are capable of withstanding very high temperatures
(e.g., steel containers) are subject to this limitation.
Field Observations i
Approximately 60 large-scale ISV melts have been conducted successfully in the United States and
abroad. During these melts, only four MEEs were observed. No worker exposure nor injuries have been
reported. Environmental contamination was insignificant, largely because of containment within the glass
melt itself and capture by the off-gas filter media. However, DOE considers worker safety and protection
of the environment to be paramount and has conducted an ISV Workshop to examine the root cause(s)
of MEEs and to provide recommendations to reduce or eliminate the potential for an MEE occurrence.
The ISV Workshop attendees concluded that the two necessary conditions for an MEE are as follows:
a source of vapor (either pore water, water structurally bound in materials, CO2 bound in materials,
soil organic matter, or other volatiles such as organic contaminants), and
a confining structure or zone of low hydraulic conductivity that prevents routine dissipation of
pressure.
Because both conditions are believed to be necessary for an MEE occurrence, the elimination or
reduction of either or both conditions would reduced or eliminate the probability of an MEE.
The ISV Workshop attendees have adopted the following recommendations.
U.S. Department of Energy
244
17
-------
DOE should continue to pursue applications of ISV for contaminated soil remediation.
Site characterization and site-specific planning, including projections of ISV performance (modeling),
should be a part of every application. The degree of planning and prediction will vary according to
site and contaminant conditions, but may include the following factors:
mineralogic makeup of the soils,
chemical composition of the waste and waste forms present,
porosity and effective porosity,
moisture content/saturation,
relative permeability for gases and liquids,
permeability as a function of temperature and pressure,
subsurface geological structure, and
engineered structures or barriers.
Engineering measures to modify a site in preparation for ISV (e.g., dewatering or mechanical
disruption) should be considered where an analysis of characterization data indicates the possibility
of an MEE.
Monitoring tools for use during ISV need to be developed, adapted, and improved.
Engineering measures to control the impacts of MEEs were not considered during the workshop but
merit further evaluation.
18
245
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Campbell, B. E., J. E. Hansen, and C. L Timmerman 1996. In Situ Vitrification (ISV): An Evaluation of
the Disposition of Contaminant Species During Thermal Processing, presented at the Fifteenth
International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, May 6-10,1996,
Savannah, Ga.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1994. SITE Technology Capsule: Geosafe Corporation In
Situ Vitrification Technology, EPA 540/R-94/520a, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development
Geosafe Corporation 1994a. In Situ Vitrification, Fact Sheet.
Geosafe Corporation 1994b. Large-Scale Commercial Applications of the In Situ Vitrification
Remediation Technology, presented atSuperfund XV, Washington, D.C., November
29-December1,1994.
Geosafe Corporation 1995a. In Situ Vitrification News, June 1995.
Geosafe Corporation 1995b. In Situ Vitrification Technology Update, November 1995.
Geosafe Corporation 1996a. Description of In Situ Vitrification Technology Including Commercial Project
Results, Slide Presentation.
Geosafe Corporation 1996b. Description of In Situ Vitrification Technology, Including Commercial Project
Results, Geosafe Corporation, Richland, Wash.
Hansen, J. E., B. E. Campbell, and C. L Timmerman (ND). Geosafe In Situ Vitrification Site
Demonstration, Geosafe Corporation, Richland, Wash.
Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy 1996. In Situ Vitrification Workshop, Final
Report. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Showalter, W. E., B. C. Letellier, P. Barnes-Smith, and S. R. Booth 1995. Cost Effectiveness of In Situ
Vitrification, LA-UR-92-2071, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M.
Showalter, W. E., B. C. Letellier, P. Barnes-Smith, and S. R. Booth 1992. "Cost Performance
Assessment of In Situ Vitrification," Proceedings of the USATHAMA 16th Annual Environmental
R&D Symposium, June 1992.
Thayer, G. R., D. L. Temer, M. L. Bibeault, and S. R. Booth. 1996. Cost Effectiveness of Microwave
Vitrification. LA-UR-96-4777. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M.
Thompson, L. E. and J. M. Costello. Vitrification of TRU-Contaminated Buried Waste: Results From
Radioactive Demonstrations at Taranki.
U.S. Department of Energy
246
A-1
-------
This report was prepared by:
HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606
managed by
LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400
Contact: Thomas B. Shope, Ph.D.
(423) 435-3256
in conjunction with:
The Colorado Center for Environmental Management
999 18th Street
Suite 2750
Denver, Colorado 80202
Contact: Dawn Kaback
(303) 297-0180 ext. 111
247
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA 542-R-97-008
------- |