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 260—Combination 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 I—Timeline
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 II—Timeline
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 Action—Work 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 33.01—Mobilization 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 Breakdown—Phase 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 I—Total 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
33.01.01—Mobilization of Construction, Equipment & Facilities and 33.01.02—Mobilization of
Personnel had to be included in the subsequent RA-WBS element 33.01.04—Setup/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 33.08.01—Excavation of Contaminated
Soil, 33.08.90—Screening, and 33.08.91—Transport 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 Breakdown—Phase 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 II—Total 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 33.01.04—Setup/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 33.02.06—Sampling Soil and Sediment (onsite analysis) and RA-
 WBS category element 33.02.09—Laboratory 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 climate—coupled with the sparse vegetation of grasses and low
brush—allowed 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  i—Vadose 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 (Lasagna™tfElectro-
                      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 products—chloride 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 depth—45 ft—and
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 cost—generally 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 Technology—The 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Sfte—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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 Site—Page 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
      •ง•ง!
      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

-------