EPA/540/2-89/032
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
~ Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. "Final Report, Phase I - Immediate
Assessment, Acme Solvents Site." Technical report of approximately 40 pp. submitted
to the Acme Solvents Technical Committee. November 1985.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse - EZYN
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process: Thermal Treatment - Incineration
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. "Final
Report, Phase I - Immediate Assessment, Acme
Solvents Site." Technical report of approximately
40 pp. submitted to the Acme Solvents Technical
Committee. November 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: David Favero
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312-386-4749
Site Name: Acme Solvents Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Rockford, IL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION; This is a site assessment and feasibility study of
incineration alternatives at the ACME Solvents Site at Rockford, Illinois.
The document contains laboratory results that are reported to simulate
incineration conditions but no details on test methods were provided.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The document summarizes the geophysical
investigation, the delineation of the contaminated zones and their volumes
and the sampling locations. Out of 43 samples taken at 18 locations, 20
were selected to be sent to an environmental laboratory for analysis of
percent moisture (volatiles), percent ash, total chloride, total sulfur,
Btu value and total PCBs. Two samples were analyzed for organic priority
pollutants, pesticides and PCBs. No details on test methods were provided.
Details on the soil matrix of each sample were summarized (the majority are
silty soil). The ash from each of the 20 samples was analyzed for EP toxic
metals. The data from these 20 samples is summarized as well as the more
complete analysis results from the two samples.
This basic data was used in an analysis of feasibility, costs and
relative merits of off-site and onsite incineration of the contaminated
site material. Specific alternatives are costed for an onsite rotary kiln
and an off-site rotary kiln.
PERFORMANCE; The laboratory test on the soil for EP toxicity showed the
resulting ash/decontaminated soil was consistently well below EPA limits
for hazardous wastes classification. Heavy metal levels in the decontami-
nated ash ranged from a high of 2.26 mg/1 for Cr to a low of less than .009
mg/1 for Se. All were well below the EP toxicity levels defined in 40 CFR
261.4 except for chromium which is about 50% of the allowed EP toxicity
level of 5 mg/1. PCBs were reduced from 3600 to less than 4 ug/kg dry.
There are no details provided on the laboratory incineration process,
sampling protocols, QA/QC protocols or conclusions.
3/89-27 Document Number: EZYN
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
The economic analysis comparing onsite and off-site incineration showed
onsite incineration could be accomplished at one-third the cost and with
the same implementation time as the off-site incineration.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
W05-Halogenated Cyclic
Aliphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics
W09-0ther Polar Organic
Compounds
WlO-Non-Volatile Metals
tfll-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
12674-11-2
11096-82-5
57-74-9
58-89-9
83-32-9
91-20-3
85-01-8
86-73-7
117-81-7
85-68-7
84-74-2
117-84-0
78-59-1
108-95-2
7440-39-3
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
Contaminants
PCB-1016
PCB-1260
Chlordane
Gamma-BHC(Lindane)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Isophorene
Phenol
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
3/89-27 Document Number: EZYN
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
FINAL REPORT
PHASE I IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT
ACME SOLVENTS SITE
Submitted to:
THE ACME SOLVENTS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Submitted by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC.
St. Louis, Missouri
85-841
November 20, 1985
-------
ACME-S.3/TOC.1
11/20/85
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES/METHODOLOGY
l.l GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION 1
1.2 SOIL SAMPLING 1
2.0 DATA SUMMARY 3
2.1 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION 3
2.2 SOIL ANALYSES 8
3.0 FEASIBILITY OF OFFSITE VERSUS ONSITE INCINERATION 20
3.1 VOLUME OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 20
3.1.1 Soil 20
3.1.2 Sludge 23
3.1.3 Drums 23
3.2 OFFSITE INCINERATION 23
3.2.1 ENSCO, Inc. 28
3.2.2 SCA Chemical Services, Inc. 28
3.2.3 Feasibility of Offsite Incineration 29
3.3 ONSITE INCINERATION 30
3.3.1 ENSCO, Inc. 31
3.3.2 Feasibility of Onsite Incineration 32
3.4 OFFSITE VERSUS ONSITE INCINERATION 32
3.5 ASH DISPOSAL 33
3.6 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 33
APPENDIX
A Boring Logs
B Analytical Results
C Agencies and Vendors Contacted
-------
ACME-S.3/LOF.1
11/20/85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page-
2-1 Plot Plan of GPR Anomalies, Acme Solvents Site 4
2-2 Terrain Conductivity Contour Map 5
2-3 Magnetic Vertical Gradient Contour Map 6
2-4 GPR Survey Lines, Acme Solvents Site 7
2-5 Borehole Locations, Acme Solvents 9
3-1 Waste Areas for Volume Determination, Acme Solvents 21
3-2 Waste Mound Cross-Sections 24
3-3 Waste Mound Cross-Sectional Transects 26
11
-------
ACME-S.3/LOT.1
11/20/85
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page^
2-1 Summary of Borehole Logs 10
2-2 Report of Incineration Analyses of Soil/Sludge Samples
Collected at the Acme Solvents Site, September 1985 14
2-3 Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and
Their Ash 15
3-1 Waste Volumes 22
3-2 Summary of Offsite Commercial Facilities Incinerating
PCB-Contaminated Wastes 27
3-3 Summary of Offsite and Onsite Incineration Capabilities 35
3-4 Summary of Offsite and Onsite Incineration Costs 36
-------
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES/METHODOLOGY
-------
ACME-S.3/DES1.1
11/25/85
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES/METHODOLOGY
The final scope of field activities was defined via telephone
conversations between ESE and representatives of the Acme Solvents
Steering Committee. A work plan, sampling plan, and health and safety "~~
plan were developed and revised concurrently with the mobilization for
the field effort. The field activities included the following:
1. Establishing a site grid;
2. Performing ground penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometer, and
terrain conductivity surveys; and
3. Performing a boring and soil sampling program.
Boring logs and analytical results are presented in Appendices A and B,
respectively.
1.1 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION
The grid established by E.G. Jordan for their RI effort was found and
re-marked in order to perform the geophysical surveys.
1.2 SOIL SAMPLING
Based on results obtained during the GPR survey and the distribution of
the mounds, a series of 18 boreholes were located at the site. All
sample locations were further screened using a magnetic gradiometer and
metal detector to avoid the safety and mechanical hazards of drilling
into buried drums. Acceptable locations were limited due to the large
amount of metallic signatures detected with these instruments, however a
representative coverage of the "mounds" and surrounding areas of concern
was established.
Samples were collected using a standard 24-inch split-spoon sampler.
The split-spoon was driven at 2-foot intervals into bedrock until
refusal was encountered. At each location, the sample was removed from
-------
ACME-S.3/DES1.2
11/19/85
the sampler, placed on a sheet of aluminum foil, and divided into
sections when appropriate. The sections were measured for total organic
vapors then wrapped in foil and labeled for later reference (i.e.
split-spoon number three was labeled SS-3; if there were more than one
soil/waste layer per split-spoon they were labeled SS-3A, SS-3B, SS-3C, -
etc.). All labeled and wrapped core sections were kept chilled in
coolers. The entire core material at the end of sampling at each
location was composited according to visual characteristics and total
organic vapors. The composited samples were labeled and placed in
wide-mouth glass jars with Teflon-lined lids and packed on ice in
coolers. Bedrock was sealed from borehole contamination by pouring
granular bentonite downhole to at least 2 feet above the soil/bedrock
interface. A granular bentonite cap was installed at the top of the
borehole to prevent downhole contamination.
Decontamination took place between each borehole location. Ail augers,
drilling rods, tools, and split-spoon samplers were pressure washed with
a steam cleaner. The split-spoons were steam cleaned a second time on a
separate decontamination pad, then left to air dry before assembling.
The water used for decontamination was analyzed for TOC and TOX. The
values obtained were 72.1 mg/1 TOC and 20 ug/1 TOX.
During sampling, the CSE Site Safety Officer and one ESE team member
were continually monitoring with explosimeter and photoionization
detectors. When handling the samples, respirators were worn by ESE team
members whenever the photoionization meter detected organic vapors
exceeding 1 ppm. The drillers generally would begin drilling without
respirators and put on respirators when photoionization readings
exceeded 1 ppm in their breathing zone.
-------
ACME-S.3/SUM2.1
11/19/85
2.0 DATA SUMMARY
2.1 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION
Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 represent the data, plotted on the map grid,
obtained by GPR, terrain conductivity, and magnetometer, respectively.
The GPR survey lines are shown on Figure 2-4. Survey lines were not run
completely across the mounds. The GPR antenna must be pulled behind a
vehicle. Instead, the antenna was placed by hand up on the mounds and
pulled down the slopes. In all cases, there was no penetration until
the antenna reached the base of the mounds. The GPR did identify other
areas of buried solid materials and areas containing liquid contamina-
tion. The areas of buried solid materials agree well with the magneto-
meter survey and are likely to contain metallic materials. The areas
containing liquid and/or sludge contamination (outside of the mound
areas) shown on Figure 2-1 reside in the dolomite bedrock at depth
ranging from 20 to 28 feet below the surface, above a layer that is
presumed to be less permeable (fractured). In some of the more highly
contaminated areas, the contamination has followed fracture lines below
the less permeable bedrock layers.
The terrain conductivity measurements generally were higher in the areas
of the mounds and other burial areas where metal is suspected. The two
main areas of high measurements, other than the mounds, are a drum
burial area between lines B and C at 9+00 to 10+00 and the area between
C and D at 8+00 to 10+00 which both GPR and magnetometer show as an area
where there is buried metal (see Figure 2-2). The lack of conductivity
anomalies in the mounds between end lines A and C and 4+00 and 5+00 is
puzzling in that the GPR could not penetrate these mounds either, and
the boring program indicated that sludges are present.
The magnetometer survey indicates the burial of metallic materials at
various locations around the site. Generally the locations were
-------
N\\\\\t v'\ v / ' j-\\_i x--'^>'x/'/ / --?»!
,. v- ^ A\\.TV; x %^7vii>p^.. //,'_' _;. .^\^^ ^~--3^'-:^--'Vy / /,v
.v^^^>^^^^^^r^\rQ-~--7:~ *~.r^' ^^ ^^^ y / ! \i
Figure 2-1
WAVY CONTAMINATION*
MKD tOHD MATIMA1S
rn c
-------
/ / / ,' ' V- A'"- ~- "'." - ~--~"J"."."/
" , I ' I
..- ,' / / '
Figure 2-2
Topography
Torraln Condudlvlly
T«n«hi CoodudMty smkn
Aiu o< T«.«
r~i f
TCRRAIN CONDUCTIVITY
CONTOUR UAP
Acitw Sotvwit*
RocMo*AlMlMl<
DETECTION SCIENCES INC.
4«tHMMMMd
CMUSU MASSACHUSETTS 01741
l«ir)M»nn
r*«r
"" t-n-M
mtm
'"v<*
2
_t--L
_«
-------
v > \
<-.^S-~ I '- ' _ 5
^/^"-ri",;.v^ss\ (- _
\
s \ \
-------
-------
ACME-S.3/SUM2.2
11/19/85
compatible with the GPR data. Contour lines in some areas are
incomplete due to interference caused by either fence lines or power
lines. Symmetry of these areas was assumed to calculate total area.
2.2 SOIL ANALYSES ~~
A total of 43 soil samples from 18 locations were obtained. Eleven of
the borings were located on the mounds, and multiple samples (between
two and four) were taken from each location (Figure 2-5). A summary of
the samples obtained are given in Table 2-1. Of these samples, 20 were
sent to Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EA) for analysis of percent
moisture (volatiles), percent ash, total chloride, total sulfur, Btu
value, and total PCBs. The ash from each of the 20 samples was analyzed
for EP Toxic metals. These results are presented in Table 2-2. In
addition, two samples (B4B-02 and C6B-02) were analyzed for EP toxic
metals and organic priority pollutants and the ash from these two
samples were being analyzed for organic priority pollutants with the
exception of volatiles. Results from these two samples are presented in
Table 2-3. We have repeated the results of EP toxic metals for the
ashes for these two samples in the table, for comparison purposes.
-------
B?A:>B3A7>^
Figure 2-5
BOREHCXE IOCATIONS
ACAAE SCH VENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
-------
3.0 DETERMINATION OF ELEVATED CONTAMINATION ZONES
AND INCINERATION OPTIONS
-------
Table 2-1. Sumnary of Borehole Logs
AOE-S.3/VTB2-1.1
10/24/85
1-
Borehole
Number
Borehole
Sample
Natter
Depth Interval
(feet) Description
Remarks
B4A
B4B
C4A
06A
B4A-01
B4A-02
B4A-03
B4B-01
B4B-02
C4A-01
C4A-02
C4A-03
C6A-01
06A-02
06A-03
0-4.0 Dark brown silt and fine to
median sand, slight fine
gravel, small piece of light
gray sludge
4-8.0 Black to brown silt and sand
slight rust/brown staining,
slight dark gray dry sludge
8-13.2 Light brown, brown, green/gray
sand, slight silty, slight
gravel
0-6.0 Brown silt, sand, fine gravel,
very slight possibly dark
gray sludge
6-13.5 Brown sand and gravel, dark
gray wet sludge, sand
saturated with solvent and
slight blue pigment 10-13.5'
0-^4.0 Brown clay, silt, slight sand,
sane dolomite fragments,
occasional gravel
4-9.5 As above, slight gray sludge
saturation
9.5-12.2 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
highly fractured
0-7.8 Brown silt, fine to coarse
sand, slight gravel,
occasional dolomite fragments,
some staining
7.8-12.8 Silt, fine sand, gray sludge
12.8-14.2 Weathered dolomite bedrock
Fill, very slight
sludge.
HNJ = 20 ppm on
sludge.
Fill, slight sludge.
HNU = 100 ppra on
sludge.
Fill, no visible
sludge.
HNU at background.
Fill, very slight
possible sludge.
No HNJ reading.
Fill, sludge,
pigment.
HNU range 50 to
120 ppra.
Fill, no visible
contamination.
HNU at background.
Fill, slight sludge.
HNU - 80 to 100 ppm.
Bedrock.
HNU = 10 to 30 ppm
Fill, some staining.
HNJ - 1 to 3 ppm.
Fill, sludge.
HNJ = 200 to 300 ppm
on sludge.
Bedrock.
10
-------
AOE-S.3/VTB2-1.2
10/24/85
Table 2-1. Suranary of Borehole Logs (Continued, Page 2 of
4)
Borehole
Number
Borehole
Sample
Number
Depth Interval
(feet)
Description
Remarks
C6B C6B-01 4-8.0 Silt, fine sand, slight
gravel, moist, slight black
staining, lighter fluid odor
C6B-02 8-14 Silt, sand, slight gravel,
gray staining, solvent satura-
tion, slight gray sludge
C6B-03 16-18.3 Silty sand with slight gravel,
possibly native, stained gray
in areas, very moist
C6B-04 18.3-21.1 Brown fine to median sand,
moist, dolomite fragments,
igneous erratic
D7A D7A-01 0-10.0 Brown silt, fine sand,
occasional fine to mediun
gravel, saturated in areas
D7A-02 10-16.0 Brown silt, fine sand,
occasional fine to medium
gravel, pieces of red, yellow,
green, blue pigments/sludge
D7A-03 18-21.0 Fine to coarse sand, fine to
medium gravel, occasional rock
fragment, slight gray sludge
D7A-04 21-22.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
C5A C5A-01 0-6.0 Very dark brown fine sand,
some silty layers, occasional
dolomite fragment, moist
C5A-02 6-9.6 Brown silty sand, slight
gravel, slight dolomite
fragments, wet, solvent odor
C5A-03 9.6-11.3 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
staining in fractures 10 to
10.5'
11
Fill, slight
staining.
HNJ = 3 to 30 ppra.
Fill, slight sludge
and staining.
HNU = 50 to 100 ppra.
Possibly native
material, slight
staining.
HNU = 30 ppra.
Possibly native
material, bedrock.
HNU = 5 to 10 ppra.
Fill, solvent, oil,
paint odors.
HNLJ = 2 to 60 ppm.
Fill, pigments,
sludge.
HNU = 60 to 210 ppra.
Fill, slight sludge.
HNU = 5 to 50 ppra.
Bedrock.
HNU = 5 ppra.
Fill, no visible
COnt aminaf ion.
HNU at background.
Fill, solvent
saturation.
HNJ = 200 ppra.
Bedrock.
HNJ=120 to 200 ppra.
-------
Table 2-1. Surmary of Borehole Logs (Continued, Page 3 of 4)
AOE-S.3/VTB2-1.3
9/26/85
i- Borehole
Borehole Sample Depth Interval
Nunber Nunber (feet)
Description
Remarks
B2A B2A-01 0-4.5 Brown silt, sand, slight fine
gravel, occasional dolomite
fragment, gray sludge, black
staining, red/brown oily
granular sludge
B2A-02 4.5-6.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
B1A B1A-01 0-6.0 Brown silt, sand, occasional
fine gravel, black staining,
piece of black rubber
B1A-02 6-9.5 Soft, wet, gray sludge with
slight sand
B1A-03 9.5-12.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
C3A C3A-01 0-2.0 Brown silt, sand, slight clay,
fine to medium gravel,
occasional dolomite fragments
C3A-02 2-14.5 Wet gray sludge, very soft,
slightly sandy, slight black,
yellow, green, blue "dry"
paints, sponge-like
C3A-03 14.5-16.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
C12A C12A-01 0-2.0 Dark brown silt, sand,
slightly moist, no visible
contamination
C12A-02 2-12.8 Brown silt and sand, solvent
saturation, gray sludge,
slight pink sludge, black
staining
C12A-03 12.8-14.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
Fill, sludge,
staining.
HNJ=200 to 300 ppm.
UEL reading 20%.
Bedrock.
HNU = 210 ppm.
Fill, staining.
HNJ = 1 to 180 ppm.
Sludge.
HNJ= 300 ppm.
Bedrock.
HNU = 150 ppm.
Fill.
HMJ at background.
Sludge, pigments.
HNU=150 to 250 ppm.
Bedrock.
HMJ = 300 ppm.
Fill, no visible
contamination.
HNU at background.
Fill, sludge,
pigments.
HMJ - 20 to 300 ppm.
Bedrock.
HNU * 300 ppra.
12
-------
Table 2-1. Sunraary of Borehole Logs (Continued, Page 4 of 4)
ACME-S.3/VTB2-1.4
10/24/85
Borehole
Nutiber
Borehole
Sample
Number
Depth Interval
(feet)
Description
Remarks
C8A
CSC
B5A
A3A
B3A
C9A
A9A
C8A-01
C8A-02
C8A-03
C6C-01
B5A-01
A3A-01
B3A-01
C9A-01
A9A-01
A9A-02
A9A-03
0-2.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
2-inch soil, original material
0-2.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
3-inch soil, original material
0-2.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
2-inch soil, original material
0-2.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
3-inch soil
0-0.8 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
2-inch soil
0-2 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
2-inch soil
0-1.8 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
4-inch soil
0-2.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock,
2-inch soil
0-2.7 Very dark brown silty fine
sand, loose, moist, native
2.7-4.6 Brown silty till, stiff, fine
sand, occasional fine to
medium gravel, dry
4.6-6.0 Weathered dolomite bedrock
HNLJ at background.
HMJ at background.
HNLJ at background.
Spoon in bouncing on
solid material.
HNLJ at background.
Refusal at 0.8 feet.
HNLJ at background.
Spoon bouncing on
bedrock.
HNJ at background.
Refusal at 1.8 feet.
HNLJ at background.
HNLJ at background.
Possibly native
material.
HNJ at background.
Native material.
HNJ at background.
Bedrock.
HNJ at background.
Source: ESE, 1965.
13
-------
Table 2-2. Report of Incineration Analyses of Soil/Sludge
Parameter
Volatile* (0 104 C) Z w/w
Ash, non-vol 9 1000 C X w/w
Tout chloride, Z w/w
Total sulfur, Z w/w
Btu Value, Btu/lb
PCB, ng PCX/kg
Type
EP Toxic ity, Test Method No.
