EPA/540/2-89/016
SUPERFUNDTREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Firestone Resource, Inc. (Three Documents). "Soil Stabilization Pilot Study, United
Chrome NPL Site, Corvallis, Oregon" and "Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
United Chrome NPL Site Pilot Study" and "Health and Safety Program, United Chrome
NPL Site Pilot Study." Technical reports prepared for U.S. EPA - Region 10 and DEP of
Oregon. Approximately 45 pages. February 1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Ttestability Clearinghouse - EUXT
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Immobilization - Cement Solidification
Soil/Sand and Silt
Firestone Resource, Inc. (Three Documents). "Soil
Stabilization Pilot Study, United Chrome NPL Site,
Corvallis, Oregon" and "Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plan United Chrome NPL Site Pilot Study"
and "Health and Safety Program, United Chrome NPL
Site Pilot Study." Technical reports prepared for
U.S. EPA - Region 10 and DEP of Oregon. Approxi-
mately 45 pages. February 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
John Barich
U.S. EPA - Region X
Hazardous Waste Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-8562
United Chrome, OR (NPL)
Corvallis, OR
BACKGROUND; This document is a project plan for a pilot study at the
United Chrome NPL site, Corvallis, Oregon and includes the health and
safety and quality assurance/quality control plans. The plan reports
results of a bench-scale study of the treatment process as iieasured by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The purpose of
this study, conducted by Firestone Resource, Inc., was to evaluate the
effectiveness of soil stabilization technologies to reduce the leaching of
heavy metals and to "pretreat" contaminated soils for subsequent off-site
management.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The data available from this 1985 study are bench
scale data involving 1400 pounds of soil from the Western Processing NPL
site which was generated to support the proposal/work plan for the United
Chrome NPL site. Three commercial soil stabilization vendors submitted to
EPA 14 stabilized soil cylinders representing the "best achievable
performance" of their technology. One of the bench-tests was performed by
Firestone Resources, Inc. (FRI). The FRI treatment process consisted of
using an inorganic polymer with cement that was applied to the excavated
site soil. The extraction protocol used in the analysis was TCLP, and both
treated and untreated soil were analyzed. Region 10 confirmed with these
bench tests that soil stabilization as performed by these vendors is
effective in reducing leach rate of heavy metals in sands/silt matricies
with little organic co-contamination.
Firestone Resources data is in the document in that this is their
proposed pilot study. All other data contained in the document is site
3/89-874 Document Number: EUXT
NOTE: Quality assurance of data Bay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
description data, work plan description, and a proposed sample analysis
plan.
The QA/QC plan for the pilot test is an attachment to the first volume
of the study, and is extensive in the referenced methodology.
PERFORMANCE; The bench tests indicated reduction of heavy metal leachate
concentrations to low levels as measured by TCLP procedures. The results
of the FRI test are shown in Table 1. Through groundwater modeling using
as inputs the reductions in leachate strength as measured by these tests,
soils stabilization was demonstrated to be capable of achieving water
quality criteria at the Western Processing test site. Pilot demonstration
of this treatment process is planned for the United Chrome NPL site.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is;
The
Treatability Group
VIO-Nonvolatile Metals
Wll-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
7440-39-3
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
Contaminants
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Cadiurn
Lead
Zinc
TABLE 1
TCLP LEACHATES FROM THE WESTERN PROCESSING NPL SITE
Contaminant Soil Leachate Stabilized Soil Percent Reduction
Zinc
Lead
Barium
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Cadiurn
Notes:
123,700
12,115
1,165
227.5
107
50
17
38.5
15.5
ND
32
ND
35
0.4
a) All concentration in ug/1
b) ND - Not Detectable
c) This is a partial listing of data.
more information.
99.97%
99.87*
100.00%
85.93%
100.00%
30.00%
97.65%
Refer to the document for
3/89-874 Document Number: EUXT
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
SOIL STABILIZATION
PILOT STUDY
UNITED CHROME NPL SITE
CORVALLIS, OREGON
PREPARED
FOR
EPA - REGION 10
DEQ - OREGON
FIRESTONE RESOURCES
-------
IRESTONE
RESOURCES INC
February 23, 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue fW,\ S*«v» (=TS - OS&
Seattle, WA 98101
Att: John Barich
Dear John
Enclosed you will find our draft of the pilot study project
at United Chrome. Please review and comment.