Silver, ng Ag/1
Arsenic, ng A»/l
Barium, tug Ba/1
Cadmium, ng Cd/1
Chromium, (total) og Cr/1
Chromium, (hex.) ng Cr/1
Mercury, ng Hg/1
Lead, ng Fb/1
Selenium, ng Se/1
84A-02
7.79
82.83
O.U
0.24
<10
0.43
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.009
0.13
0.015
0.100
0.060
<0.002
<0.10
0.009
B4A-03
4.45
75.09
0.76
0.03
<10
<0.05
X
261.24
<0.01
0.011
0.25
0.015
0.088
0.021
<0.002
0.56
<0.005
B4B-01
7.44
74.42
0.69
0.36
94
0.65
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.013
0.16
0.012
0.114
<0.005
<0.002
0.27
<0.005
Saiples
B4B-02
14.99
70.00
0.96
0.04
<10
2.5
1254*
261.24
<0.01
<0.005
0.26
0.013
0.375
0.375
<0.002
0.23
0.006
Collected ot the Acme Solvents Site, Septenfcer
C4A-01
6.67
84.37
0.68
0.01
1346
<0.05
X
261.24
<0.01
0.006
0.11
0.010
0.102
0.038
<0.002
0.78
0.007
C4A-02
14.42
77.54
0.99
0.06
587
7.9
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.049
0.31
0.013
0.271
0.209
<0.002
<0.10
<0.005
C6A-01
8.24
78.33
0.59
0.09
<10
0.09
1242
261.24
<0.01
0.066
0.16
0.014
0.077
0.034
<0.002
<0.10
<0.005
C6A-02
9.%
61.56
0.97
0.03
434
1.8
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.006
0.42
0.017
0.103
0.041
<0.002
0.39
<0.005
06B-02
13.72
75.22
0.58
0.03
702
2.6
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.011
0.29
0.010
0.401
0.400
<0.002
<0.10
<0.005
C6B-O4
3.76
72.10
0.72
0.01
<10
<0.05
X
261.24
<0.01
0.005
0.49
0.019
0.032
<0.005
<0.002
0.32
<0.005
1985
D7A-01
15.93
78.97
0.24
0.04
337
1.8
1254*
261.24
<0.01
0.014
0.40
0.273
0.124
0.124
<0.002
-------
ACME-S.4/VTB2-3.1
10/24/85
Table 2-3. Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and Their Ash
Parameter
Volatiles (@ 104 C) % w/w
Ash, non.vol @ 1000 C % w/w
Total chloride, 2 w/w
Total sulfur, % w/w
Btu value, Btu/lb
PCB, mg PCB/kg
Type
Ep toxicity, test method no.
Silver, mg Ag/1
Arsenic, mg As/1
Barium, mg Ba/1
Cadmium, mg Cd/1
Chromium, (total) mg Cr/1
Chromium, (hex.) mg Cr/1
Mercury, mg Hg/1
Lead, mg Pb/1
Selenium, rag Se/1
Moisture (% wet wt)
Volatiles
Acrolein, sed ug/kg-dry
Acrylonitr ile, sed ug/kg-dry
Benzene, sed ug/kg-dry
Broraorae thane, sd ug/kg-dry
Broraodichlororaethane ,
sd ug/kg-dry
Bromoforra, sed ug/kg-dry
Carbon tetrachloride,
sd ug/kg-dry
Chlorobenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
Chloroethane, sed ug/kg-dry
2-chl 'ethylvinlether,
sd ug/kg-dry
Chloroform, sed ug/kg-dry
Chloromethane, sed ug/kg-dry
Dibroraochlororaethane,
sd ug/kg-dry
Soil
B4B-02
14.99
70.00
0.96
0.04
<10
2.5
1254*
261.24
0.027
<0.005
0.87
0.057
0.274
0.255
0.002
0.83
<0.005
16.3
<2300
<2300
2600
<200
<130
<310
<100
<7600
<430
<1300
<180
<160
<200
Ash
B4B-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
261.24
.01
<0.005
0.26
0.013
0.375
0.375
<0.002
0.23
0.006
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Soil
C6B-02
13.72
75.22
0.58
0.03
702
2.6
1254*
261.24
0.011
<0.005
0.69
0.018
0.024
0.024
0.002
<0.10
<0.005
13.9
<1600
<1600
720
<150
<92
<230
(72
<3500
<310
<880
<87
<110
<150
Ash
C6B-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
261.24
<0.01
0.011
0.29
0.010
0.401
0.401
<0.002
<0.10
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated as Type 1254, however, sample contains patterns characteristic of
Aroclors 1242 thru 1260.
15
-------
.Table 2-3.
ACME-S.4/VTB2-3.2
10/24/85
Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and Their Ash
(Continued, Page 2 of 5)
^
Parameter
Dichl'difluo 'me thane,
sd ug/kg-dry
1,1-dichl 'ethane,
sed ug/kg-dry
1 ,2-dichloroethane,
sd ug/kg-dry
1,1-dichl'ehtene,
sed ug/kg-dry
T-1 ,2-dichloroethene,
sd ug/kg-dry
1 ,2-dichloropropane,
sd ug/kg-dry
CIS-1 ,3-dich 'propene,
sd ug/kg-dry
T-1 ,2-dich' propene,
sd ug/kg-dry
Ethylbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
Methylene chlor.,
sed ug/kg-dry
1,1,2,2-Tet'ch'ethan,
sd ug/kg-dry
Tet'chl'ethylene,
sed ug/kg-dry
1 ,1,1-trichl1 ethane,
sd ug/kg-dry
1 , 1 ,2-tr ichl 'ethane,
sd ug/kg-dry
Tr ichloroethene,
sed ug/kg-dry
Trichlorofluorometh,
sd ug/kg-dry
Toluene, sed ug/kg-dry
Vinyl chloride, sed ug/kg-dry
Base/Neutrals
Acenaphthene, sed ug/kg-dry
Acenaphthylene, sed ug/kg-dry
Anthracene, sed ug/kg-dry
Soil
B4B-02
1700
<110
<110
850
<180
<200
<610
<670
810000
15000
<1700
17000
12000
<180
29000
<230
570000
<170
110
<10
<16
Ash
B4B-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<3
<2
<3
Benzo(A)anthracene, sd ug/kg-dry <58 <10
Benzo(B) fluoran. , sed ug/kg-dr
y <150
<26
Soil
C6B-02
1200
<81
<81
<150
<140
<290
<440
490
410000
810
<930
12000
2700
<160
11000
<160
670000
<120
880
<20
47
<120
<310
Ash
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<3
<2
<3
<9
<25
16
-------
Table 2-3.
ACME-S.4/VTB2-3.3
10/24/85
Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and Their Ash
(Continued, Page 3 of 5)
Soil
Parameter B4B-02
h
Base Neutrals (Continued)
Benzo(K)f luoran, sed ug/kg-dry
Benzo(A)pyrene, sed ug/kg-dry
Benzo(GHl)perylene,
sd ug/kg-dry
Benzioine, sed ug/kg-dry
Bis (2-chlethyl) ether,
sd ug/kg-dry
Bis(2-chlethox)rathan,
sd ug/kg-dry
Bis(2-chlisopr) ether,
sd ug/kg-dry
Bis(2-ethylhex)phth,
sd ug/kg-dry
4-brphnl phnl ether,
sd ug/kg-dry
Butyl ben.phthalate,
sd ug/kg-dry
2-chlnaphthalene, sed ug/kg-dry
4-chlphylphenylehter
sd ug/kg-dry
Chrysene, sed ug/kg-dry
Dibenzo(A,H)anthra,
sd ug/kg-dry
Di-n-butyl phthalate,
sd ug/kg-dry
1 ,3-dichlbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
1 ,4-dichlbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
1 ,2-dichlbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
3 ,3-dichlbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
Diethyl phthalate, sd ug/kg-dry
Dimethyl phthalate, sd ug/kg-dry
2,4-dnt, sed ug/kg-dry
2,6-dnt, sed ug/kg-dry
Di-n-octyl phthalate,
sd ug/kg-dry
1 ,2-diph'hydraz. , sed ug/kg-dry
Fluoranthene , sed ug/kg-dry
Fluorene, sed ug/kg-dry
Hexaclrbenzene, sed ug/kg-dry
Hexachlbutadiene, sed ug/kg-dry
Hexachl1 ethane, sed ug/kg-dry
<120
<180
<960
<250
<19
<18
<39
85000
<91
5000
<17
<44
<63
<720
20000
<26
<23
<26
<260
200
830
<55
<71
730
<13
<27
69
<75
<73
<68
Ash
B4B-02
<21
<30
<160
<43
<3
<3
<7
33
<15
<14
<3
<7
<11
<120
<3
<4
<4
<4
<44
<3
<2
<9
<12
51
<2
<5
<3
<13
<12
<12
Soil
C6B-02
<250
<360
<1900
<510
<39
<37
<78
280000
<180
16000
<34
<88
<130
<1400
74000
<52
<47
<52
<520
170
14000
<110
<140
1400
<26
110
470
<150
<140
<140
Ash
C6B-02
<20
<29
<150
<41
<3
<3
<6
67
<15
<13
<3
<7
<10
<120
20
<4
<4
<4
<42
<3
<2
<9
<12
200
<2
<4
<3
<12
<11
<11
17
-------
ACME-S.4/VTB2-3.4
10/24/85
Table 2-3. Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and Their Ash
(Continued, Page 4 of 5)
Parameter
Soil
B4B-02
Ash
B4B-02
Soil
C6B-02
Ash
C6B-02
Base Neutrals (Continued)
Hexach'eye'pen'd iene,
sed ug/kg-dry <110
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyr,
sd ug/kg-dry <650
Isophorone, sed ug/kg-dry 22000
Naphthalene, sed ug/kg-dry 31800
Nitrobenzene, sed ug/kg-dry <29
N-nitrosodimet'amine,
sd ug/kg-dry <37
N-nitrosodipro'araine,
sd ug/kg-dry <36
N-nitrosodiphe1amine,
sd ug/kg-dry <27
Phenanthrene, sed ug/kg-dry 55
Pyrene, sed ug/kg-dry <27
2,3,7,8-TCDD, sed ug/kg-dry <48
Acids
1,2,4-trichl1benzene,
sd ug/kg-dry <35
P-chlor-m-cresol, sed ug/kg-dry <37
2-chlorophenol, sed ug/kg-dry <27
2,4-dichl'phenol, sed ug/kg-dry <37
2,4-dimet'phenol, sed ug/kg-dry <33
2,4-dinit'phenol, sed ug/kg-dry <330
4,6-dinit'-o-cresol sd ug/kg-dry <170
2-nitrophenol, sed ug/kg-dry <60
4-nitrophenol, sed ug/kg-dry <140
Pentachlphenol, sed ug/kg-dry <170
Phenol, sed ug/kg-dry 880
2,4,6-trichlphnl, sed ug/kg-dry <56
Pesticides & PCBs
Aldrin, sed ug/kg-dry <130
BHC.A, sed ug/kg-dry <0.8
BHC.B, sed ug/kg-dry <18
BHC,D, sed ug/kg-dry <21
BHC.G(lindane), sed ug/kg-dry 130
Chlordane, sed ug/kg-dry 63
DOD.PP', sed ug/kg-dry <12
DDE.PP' sed ug/kg-dry <250
DDT.PP' sed ug/kg-dry <930
<3
<2
<5
<6
<6
<5
<3
<5
<8
<0.07
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.8
<220
<1300
170000
227000
<58
<74
<72
<55
320
110
<96
<5
<6
<5
<6
<6
<57
<29
<10
<24
<28
<3
<71
<75
<53
<75
<67
<670
<350
<120
<290
1200
12000
<130
<0.8
<20
140
64
<3
<1
<5
<6
<6
<4
<2
<4
<8
<6
<6
<4
<6
<5
<54
<28
<240
<910
<23
<27
<3
<9
<0.07
<0.2
<0.2
<0.8
18
-------
ACME-S.4/VTB2-3.5
10/24/85
Table 2-3. Analytical Results on Samples B4B-02 and C6B-02 and Their Ash
(Continued, Page 5 of 5)
Soil
Parameter B4B-02
Dieldrin, sed ug/kg-dry
Endosulf an, A, sed ug/kg-dry
Endosulfan.B, sed ug/kg-dry
Endosulfan sulf., sed ug/kg-dry
Endrin, sed ug/kg-dry
Endrin aid., sed ug/kg-dry
Heptachlor, sed ug/kg-dry
Heptachlor epox., sed ug/kg-dry
Toxaphene, sed ug/kg-dry
PCB-1016, ug/kg-dry
PCS- 1260, ug/kg-dry
<31
<25
<53
<250
<83
<75
<110
<18
<290
1500
3600
Ash
B4B-02
<0.3
<0.2
<0.4
<2.1
<0.7
<0.6
<0.09
<0.2
<24
<3
<4
Soil
C6B-02
<30
<24
<52
<240
<81
<73
<110
<18
<280
1500
2900
Ash
C6B-02
<0.3
<0.2
<0.4
<2.1
<0.7
<0.6
<0.09
<0.2
<24
<3
<4
Sources: ESE, Inc. 1985 For organic priority pollutants.
EA, Inc. 1985 For EP Toxic Metals, Total PCBs and incinerator
parameters.
19
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.1
11/19/85
3.0 DETERMINATION OF ELEVATED CONTAMINATION ZONES AND INCINERATION
OPTIONS
In this section, data and other information presented in previous
sections of this report are utilized to develop volumes of contaminated
materials and to determine the feasibility, costs, and relative merits
of offsite and onsite incineration of the elevated contaminated
materials at the ACME Solvents site.
3.1 VOLUME OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS
3.1.1 Soil
An estimate of excavation volumes for soil has been developed using
conservative surface areas and depths to bedrock at individual mounds.
The site was divided into eight mound areas (Figure 3-1). The surface
area within each contour was determined by planimeter. The depths to
bedrock were assumed for each mound based on the bedrock contours
derived from the borehole data and previous test pit data.
In order to calculate the estimated volumes, each mound was divided
horizontally into sections 2 feet deep. This interval depth corresponds
to the topographic contour intervals on Figure 3-1. The area of each
section was determined by planimeter. Volumes for each section were
calculated based on section area and the 2 foot depth. The depth of the
bottom section of each mound was assumed to be the average depth to
bedrock. Summing the resulting volumes provided the volume per mound to
be excavated. A summary of results is provided in Table 3-1.
To determine the excavation volume for the contaminated bedrock
materials, the surface area was again determined by planimeter. This
value represents the volume of material per foot of excavation.
3.1.2 Elevated Contamination Zone
The elevated contamination zones are defined as those portions of the
mounds which contain sludge or other visible contamination such as
20
-------
^-M^
\( Cr
\\\ \
^\^ N \
\\>, \ J
i ' /
>'} t/^t-
Figure 3-1
WASTE AREAS KM VOLUME OETERAAINATION
ACME SOtVENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
-------
ACME-S.3/VTB3-1.1
11/20/85
Table 3-1. Estimated Waste Volumes
Mound
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total Mounds:
Bedrock: 3,416
Estimated Soil
Volume
(yd3)
2,116
14,277
4,888
6,655
2,307
3,002
1,272
1,080
35,596
yd-* per foot of
Elevated Contamination
Zone Volume -
(yd-*) Comments
740
4,013 P.P. Analysis*
1,529
129 P.P. Analysis*
2,622
2,372 PCB>50ppm
725 PCB>50ppm
343
12,473
excavation
* P.P. = Priority Pollutant
Source: ESE, 1985.
22
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.2
11/25/85
staining within the fill material. In order to determine volumes, the
bore logs and test pit data were reviewed to approximate the location of
elevated contamination zones within each mound. Cross sections
depicting the elevated contamination zones and the locations are found
in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.
To estimate elevated contamination zone volumes, the bore log data was
used to determine which sections of each mound would contain elevated
contamination. Using the planimeter and the cross sections, the percent
of elevated contaminated material within the affected sections was
estimated. The results of this exercise are summarized in Table 3-1.
The total volume of elevated contmainated material is estimated at
12,473 cubic yards.
3.1.3 Drums
Actual number of buried drums at the site is not known. Field
conditions suggest the existence of 1,000 to 4,000 drums at the site.
It is not known how many of the drums may contain materials. For
purposes of comparative cost estimating, 2,000 will be used as the
number of drums to be handled. This is the equivalent of 666 cubic
yards.
3.2 OFFSITE INCINERATION
Due to the high costs of transporting contaminated materials over a long
distance, the search for existing offsite commercial incinerators was
limited to a 500-mile radius of the site. State regulatory agencies
were contacted to locate those commercial incinerators within the
500-mile radius that are RCRA-approved to handle PCB-contaminated soils
and sludges (see Appendix C). The commercial incinerators so identified
were contacted directly to verify that they are RCRA-approved and would
accept PCB-contaminated wastes. This selective search yielded two
commercial facilities: ENSCO, Inc. of El Dorado, Arkansas, and SCA
Chemical Services, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (Table 3-2).
23
-------
780
775
SCALE
Figure 3-2
WASTE MOUND CROSS SECTIONS A-A'. E-E1. C-C'
fAGEIOf J
775
LEGEND
DCXOMIIE BEDROCK
ELEVATED CONIAMINATED ZONE
OVERBURDEN
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
24
-------
780
750
SCAIE
LEGEND
DOtOMlIE BEDROCK
ELEVATED CONTAMINATED ZONE
OVERBURDEN
Figure 3-2
WASTE MOUND CROSS SECTIONS B-B' 0 D
r ACE 2 OF 2
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
-------
Figure 3-3
WASTE MOUNO CROSS-SECTIONAL TRANSECTS
ACME SOLVENTS SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
26
-------
ACME-S.3/VTB3-2.1
11/20/85
Table 3-2. Summary of Offsite Commercial Facilities Incinerating
PCB-Contaminated Wastes
Facilities
ENSCO, Inc.
SCA Chemical Services, Inc.
Address/Phone/
Location
Contact
EPA ID#
Years of
Operation
Form of Accep-
table Wastes
Incinerator
Type
Method of
Ash Disposal
Date of
Availability
Cost of
Incineration
Time to
Implement
Storage
Capacity
1015 Louisiana St.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
(501) 375-8444
Mr. Gary Martini
ARD069748192
4
Bulk and Drummed Liquids
and Solids
Rotary Kiln
RCRA-Permitted Landfill
January 1986
$28.9 million
2-3 years
None
11700 S. Stony Island Ave,
Chicago, Illinois 60617
(312) 646-5700
Ms. Sharon Pilachowski
LID060672121
3
Bulk Liquids and Drummed
Solids
Rotary Kiln
RCRA-Perraitted Landfill
January 1986
$32.4 million
2 years
None
Source: ESE, 1985.
27
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.3
11/20/85
3.2.1 ENSCO, Inc.
ENSCO has been incineratLng PCB-contaminated wastes since 1981. A brief
summary of this facility is presented in Table 3-2. They employ a
rotary kiln incineration system with a thermal oxidation chamber and
afterburner with a cyclone. The facility will accept solid waste
materials either in bulk or in drums. Ash generated by the incinerator
is routinely disposed of by the facility in RCRA-permited landfills.
They will not accept heavy sludges that do not pass a 60 mesh screen.
They will also reject raw sulfur and wastes contaminated with any amount
of dioxin. Discussions with Mr. Gary Martini indicate ENSCO's facility
would accept waste materials from the ACME Solvents site, based on
existing analytical data for these waste materials. Chloride, sulfur,
and PCS concentrations would not prohibit ENSCO's acceptance of the
waste materials. The facility would be available to accept waste
materials from the ACME Solvents site in January 1986. Current costs of
incineration at ENSCO Inc.'s facility are on the order of $0.75-1.00/lb
for bulk solids and $1.00 per pound for drummed solids. These costs
include ash disposal. Specific costs can be provided only after
analysis of the waste materials by ENSCO, Inc.'s laboratory. Based on a
projected volume of 12,473 cubic yards and 2,000 drums or 28,905,800
pounds of contaminated materials at the site, incineration costs would
be approximately $28.9 million. Current projections of capacity at
ENSCO, Inc. indicate incineration of this volume would require 2 to
3 years.
ENSCO, Inc. also provides transportation services at a unit cost of
$3.25 per loaded mile. Based on the expected volume, total
transportation costs would be about $1.3 million.
3.2.2 SCA Chemical Services, Inc.
SCA Chemical Services, Inc. has been incinerating PCB-contaminated
wastes for 2 years and other waste types for 3 years. A brief summary
28
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.4
11/20/85
of this facility is presented in Table 3-2. They employ a rotary kiln
incineration system with a secondary kiln. The facility will accept
liquid and drummed solid waste materials. All solid waste must be
drummed in burnable containers prior to being transported to the
incinerator. This requirement results in additional packaging and
loading costs not required by ENSCO. Ash generated by the incineration
process is routinely disposed of in a RCRA-permitted landfill.
Discussions with Ms. Sharon Pilachowski indicate SCA's facility would
accept waste materials from the ACME Solvents site, based on existing
analytical data of these waste materials. Chloride, sulfur, and PCB
concentrations would not prohibit SCA's acceptance of the waste
materials.
The facility would be available to accept waste materials from the ACME
Solvents site beginning January 1986. Current cost of incineration at
SCA's facility are on the order of $1.12 per pound. These costs include
ash disposal. Specific costs can be provided only after analysis of the
waste materials by SCA's laboratory. Based on a projected volume of
contaminated materials at the site, incineration costs would be about
$32.37 million. Current projections of capacity at SCA's facility
indicate incineration of this volume would require 2 years.
SCA also provides transportation services using their own vehicles or
exclusive subcontractors. The charge for this service is $3.41 per
loaded mile. The total transportation charge for hauling waste from the
ACME Solvents site to the SCA incinerator would be approximately
$0.31 million.
3.2.3 Feasibility of Offsite Incineration
As previously discussed, two commercial facilities were located, that
would accept the contaminated waste materials from the ACME Solvents
site. These facilities are ENSCO, Inc. in El Dorado, Arkansas and SCA
29
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.5
11/19/85
Chemical Services, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois. Both facilities would be
available to accept contaminated waste materials from the site beginning
January 1986. Incineration of these wastes by each facility would take
approximately 2 to 3 years, assuming a constant incineration rate of the
13,139 cubic yards over a 3 year period results in a projected daily -_
incineration rate of approximately 12 cubic yards per day. This equates
to approximately one truckload of the contaminated materials per day,
assuming a 16 cubic yard capacity truck. Because neither commerical
facility has storage capacity for these materials, excavation and
removal of the contaminated materials from the site must proceed at the
same rate (16 cubic yards per day) or be stockpiled onsite if a faster
excavation rate is maintained.
3.3 ONSITE INCINERATION
Several vendors with mobile incineration capabilities were contacted.
Vendors who responded included ENSCO, Inc., Waste Tech Services, Inc.
TherraAll, Inc., Canavan Technologies, Inc., Shirco Infrared Systems,
Inc., CECOS Environmental; and Haztech. With the exception of ENSCO,
Inc., the vendors could not provide a complete onsite mobile incinerator
system within a reasonable time period for one or more of the following
reasons:
1. The incinerators were still in the design phase, (reliability
of their incineration systems has not been determined);
2. Costing information could not be provided without a site visit;
3. An incineration system could be purchased but operating
personnel would not be provided; and
4. Date of availability was unknown.
Thus, it appears that ENSCO, Inc. alone could provide the most
cost-effective and efficient mobile incineration system. Therefore only
information provided by ENSCO was used to determine the feasibility of
onsite incineration. It should be noted that several vendors may be
able to provide an acceptable system in the future and could be
considered during actual mobile incinerator selection.
30
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.6
11/20/85
3.3.1 ENSCO. Inc.
ENSCO, Inc. has been providing incineration services involving PCB
destruction since 1981. Currently ENSCO has two mobile rotary kiln
incinerators capable of incinerating solids, liquids, and sludges.
These incinerators are currently in operation onsite at two locations in
the United States. These incinerators can be equipped with shredders to
handle drums buried onsite. Both incinerators are available for lease
as of the first quarter of 1986, provided that ENSCO is contacted by
October 1, 1985. According to ENSCO personnel, a third rotary kiln
mobile incineration unit, currently being manufactured, of equal
capability to the existing units should be available during the same
time period. Two additional incinerators that could handle only liquid
wastes should also be available for the first quarter of 1986.
ENSCO would provide normal routine permitting assistance to its client.
The permitting fee is included in the base cost to incinerate the
material. The time required to obtain the permits would be determined
by the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, generally
ranging from 6 months to 2 years.
ENSCO's costs to incinerate contaminated wastes are based on the weight
or volume of material to be incinerated. This base cost estimate
includes assistance in permitting, mobilization, demobilization, set-up
of incinerator, operating, personnel, incineration of contaminated
wastes, and environmental emissions control. The base cost would be
about $800 per cubic yard of material to be incinerated. ENSCO could
provide a more accurate cost estimate after a site visit to determine
specific site conditions. The total volume of contaminated waste to be
removed is approximately 12,473 cubic yards and 2,000 drums, which
translates to a cost of $10.51 million for onsite incineration.
The maximum capacity of ENSCO's rotary kiln incinerator is approximately
100 cubic yards per day. The estimated incineration time, after permits
31
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.7
11/20/85
have been secured and the incinerator is onsite, is approximately
9 months. The estimated incineration time is based upon a 25 percent
downtime for the incinerator and the characteristics of the wastes to be
incinerated.
3.3.2 Feasibility of Onsite Incineration
As discussed in Section 3.3.1 ENSCO could provide complete onsite
incineration services. ENSCO would be available the first quarter of
1986. Their rotary kiln incinerator can handle solids, liquids, and
sludges. Concentration of PCB's, chlorides, and sulfur in the
contaminated wastes would not prohibit the implementation of onsite
incinerator. The estimated incineration time would be approximately
9 months. Assuming a constant incineration rate of the waste over a
9-month period results in a projected daily average incineration rate of
80 to 100 cubic yards per day. A track mounted backhoe could be used to
excavate 100 to 200 cubic yards of contamination wastes per day so that
extensive stock piling would not be required.
Uncertainties regarding availability, permitting, test burn results,
local opposition, operation and delisting of the ash/decontaminated soil
exist for onsite incineration. These uncertainties may impact the cost
and schedule and potentially even the implementation of onsite
incineration.
3.4 OFFSITE VERSUS ONSITE INCINERATION
Summarizations of offsite and onsite incineration capabilities and costs
are presented in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The time required to obtain
necessary state and federal permits in addition to the availability of
units may delay implementation of onsite incineration as much as
2 years. Thus, completion of incineration would take approximately
3 years.
32
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.8
11/25/85
The primary purpose of the cost estimates provided in this report is to
allow a comparison of alternatives. These estimates do not represent
the actual expected costs. In order to provide actual cost estimates
additional data is required including a complete waste characterization,
refined volume estimates and preliminary concept designs of the remedial
actions.
The unit costs presented have been obtained from vendors where possible.
Time and data limitations and unreturned calls limited detailed discus-
sions with commercial vendors. Most vendors were hesitant to provide
unit costs and generally qualified the numbers as gross estimates.
Another problem which arose was apparently due to TEPA's solicitation
for cost estimates from the same vendors. ENSCO, Inc. increased their
cost estimates after they were contacted by the Agency.
As an example, for onsite incineration contacts with vendors yielded
cost estimates ranging from $300 to $1,300 per cubic yard.
3.5 ASH/DECONTAMINATED SOIL DISPOSAL
As discussed previously in Section 2.0, waste samples were subjected to
incineration conditions in the laboratory. The resulting ash/
decontaminated soil was tested for EP toxicity and consistently proved
to be well below EPA limits for hazardous waste classification.
Assuming the ash/decontaminated soil can be delisted as a hazardous
waste based on EP toxicity results, the ash/decontaminated soil can be
used for backfill and regrading purposes onsite. Use of the ash as
backfill will result in cost reduction for ash disposal.
3.6 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Based upon the above estimated costs and uncertainties, other treatment
and/or disposal technologies should be investigated for Che elevated
contaminated materials at the ACME Solvents site.
33
-------
ACME-S.3/INC3.9
11/20/85
These technologies could include:
solidification;
encapsulation;
soil flushing;
microbiological degradation; and
offsite landfill.
34
-------
ACME-S.3/VTB3-3.1
11/20/85
Table 3-3. Summary of Offsite and Onsite Incineration Capabilities
Offsite
Incinerator
Onsite
Incinerator
Availability
Incineration Rate
Implementation Time
Cost
January 1986
25 cubic yards per day
2 to 3 years
$28.91 to 32.37 million
January - April 1986
80 to 100 cubic yards per day
(maximum)
2 to 3 years
$10.51 million
Source: ESE, 1985.
35
-------
ACME-S.3/VTB3-4.1
11/20/85
Table 3-4. Summary of Offsite and Onsite Incineration Costs
Offsite Onsite
Incineration Incineration
($MM) ($MM)
Site Preparation Mobilization
Excavation
Packaging and Loading
Transportation (Onsite)
Transportation (Offsite)
Incineration
Ash Disposal
Site Reclamation
0.04
0.37
0.23
0.31
32.37
0.02
$33.34
0.04
0.37
0.07
0.36*
10.51
0.83t
0.02
$12.20
* Ash transport to offsite landfill.
t Offsite disposal in RCRA landfill.
Source: ESE, 1985.
36
-------
EPA/540/2-89/031
SUPERFUNDTREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Vesta Technology, Ltd. 'Trial Burn Test Report, Part I - Data Summaries." Draft report
of approximately 25 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region IV, March 1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Ttestability Clearinghouse - EZUY
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process: Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Vesta Technology, Ltd. "Trial Burn Test Report,
Part I - Data Summaries." Draft report of approx-
imately 25 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region IV,
March 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Ned Jessup
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-4727
Site Name: Aberdeen, NC, Superfund Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Aberdeen, NC
BACKGROUND; This treatability study summary reports on the results of a
trial burn of pesticide-contaminated soil from the Aberdeen, NC Superfund
site. The trial burn using the Vesta mobile rotary kiln incinerator was
designed to demonstrate that this system can destroy the pesticides in a
manner consistent with RCRA standards.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The soil vas fed to the incinerator at rates of
960 to 1023 pounds per hour. There were three trial runs completed, each
for approximately 3 hours. No details are provided on the soil matrix or
QA/QC accomplished. Since this Trial Burn Test Report is a summary of
analytical results, additional operational information is not presented.
PERFORMANCE; The primary standards of performance were:
1. Destruction of the pesticides from the soil fed to the incinerator.
2. Destruction/removal of the designated principal organic hazardous
pollutants (POHC's).
3. Particulate stack emissions.
4. Hydrogen chloride stack emissions.
Secondary standards included:
1. Other pesticide stack emissions.
2. Carbon monoxide emissions.
3. Dioxin, furan and other chlorinated organic emissions.
The soil treated had initial concentrations of P,P-DDT and alpha-BHC of
greater than 131 and 29 ppm, respectively. The pesticides in the soil fed
to the incinerator were effectively removed, as evidenced by the removal of
the principal organic hazardous pollutants, P, P-DDT and alpha-BHC (99.993*
and 99.998* removal efficiency, respectively). All other pesticides found
in the contaminated soil were not detected in the treated soil. TCDD
(dioxins) and TCDF (furans) were not found in the treated soil. The
destruction and removal efficiency, of 99.993 percent particulate stack
emissions to .02 grains/dscf and hydrogen chloride stack emissions of 99.2
3/89-16 Document Number: EZUY
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
percent removal were in compliance with RCRA criteria for particulate stack
emissions of .08 grains/dscf and hydrogen chloride stack emissions removal
of 99 percent. Carbon monoxide stack emissions and combustion efficiency
were indicative of good combustion, except for one test run which
experienced startup difficulties. Other stack emission parameters (flow,
temperature, moisture, oxygen, and carbon dioxide) indicated successful
operation. Quality control field blanks were collected and described.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
The
Treatability Group
WOl-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
W05-Halogenated Cyclic
Aliphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
CAS Number
72-55-9
72-54-8
50-29-3
1024-57-3
1031-07-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
33213-65-9
58-89-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
959-98-8
319-86-8
Contaminants
l,l-Dichloro-2-2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethene
(4,4-DDE
l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
(4,4-DDD)
1,1,l-Trichloro-2,2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
(4,4-DDT)
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan Sulfate
Aldrin
Beta-BHC
Endosulfan II
Gamma-BHC
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Endosulfan I
Delta-BHC
3/89-16 Document Number: EZUY
NOTE: Quality assurance of data Bay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
?<%,cn 72"
P
Vesta Technology, Ltd. I#O-TS\- ftr-
2501 E. Commercial Blvd. Suite 209 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 (3051 77o-uJ30
March 2, 1987
FEDERAL EXPRESS
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV
Emergency Response and Control Section
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Attn: Mr. N.E. Jessup
Dear Ned:
Enclosed please find the preliminary draft issue of the
results from Aberdeen, which were delivered to us today.
The full manual with back-up figures etc. will be sent to
you as soon as received.
Very truly yours,
0
Vesta Technology, Ltd.
Patrick A. Phillips,
Executive Vice President
PAP:eh
enclosure
-------
RECON SYSTEMS INC.
ROUTE 202N, P.O. BOX 460, THREE BRIDGES, N.J. 0888?
NEW ENGLAND 617752-4217 RENNSYWftNIA 215-433-5511
TRIAL BURN TEST REPORT
PART I - DATA SUMMARIES
for
VESTA TECHNOLOGY
6920 N. W. 44th Court
Lauderhill, Florida 33319
Source Tested:
Mobile Incinerator
at
Aberdeen, North Carolina site
In Fulfillment of Verbal Purchase Order
RECON Project No. 2473
February 28, 1987
-------
RECON SYSTEMS, INC.
Route 202 North, P.O. Box 460
Three Bridges, N.J. 08887
201-782-5900
New England 617-752-4217 Pennsylvania 215-433-551 !
Part I
Trial Burn Test Report
for
VESTA TECHNOLOGY
Incinerator Test
at
Aberdeen, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
A trial burn in the Vesta mobile rotary kiln incinerator was
conducted on December 10, and 11, 1986, at the Aberdeen, North
Carolina superfund site, which has soil contaminated with pesticides.
The purpose of the trial burn was to demonstrate that this
incinerator system can destroy the pesticides in a manner consistent
with Federal hazardous waste (RCRA) standards. «
The trial burn plan was issued July 14, 1986. This report contains
data obtained by RECON SYSTEMS, INC. The original field and
laboratory data, calculations, calibration data, and quality
assurance/quality control package are included in a separately issued
document (PART II).
The primary standards of performance are:
1. Disappearance of the pesticides from the soil fed to the
incinerator.
2. Destruction/removal of the designated principal organic
hazardous pollutants (POHC's).
3. Particulate stack emissions.
4. Hydrogen chloride stack emissions.
ENGINEERING, CONSULTING, LABORATORY.
PILOT PLANT. I'LANT TEST SERVICES
POLLUTION CONTROL. WASTE DISPOSAL
RESOURCE KT.COVr.RY. CHEMICAL I'ROCP.SS SYSTP.MS
-------
Secondary standards include:
1. Other pesticide suack emissions.
2. Carton monoxide emissions.
3. Dioxin, furan and other chlorinated organic emissions.
Data on these parameters are reported in the summary and body of the
report.
Other stack gas and soil parameters were also measured and are
reported.
Exceptions/modifications to the trial burn plan are noted.
The report contains the following sections:
PAGE
SUMMARY 2
CERTIFICATION 5
STACK GAS VELOCITY/FLOW RATE 6
STACK GAS COMPOSITION 7
PARTICULATE, HYDROGEN CHLORIDE, DIOXIN, FURAN,
POHC AND OTHER PESTICIDE STACK EMISSIONS 8
VOLATILE CHLORINATED ORGANIC (RCl) STACK
EMISSIONS 10
CONTAMINATED SOIL ANALYSES 11
TREATED SOIL ANALYSES 12
PERFORMANCE DETERMINATION 13
TRIAL BURN PLAN EXCEPTIONS/MODIFICATIONS 15
NOMENCLATURE 18
PERSONNEL 19
-------
SUMMARY
The results of the trial burn indicate the incinerator removed the
pesticides form the soil and met the required Federal hazardous waste
(RCRA) standards.
The pesticides in the soil fed to the incinerator were effectively
removed, as evidenced by disappearance of the POHC's (a-BHC and P,P*-
DDT) :
Test No. 1 2 3
Residual a-BHC,
ppb (dry) 1.8 ND 2.5 ND 0.5
Removal of
a-BHC, % 99.9991 > 99.9988 > 99.9996
Residual P,p'-DDT,
ppb (dry) ND 2.0 ND 2.0 ND 2.0
Removal of
P,P*-DDT, % > 99.9985 > 99.9990 > 99.9933
All other pesticides found in the contaminated soil were not detected
in the treated soil. TCDD (dioxins) and TCDF (furans) were not found
in the treated soil.
The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) was found to be in
compliance with the RCRA standard of 99.99%:
a-BHC DRE, % 99.9950 > 99.9988 99.9995
P,P'-DDT DRE, % > 99.9995 > 99.9993 > 99.9931
The particulate stack emissions were found to be in compliance with
the RCRA standard of 0.08 grains/dscf corrected to 7% oxygen:
Particulate Grains/dscf
corrected to
7% 02 0.0226 0.0136 0.0180
The hydrogen chloride stack emissions were found to be in compliance
with the RCRA standards of 4 pounds/hour and 99% removal:
HC1, Pounds/hour 0.00426 0.00815 0.00511
Removal of HC1 entering
scrubber, % 99.71 99.22 99.82
-------
-3-
The carbon monoxide stack emissions and combustion efficiency (CE)
were found to be indicative of good combustion (except for Test No.
1, where startup difficulties were experienced and poor results
expected):
Carbon Monoxide,
ppmv (dry)
6250
Combustion Efficiency
(CE), % 93.506 99.999 99.999
Other stack emission parameters indicated successful operation:
Flow, scfm
Temperature, °F
Moisture, %
dxygen, %
Carbon Dioxide, %
EMISSIONS
Particulates,
Pounds/hour
Particulates,
grains/dscf
Carbon Monoxide,
Pounds/hour
Carbon Monoxide,
ppmv
Hydrogen Chloride,
Pounds/hour
Hydrogen Chloride,
ppmv
a-BHC (POHC),
Pounds/hour
P,P'-DDT (POHC),
Pounds/hour
Other Pesticides,
Pounds/hour
TCDD, (dioxin)
Pounds/hour
1710
155
26.9
8.0
9.0
0.226
0.0210
34 .2
4570
0.00426
0.44
8.21 (10~6)
ND
ND
ND
1910
148
23.3
10.0
7.2
0.135
0.0107
0.006
0.77
0.00815
0.75
ND
ND
ND
ND
1880
149
24.8
10. .8
7.0
0.159
0.0131
0.006
0.75
0.00511
4.79
0.557 (10~6)
ND
ND
ND
-------
TCDF, (furan),
Pounds/hour ND ND ND
RC1 (Volatile
Chlorinated 3rgani.cs) *
Pounds/hour 3.91 (10~5) 3.19 (10~4) 2.18 (10~4;
*Quality control blanks not exposed to the stack were found to
contain the same chlorinated organics at the same order of magnitude
or higher. This leads RECON to believe the apparent emissions
reported here are erroneous and in fact may be zero. The source of
these organics may be the contaminated site itself or the diesel
engines running during the testing, but no conclusions can be drawn.
The soil was fed to the incinerator at the rate of:
Soil,
Pounds/hour 960 1023 999
The soil contained significant moisture content:
% Mositure 13.75 12.81 15.72
ND = None detected, less than value shown (value may be
elsewhere in the report).
> = greater than or equal to
ppb = parts'per billion; on wet sample unless otherwise noted.
ppmv = parts per million, by volume; on wet gas unless otherwise
noted.
-------
CERTIFICATION
This report is submitted by:
Richard F. Toro, M.Ch.E. Frank W. Swetits,
Executive Vice President Manager Field Testing
I am responsible charge of RECON's stack test work, and have
discussed and reviewed the procedures and results of this set of
tests with the relevant field and laboratory personnel.
Norman J. Weinstein, Ph.D., P.E.
New Jersey License 19536
-------
-6-
STACK VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE DATA
Run No.
Date
Tirse
Stack Diameter,
in
Stack Cross
Section, sq. ft.
Barometric Pressure,
"Hg
Average Stack
Temperature, °F
Stack Pressure,
"H20
Moisture, %
Average Velocity,
ft./sec.
Actual Flow Rate,
acfm
Standard Flow Rate,
scfiu
Dry Standard Flow
Rate, dscfm
12/10/86
0935-1220
20
2.18
29.50
155
0.02
26.89
15.42
2020
1710
1250
12/11/86
1015-1320
20
2.18
30.10
148
0.03
23.32
16.66
2180
1910
1470
12/11/86
1530-1835
20
2.18
30.10
149
0.03
24.83
16.45
2150
1880
1420
Standard Conditions are 70°F, 29.92 "Hg
-------
STACK GAS COMPOSITION
Run No.
Date
Tir.e
ONSITE FYRITE
co2
. °2
N2 (By Difference)
LAB ANALYSIS**
CO2
CO
°2
N2 (By Difference)
1
12/10/86
0935-1220
9.5
11.5
79.0
9.0*
0.625*
8.0*
82.375*
2
12/11/86
1015-1320
% By Volume
(Dry Basis)
6.5
12.0
81.5
7.2
0.0001
10.0
82.8
3
12/11/86
1530-1835 '
6. 7
12.0
81.3
7.0
0.0001
10.8
82.2
Average of two measurements.