Would like to get samples March 10-13 and get started.
Pacific Resources has* been acquired by Firestone Resources,
Inc. and we will be operating under the name of Firestone
Resources, Inc.
Await your response
Jim Thuney
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING OFFICE: 1010 N.E 95th Street • Vancover, WA 98665 • (206) 573-8428
CORPORATE OFFICE: 9701 Wilshire Blvd. • Suite 726 • Beverly Hills, CA 90212 • (213) 278-0340
REGIONAL OFFICE: 4115 Edwards Road • Cincinnati. OH 45209 • (513) 531-2600
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Description and Site Location
1.1 General Description of Site
1.2 General Description of Waste
1.3 General Description of Contaminated Soil, Sludge and
Groundwater
1.4 General Description of Technology
1.4.1 Effective Operating Range
1.4.2 History of Development
1.4.3 Application To Hazardous Waste Site Clean Up
1.4.4 Mobility of Equipment
1.4.5 Summary of Past Projects (1-12)
2.0 Pilot Study Work Plan Description
2.1 Pilot Overview
•
3.0 Monitoring Plan
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
4.0 Work Plan
5.0 Project Schedule
-------
SOIL STABILIZATION PILOT STUDY
UNITED CHROME NPL SITE
CORVALLIS, OREGON
INTRODUCTION
Hazardous waste sites characterized by large volumes of
contaminated solids are frequently encountered. A study for
the EPA estimated 38/000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and
12,000 cubic yards of sludges at the average Superfund Site (1).
Over the next (5) five years, 15,000,000 cubic yards of contam-
inated soil may be remediated (2). In addition to the Superfund
closures pursuant to the Resource conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) will often involve contaminated soils or sludges.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) requires remedial measures which utilize permanent remedies,
and encourages alternate and innovative treatment technologies (3).
Landfilling is discouraged.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
establishes a (4) four year schedule for banning of landfilling
hazardous wastes beginning in July 1987. Section 1002 (b) (7)
of HWSA state that "... reliance on land disposal should be
minimumized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly land-
fill and surface impoundment, should be the least favored method
for managing hazardous wastes...
An effective technology to remediate large volumes of soil
or sludges which is one which:
- Permanently treats materials on-site.
- Has a rapid processing rate.
- Is reliable, not prone to upset.
- Is flexible, able to adjust to changes within a site.
Region 10 has completed a technology review which has
identified soil stabilization as the promising remedial technique
for large sites which have hazardous wastes in the soils. In 1985,
a bench study involving 1400 pounds of soil from the Western
Processing National Priorities Site was completed (4). Three
commercial soil stabilization Vendors submitted to the EPA fourteen
stabilized soil cylinders representing the "best achievable perform-
ance" of their technologies. One vendor was the Firestone Resources
Inc. (formerly Soil Tech, Inc.). Their performance as measured by
seven heavy metals in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test was (5) :
-------
TCLP LEACHATES FROM THE WESTERN PROCESSING NPL SITE
Contaminant Soil Leachate Stabilized Soil Percent Reduction
Zinc 123,700 38.5 99.97%
Lead 12,115 15.5 99.87%
Barium 1,165 ND 100.00%
Copper 227.5 32 85.93%
Nickel 107 ND 100.00%
Chromium 50 35 30.00%
Cadmium 17 0.4 97.65%
NOTES: a) all concentration in ug/1
b) ND - Not Detectable
The soil stabilization trials at Western Processing demonstrate
that at bench scale, soil stabilization can reduce heavy metal con-
centrations to low levels, as measure by the TCLP procedure (one of
the EPA's more aggressive leaching tests).. Subsequent groundwater
modeling using as inputs the reduction in'leachate strength as measured
by these tests, soil stabilization was demonstrated to be capable of
achieving water quality criteria at the Western Processing test site
(6).
These promising soil 'Stabilization techniques now need to be
evaluated in the field. The Firestone Resources Company has expressed
its interest in demonstrating at pilot scale their process. Region 10
has reviewed candidate sites and selected the United Chrome NPL site
in Corvallis, Oregon.