**,
Carbon monoxide analysis by Thermo Electron Model 48, non
dispersive infrared analyzer. The carbon dioxide and oxygen analyses
were by orsat.
-------
PARTICULATE, HYDROGEN CHLORIDE, TCDD. TCDF. POHC AND OTHER PESTICIDE
EMISSIONS CMM5 TRAIN)
Run No.
Date
Time
SAMPLING DATA
Nominal
Nozzle Size (in)
No. of Sampling
Points
Sampling Time,
min
Sample Volume,
dscf
% Isokinetic
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulates
Pounds/hour
Grains/dscf
Grains/dscf
@ 7% O2
Hydrogen Chloride
ppmv (wet)
Pounds/hour
POHC's
a-BHC,
Pounds/hour
P,p'-DDT,
Pounds/hour
TCDD/TCDF
TCDD, Pounds/hour
TCDF, Pounds/hour
12/10/86
0935-1220
1/4
12
150
33 . 63
109.7
0.226
0.0210
0.0226
0.44
4.26x10
-3
12/11/86
1015-1320
1/4
12
180
43.93
109.9
0.135
0.0107
0.0136
0.75
8.15X10
-3
12/11/36
1530-1S35
1/4
12
180
42.26
109.3
0.159
0.0131
0.0180
4.79
5.11xlO~2
8.21 (10~6) ND 2.13 (10~6) 0.557 (10~6)
ND 5.13 (10~7) ND 1.28 (10~7) ND 1.72 (10~6)
ND 2 (10~9) ND 2 (10~9) ND 1 (10~9)
ND 1 (10~9) ND 1 (10~9) ND 1 (10"9)
-------
-9-
Other Pesticides
g-BHC ' 1.28 (10~5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (10~7)
B-BHC 1.28 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (10~7)
Heptachlcr 1.28 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (1CT7)
d-BHC 1.28 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (10~7)
Aldrin 1.28 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (10~7)
Heptachlcr Ecoxide 2.57 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 4.29 (10~7)
Endosulfan :' 2.57 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 8.58 (10~7)
DDE 1.28 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 8.58 (10~7)
Diendrin 2.57 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 8.58 (10"7)
Endrin 2.57 (10-5) 8.54 (10"5) 8.58 (10~7)
Endosulfan II 2.57 (10-5) 8.54 (10~5) 1.72 (10~6)
DDD 5.13 (Id-5) 8.54 (10~5) 1.72 (10~6)
DDT 5.13 (10-5) 1.28 (10~6) 1.72 (10~6)
Endrin Aldehyde 5.13 (10-5) 4.27 (10~4) 1.72 (10~6)
'Endosulfan Sulfate 1.03 (10-4) 4.27 (10~4) 1.72 (10~6)
Methoxychlor 2.57 (10~4) 2.13 (10~3) 8.58 (10~6)
Chlordane 2.57 (10-4) 2.13 (10~3) 8.58 (10~6)
Toxaphene 2.57 (10-3) 2.13 (10~2) 8.58 (10"5)
-------
-10-
70LATILE CHLORINATED ORGANIC CRC1) EMISSIONS fVOST TRAIN)
Run No.
Date
Time
SAMPLING DATA
Nozzle
No. of Sampling
Points
Sampling Time,
min
Sample Volume,
dscf
EMISSION DATA (Pounds/hour)
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
12/10/36
1118-1158
1240-1320
1335-1415
NONE
1,1,2-Trichlorotri-
fluoroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
120
2.04
3.91 (10~5)
ND
ND
ND
ND
12/11/86
1014-1054
1108-1148
1203-1243
NONE
120
2.20
7.07 (10~5)
7.10 (10~5)
1.71 (10~5)
1.55 (10~4)
5.02 (10~6)
12/11/86
1549-1629
1644-1724
1735-1815
NONE
120
2.22
i.o3
6.37 (10~5)
6.41 (10~6)
3.80
2.01
TOTAL OF THE ABOVE
3.91 (10~5)
3.19 (10~4)
2.18 (10"4)
NOTE: Quality control blanks not exposed to the stack were found to
contain the same chlorinated organics at the same order of
magnitude or higher. This leads RECON to believe the apparent
emissions reported here are erroneous and in fact may be zero.
The source of these organics may be the contaminated site
itself or the diesel engines running during the testing, but
no conclusions can be drawn.
-------
-11-
CONTAMINATED SOIL ANALYSES
Run No. 1
Date 12/10/86
Bulk Density,
Pounds/cubic foot
Keating Value,
btu/pound
83. 0
<100
Ultimate Analysis (% Dry Basis)
12/11/86
84.9
<100
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen by difference
Sulfur
Organic Chlorine
Ash
POHC Pesticides Content
a-BHC
P,p'-DDT
Other Pesticides Content
g-BHC
B-BHC
Heptachlor
d-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
DDE
Diendrin
Endrin
Endosulfan II
DDD
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosulfan Sulfate ' .
1.07
1.15
0.05
1.62
0. 13
0.15
95.83
100.00
(ppb, Drv Basis)
198,900
129,600
(ppb, Drv Basis)
34269
45282
54895
78215
330
330
330
5071
3567
330
7241
111665
330
330
1.01
1.19
0.05
1.49
0.12
0.10
96.04
100.00
206,800
200,600
26393
40726
23617
39127
330
330
330
6194
4206
330
12740
117846 '
330
330
12/11/86
86. 1
<100
0.64
0.97
0.04
3.21
0.13
0.28
94.73
100.00
131,800
29,670
20825
22711
11756
26054
330
330
330
7835
4187
330
2008
181366
330
330
-------
TREATED SOIL ANALYSES
Run No. 1 2
Date 12/10/36 12/11/86
?OHC Pesticides Content (ppb. Dry Basis)
a-SHC
P,?'-DDT
Other Pesticides Content (
g-BHC
B-BHC
Heptachlor
d-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
DDE
Diendrin
Endrin
Endosulfan II
DDD
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Dioxin/Furan Content fppb.
TCD Dioxin
TCD Furan
1.8
ND
DDb,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dry
ND
ND
2 .0
Dry Basis)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
10
10
100
Basis)
0.17
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
2.0
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
10
10
100
0.04
0.031
12/11/86
ND 0.5
ND 2 . 0
ND 0.5
ND 0.5
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
ND 10
ND 10
ND 100
0.069
0.036
-------
-13-
PERFORMANCE DETERMINATIONS
Run No. .1 2 3
Date 12/10/86 12/11/86 12/11/86
POHC Removal From Soil
a-3HC, Inlet ppfa
a-BHC, Outlet ppb
a-BHC, % Removal
P, p]-DDT, Inlet ppb
P,P|-DDT, Outlet ppb
P,p'-DDT, % Removal
198 ,900
1.8
99.9991
129,600
ND 2.0
> 99.9985
206,800
ND 2. 5
> 99.9988
200,600
ND 2. 0
> 99 . 9990
131,800
ND 0.5
> 99.9996
29, 670
ND 2.0
> 99 .9933
Destruction/Removal Efficiency (DRE)
a-BHC, Inlet
Pounds/hour 0.1647 0.1844 0.1110
a-BHC, Stack
Pounds/hour 8.21 (10~6) ND 2.13 (10~6) 0.557 (10~6)
a-BHC, % ORE 99.9950 > 99.9988 99.9995
P,P'-DDT Stack,
Pounds/hour 0.1073 0.1789 0.0250
P,P'-DDT Stack,
Pounds/hour ND 5.13 (10~7) ND 1.28 (10~7) ND 1.72 (10~6)
P,P -DDT % DRE > 99.9995 > 99.9993 > 99.9931
HC1 Removal Efficiency
Equivalent HC1, Inlet
Pounds/hour 1.48 1.05 2.88
HC1, Stack
Pounds/hour 0.00426 0.00815 0.00511
HC1, % Removal
Efficiency 99.71 99.22 99.82
Combustion Efficiency
Carbon Dioxide,
% Dry 9.0 7.2 7.0
Carbon Monoxide,
% Dry 0.625 0.0001 0.0001
Combustion Efficiency,
% ( C-^- ) 93..506 99.999 99.999
CO 4- CO2
-------
Particulate ^.rissions
Particulates
Grains/ascf
% Oxygen
Oxygen Co^^^ccic;
0.0210
8.0
1 Factor
1.077
0.0107
10. 0
1.273
0.0131
10.8
1.373
21-% 02
Corrected Particulates,
Grains/dscf 0.0226 0.0136 0.0180
-------
TRIAL BURN PLAN EXCEPTIONS/MODIFICATIONS
The details of the testing procedures are outlined in the trial burn
plan dated July 14, 1986.
Due to the operational characteristics as carried out at the burn
site,1 various changes were made to the plan.
These are summarized in the following letter to the US EPA.
In particular, it should be noted that the various scrubber waters
were not analyzed since the system was not in steady state, but
rather a closed loop. Analyses under such conditions could not be
interpreted. Propane was used instead of fuel oil, so it was not
analyzed.
-------
RECON SYSTEMS, INC.
Route 202 North, P.O. Box 460
Three Bridges, N.J 08887
20I-7S2-5900
-16-
\e\v England 617-752-4217 Pennsylvania 215-433-551 1
January 19, 1987
Mr. P. Clyde Johnson
Staff Geologist
U. S. E.P.A. Technical Assistance Team
4329 Memorial Drive, Suite C
Decatur, GA 30032
RE: Vesta Technologies
The Pit, Aberdeen/N-.'C.
RECON Project No.(2473
Dear Mr. Johnson:
A table has been set up to clarify the analyses we will be
running on the samples that we took at Aberdeen, NC on the 10th
and the llth of December, 1986 from the test burn of contaminated
soil by Vesta. Changes in the analyses to be performed and types
of samples to be analyzed were made from the original protocol
after observing and discussing incinerator operation. All
samples that were taken during the testing period, whether on the
list to be analyzed or not (of which you have duplicates) , will
be held for 90 days after report submittal. Certain types of
samples, though omitted from the original protocol, could
contribute to, or contain contaminants from the system and will
be analyzed for these contaminants. Other types of samples
seemed not to have any way to contribute or detract from the
contaminant concentration in the system. An example of the types
of samples that are going to be held but not analyzed is the
"purge water" which, after observing and discussing the system
operation, turned out to be scrubber water in' a closed loop
system.
Below is a table describing the sample type, whether sample was
combined with other samples, etc.
F.N'(ilM.i;i
-------
Mr. Clyde Johnson
Sample Tvoe 'amount)
Ash (3)
Solids (3)
-2-
January 15, 1987
Stack gas MM-5:
Filter & Probe Rinse (3)
Field Blank Filter &
Probe Rinse (1)
Impinger & Condensate(3)
Field Blank 5% KOH and
distilled water
Florisil & XAD-2 Sorbent*(3)
Field Blank Sorbent set*(l)
Trip Blank Sorbent set(l)
Analysis
TCDD/TCDF
Organic Pesticides
Density
Organic Pesticides
Density
Heat Content
Moisture
Ash Content
Organic Chlorine
Sulfur
Elemental Composition (CHN)
Total Volatile Organics
TCDD/TCDF
Organic Pesticides
HC1
Particulates
TCDD/TCDF
Organic Pesticides
HC1
TCDD/TCDF
Organic Pesticides
Extracts from sorbent samples were combined with extracts from
filter and probe rinse samples for dioxin and pesticide deter-
minations. The field blank was treated in the same manner.
Stack gas VOST:
Condensate & Probe Rinse(3)
Field Blank DI Water (1)
Tenax/charcoal cartridges (9)
Field Blank Tenax/
charcoal cartridges (3)
Trip Blank Tenax/
charcoal cartridge (1)
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Please forward a copy of this to any of the appropriate parties
involved in this project. Should there be any questions or any
other concerns please do not hesitate to give me a call at 1-201-
782-5900. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and we
look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
PAT/clo
cc: Patrick Phillips
Patrick Mulrooney
Manager Instrument Lab
-------
s ;.;:; 3
-13-
i me
Time = military
m i n - minutes
0 F = degrees Fahrenheit
°C = degrees Centigrade
" H £ 0 = inches water (pressure or vacuum)
" H g 2 inches mercj.-y (pressure or vacuum)
mm Hg = m i I I i m e r e - s of mercury (pressure or vacuum)
3 s i 3 = pounds o pressure per square inch-gage
s q ft = square r ? e t
in = inches
micron = 10 meters
ft/sec = feet per second
ft/min = feet per -i;nute
acfm = cubic rest 3 e r minute of total gas
scfm = cubic feet per minute of total gas
Ib/hr = pounds per hour
Ib/hour pounds per hour
BTU/hr - British thermal units per hour
X = volume per cent when referred to gases
percent for solids, liquids
% vol = volume per cent
percent
of gaseous contaminants
flow
flow
a t
a t
flowing conditions
70°F, 29,92"Hg
X wgt = weight
ppmv = volumes
gas
grains = grams x 15.-
ug = micrograms = 10
rag = milligrams = 10
grains/dscf = grains
at 70°F, 29.92 "hg
gr/dscf = grains/dscf
ug/m = micrograms of
at 25°C, 760 mm Hg
and water vapor = weignt
per million volumes of total
" grams
grams
of pollutants
per cubic foot of dry stack gas
mg/l = milligrams/liter
liquid = 1.0
C = elemental carbon
C 0 j = carbon dioxide
H = elemental hydrogen
H = molecular hydrogen
water
nitrogen
N, = molecular nitrogen
N 0 x = NO + NOp = nitric
lent nitrogen dioxide.
pollutants per
of liquid =
cubic meter of
by weight if
total stack gas
specific gravity
of
H20 =
N = elemental
oxide plus nitrogen dioxide reported as equiva
S
SO.
S0
o r
elemental sulfur
= sulfur dioxide
= sulfur trioxide
S 0^ - sulfate
H 7 S 0 ^ = sulfur i c acid
H , S = hydrogen sulfide
Cl = elemental chlorine
HCl = hydrogen chloride
F = elemental fluorine
C H 4 = methane
0 = elemental oxygen
Oj = molecular oxygen
A = argon
< - less than; represents
f_ = equal to or less than
NO = none detected
Front half (dry catch particulate) particulate matter collected in/on
nozzle, probe, cyclone, flask heated hose, and filter of EPA sampling
train
Sack Half (wet catch particulate) - material collected in impingers after
filter of EPA sampling train
or chloride
fluoride
the minimum detectability limits
Organic wet catch =
residue after low temperature (70°F) evaporation of
ether/chloroform used to extract soluble materials
from the wet catch
residue after high temperature (220°F) evaporation of
water left after e t h e r / ch I o ro f o rm extraction
Aqueous wet catch =
Combustibles - volatiles - loss on heating
100°C
Ash = residue after heating 3550.
550 C after drying a
*352
January 1986
-------
-19-
PERSONNEL AND CLIENT OBSERVERS
RECON Field Test: Personnel:
Client Personnel:
Peter F. Marshall
Frank W. Swetits
Patrick J. Mulrooney
C. David Ruff
Peter L. Rosen
William L. Hart
Patrick Phillips
Observing Agencies:
US EPA
Agency Personnel:
Ned Jessup
P. Clyde Johnson
-------
EPA/540/2-89/030
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
NUS Corporation. "Leetown Pesticide Site Treatability Study." Four progress reports
in internal memorandum form. 62 pp. (total). Written under EPA Contract
July 1986 - January 1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Super-fund Treatability Clearinghouse - EZUU
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process: Biological - Aerobic and Anaerobic
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: NUS Corporation. "Leetown Pesticide Site
Treatability Study." Four progress reports in
internal memorandum form. 62 pp. (total). Written
under EPA Contract. July 1986 - January 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: William Hagel
Regional Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9800
Site Name: Leetown Pesticide Site, Leetown, WV (NPL)
Location of Test: NUS, Pittsburgh, PA
BACKGROUND; This document is composed of a series of progress reports
pertaining to a bench-scale treatability study which utilized biodegrada-
tion to remediate pesticide contaminated soils (DDT and DDE) at the Leetown
Pesticide NPL site. Treatment consisted of aerobic, anaerobic and fungal
processes to biodegrade the DDT and DDE.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; Nutrients such as manure, sewage sludge and wood
chips were added to the soils to promote the growth of microbes capable of
degrading the pesticides. More than 400 biodegradation cells were used over
4 test periods. Efforts to control temperature, pH and moisture content
were attempted during the study. One report states that DDT degradation
appears to take place at 35° under anaerobic conditions and that DDE
degradation takes place in acidic media. The microbes used in the test
were not specified but are indigenous to the site. Baseline DDT and DDE
levels were approximately 7,000 ug of DDT per Kg soil and 1000 ug of DDE
per Kg of soil.
An extraction procedure with hexane done on the soil to analyze for DDT
was criticized for being a quick and dirty extraction with no cleanup of
the extract. Other concerns reported were strongly sorbed compounds may
not be detected, interference from naturally occurring organic matter could
skew the results and lack of standard analytical protocols could introduce
extraneous variables into the data. Specific information pertaining to the
quantity or type of contaminated soils was not included in the report.
PERFORMANCE; In December of 1986 an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the
results was conducted to determine if there is any statistically signifi-
cant difference between the various samples collected from each of the
different treatment cells and to determine if there is a significant
difference in DDT and DDE concentrations from one cell treatment to the
next. The ANOVA indicated there is no significant difference between the
3/89-21 Document Number: EZUU
NOTE: Quality assurance of data nay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
various cell configurations. Hence the average concentration calculated
for each cell configuration is representative of the population mean. A
review of the sampling data reported in the December 30th progress report
suggests that anaerobic vessels operating under incubated conditions
represented the best method of degrading DDT in the soils. The authors
report that the indigenous microbial populations can be used to degrade DDT
at the Leetown Pesticide Site. A preliminary estimate of the time for this
process to reduce DDT plus DDE to desired action levels of 300 ug/kg of
total DDT and metabolites was 8 months. Both DDT and DDE are degraded
under anaerobic conditions, and anaerobic vessels operating under incubated
conditions represent the best method of degrading DDT. Further work was
recommended on the toxicity and environmental mobility of the metabolites
present from the recommended composting scheme as well as controlled bench
and pilot testing.
No QA/QC procedures were reported; however, quality control issues
were discussed and this work was done under an EPA contract.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
The
Treatability Group
WOl-Halogenated
Nonpolar Aromatic
Compounds
CAS Number
50-29-3
72-55-9
Contaminant
l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis
(A-chlorophenyl)ethane
(4,4-DDT)
l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis
(A-chlorophenyl)ethene
(4,4-DDE)
3/89-21 Document Number: EZUU
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
IMUS
INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
CXDRPCFUXTON
TO: FILE DATE: JULY 9. 1986 ~ ~ &2.U (4
FROM: *HKMT J. HJBBARDX$ COPIES: D. BRENNEMAN
D. MACINTYRE
H. ROFFMAN
J. GEORGE
SUBJECT: LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY - PROGRESS REPORT
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 65-3L52
NUS PROJECT NUMBER S794.14
A brief synopsis of the status of the Leetown Pesticide Site TreatabHlty
Study follows:
0 One hundred and thirty (130) reaction vessels (blodegradatlon cells) were
generated from June 25 through June 28, 1986.
Twenty cells were deleted from the original scope of work as a result of
the offensive nature of the matrix (I.e., odlferous aerobic sewage sludge
cells were eschewed).
Generation of all other cells proceeded without difficulty with the
following exception: gypsum was found to be an Inappropriate
acidification substance. On reexamlnatlon Is Is recognized that this
salt (calcium sulfate) Is generated from both a strong base and a strong
add. Hence, the pH of the soil matrix achieved through addition of this
substance was 1n the neutral range (pH = 6.5). Aluminum sulfate was sub-
stituted as an acldlfler. Aluminum Ions successfully compete with
hydronium Ions for available exchange sites. Soil reaction of pH * 4.5
was easily achieved through addition of aluminum sulfate.
t The heat Input to the Incubation vessel was gradually adjusted until a
constant temperature of 94 °F was achieved. The aerobic reaction vessels
experienced loss of soil moisture over the first four or five days of the
study. This required addition of additional deionized water. This
moisture loss has been mitigated through capping. Mason jar Hds have
been placed loosely over the vessels. The lids are removed once dally
(during daily inspection) to Introduce new air to the vessels.
0 No loss of soil moisture 1s evident 1n the ambient (bench top) vessels.
The pre-humidified air supplied to the enclosures is working as planned.