This Quality Assurance plan is an element of the "Soil Stabilizati
Pilot Study at the United Chrome National Priorities List Site".
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE LOCATION
This study will evaluate the effectiveness of soil stabilization
technologies to reduce the leaching of heavy metals and to "pretreat"
contaminated soils for subsequent off-site management.
Region 10 confirmed with bench tests that soil stabilization
as performed by (Firestone Resources Inc.), and two other vendors
is effective in reducing leach rates of heavy metals in sand/silt
matrices with little organic co-contamination (4). The Region now
needs to determine whether these bench scale results can be duplicated
at pilot scale at a hazardous waste site.
-------
Firestone Resources Inc. (FRI) will stabilize in their
laboratory small samples of contaminated soil from the United
Chrome National Priorities List Site.' Stabilized samples will
be analyzed for chemical leaching/ bioavailability, and physical
characteristics. If laboratory results are positive, then FRI
will stabilize approximately 66 cubic yards of United Chrome soil.
The area stabilized will include the surface portions of the most:
contaminated soils. The stabilized soil will be subjected to a
battery of chemical leaching, bioavailability, structural property
and aging tests.
Data from this pilot study will be analyzed and presented in
two ways. First, a comparison between pre-stabilization and post
stabilization soils will be completed. Second, common analytical
models such as the RCRA delisting method (7), and the Superfund
groundwater transport model, SOCEM, (8) will be utilized. Results
will be compared to commonly accepted risk levels and enviromental
criteria.
United Chrome was selected for this pilot study for several
reasons. The site is dominated by one contaminent chrome. There
is very little organic contamination and the soil matrix appears
to have a low organic content. The site itself is fully secure,
is publicly owned, and has completed remedial investigations and
feasibility .studies (9), (10). This pilot study will compliment
the final remedial design by simplifying the off-site management
of contaminated soils. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the site and the
area to be stabilized.
In its comparison of post to pre-stabilization conditions,
the Region will rely on previously collected data on the extent
of contamination at the site.
This pilot study is divided into five phases. In Phase 1,
a 150 kilogram homogeneous sample from the drywell will be
collected and stored in 12 five gallon containers. In Phase 2,
test samples will be stabilized in the laboratory of FRI, and
analyzed by FRI, the (DEQ) and the EPA. If the process meets
stringent criteria. Phase 3, stabilizing 66 cubic yards of
material on the United Chrome Site will be completed by FRI.
In Phase 4, an analysis of the durability, agind, and leaching
characteristics will be completed by FRI, DEQ, and the EPA.
The final phase will entail an analysis of the regulatory and
environmental impacts of the final product.
-------
1.1 General Description of site
United Chrome Products is an industrial hard chrome plating
facility which conducted chromium electroplating operations from
1956 to 1985. The site consists of a single building surrounded
by paved parking and storage areas on the north, east, and south.
West of the building is a "dry well" disposal pit consisting of a
sand and gravel filled excavation measuring approvimately 50 x
140 x 3 ft. The dry well was reportedly utilized by the facility
between 1956 and 1975 to dispose of liquid wastes collected in a
floor sump within the building. The volumes and composition of
wastes discharged to the dry well were not recorded, but were
estimated by the facility operator to be on the order of 1000
gallons per year of floor washings, process solution which dripped
off of working surfaces, and rinsate which dripped off of finished
products.
1.2 General Description of Waste
Based on the electoplating process utilized at the facility,
it is probable that one or more of the following general waste
streams may also have been involved: spent stripping and cleaning
bath solutions, spent plating bath solutions and sludges from the
bottoms of the plating tanks.
1.3 General Description of contaminated soils, sludge and
ground water.
Samples collected by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) and EPA at the site from 1975 to 1983 indicated
that sediments and groundwater in the dry well area were contam-
inated with several inorganic constituents including copper, nickel,
chromium, and lead, and that contamininants were migrating offsite
in surface water and groundwater.. Concerns raised as a result
of those samples reulted in the site's being placed on the EPA
National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983, and in scheduling
of the subject RI in March 1984.
-------
Li. '. r/l.»....-..--.«rt......
))_. J
\T"° ' • ' " • J * ' J". ' •'' ''..