0 To date, no evidence of gas generation is evident in any of the flooded
(anaerobic) vessels.
-------
t Evidence of growth of Microorganisms 1s evident 1n a number of the
aerobic cells* however. Mycelium are apparent 1n a number of the pH «
4.5 cells (I.e., the fungal cells). A crusty substance similar to a
lichen In appearance has been noted In several of the pH * 7.0 cells.
Although no evidence of degradation will be available until the first
samples are analyzed 1n late July, the growth of the different organisms
under the different conditions appears promising.
The results for the Initial (t « 0) samples are attached. Note the
consistency In the results between replicates for each sample batch. This
1s considered an Indication that the mixing process was thorough and
adequate to assure statistically useful results.
A lab logbook 1s being kept that contains more detailed Information regarding
the study. I have learned that our laboratory has an NRC license, thus we
should have no difficulty 1n obtaining the radlolabeled pesticides for the
carbon 14 study. As Indicated 1n the work plan, this phase of the study will
not be undertaken until the results at the end of the first 30-day period
(approximately July 30) have been obtained. This should give us some Insight
as to which combination of variables warrants more explicit study.
-------
NUS
CORPORATION C-34-8-6-182
=>ARK WEST TWO
CLIFF MINE ROAD
PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 1 5S75-1 O71
August 14, 1986
NUS Project No. S794.14
Ms. Laura Booranzian
Regional Site Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Subject: Leetown Pesticide Site, WV
EPA Work Assignment No. 95-3L52.1
Treatabilty Study Status Meeting -
August 13, 1986
Dear Laura:
This correspondence includes a brief summary of the points raised during our
meeting on August 13, 1986, regarding the ongoing treatability study of
microbial degradation of pesticides in the Leetown Site soils. This meeting
was attended by the following:
Ms. Laura Boornazian EPA Region III Regional Site Project Officer
Dr. Richard Brunker EPA Region III Toxicologist
Mr. Robert Hubbard NUS Chemical Engineer, Technical Project Lead
Mr. John George NUS Project Manager
Dr. Brunker generally approved of the experimental set-up in the NUS
Laboratory Services (LSD) facility, and of the manner in which Mr. Hubbard had
documented the study thus far. One area of concern appeared to be the
assurance that soil reaction (pH) in the test cells was being adequately
maintained. NUS should verify that the buffers used remain effective in
maintaining the desired pH over the course of the study by periodic pH
measurements. In addition, NUS should validate the procedure used to
determine soil pH; in particular, NUS should investigate whether the quantity
of soil used in making up the slurry for pH testing has any bearing on the pH
measured. Cells should also be configured and exposed to sunlight to test the
utility of photolytic degradation of the pesticides as a treatment technology.
This will be done by placing soil in aluminum roasting pans, covered with a
celophane wrap and exposing them to sunlight with frequent mixing of the
soils.
Administratively, we agreed that NUS would continue the present study, with
sample collection from the cells at the end of August and during mid-
September, in anticipation of possible termination or interruption of the
study with the close of the REM/FIT Contract on September 30. The EPA trailer
which houses the GC used in analyzing the samples will be returned to the EPA
A Halliburton Company
-------
C-34-8-6-182
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
August 14, 1986 - Page Two
in mid-September. An adequate allowance will be made in scheduling sample
collection in September to ensure that these samples can be analyzed via the
EPA lab. NUS is investigating the possible use of a similar GC owned by NUS
and presently onsite in Michigan. Under REM III, use of this equipment
requires negotiation of a rental rate with EBASCO and the EPA.
Although preliminary quantitative results were incomplete from the analysis of
the first set of soil samples (t = 30 days), there appears to be some evidence
of decay in the initial pesticide concentrations in some of the cells. Final
preliminary quantitative results should be available by today. However,
adequate data are not expected to enable NUS to establish a time rate of decay
of the pesticides in order to determine whether the treatability study can be
terminated with sample collection in mid-September. The likelihood is that
at least some facet of the study will need to be continued beyond the end of
the present REM/FIT Contract. It will be necessary for us to discuss the
mechanism for transition of this work into REM III under EBASCO as soon as
possible to avoid interruption of the work. I realize, however, that no firm
commitments can be made by the Agency until the issue of Superfund
reauthorization is resolved.
We committed to submittal of a report of the initial and t = 30 days
analytical results within approximately two weeks.
The remainder of our meeting was devoted to a discussion of the experimental
protocols for the radio-isotope study. Dr. Brunker indicated that the
protocols presented by Mr. Hubbard, based on a search of the literature,
appeared to be appropriate to the study. The issue of what material to use to
trap the C02 off-gas (e.g., potassium hydroxide, phenylethylamine) should be
resolved by contacting applications personnel at New England Nuclear. NUS
should be aware that the C02 trapping material may react with the
scintillation cocktail to produce "chemoluminesence" which may result in
aberrant (high) scintillation counts. The occurrence of this phenomenon will
be evaluated initially by conducting "aged" counts on a single sample to see
if counts drop off after time, indicative of the phenomenon.
We then discussed the amount of the isotope to use. NUS will be obtaining
uniformly ring-labeled DDT and DDE. Approximately one micro-Curie of each
will be obtained. When ready for use, the radio-isotopes will be mixed with
distilled water and diluted to a concentration sufficient to produce about 100
counts per minute (cpm) in the C02 collected. The actual amount of the
isotope/distilled water mixture to be added to the soil samples will be
dependent upon the concentration of the mixture, the assumed decay rate (and
thus the labeled C02 generation rate) of the pesticides, and the interval over
which the C02 trap will remain in contact with the atmosphere in the reaction
vessel between scintillation counts. Mr. Hubbard will make the necessary
calculations after he has had an opportunity to review the initial analytical
results relative to the decay rate of the pesticides, and will submit them to
Dr. Brunker for review.
NUS CORPORATION
-------
C-34-8-6-182
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
August 14, 1986 - Page Three
The estimated duration of the radio-isotope study will be about 30 days.
Counts will be made daily for the first week, and the interval between CO?
sample collections will be adjusted thereafter based on the data obtained. A
minimum of two replicates of each treatment cell will be configured.
Initiation of the study is anticipated by the week of August 25. With this
late date for initiation of the work, it is recognized that there is some risk
that the study may have to be aborted without final completion near the close
of the REM/FIT contract on September 30.
I understand from our conversation that EPA Region III is interested in having
NUS continue on this project in a design and construction capacity. This was
originally suggested in the context of the EPA "Contractor Continuity" Pilot
Program. In terms of additional work beyond the bench scale treatability
study, we discussed the need to engage in pilot-scale studies of the most
promising treatments, possibly in conjunction with further-refined bench scale
microbial degradation studies. It is possible that the pilot-scale studies
could be initiated this winter. It will be important in scheduling of such
studies, however, for us to be aware of the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) commitments for the Leetown Site regarding design
and construction.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and Dr. Brunker
for taking the time to overview the treatability study set-up and to provide
suggestions on the study.
Very truly yours, Approved for submission by:
^i*^ «**^ I rtT \ si
John George ^ David E. Maclntyre v
Project Manager Regional Manager of Projects
JAG/ jag
cc: Ed Shoener, EPA Region III
Richard Brunker, EPA Region III
Lisa Woodson, EPA Headquarters
IMUS
-------
IMUS
INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
CXDRPORATION
C-34-8-6-384
TO: FILE DATE: AUGUST 29. 1986
FROM: ROBERT J. HUBBARD/tfV/^ COPIES: D. BRENNEMAN
/ D. SENOVICH
D. NACINTYRE
H. HOFFMAN
J. GEORGE
SUBJECT: LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY PROGRESS REPORT 12
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 65-3L52
NUS PROJECT NUMBER S794.14
Reaction vessels were configured from June 25 through June 28, 1986 to study
the blodegradatlon of DDT and DDE by Indigenous soil microorganisms. The
Influence of pH, soil moisture, temperature, and various soil amendments on
the activity of such organisms was considered In devising the experimental
design. Additional details are Included 1n the file memo dated July 9, 1986
(C-34-7-6-113).
A sample was collected from each reaction vessel during the week of July 28,
1986. Samples were extracted and analyzed by Debra M. Schelb, using the gas
chromatograph 1n the mobile laboratory. Holding time requirements for
pestlclde/PCB analysis (as specified under the EPA's Contract Laboratory
Program) were satisfied.
Baseline (t«0) concentrations were determined at the time the cells were
generated. The analytical results of the baseline analyses, as well as the
results of the first sampling round (t«30 days) are Included 1n the
attachments.
Table 1 summarizes average values of the "degradation ratio" for all of the
cell configurations (5 Individual cells comprise each configuration). The
degradation ratio was devised to facilitate a statistical analysis and Is
simply the concentration of DDT and DDE at time t«30 days divided by the
concentration of the respective analyte at time t*0. Note that some of these
values exceed unity. This Is considered evidence of the heterogeneous nature
of the pesticide contamination. However, Increases 1n DDE concentrations were
noted In a number of the anaerobic cells, and this 1s not believed to be
result of matrix effects (as discussed further below).
The results were subjected to a statistical treatment (Analysis of Variance)
to confirm or negate the null hypothesis (I.e., to determine 1f variance in
sample means was caused by random fluctuations attributable to sampling and
analysis). The results of the F-test indicated that variance 1n sample means
is significant 1n all of the sets at a minimum level of significance of 0.05.
Variance 1s significant in a number of the cells at much lower probability
levels (i.e., as low as 0.005). The statistical treatment 1s outlined 1n
detail in the attached sample calculation package. Table 2 summarizes
experimental F values and literature F values for each of the sample
populations considered.
-------
Although 1t 1s apparent that non-homogeneity of contamination 1n the soil
atrlx may have had some effect on the results, several trends are evident 1n
the analytical data that provide Information regarding the applicability of
various treatment techniques at the Leetown Site. Several of the treatment
cells displayed favorable results for the degradation of both DDT and DDE. The
composition of these cells will be used as a basis for configuration of cells
for additional study using radio-labeled pesticides (I.e., ring-labeled DDT
and DDE).
Results at 30 days should be considered an Initial Indication of the success,
or lack thereof, 1n achieving degradation. At this phase of the study only a
qualitative Indication of promising degradation avenues Is necessary.
Quantitative results will be provided by the carbon 14 study through
scintillation counts (If complete mineralization occurs) or through thin layer
chromatography (1f complete breakdown to carbon dioxide and water 1s not
observed).
Figure 1 displays a schematic representation of the experimental design.
Three main branches of the experiment are shown: a fungal degradation branch;
an aerobic bacterial degradation branch; and an anaerobic bacterial
degradation branch. The analytical results for each of these 1s discussed
briefly below.
Fungal Branch (pH«4.5)
Several of the cell configurations for this branch gave favorable results
for the degradation of both DDT and DDE. It was observed that the best
results occurred 1n the cells containing only the natural soil. A possible
hypothesis Is that the presence of alternate food sources (such as the
organic material In manure) Inhibits the action of the low pH-favorlng soil
microorganisms on the pesticide compounds. It appears that Increasing the
temperature of the vessels Is detrimental to the performance of the
organisms 1n these cells.
Aerobic Bacterial Branch (pHs7)
Favorable results were also observed In several of these cells. In contrast
to the fungal cells, microorganisms operating under these conditions appear
to perform better In the presence of alternate food sources. It 1s
speculated that population growth 1s more pronounced for organisms 1n these
cells, and that they compete for any available organic molecules, Including
the pesticides. It should be noted that most of the literature reports that
aerobic bacteria are Incapable of degrading DDT. However, 1t should be
recognized that these species reside in an area with high background levels
of these organochlorlne pesticides. They are expected to be at least
tolerant of these chemicals and have hopefully developed the capacity to
enzymatically degrade them.
Some indication that degradation 1s favorable at higher temperatures is
offered by the results. However, this evidence is not considered conclusive
at this time. Difficulties were experienced in maintaining the soil
moisture of the Incubated vessels, and delonlzed water was added to the
cells on several occasions. Because of the problems with desslcatlon,
results may be less conclusive than those operating under ambient
-------
conditions. The ambient cells have not required the addition of moisture
during the period of study.
Anaerobic Cells
Degradation of DDT was evident 1n several of these cells and appears to
occur more rapidly at elevated temperatures. This 1s consistent with
observations in the lab. The Incubated anaerobic cells were generating qas
at a much earlier date than the cells at room temperature (most of the
ambient cells are still not evolving gas). DDE concentrations Increased in a
number of these cells (when contrasted with the baseline concentrations for
the amended soil matrix). This was also observed for DDT in a number of
the cells. For this reason it was considered likely that the baseline
concentrations were somewhat lower than the true values and therefore the
results from the thirty day samples were also contrasted with the baseline
concentrations for the natural soil. Although DDE concentrations were
generally lower when contrasted 1n this manner, they still did not Indicate
that any significant degradation has transpired. Overall, these results are
consistent with other studies that have shown DDE to be a predominant
degradation product of DDT under anaerobic conditions.
Summary
Based on the Initial results of the degradation study, the anaerobic branch
appears unsuitable for degrading both DDT and DDE. Some promise Is evident
for various aerobic configurations. The aerobic branches will be included 1n
the radio-labeled pesticide study. Pending the concurrence of USEPA Region
III, the following cells will be configured for the second phase of the study:
low pH cells (I.e., pH approximately 4.5) without soil amendments and neutral
pH cells (both amended and unamended cells).
occ: Laura Boornazian (EPA Region III)
Richard Brunker (EPA Region III)
-------
TABLE 1
Paqe 1
LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)*
STUDY
Fungal Cells (pHM.5)
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T*35°C
Manure (51 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (S% by weight)
T=35°C
Manure (101 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (10X by weight)
T=35°C
Manure & Mood Chips (5% by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure ft Hood Chips (5% by weight)
T*35°C
Manure & Wood Chips (10J by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure & Hood Chips (101 by weight)
DDT
0.23
0.25
0.48
0.35
0.66
1.31
0.38
0.47
0.54
1.06
DDE
0.10
1.67
0.17
0.35
0.19
1.36
0.11
0.18
0.34
1.23
T=35°C
-------
Table 1
Page 2
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH«7)**
Cell Matrix DDT DDE
Soil 0.71 0.31
Room Temperature
Soil 0.198 0.70
T«35°C
Manure (51 by weight) 2.06 0.98
Room Temperature
Manure (5X by weight) 0.33 1.62
T-35°C
Manure (10% by weight) 2.69 0.97
Room Temperature
Manure (10* by weight) 0.31 1.52
T«35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 1.06 1.74
(5i by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.28 1.59
(55 by weight)
T«35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 1.16 1.43
(101 by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.65 2 69
(101 by weight)
T=35°C
-------
Table 1
Page 3
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH=7)***
Cell Matrix DDT DDE
Soil 0.71 0.31
Room Temperature
Soil 0.198 0.70
T=35°C
Manure (5i by weight) 0.53 0.3
Room Temperature
Manure (51 by weight) 0.084 0.49
T=35°C
Manure (10% by weight) 0.43 0.32
Room Temperature
Manure (lOt by weight) 0.052 0.51
T*35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.22 0.36
(5X by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.059 0.33
(51 by weight)
T=35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.25 0.53
(10* by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.14 1.00
(10% by weight)
T=35°C
-------
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T«35°C
Manure (51 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (51 by weight)
T*35°C
Manure (10S by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (10X by weight)
T=35°C
Table 1
Paqe 4
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, HV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Aerobic Cells (pH«7)**
DDT
0.159
0.352
0.135
0.679
0.341
0.115
DDE
0.999
0.751
0.073
0.391
0.153-^
0.10
Notes:
* - DR«(CDDT * t - 30 days)/(CDDT 9 t - 0)
** - Results based on baseline concentration of amended soil
*** - Results based on baseline concentration of unamended soil
-------
TABLE 2
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, HV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS LITERATURE F VALUES
POPULATION EXPERIMENTAL F LITERATURE F
Fungal Cells
Anaerobic CellSj
(Amended Cone)
Anaerobic Cells?
(Unamended Cone)
Aerobic Cells
All Cells
(Using 1)
All Cells
(Using 2)
DDT
2.5
7.9
6.5
1.0
5.9
2.9
DDE
3.9
2.8
2.2
8.9
5.0
3.8
0.05
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.62
1.70
1.70
0.01
2.89
2.89
2.89
3.90
2.12
2.12
0.00
3.22
3.22
3.22
4.49
2.29
2.29
-------
LEGEND
F -FLOODED CONDITIONS
Mr MANURE
M^MANURE WITH WOOD CHIPS
S,- AEROBIC SEWAOE SLUOOE
^-ANAEROBIC SEWAOE SLUOOE
ft -NO AMENDMENTS
10 REPLICATES OF EACH CELL WILL BE
CONFIOUREOi 5 WILL OPERATE AT 35*C»
5 WILL OPERATE ATAPPROX. 20«C
(AMBIENT CONDITIONS).
AMENDMENTS
VARY CONCENTRATION
OF AMENDMENTS
MOISTURE
FUNGAL PATHWAY:
(AEROBIC)
TTARH |TY
(AEROBIC)
RATHWAY
CONFIGURATION
SITE. LEETOWj^WV
MCTEMAL PATHWAY
(ANAEROBIC)
FIGURE I
A HaHiburton Company
-------
PJUS
INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
CORPORATION
C-34-9-6-43
TO: FILE DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1986
FROM: jKSEirrTrHUBBARDyJ^^L COPIES: D. BRENNEMAN
X'tTy/r D> SENOVICH
SUBJECT: LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE D. MACINTYRE
TREATABILITY STUDY H. ROFFNAN
PROGRESS REPORT 13 J. GEORGE
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 65-3L52
NUS PROJECT NO. 794.14
A third round of samples were collected from the Leetown treatability study
reaction vessels from September 5, 1986 through September 18, 1986. During
the analysis of these samples, problems were encountered because of
degradation of the chromatographlc column. The column was replaced
approximately halfway through the sampling and analysis program (September 12,
1986). This event extended the period of time necessary to complete the
analytical work. No adverse effects on the analytical results are anticipated
because of this problem.
Table 1 summarizes the analytical results for all samples collected to date.
Included on the table are baseline results, results for the second sampling
round at t » 30 days, and results for the third round at t * 60 days.
During the most recent round, results for some of the cells Indicated that
matrix effects are more severe than anticipated. The concentrations 1n
several samples collected during the third sampling round were noted to be
"much higher than those determined during the second sampling round.
Difficulties were especially pronounced 1n the cells containing 10X manure by
weight (particularly those operating at the higher temperatures). The
problems with these cells are clearly attributable to matrix Interference
effects.
Table 2 presents a summary of the "degradation ratio" for both the t « 30 day
samples and the t « 60 day samples. The degradation ratios are simply the
concentrations at t - 30 days and t * 60 days divided by the baseline (t * 0)
concentration. Several points are evident from the degradation ratios
presented 1n the table. It 1s apparent that the most promising results were
obtained from the cells containing no amendments whatsoever. As discussed 1n
Progress Report 12, this 1s considered evidence that the best degradation
rates are achieved 1f alternate carbon sources are not available to the
microorganisms. In addition, 1t 1s also apparent that the cells operating at
ambient conditions also provide more favorable results. Difficulties
encountered 1n maintaining the moisture levels In the Incubated cells (T *
35°C) were not encountered 1n the cells operating at room temperature. It 1s
felt that more meaningful results will be generated with the cells operating
under ambient conditions. Since temperatures similar to those 1n the
Incubated cells (I.e., T « 35°C) will be difficult to achieve 1n the field, 1t
1s also felt that the ambient cells will provide results more consistent with
the ultimate field application of the process.
-------
C-34-9-6-43
NEMO TO: FILE
SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 - PAGE TWO
Based on the results achieved to date, the general conclusion has been reached
that the unamended samples (I.e., natural soil samples) operating at room
temperature display the most promise. Based on these Initial findings, a
decision has been made to focus the remaining study on certain cells rather
than on the entire group. During the fourth sampling round, samples will be
collected from only the unamended (or natural soil) cells. With the exception
of the anaerobic cells, only cells operating at room temperature will be
sampled. Thus a total of 4 sets of cells will be sampled. Because of the
desire to obtain more precise and representative results, 5 samples will be
collected from each of the Individual reaction vessels (5 vessels per
treatment configuration). Thus a total of 100 samples will be collected
during the fourth round. Similar samples will be collected during the 5th
sampling round 1f funds are available at' that time.
Contrast of the results obtained during the 4th and 5th sampling rounds
originally proposed for October and November should provide final, conclusive
evidence that substantial degradation has occurred In the selected cells.
Prior to expiration of the REM/FIT contract, the materials for the 14C study
were obtained. Labelled pesticides and blometrlc flasks were received from
Pathfinder Laboratories, Inc. and Bellco Glass Company, respectively. This
phase of the study will be Implemented as soon as adequate funds are available
to carry the 1sotop1c study to completion.
RJH/rjh
Att.
-------
i
^
I
?
*
T
i
n
T
7
I
*i
*
7
3
«c
1
Vft
4:
I
T
a
o
i
T
T.
^
A
t
t
z
In
a:
T
X
«
t
3
Of
T
%/t
z.
-4
T
a
T
c
dc
T
*
«
j
J
1
?
3
^
I<
y,
u
^
'
!?
t*
3
c
5
w
«
O
ft
H
j
|
f
Q
1
j
5
£
u
^j
i
3
n
w
M.
IV
f»
ujli
L
2
§
rn
!
?
8
2
I
r
? ? ?
»
-------
. 1
DDT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
ftp l of io
-------
7 1
DOT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
am
^
M. ..
Mam.fo.yt
i
j*mf_
TH
XLL1
oor
POT
POT
ppr
oor
oor
oor
oor
t«0
3,300
A; no
5,710
a
'.W
ooe
ODE
VSP
r?
BMP'.
ftir
lit
tto
TR
Ap3«fM
-------
T .
DDI AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
T»iy*c
oor
OPT
OPT
o*r
t-o
ESS:
5&SL
JJCf.
£fi£.
DQ«-
J2S&.
t-o
£KL
MO.
C2V»3
IE
L?M:
2.Z00
-------
DDT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
sMi-m*H
ttHU££.
Si
St
B^
^
£Si
pgr
Wr
nor
DOT
1,100
SL
Tgg"
yw
32GE:
us:
fcbfl
ODE
2WO
WDC
555
CllOJ
9SJO
-------
DUi AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
r~vnii
Sttittl
MK-T-t-fr'
Hams.
&
-------
Ar
DDT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
-------
"VP
DDT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
.^ rr2s<; !3i
H5S=
M .^ ^/,
" fclT VA
c
£1
« a
m>-r
OOT
ppr
POT
oor
nor
"Bpr"
POT
oor
TM:
tr«o
33S-
1,1 ro
190
kXJ.
3S
IB£
3MI
g«E
2as;
«MP«.
TTOI
Tg~
SLua
JJ1JL
HgMT
£tfiUi
OflU.
2aE
^
_ j?ee_
iBfe!
Pflg"
wr
t-o
t-V)
fio
ISO
690
5*0
ISO
-------
rr . .
Dbi AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
-------
DDT AND DDE CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
s
-------
TABLE 2
Page 1
LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROSIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)*
Fungal Cells (pH=4.5)
Cell Matrix DDT DDE
t*60 'FIO t=60
7
Soil 0.23 Or05T f 0.10
Room Temperature 0.^'' O.'O
Soil 0.25 0.27 1.67 0.77
T=35°C
Manure (5X by weight) 0.48 0.32 0.17 0.36
Room Temperature
Manure (5% by weight) 0.35 2.12 0.35 4.50
T=35°C
Manure (10X by weight) 0.66 0.871 0.19 0.93
Room Temperature
Manure (10* by weight) 1.31 5.71 1.36 7.87
T-35°C
Manure & Wood Chips 0.38 0.28 0.11 0.27
(5* by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure & Wood Chips 0.47 0.71 0.18 0.66
(5% by weight)
T=35°C
Manure & Wood Chips 0.54 0.60 0.34 0.60
(10% by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure & Wood Chips 1.06 U 1.23 U
(10% by weight)
T=35°C
-------
Table 2
Page 2
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, HV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH=7)
Cell Matrix DDT DDE
t*60 F?0 t=60
Soil 0.71 0.11 0.31 0.18
Room Temperature
Soil 0.20 0.08 0.70 0.28
T=35°C
Manure (5X by weight) 2.06 0.34 0.98 1.25
Room Temperature
Manure (5t by weight) 0.33 0.24 1.62 1.81
T=35°C
Manure (10S by weight) 2.69 2.48 0.97 0.93
Room Temperature
Manure (10X by weight) 0.31 0.26 1.52 1.13
T=35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 1.06 0.54 1.74 0.55
(52 by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.28 0.28 1.59 1.65
(52 by weight)
T=35°C
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 1.16 0.40 1.43 0.95
(10* by weight)
Room Temperature
Anaerobic Sewage Sludge 0.65 0.27 2.69 1.56
(10% by weight)
T=35°C
-------
Table 2
Page 3
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Aerobic Cells (pH=7)
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T=35°C
Manure (5X by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (51 by weight)
T=35°C
Manure (101 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (10J by weight)
T=35°C
DDT
t=30
0.16
0.35
Jl**!^
0.51-2.
;£/
jQ<34
2- (8
JW2
o-7/fc
t»60
0.20
0.41
0.75
1.20
2.28
5.81
DDE
FIO t»60
0.06 0.25
0.75 1.15
JM)7" 0.36
ji^ar 2.06
1.^9
JM^ 1.16
,JMe 7.06
Notes:
- DR=(CDDT & t « 30 days or t = 60 days)/(C
DDT
0)
U - results unavailable. Sample extracts Inadvertently destroyed.
-------
v»
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
839 BESTGATE ROAD
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
301-224-2740
FTS-922-3752
DATE
November 26, 1986
SUBJECT: Leetown Pesticide Treatability Study Data
FROM
TO
THRU
Diana Pickens (3ES23)
Chemist
Laura Boornazian (3HW21)
Site Response Section
Patricia J. Krantz
Chief, Quality Assurance Section
As per your request, I have reviewed the data presented for t=0
to t=60 day from the Leetown Treatability Study. The information
you sent plus verbal input from John Austin is the basis for
this response.
The sample analysis done by NUS is a quick and dirty extraction
with hexane. No cleanup of the extract is done. The identifi-
cation of the pesticides is based on a one column confirmation.
Although cost effective, the risks of relying on this data are:
1. Strongly sorbed compounds may not be detected. DOT and
metabolites are likely to fall into this category. The reported
results may be low estimates of the actual concentration present.
2. Lack of extract cleanup allows interferences from naturally
occurring organic matter to interfere with both identification
and quantisation of the target compounds.
3. Lack of standardized analytical protocol used in the mobile lab
may introduce extraneous variability into the data set.
The analyses which will be performed by CRL as a lab split may
provide some information to support the original feasibility design.
CRL will utilize an exhaustive soxhlet extraction protocol and any
necessary cleanups. The reported values will contain an estimate of
even highly-sorbed constituents without counting extraneous organic
matter as DDT or metabolites. If necessary, confirmation of the
presence of interferences after routine cleanups may be obtained
using an ion chromatograph at CRL. Since the data from the NUS-CRL
lab split will be obtained through entirely different protocols,
their results may not agree. Keep in mind that the data will be
useful to determine which modifications (if any), are appropriate
for future analytical work for this study.
-------
In addition to analytical comments, I offer the following feedback.
It is very difficult to see trends in the data using a table of
"degredation ratios". Page 4-9 discusses use of ANOVA. I strongly
recommend presenting the data using ANOVA. It is entirely possible
(and likely) that the values which appear to be "creating" DDT and/or
DDE are actually values containing false positives due to the organic
matter in the samples. I do not agree with the proposal to ignore
these study cells based on the information presented.
I recommend two action items to help define the quality of data in
the presented tables:
1. Description of actual methodology and routine QC performed in
the mobile lab; and
2. ANOVA results in tabular form.
These two pieces in addition to the results of the lab split will be
very beneficial in overall interpretation of the treatability data.
It may be appropriate to request ESD assistance in interpretation
once all the additional information is combined.
cc: John Austin (3ES21)
Rosemary Kayser
Deb Scheib , NUS Pittsburgh
DP:wbg
-------
NUS
CORPORATION
PARK WEST TWO
CL.IFF MINE ROAD
PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 1 5275-1 O71
(
-------
December 10, 1986
NUSP/86-0293
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
Twelve (12) samples were shipped to the EPA Central Regional Laboratory (CRL)
in Annapolis on December 9, 1986 for confirmatory analysis. Ten samples were
submitted for pesticide analysis only. Two samples were submitted for full
Superfund Hazardous Substances List analysis as per your request.
One hundred samples were collected and analyzed during the most recent
sampling round, so that 12% of the samples were submitted for confirmation. A
copy of the NUS field screening extraction and analytical protocol was sent to
the EPA CRL with the samples. I have enclosed two copies of the protocol for
your information.
As per your request I have reviewed the Scope of Work outlined in the Work
Plan for the Leetown Pesticide Site Treatability Study. In addition to the
fourth sampling round, which was not included in the original scope of work,
the following deviations are noted:
The original period of performance was to have been from late June
through mid-September, constrained by the close of the contract period on
September 30, 1986. Sampling was originally to have been done at periods
of approximately 30 days, with three rounds completed by mid-September.
With the concurrence of Mr. Ed Schoener of your office we agreed to
update the progress of the work with technical memoranda following the
conclusion of analysis and quantitation of the results of each of the
sampling tasks. The artificial constraint of the end of the REM/FIT
contract was removed with the understanding that the work would proceed
beyond September, under the present REM III contract.
Two sets of cells consisting of an aerobic sludge/soil mixture were not
configured at the outset of the study. A suitable aerobic sludge could
not be obtained. Two sludges were obtained from local sewage treatment
plants but both were essentially aqueous. An attempt to filter solids
from these aqueous solutions was unsuccessful. Based on the fact that
there is no evidence indicating that aerobic microorganisms are capable
of degrading 4,4'-DDE and because a suitable sludge could not be
obtained, a decision was made to delete these cells from the study.
As per the request of Dr. Richard Brunker of your office, cells were
configured for a photolytic degradation study. These cells consisted of
ultraviolet-transmissive plastic containers. These cells were placed in
-------
December 10, 1986
NUSP/86-0293
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
an area where they would receive as much sunlight as possible (i.e., on a
roof area with a southern exposure). Unfortunately, these cells were
destroyed during a wind storm several months ago. Only baseline samples
had been collected from these cells prior to the storm.
Please contact Mr. John George or myself if you have any comments or
questions.
Very truly yours,
sf&A/MM
Robert J. Hubbard
RJH/cts
Enclosures
cc: L. J. Apoldo (Ebasco) w/encl.
File: Leetown 106-3L52
Daily
IMUS CORPORATION
-------
C-34-12-6-387
TO: FILE DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1986
FROM: ROBERT J. HUBBARD/tW>V- COPIES: A. BOMBERGER
/ r D. BRENNEMAN
SUBJECT: LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE D. MACINTYRE
TREATABILITY STUDY H. ROFFMAN
PROGRESS REPORT 14 J. GEORGE
EPA MORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 106-3L52
NUS PROJECT NO. 372Y.01
A fourth round of samples was obtained from the Leetown Pesticide Site
Treatability Study cells during the period ranging from November 25 through
December 2, 1986. Samples were analyzed using gas chromatography equipment
housed in a mobile laboratory rented from the NUS office in Lansing, Michigan
during the period from December 2 through December 8, 1986. Samples were
refrigerated during the period between sampling and analysis.
As outlined in Progress Report No. 3 (dated September 29, 1986; NUS
Correspondence No. C-34-9-6-43), four sets of five cells each were selected
for sampling and analysis during the fourth sampling round. The decision to
sample only four of the thirteen total cell configurations was based on the
fact that the selected cells had exhibited the most promising results during
the second and third sampling rounds. Some deviation to the original scope of
work was made in this respect. As outlined in the original work plan, it was
intended that all cells be sampled three times during the course of the
Treatability Study. In view of the promising results obtained for the
selected cells and as a result of the desire to collect numerous samples for
statistical analysis, 100 samples were obtained, rather than 130. In the past
only one sample had been obtained from each of the five separate cells
constituting each cell configuration. During the most recent sampling round,
a total of five samples were collected from each of the selected cells. Thus,
25 samples of each of the selected cell configurations were obtained. Split
samples were collected from some cells and submitted to the EPA laboratory in
Annapolis for confirmation analysis. The quantity of soil remaining in the
cells sampled during the fourth round may introduce some limitations on the
amount of sampling that can be conducted in the future.
The cell configurations selected for sampling and analysis were as follows:
Cell Configuration Matrix j>H Temperature Oxygen Conditions
NS-7-R-AN Natural Soil 7.0 20°C Anaerobic
NS-7-I-AN Natural Soil 7.0 35°C Anaerobic
NS-4-R-A Natural Soil 4.5 20°C Aerobic
NS-7-R-A Natural Soil 7.0 20°C Aerobic
The analytical results for each of the 25 samples from each of the above cell
configurations are included in the attached statistical summaries. The
results were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine if 1)
there is any statistically significant difference between the various samples
-------
C-34-12-6-387
NEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE TWO
collected from each of the individual treatment cells comprising each cell
configuration (i.e., does the overall average for these samples provide a
representative population mean), and 2) is there a significant difference in
DDT and DDE concentrations from one cell configuration (i.e., treatment) to
the next. To meet these objectives, ANOVA was first performed using the 5
sets of 5 sample results for each individual treatment cell. Matrices with
dimensions of 5 x 5 were generated. The results of the statistical analysis
conducted in this manner are presented on pages 3 through 8 of the attached
computer printouts. A summary of the statistical analysis for this
application is provided in Table 1. An example of one of the statistical
printouts has been included with the attachment, with hand-written notes to
clarify the information presented.
The results obtained from the aforementioned statistical analyses were then
employed to contrast the variations between the individual cell
configurations. The average values calculated from the five samples from each
individual cell in a given configuration were entered as representative
concentrations for that cell. A matrix of dimensions 4x5 was generated and
subjected to ANOVA, as shown on pages 1 and 2 of the attached printouts. The
results of the statistical comparison for the various cell configurations are
provided in Table 2.
It should be noted that during previous sampling rounds it had become evident
that matrix effects (i.e., heterogeneity in the sample cells) had resulted in
highly variable results between each of the 5 cells comprising each
configuration. In view of this difficulty, Ms. Laura Boornazian, the EPA
Regional Project Manager (RPM) at EPA Region III, suggested that a different
sampling approach be used during the fourth sampling round. Ms. Boornazian
suggested that approximately one third of the remaining soil in each cell be
removed and thoroughly mixed prior to analysis. This recommendation was
implemented, and the results obtained for samples obtained in this manner are
more consistent from one cell to the next. It is apparent that replicate
samples taken from the same cell result in a more accurate average value for a
given cell. No statistical statement can be made regarding the accuracy of
results obtained during the second and third sampling rounds because only one
sample was obtained from each cell. The results of the most recent sampling
round and the implications of these results are discussed in more detail
below.
Table 1 summarizes the statistical results for each of the four cell
configurations sampled and analyzed during the fourth round. The average
concentrations, standard deviations from the average concentration, average
degradation ratio (i.e., the average of the concentrations from the fourth
round divided by the baseline soil concentration), the standard deviation of
the degradation ratios from their population mean, and the F ratio calculated
using ANOVA are presented 1n the table. Literature values of F values are also
included on the table for comparative purposes.
-------
C-34-12-6-387
MEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE THREE
As can be seen from the tabulated values, virtually all of the F values fall
below the literature value provided for the 0.01 level of significance. This
indicates that the results for the five sets of five samples for each cell
configuration do not differ significantly from one set to the next. Hence the
average concentration calculated for each cell configuration is representative
of the population mean. Virtually the only cell in which a significant
difference in the variance between cells versus the variance within cells was
noted was in the DDE results for cell configuration NS-7-R-A. This indicates
that there is a significant difference (at the 0.001 level) between the
average concentrations for each set of 5 samples. It is apparent that some
variance was introduced during generation of these cells.
As shown on Table 2 there is a statistically significant difference between
the various cell configurations. The F Ratios calculated using the average
values for all 25 cells in each configuration are in excess of 10.0 for both
DDT and DDE. This implies that there is only a 0.11 probability that the null
hypothesis (i.e., the various cell configurations are from populations with
the same mean) is true for the different cell configurations.
The statistical results appear consistent with the expected results. The fact
that the individual results for a given cell configuration were generally
consistent validates the sample collection and analytical protocols. In
addition, it was anticipated that significant differences between various cell
configurations would be obtained. Once again, this is evident from the
statistical analysis.
It is apparent from review of the fourth round concentrations and degradation
ratios that certain cell configurations display more promising results than
others.
DDT degradation appears to be most prounounced under anaerobic
conditions at 35°C.
DDE degradation appears to be most pronounced under aerobic conditions,
at room temperature, 1n the acidic cells.
These results are generally consistent with the anticipated results. The
degradation of DDT under anaerobic conditions is documented in the literature,
whereas the acidic cells were included in the study in an attempt to induce
fungal degradation of the DDE.
Table 3 presents a summary of degradation rate constants calculated using the
baseline soil concentrations. Two values are presented, one based on the
assumption that degradation obeys zeroth order kinetics (i.e., a linear
relationship), and one based on the assumption that degradation obeys first
order kinetics (I.e., a logarithmic relationship). The Intermediate results
for these cells (I.e., those obtained during the second and third sampling
rounds) have not been Included 1n the calculation of these rate constants
because of their questionable accuracy, as previously discussed. The
expressions used to determine the rate constants are as follows:
-------
C-34-12-6-387
MEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE FOUR
Oth Order Kinetics: k = (CQ - C4)/t (linear)
1st Order Kinetics: k « ln(C0/C4)/t (logarithmic)
The Oth order rate constant is derived based on the assumption that the
degradation of DDT and DDE are independent of both the substrate (contaminant)
concentration and the concentration of the enzymes (a function of the
microbial population). The 1st order rate constant is derived based on the
assumption that the degradation rate is contingent only upon the
concentrations of DDT and DDE. Although it is likely that the rate constant
depends on both the substrate and enzyme concentrations (e.g., Michaelis-
Menton kinetics), no basis for identifying the enzyme or quantifying their
concentrations is available.
Inspection of the rate constants (for a given analyte) presented in Table 3
indicates that they are remarkably similar from one cell configuration to the
next. Thus, it appears that there may be some phenomenon causing depletion of
the contaminant concentrations other than microbial degradation. Of all the
potential explanations for such a phenomenon, evaporative losses are
considered the most plausible. Although the vapor pressures of DDT and DDE
are low, there can be no doubt that some losses because of evaporation have
occurred. Note, however, that evaporation should be greater 1n those cells
that are open to the atmosphere than in those that are sealed (i.e., the
anaerobic vessels). The analytical results do not indicate that there is a
substantial difference between the anaerobic cells versus the aerobic cells.
Thus, while evaporative losses are considered possible, there is not
overwhelming evidence of this in the analytical results.
As a result of the review of the most recent round of sampling data it is felt
that the anaerobic vessels operating under incubated conditions represents the
best method of degrading DDT. The DDT and DDE in these cells are less subject
to evaporation, yet there has apparently been substantial degradation of both
contaminants. Although the degradation of DDE in these cells 1s not as
pronounced as in the other cells, it is apparent that some degradation of DDE
has occurred. Although the Initial literature review Indicated that
degradation of DDE does not occur under anaerobic conditions, it is apparent
that degradation of DDE by microorganisms indigenous to the contaminated
Leetown soil may be Induced.
The treatabillty study thus far has Indicated that both DDT and DDE
degradation may be effected under anaerobic conditions. Robinson property
pesticide action levels (I.e., accepted pesticide residuals in soil following
treatment) have been established 1n the Record of Decision (ROD) and are noted
below:
Former Pesticide Pile Area - Total DDT and metabolites » 300 ug/kg.
Former Pesticide Mixing Area - Total DDT and metabolites * 1200 ug/kg.
-------
C-34-12-6-387
MEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE FIVE
Establishment of anaerobic, adiabatic treatment cells may be the most
effective means of reaching the desired action levels for DDT and its
metabolites. At the present time, the best degradation of both analytes has
occurred in the incubated, anaerobic vessel. The average total concentration
of DDT and DDE remaining in the incubated, anaerobic vessel after
approximately 160 days is about 820 ug/kg, based on NUS-analytical results.
Hopefully the results for the most recent round of sampling will be confirmed
in split samples submitted to the EPA Annapolis laboratory. These results
have not been received to date.
If the 1st order rate constants presented in Table 3 apply to the microbial
degradation of DDT and DDE, and if it is assumed that the composited soil from
the pesticide pile area at Leetown will be roughly similar to the baseline
concentrations of the soil composited from the Robinson property (i.e.,
approximately 7000 ug/kg DDT and 1000 ug/kg DDE) the length of time required
to reach the desired action levels may be estimated using the following
expression:
DDT(t) + DDE(t) = Action Level =
7000 ug/kg exp(-1.5x!0'2t) + 1000 ug/kg exp(-8.8x!0'3t) = 300 ug/kg
This expression does not lend itself to a closed-form solution for time (t),
but trial and error can be used to determine that approximately 8 months
(i.e., between 240 and 245 days) will be required to reach the desired action
level. The assumption of a baseline concentration of approximately 8,000
ug/kg may be lower than the actual concentration since the analytical protocol
is biased towards achieving better results at low concentrations. Previous
analytical results for split samples submitted to the Annapolis lab indicate
that the NUS field screening protocols may underestimate concentrations if
analytes are present at high levels. Thus, the operating period required to
achieve the specified action levels may be greater than that derived above.
At this point, EPA Region III will be consulted regarding the applicability of
the adiabatic, anaerobic treatment configuration, for pilot scale study.
Additional study of this cell configuration, Including further sampling and
analysis of the cells and commencement of the carbon-14 study (using at least
this configuration) may be warranted. Additional sampling of the incubated,
anaerobic cells will confirm or negate the results of the fourth sampling
round. Adequate material (soil) remains for one full laboratory analysis. If
several months are allowed to pass before additional samples are collected, it
may be possible to demonstrate that the desired action level has been achieved
or is being approached. In addition, some study of the toxldty of the
metabolites present in the Incubated, anaerobic vessel 1s probably warranted
(i.e., an Ames toxiclty test) to demonstrate that the metabolites are less
toxic than the parent compounds. It may be possible to identify some of the
metabolites through Thin Layer Chromotography (TLC) or Gas Chromotogrpahy/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS).
-------
C- 34-12-6- 387
HEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE SIX
At this point in the treatability study it is felt that the primary issue
relative to the efficacy of the microbial degradation scheme is the toxicity
and environmental mobility of the metabolites present in the incubated,
anaerobic vessels. Before any additional study of degradation (e.g., the
carbon-14 study) is undertaken, some effort should be made to ensure that the
treatment scheme results in generation of non-toxic (or less toxic, immobile)
species of chlorinated hydrocarbons. If it can be demonstrated that the
metabolites are not hazardous, further study of the degradation rates at the
bench scale will provide the information necessary to devise the pilot scale
study.
-------
TABLE 1
ANOVA BETWEEN CELLS WITHIN EACH CONFIGURATION
TREATABILITY STUDY
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE
FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND
CELL
DDT;
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
DDE:
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
AVERAGE
CONCEN.
2600
630
2200
2100
84
190
91
71
STANDARD
DEVIATION
1100
660
750
920
37
100
47
29
AVERAGE
DEGRAD.
0.38
0.092
0.33
0.31
0.11
0.24
0.12
0.092
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0.16
0.097
0.11
0.13
0.048
0.13
0.061
0.037
F RATIO
3.6
1.7
2.4
1.9
0.19
0.65
11
0.59
F VALUES
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
0.100
0.050
0.025
0.010
0.005
0.001
F VALUE
2.25
2.87
3.29
4.43
5.17
7.10
NOTES:
1. All concentrations presented 1n ug/kg (parts per billion).
2. Average degradation based on average of 25 samples divided by baseline
soil concentrations (DDT * 6822 ug/kg; DDE = 772 ug/kg).
3. Standard deviation determined using average concentatlons for all 25
cells.
4. F Values presented are for (k-1) (5-1) » 4 vertical degrees of freedom,
and k(n-l) * 5(5-1) » 20 horizontal degrees of freedom.
5. Source of F values - Standard Mathematical Tables, 22nd Ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida, 1974.
-------
TABLE 2
ANOVA BETWEEN CELL CONFIGURATIONS
TREATABILITY STUDY
LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE
FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND
AVERAGE
CONCEN.
1900
110
STANDARD
DEVIATION
560
29
AVERAGE
DEGRAD.
0.28
0.14
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0.082
0.038
F RATIO
12
17
F VALUES
NOTES:
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
0.005
0.001
F VALUE
6.30
9.00
1. All concentrations presented in ug/kg (parts per billion).
2. Average degradation based on average of 100 sample concentrations divided
by baseline soil concentrations (DDT « 6822 ug/kg; DDE - 772 ug/kg).
3. Standard deviation derived as square root of average of variances for 4
different cell configurations (25 samples per cell configuration). See
attached printouts for statistical summaries.
4. F Values presented are for (k-1) * (4-1) « 3 vertical degrees of freedom,
and k(n-l) - 4(5-1) s 16 horizontal degrees of freedom.
5. Source of F values - Standard Mathematical Tables, 22nd Ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida, 1974.
-------
ANALYTE
DDT:
CELL
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
TABLE 3
DEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS
TREATABILITY STUDY
LEETOUN PESTICIDE SITE
FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND
_____ k (Rate Constant)
OTH ORDER (ug/kg/dayj1ST ORDER (dayll)
26 6.0 x 10'3
39 1.5 x 10"2
29 7.0 x 10'3
30 7.4 x 10'3
DDE:
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
4.3
3.6
4.3
4.4
1.4 X 10'2
8.8 x 10"3
1.5 x 10
8.8 x 10
-2
-2
NOTES:
1. Rate constants derived using t = 160 days.
2. Results presented to two significant figures.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS:
1. Oth order kinetics, DDT. NS-7-R-AN:
k = (6,822 ug/kg - 2,603 ug/kg)/160 days = 26 ug/kg/day
2. 1st order kinetics, DDT, NS-7-R-AN:
k = ln((6,822 ug/kg)/(2,603 ug/kg))/160 days - 6.0 x 10'3 days'1
-------
r"UVV»90
WTO 10M
tlON ' 5/*»u2S^I2G-:1 ' I OS 3^',-"2I
-'^.'t '- I " 'A^ ~'~!I-"J r -
. f
,A,f OS t^U9!2
II
II
-------
1/10
CONCENT F^T I uN3 - L EE: TO
t.'-i.> ji iL-_L
F: E-7 1 C.- 1 DL & I U- 1 Kt i-.T -,B I L I F r
4
*-j
7
£
9
10
I 1
12
14
15
lf>
17
18
19
,_ 1
N" ^
K= 4
1
-l
-_
T
4
5
COL AVERAGE
SIGMA1 SO
SIGMnl SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA 2 SO 1
SI6MA2 SQ 2
SIGMA2 SO 3
1
1763
2780
3647
2959
1869
2603. 6
623OS8.8
31 1984.7
1 886 . 95
225OO19.
17 fit .'2 9 02
3750L- 31'.
CHEMICAL:
CELL:
<:
2 1 05
2972
202O
1754
1 63 1
2O9C.. 4
27t>6O5.3
DDT
ALL
;r
2857
16OS
2441
2018
2170
22 IB. b
218112.7
CELLS
4
1074
111
5Bfr
536
838
629
13O132
24
F RATIO:
12.<>199
H : : P. ; ; L : ; D i : E i ; F
ANALYSIS OF VAR 3 HNCE SFREADSHEET
LEfbRADAflON RATIOS - LEtlOWN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABIL. I
4
cr
^J
6,
/
8
'-i
10
1 1
i ..
14
15
lo
17
18
r-?
20
"" 1
_.. 1
-C--t,
TT
... -J'
"'4
25
*1O
T7
N= 5
f = 4
1
i
7;
4
5
CDL AVERAGE
SIGMA1 SQ
SIGMA1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA2 SQ 1
SIGMA2 SQ 2
SIGMA2 SQ 3
F RATIO:
CHEMICAL:
CELL:
1 2
. 2584286 . 3O856O5
. 4O75051 .4350494
.534594U -29610O9
.4337438 .2571094
.27396t>6 . 139uV94
. 38 1 c-47o . 30 -: 2999
.0133833 .0059434
. OO6703e?
.2765978
. O4834&2
.3825316
.0805771
12.01992
DDT
ALL CELLS
3 4
. 4187921 . 1574318
.1737030 .0162709
. 35781 3O . O85898t.
.2953077 .0735693
.3180885 . 1228379
.3252419 .O922017
. OO46866 . O027962
-------
j
-
4
-
t
7
8
V
1O
1 1
j, *.
i-*
_
j 5
3 c.
1 7
16
19
20
i i
24
j-'o
i
2
4
er
±>
8
'"T
10
1 1
1 ,
1
1 _
14
15
It.
1~
It
19
2'.'
? i
*- i
s . '
.-, , . c . . C , , :
1-1 1 -if-ii.. T .: I " _ » 1-1 r- : r- 1 < .._':. 31- Hc.> i.1 ~t '_-
C GNCEN Ts K. i Kii,v-- - L t. E KiWI"* f- 1- .- iJ.iL'L r J '
N- = LHEt-iIuML:
K --- 4 CE'LL:
1 2
1 7? 72
2 84 71
3 7t- oi.1
4 90 87
'' 9_'.o &N
COi_ AVERrtGE 84.1^ 71
SIGMA! SO 60.272 103.5
Slfihril SC> AVb 853.t2t>
OVERALL AVG 1O£..5
SIGMA2 SC1 1 bc4t..9Ol
SIGMA2 SQ 2 58861.25
S I GM-.2 SO 3 14411. 50
F RAT I LI: It- . 8B2t>°
i M , £' ! L II i ' ! '
ANALtSIb OF VARIANCE SK-REnDSHEET
J"'EGRHi)AT lUiN R^.TID^ - LEETuWfg F-'ES TIC I L»E
N- S CHEMICAL:
^ - 4 CELL:
1 2
1 . >»c-">7409 . Ov3^'t.42 .
T i (~) o q f, g ~" () o i 3 1. p o
3 .095445* .07/720.
4 . 11653O3 . 112&943 .
5 .1212431- . Oa4j.9£.9 .
COL AVERAGE . 3O89C37 . 0919&89 .
5 I GMA 1 SQ . 000 1011 . OuO 1737 .
fclbNAl SD AVC? .OO 14 323
OVERALL AVG . 1405440
SIGMA2 SQ 1 .O145086
5IGMA2 SQ 2 . O987o31
SIGMA2 SQ 3 .O241810
E. F ;
c I Rt r- , t-.i I L I T t r^
DL'L"
ALL CELLS
3 4
1 5& 1 33
cO 205
110 139
to 5 235
61 178. 4
9 L'. 8 18 8. OB
1846.7 1404.032
E : . F- ;
SITE TREATAEILI
DDL
ALL CELLS
3 4
204oci32 . 17-I79b
1424870 .2448187
I'84196C'' .3044041
i.>79ui'S5 .2310881
1 1 7 o 1 1-6 . 243o269
Ou3u9&6 . 0023558
2/10
24 F RATIO: 16.88269
26
-------
3/10
; i . C. , , I. . r , . f- II I
vVti- i rif>. IT. GT'RE Ai :.. iE.i/.T
Ni;. - LEETuWN F E 5T 1 L I I"»E Sllfc TREAT AM L I I . STUDt
4
tr
7
B
9
10
I 1
1-T
_.
14
15
It.
1"7
IS
19
f. I J
j. ' *
24
2"'"
1
*
4
S
£i
P
c.
1 O
1 1
i 2
1 -»
j _
14
15
16
1 ~
IS
19
20
""' 1
.*.. 1
, i,
4- jt,
24
^ttr
fJ= 5
f = 5
1
2
J.
4
5
Cui. AVERAC-jF
S1GMA1 SO
SI6MA1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA2 SO 1
SIGMA2 SO 2
"" 1 pi" ""' CC'
F RATIO:
A ; ; 7< . ;
CHEMICAL: DDT
CELL: NS-" -R-AN
1234
2045 3330 5125 3410
2515 2380 1955 302:0
1O90 It 7 1.; 4745 24VO
1350 1780 34O5 2370
1815 424-.) 3 4 O 5 3 1:- 2 5
17r-3 1:780 3o4/ 2959
3 1 7807 .5 11 69050 1 4 i 2920 273330
853847.5
26 07. &
249235:..
33873o65
~. 1 1 r. 4 4 4
..' J J. \ ~ ^ ^
"^ ^«^l^i * 1 """"'
r ; ; D ; ; f ; ; F ; :
tr-
3000
715
SCO
2330
25OiJ
18e>9
1091080
& ;
nr>.ALr=.i& CJF VARIANCE SPREADSHEET
DEC-F-AIjAT 1 .11- RATIOS
N=
. ~~ ._
1
±
^
-'
4
5
Cut. AVERAGE
SIGMA1 SO
SI5MA1 SQ AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA2 SO 1
SI&MH2 SL! 2
SI5MA2 SO 3
F RATIO:
-- LEFT OWN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABIi.IT
CHEMICAL: DDT
CEi.L : N5-7-R-AN
1234
. 2997o55 - 488 1 2t6 . 75 1 2460 . 4998534
.3686602 .4221630 .2865729 . 442o854
. lfic*7772 . 24479£.; .c-3c-91OO . 362C't.39
.1978892 . 2o09206 . 49912O5 . 3474O55
. 2o6O5 1 0 . o2 1 5 1 So . 499 1 2O5 . 5 1 £>7 1 06
. 258428t. . 40~- 505 1 . 534594O . 4337438
. OO68287 . 025 1194 . 0303595 . OO59& 1 6
. 01834o7
.3S1647&
. O535533
.7282745
. 06&9417
3.648712
Y STUD 7
c.822
5
. 4397537
. 1048080
. 1 172677
.3415421
. 3664614
. 2779666
.0234441
-------
4/10
H' Ji-r_ i c: '..'-
L.uNC.e.NTRi-«~i I
- i .
D , I E , . r" , , L-
01- <-\ E.111 .-"-id:. '
L'Wfj FES ILlDt SITE TREAT HC IL I T i S I'Ui.M
4
8
Cy
10
1 1
12
1 ""
1 -'
14
15
It.
17
19
24
~\rr
..- _-'
*- I. '
1
4
8
10
1 1
1 i
i
1 4
i 5
It
17
18
20
" 1
24
27
N= C< CHLMICAi_: DDE
^ = 5 CELL: NS-7-R-AN
1234
1 oO 85 80 65
2 12O 1GO 45 65
~- 11 0 o'..' 10C» 9f_.
4 5O 65 85 140
5 4b 110 70 85
CL'L AVER«6c 7"; 84 7o 9o
SIGMA I bC' 1245 4o7.5 417.5 95O
SI6MA1 Si.1 AVC-. 1558.4&
G'v'ERuLL AVB 84. 12
SlbMAl' SO 1 24 2. OSS
SIGh,-; Su J 3539O.S/
c_ T r_,N, "^ cjji ~'. ~*!O 1 . 7'..-.
F RATIO: . 1933~"O4
; -i : : r-. ; ; c , i ! ; , E i ; F : ;
ANAL i 31 3 GF V Ai\I Af-iCE SPREADSHEET
DEGRADATION RATIOS - LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABILIT
N= 5 LHEMICnL: DDE
r - 5 CELL. : N3-7-R-AU
3 I' 3 4
3 . G7772«.'2 .liulOT.o .1036269 .08419o9
2 . 15544O4 .1295337 . G5829G2 .0841*69
3 .1424570 .0777202 .1295337 . 123O57O
4 . Go476t.S .034i9c 9 .11G1G36 .1313472
5 .0581:9 u2 .14^-4870 . G9O6736 . UGlO-.o
SIuMAl SD . iiOi.oS-'i ' .'._'>."./ o44 . uoo7i.»u5 .UUl594u
STBriAl SO AViS . G026149
OVERALu. «V3 . 1G89.-..37
SI6MA2 SQ 2 . O59365S
5IGMA2 SO 3 . OGO5057
F RATIO: . 1933/o4
CT
205
93. o
4712.3
& ;
i STUDY
..
. 0336601
. O552902
. 2655440
. 1 i o55G3
-. - -r-
. 1 *- 1 »_ M -. . '
. Ou79oo8
-------
1
1
1
t
j
- 1
i-^« i
n i
'Si '
1 !
f ; L£
** 1 1
~ 1 1- 1
.A i Q in
*i i d z
i- i
i i
Ul i
i 1
!
HI I
i- 1
lil 1
^ 1 U
LJ ' 1 '""" _J
LJ ^ 1 LU _J
::: -- i i LU
CO 1)1 l CJ U
f J Ul i
'I 0. 1
^ -, '
LL "i 1
(o b i
H 1
ij lU '
Ij ^ '
H | 1
lr 1
-I 10 :
".» ~ '
o
Li. ' 1
11! 1 l
I ,
i.j LC ' ii !i
i .- 1 2 _
n .3 i
- u i
j U !
J _T
:.' '5 i
T ..J
in ui ' ,'. : :
r "i 0 i - r "> JJ
't f - It- ~" If
t O 111 /I LI 1.1
T-I 0 rO «t 0
f bl O 0- CO
T-I T-J t"4
.'"' ul L'l O til ul
LI 03 0 111 t
CI 0 ff T-I O
t't T-, r 4 r 4
IN 1,1 o u". Z' o
-t *-i -0 r 1
^ r - r - -43 r 4 *~ u". ' " j 1 4 r i
"l 0 I -I -I -f I
t-< ^- LT: F. n i: i
_i in i LJ o fn o i
i_j £; ; > h-i i ! r--, .
u iii C3 in L;', i.o ;
« i i
CO '
i
i
i
i
i - I i" 4
ii .'1
II - 1 ' J
II W 1 .LI
1 i -DIC.
II ill 1- 1
| 1 ..' }
i i -- H- !
!| ' ^ i f
1 1 U- £ 1 1
| ! H 1 -*
II 1 \ r- \
, 1 1 t 1 f "*t ' l"|
V 0 ^
| t - U, 1 i-J ji
II --Hi
i ! '
1 ! LU 1
II HI
II LU H 1
1 1 CO 1
1 ' i
I LU 1
1 1 i- 1
i i ii ! i
|| H i U
|| ;_. L- L:j i HH ..
II Lu LU ' C J
; I Ol 0. 1 OJ _!
~r~ I -1- 1 , '
| 1 -1. 1 .1. LjJ
,1 -- lO Z 1 U :_
^ II - 4: ?
Ul II -I LJ '
ul 1 i US v- i
rj- || K LU !
'^ | ; ._) LL LU i
oi ll m _i i
i i '
i 1 1 1 i 1
T- 1 J 1 UJ 1 *
i ; - '..; i
| i - - Z I/I 1 U'i Ul
. ! 0 i
HH 1 < j
1 I -i- I" '
O i ' - .-I '[i !
t4 ii ~v Lt *
y- 1 , 1
r ; i u. jJ l
IL 1 1 " --' -' !
j i n ;
ii- i i ip ': ' Ji ''
* J ! ' '-4. t £.'
i 10 ^ I
i : -r r !
! 1 - Cll .
| ' i i.'i 1
i | .JT ul 1
i i -- J C. i
U": > " .~ *-i i 4
:lj O'j l D ->
^r 111 Ui f!"! i 4
f, ^ -. ci- r-
o -< rj c O'
T-l III rf 111 «t
l"4 Ul -< -< '-<
't r "i
O t-
r- c co -7 i'~
*f *-" i r . j
f > t If - 0 O
~c, r- o i- ui
rj -o ui o o-
O til t'l T-l -1
C r; -0 KI ul
T-l fl t C CO
f. Ul =t -4- t
T-> r-4 ui i> ui ui
«f CO 0s 0^ O
:< c-4 t--. -o T-l
I'l n
ir T-«
- O
r-. r>
111 T-<
IN O
i> rt
0 CO
T-I CO
o f--
fl- r-<
1 ^
J- L1-
=t >*
ui r-
M C-
t o
ul CO i.r i> N f'-J «-*
O Ul iN O K1 -O Is*
o t-- iii o r^ o T-I
jl K' 03 CJ fs »H rx
m ui ui N t /i r-j a-
K' O O f-'"1 O «* O
uj GJ ii LD "-i r--4 M
;D to :> >
T <1 1* H *~ 1
L. ijj o in en oi
f-H
iff
Ul
Ul
f~v
GO
>
0
H-»
I
'si
01
LL
U- '.. .- M ! ' t O'l ill
- IN .", I 4 " 4 M ! '4 i J
10 ir ; -!
C-l f-J
-------
6/10
2 CON
4
tr
6
3
r-i
10
1 1
j ;
14
15
lc.
17
1 C/
1 v
.*_ A
:;4
'"t T-
i~ ~J
*- U '
LENT RAT 1 UNb - LL
N= 5
K= 5
1
Z
"^
4
5
C QL AV'EFsnGL
SIGMAl SO
SIGMA1 SO AVP
OVERALL AV(3
SIPMA2 50 1
SIGMA2 SO 2
SI6riA2 Si' 3
F RATIO:
.L i Uwi> KLbllLlut bilt
CHEMICAL:
CELL :
3 2
50 70
75 85
95 tiO
75 70
c5 7O
72 71
27i"i 3O
SS4
71
414
25205
5 1 T . 5
c~]£-l="i*V*J ^ "'
i hti-i 1 At- il_l i < t.TO.'i
DDE
U5-4-R-A
345
40 45 55
40 120 55
3O 55 4O
9o 60 65
lO'- 155 110
60 67 e>5
K>5-.'' 2307.5 712.5
; A , ! L-: 1 ; C ! ! !- i , t I ! F ; ; G 1
ANALYSIS; OF VARIANCE SPREADSHEET
DEGRADATION RATII05 - LEETTOWf^ PE&ilCIDE SITE VREAT«BILIT\ STUb't
CHEMICAL:
CEui. :
DDE
N5-4-R-A
i 5
lc.
1 7
18
21
1
1 . uo4'/ o&B
?36 .051 8135 . 05o2Vt'*l .07 12435
2 . 097 1 5O3 . 1 3 > ' 1 036 . 0'5 1 £ 1 35 .1 55 44< -4 . O ~ 1 2435
". . 123O5~<"' .("'77 "- 2 1 -I1 . O38S6O1 .07 1243'."' .u5l&135
4 . u97i503 . 0^i~'o73c. . Ilo53»"'3 . O7772i"'2 .0341.70'^
5 . O&41r?t^ . 0°i"'C. ;3o . 12V5337 . 20U777I . 14I4£",0
COL HVERnGL . O932t>4;
SISMA1 50 .OOO4530
SIGMAl SO AV6 .0014833
OVERALL AVG .0919689
SIGMA2 SO 1 . Ot»Oe>946
SIGMA2 SO 2 .0422914
SIGMA2 SO 3 . OOO8t>63
';?t.bv .0777202 . Illo943
1342 .0017613 .0033717 .0011955
24
4^*J
26
F RATIO:
. 5854072
-------
7/10
r . . r .
I ONi- - L t-E~ Cjwfv F c. I-" i i. 11'E E-1 T L 1 RE7m.. i L. "i 1 -. ^ 'L "
4
~7
Q
1O
1 i
12
1 .
A *~t
j ''
] i-.
17
15
1 9
2;J
j_ i
f = 5
1
-;
4
5
COL H'v'ElF\Hl;iE
SIGMA! SO
SI^MM! SO Mv&
0 .-'ERALL AVi?
SIRIAJ' 5O 1
S13MA2 SO 2
SIOMA1 SO 3
CHEMICAL: DI'T
CELL: K-3-7-R-A
12345
3IC'5 140<.' 3485 294O 1505
2710 13^5 1570 2450 1645
30t5 1545. 3^05 109T' 2265
22o5 1345 2920 2"53 3355
3040 1855 2325 525 20fc»
2 &-"* 16OS 2441 2>.»15 117...
142452.5 52445 594692.5 977337.5 534&OO
4c-035~.5
2255.3
571-450.5
2461 5 3&7
10905c-4.
t' , h , i _ i L> . . L ii r . . L->
ANi-iL ; '1 ~ ..jF- v-'i'-iF I Af'4._E SFREAi^oHtf'."'.
r'EGFiAF'AT I ON RMTIO;, - LEE7Gwt4 F£E'T]riE.E E'lTE TR'EATAt Ii_I T -, Z.TUL--
f4- 5 CHEMICAL : DDT 6622
! - 5 CEi.L : NS-7-R-H
12343
1 .4cv503c. .20521B4 .5103473 .4309557 .220=0^5
2 .39-2442 .2044555 .2301378 .3591322 .241 1311
3 .4492517 .22o4732 .27V243o .1597772 .3320141
4 .3320141 .27O4435 .4 280270 .4052331 .4917913
5 . 445* 17i . 271 91 44 . 34OS>"»91 . 1 rOs323 . 3O45959
.4187sll .235708'.' . 357813O . 29r.cJ07"" .3150535
S T GMA1 SO . O07a">.- 15 . OO1 12t-9 . 012"*782 . 02 1 OO>".>5 . 01 149 i 3
itiPlcil 5L1 AV'5 . OO9S91"
Cx'ERALL AVG .3252419
SIoMA2 SO 1 .O1874&4
:-IGMH2 SO 2 .5289114
STC-iMul' SO 3 .O234330
24 F RATIO: 2.368959
-------
8/10
i->i / , , I . A. , t r
r ;.i C'l 'v (-iF. i »~iN, E". SF F- F >-iI.i ::> iLC ~
EM KK, I ItiN-. - LEETUWN rE^TMil'E 5] ft 1 RE M ; ~f-. 1i_ 11 , L'.'-'.''
4
c
S
9
10
1 1
12
i ,'
14
15
It.
17
1 C'
19
-'-
-
cr
-,_
N- r.
I CT"
i o
i
Z1
T
4
c*
COi_ AVERAGE
S1GMA1 3D
SI6MA1 SC' AVb
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA2 SO 3
5IGMA2 SO 2
SIGMA2 SO 3
Fr: -* \ r-t .
r^ f-t 1 Jl L"
CHEMICALS DDE
CELL: NS-7-R-A
1234 5
215 t>O 15o SO 5O
85 50 125 4O 55
180 70 65 to7' 45
170 75 9*5 95 70
140 45 95 4'.. 35
158 &0 1 1 0 c/5 t-. i
2382.5 Io2.5 725 537.5 2&7.5
SI 5
90. 8
73S6.S
A 1 ""' ""* 7 "'
9233.5
1 1.32945
A , , I". ! ; C i . E i i E ! i F I , b 1
^ AMHL. T E.11. OF VARIANCE, SFREADSr-iEET
2 r'EL-.KAI";HT JON RulIOS - LEE TOWN PESFICir-E SITE TREAT AblLiTr STUD T
^ r-- 5 CHEMICAL: DDE 7^2
5 f = 5 CELL: N3-7-R-A
1234 r:.
o 1 . 27S4974 . 07~""202 .1943-005 . 103olo9 . ..»c 4" o&t
- 2 .1101036 .06476&a . 1&19171 .0518335 . O7i^43f.
t'-' 3 .2331606 . 0^0o73o . ll01O3c- .Ot^l^c.^ .0532902
11 4 .22O2073 .Oc?7iT,;,3 . 1230157,.) . 1I3O570 . O90o73»
1- 5 . 1E13472 .O5S2^>.'2 . 123057O . 05S2^OZ . 1 iOiO36
i. _ - ^ __ _ _ _.- _ ^ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _^ ^ _ ^ ^ ,^ __ __ _ _ __ _^ ^ _ _ __ _. _ _ __ __ ^ ._ __ _ _ ___ ^ __
1" COL AVERAGE . 204c632 .0^77202 .142487.;. .0841^6=? . iI.7C,...i55
33 SIGMA1 S(? .O03997A .0002727 .O0121&5 .OOO9019 . OO'I>4435
l£. SJGMA1 SQ AVb .OO 13675
3" OVERALL AVG .1176166
13 SJBMrtZ SO 1 .0123943
19 SIGNAL SQ 2 .0691^33
I'..' SJbMA2 SO 3 .0154929
""1 .._.__ ...____* ____-_. __
*', J ^ "~- __ _-_ __-_ __-_-_.«._.-___-__. _«_ _»__
F RATIO: 11.32945
-------
9/10
: ^r...t. ; 5i:, cr >A Ri^r^.L ^ r;-,-.-. .n? ;
:..MEUTF^TI r^-ic- - LuFTuWi-i F [ S"! 1 C 1 In. SITE." TREATALIL I T1* ETUD .
4 TJ= 5 L'HEMICAL: DDT
5 f^ 5 CELL: US-7-I-AN
C* __ _ _ _ _ _ __
7 12345
8 1 3e'"> 135 385 885 1465
~ 2 O 103 5-9-G 360 1015
10 3 2315 155 75 25O 48O
11 4 255'..- ItoO 1G15 645 440
31 5 145 0 4.=.5 540 '"W,
-j ._._ _, .. , _,
14 COL AVERAGE 10~4 lli 58t 53o 83S
15 STBilAl SC> 1561243. 431^.5 1*5355 61617.5 17S332.5
It SI3MA1 SO AVG 354273
IV OVERALL AVG s2'-?
18 5IGMA2 SC' 1 520526
1- SIGMA1 SO 2 15-78105
14 F FAT 10: 1 . to5il'276
^^ ^-, _ _ _ _-__-- . _ __ _ __ ______ __ .^ ^_ __ __ _ ^ __ _. _ _^ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ ^ __. __ _ __ -_ _, __ __ _
i-p i i ? i : c i i D ; E i , r ; : G
j Ar.r-ii-i 5 I " GF v'Ai-. iHUtLE. SFREAL'SnE &T
2 DE'l-.RviDM" iur, F-.M~ IDS. - LEfcTDWN FESTICIDE SITE TREAT ALIL IT y STUD i
4 t-i 5 L-HEi 11 _»-ii_ i DDT oo22
M= 5 CEu.1. : NS--7-I-AN
i C 3 4 5
£ 1 .u51"7Tv^ . Oinr-gB--/ ..",5c.4-'5J .1297274 . I1474t>4
:; 2 0 .r
-------
10/
?- -7 ; _.: J;.-. - iEtT_~-
cr I 1 r ~ F- L'-.TAr": I u I T
4
'j
C'
S
r-i
10
1 1
I:
i _
14
lr.
lo
1
IB
ic-
^ j '
_ A
N= 5
\ -- *£.
1
2
3
4
TI
C 01 AVERAGE
SIGI1A1 SO
SIGMA1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA!1 SO 1
SIGKA2 SO 2
SIGMA2 SO 3
L nEr, I CnL:
CELL:
1 2
75 175
50 420
7 O 7 0
Io5 2 GO
31 '5 lt-0
1 33 205
11207.5 1035.'.
1'.' T32. Oo
18S.OS
56 1 ci . 1 2b
176S70. 4
7i.j21-' . 1 o
DDE
IM3-7-I-AN
3 4
1 25 250
215 135
220 20O
23O 2e>0
155 330
189 235
2142.5 5275
5
50
132
le>5
95
400
1^6. 4
15183.3
i- RATIO;
i-i -I t'- i '_ i i i i . C. i r i i !_;
. =. I S OF VAR IANCE S^'REInDohEF. T
M^TIGrJ RATIG'i. - uEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE TREAT AMLI TV STUD
CHE'M I 'I Ai_ :
CELL:
DDE
N5-7-I-AN
j >.
1 2 3 4 5
4 ,Z17"^3Oo . 2'5^~'c7'4- . 2^7c'2"7fj .3367876 .1230*570
f. . 39S0777 . 2^-2?:.9 .200"77: .4274tll . 51£1347
AVERAGE . 172279A . 2.-=:." ^ 4..' . ^44£.1£7 . 3O44041 . 231 OSS i
SIGMA1 30 .018^-050 .028272..-, .o:;35T>4r; . Oi.»S35O9 .o305131
' bMr-ii 5L! AVG . 0180C 73
OVERALL AVG . 243o2o'-
SIGMA2 SO 1 .0094233.
SI3MA2 SQ 2 .2967704
£ I &MA2 SQ : .0117791
24
±.u
27
F RATIO: . &54129S
-------
'**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
839 BESTGATE ROAD
ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401
301-224-2740
FTS-922-3752
DATE
January 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Pesticide Analysis - Leetown, W. Va.
Superfund-Remedial, (12/11/86 - 1/9/87), 861211-01
FROM
TO
- 12
Chemist
John Austin
Acting Chief, Annapolis Laboratory
Samples were soxhlet extracted and analyzed for pesticides,
Sample Description:
Lab No.
861211-01
OA
-02
-03
-04
-05
-Ofi
-07
-OR
-09
-10
-11
-12
Check:
Description
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown ,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown ,
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
Va. NS-4-R-A-2
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
NS-7-R-A-1
NS-7-I-AN-4
NS-4-R-A-5
NS-7-I-AN-1
NS-7-I-AN-5
NS-7-R-A-2
NS-7-R-A-4
NS-7-I-AN-2
NS-4-R-A-4
NS-4-R-A-1
NS-7-R-A-3
Breakdown DDT <10%
Breakdown Endrin <20%
SRK:ad
cc: Peggy Zawodny?^
OCO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 FTS-922-3752
DATE : January 16, 1987
SUBJECT: Pesticide Report for Leetown, WV.
FROM : John Austin (3ES21) 1*1
Acting Chief, Annapol/s Laboratory
TO : Laura Boornazian (3HW21)
Enclosed is the pesticide report for Leetown, WV. If you have any questions,
you can contact Rosemary Kayser directly.
JA:jr
Enclosure
a/s
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agen
Project Name; Leetown, W. Va. - Superfund-Remedial
Region III, Central Regional Laboratory
Sample Number:
PESTICIDE
Parameter
4, 4 'ODD
4. 4 'DDE
4, 4 'DOT
1,4 'ODD
Sample Number:
PESTICIDE
Parameter
4, 4 'ODD
4, 4 'DDE
4, 4 'DDT
1,4'DDD
Sample Number:
PESTICIDE
Parameter
AldMn
4, 4 'ODD
4, 4 'DDE
4, 4 'DDT
1,4'DDD
Heptachlor
Cas
Number
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Cas
Number
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Cas
Number
309-00-2
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
76-44-8
861211-01
ppm
1.0
1.2
21.6
0.4
861211-06
ppm
8.8
1.4
2.4
0.7
861211-12
ppm
...
0.7
1.6
21.8
0.4
Duplicate
861211-01
ppm
1.4
1.6
21.7
0.4
861211-07
ppm
1.5
1.8
32.9
0.4
Blank
ppm
N.D.
N.n.
N.D.
N.D.
N.n.
N.O.
861211-02
ppm
1.0
2.0
29.2
0.4
861211-08
ppm
1.5
2.7
32.7
0.4
Reagent Spike
Average
% Recovery
100%
90%
91%
82%
89%
93%
861211-03
ppm
6.1
1.3
1.3
0.7
861211-09
ppm
14.9
2.7
3.2
1.4
861211-04
ppm
0.9
2.0
29.0
0.4
861211-10
ppm
1.1
2.7
28.2
0.6
861211-05
ppm
7.8
1.6
3.7
1.2
861211-11
ppm
1.6
2.7
39.3
0.5
N.n. = None netected
Page 2 of 3_
-------
PESTICIDE/PCBS PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUND DETECTION LIMITS
Parameter
Aldrin
Alpha BHC
Alpha Endosulfan
Beta BHC
Beta Endosulfan
Chlordane
4,4'DDD
4,4'DDE
4,4'DDT
1,4'DDD
Delta BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Gamma BHC (Llndane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Toxaphene
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Cas
Number
309-00-2
319-84-6
959-98-8
319-85-7
33213-65-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
319-86-8
60-57-1
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
58-89-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
8001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Soil /Sediment
mg/kg
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.4
0.12
0.06
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.3
0.09
0.23
0.02
0.02
0.04
4.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.5
Page 3 of 3
-------
NUS CURPORA TION
SUPERFUND DIVISION
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
RE M/ FIT PRO J ACT
STATION
NO.
DATE
TIME
COMP
GRAB
STATION LOCATION
REMARKS
/J/f
86181101
- 7 -£-.
86K1102
A/S-7-
86121104
X/.S -
86131105
- 7 -Z* -
86121106
- 7-/Z-/I -
86121107
- y
8612110B
- 7-
8C 121109
s-*-*- y
AJS -y-#-*'/
6C121H1
AJS- 7-4- A- 3
66121112
JQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE
DATE /TIME:
RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE):
RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE).
DATE/TIME:
RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE):
DATE/TIME:
RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE):
RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE):
DATE/TIME:
RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE):
RELINQUISHED BY^SIGNATURE):
DATE/TIME:
RECEIVED FORLABQR^ORY BY
(SIGNA
Distribution Original accompa
mies shipment, copy to
T
'1°
§
m
DATE /TIME
2-
coordinator field files
REMARKS:
NUS440S8 1082
-------
IMUS
Park West Two
Cliff Mine Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15275
CORPORATION 4i2-788-ioao
January 22, 1987
NUSP/87-0035
NA
Ms. Laura Boornazian
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
814 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Subject: REM III PROGRAM - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WEST VIRGINIA
EVALUATION OF PRESENT STATUS
Dear Laura:
As we had discussed on January 20, I believe that a meeting
between the EPA, Ebasco Services, and NUS Corporation is required
in the near future to formally evaluate the results of the bench
scale microbial degradation treatability study and to establish
direction to proceed with the studies. We would prefer to
schedule such a meeting in early February, if possible.
As a result of the work done since last June, and particularly
based on the results from the fourth round of sampling in
December 1986, NUS feels that the indigenous microbial
population can be utilized in reducing DDT concentrations in
Leetown soils. While we originally based our evaluation of the
health threats associated with these contaminated soils on
inhalation of fugitive dusts by farmers plowing the soil, we
believe that a toxicity test (e.g., Ames Toxicity Test) and full,
replicate Hazardous Substances List (HSL) scans should be run on
the soils from the anaerobic, incubated cells at this point. If
the soils prove to be non-toxic, and no HSL parameters are found
that could give rise to excess health risk, then we can utilize
the DDT risk-based action levels established in the Remedial
Investigation Risk Assessment as the criterion for evaluating the
success of the microbial degradation.
As you will recall, we did note in our phone conversation that
the formerly incubated cells have been held at room temperature
since mid-December due to a malfunction of the incubator. While
this development may affect the reaction rate in these cells, the
DDT action levels had been achieved through mid-December, and the
fact that the cells are not presently being incubated should not
adversely influence their amenability to further chemical
analysis.
We do not believe that the treated soils will prove to be toxic,
and, indeed, may not have tested so prior to treatment. We also
do not believe that HSL scans of the treated soils will evidence
A Halliburton Company
-------
January 22, 1987
NUSP/87-0035
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Page 2
any metabolites of DDT that would pose a greater health risk than
that present due to the pesticides. To support this, no peaks
were evident on the chromatograms between DDT and DDE, indicating
few, if any, metabolites present in the samples with similar
molecular weights to DDT and/or DDE.
At the Region's request, we had considered the possibility of
conducting a study using radio-labeled (C-14) pesticides to
assist in determining the degree to which the DDT present in the
original soil is completely mineralized to carbon dioxide and
water. However, the bench scale study has demonstrated the
ability of the microbes to reduce pesticide levels in the soils,
and if the treated soils do not evidence any toxicity we believe
that the C-14 study at this point would be somewhat academic.
The basic premise for the study is that labeled CO? off-gas can
be trapped on an adsorbent medium replaced at periodic intervals.
By counting the activity of the adsorbent material,
quantification of the mineralization can be achieved. We are
aware of several difficulties with conducting this study that may
affect the results. In particular, the study may not be
sensitive to evaporative losses of labeled pesticides from the
soil, resulting in their contaminating the adsorbent material and
artificially elevating activity. It would not be possible to
quantify the degradation via mass balance, since we would be
adding a known quantity of labeled pesticide to an already
contaminated medium, i.e., the Leetown soils. Use of Leetown
soils may be crucial to the success of the degradation, since
indigenous microbes appear to be successful in degrading the DDT.
A calculated quantity of labeled pesticide material must be added
to the soil to ensure that enough mineralization occurs to
produce measurable activity levels. This additional pesticide
contamination may have an adverse impact on the microbes.
We would like the opportunity to discuss the utility of the C-14
Study in the light of the most recent bench scale results. If we
elect to proceed with the toxicity tests and HSL scans, and the
results are as expected, we feel that immediate plans should be
made to establish a more controlled bench scale study, in
parallel with a pilot scale test of the technology at the Leetown
Site. Such a meeting is not presently within our scope of work.
An amendment to our Work Assignment, which would provide the
-------
January 22, 1987
NUSP/87-0035
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Page 3
funds to develop a Work Plan to pursue the C-14 Study, is
currently pending Ebasco authorization. As we had suggested
during our phone conversation, a portion of these funds would be
better used at this time to conduct a project meeting prior to
further work. You had indicated that you would consider this
approach, and advise Ebasco accordingly. We will await your
direction before proceeding.
Very truly yours,
John A. George
Project Manager
JAG/ jag
cc: E. Shoener (EPA Region III)
R. Evans (Ebasco)
W. Mendez (Ebasco)
File: Leetown 106-3L52
Daily
NUB CORPORATION
------- |