)' . -...»•• i;/. V'e'HW •.I ' K •
a ,
UNITED CHROME
i "3 %/irZ' •* /VTSfl
••. /fcomCUS I AIRPORT/ / i: -\\
\ =./ ; ..' .' / ji ij |
• 'Li
. / /
'• -v:, / '^,-x
' - {•* I'
---t-
MOO HOO «OQO MOO WOO 'MC UP
^Hoskms
COR VALLIS LB Al
FIGURE 1.1
LOCATION MAP
UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS
CORVALLIS. OREGON
UNTIED CHROME FS
-------
v>
n
I ,
ff
I
a
t
r
~^~m
If
r«
-------
AIRPORT ROAD
UNITED CHROME
SMOKESTACK
Q— PUIINC 6AIH WUC #t
STORAGE TANKS
fj PUI1NQ AAIH UN* »2
AGIO 8ATn
'BASE fiATn
•DRY WELL
AREA
LEGEND '
Ditcn
---- Pavemeni
SO
too
n
t
FIGURE 1.3
FACILITY MAP
UNJlED ChftOM£ FS
-------
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
This product is inorganic polymer which is added to cement
and becomes the product known as "MFT". MFT can be applied at
various rates which vary from the undiluted product to as low
as .75% for the treatment of materials containing low level toxic
waste contaminants. This process is utilized in a medium of
cement or other agents which cause the material in question to
become solid and without any significant leaching of toxic materials.
The greatest benefit of this product is the ability to have chemical
oxidation, Ion exchange, Hydration reaction, reduction of multi-chain
hydrocarbons to simple forms, and stabilization, micro-incapsulization
of any toxic waste. There is no mainenance of the materials after
the initial placement as it becomes inert. The containment of the
hazardous constituents relies on both chemical and the microincap-
sulization of such materials. The key to treatment is this technology
which will provide protection to the environment, whatever the
strength of the monolith.
1.4.1 Identification of Effective operating range.
As the carrier of this material is cement or a similar
substance it may be explained that the limitations of the product
are similar to those of concrete. The temperature range for
application should not be below 45 degrees F. or Above 100 F. for
purposes of general use. This product can be utilized with materials
with the liquid content of any amount by adding other mediums such
as clean sands, or other materials which will lower the moisture
content to as low as 50% fluid. From the 50% fluid to 0% moisture,
is the general ranges that will produce effective results. The
greater the percentage of fluids that are available, the higher
the range of MFT will be required. Injection techniques can be
utilized for underwater applications, but will not be conducted
within the scope of this pilot project. As the material under the
bottom of the lake of other water body is more than 50% in the
amounts of solids, they can be treated.
1.4.2 History of Development
Attached with the addendum are a listing of (12) twelve
TOXIC WASTE INSTALLATIONS successfully completed in Japan from
1974 to 1987. A spread of .5% to 5% MFT was utilized for the
successful treatment of Cyanide in one treatment, with a maximum
of 4% MFT utilized for the treatment of Hexavalent Chrome in
another phased activity. The most recent activity is the successful
bench testing of. materials taken from the NPL Site 148 known as
WESTERN PROCESSING CO. located in Kent, Washington. The TCLP
leacheate test was conducted by the EPA, see introduction for
results.
8
-------
1.4.3 Applications to Hazarous Waste Site Cleanup.
As this material is granular in nature it may be transported
by Railcar load, Cement trucks/ Large, medium, or small sacks.
For this reason the applications can be varied to any sites, even
those where only foot traffic is possible. The technique for
applying MFT is to distribute the MFT within the medium, whether
the material is sludge, solid soils, sediments above or below water
level. When the initial set has taken place, no futher maintenance
is required nor is any further specific need for special handling as
it becomes completely inert. For those applications where the depth
of material becomes deeper than 18" in depth a mixing device will be
required to evenly mix the MFT with the Toxic Wastes, Where there
are applications that can be achieved with only 12" of depth, a
rototiller can be utilized. This type of treatment is primary
on-site or in-situ. In Drum Mixing can be achieved on small generator
needs, where all mixing and or blending can be completed on a drum
basis. The smallest type of application is bag mixing where ten
pounds of toxic waste is placed in a polysack, and three pounds of
M.F.T. is added, and mixed by shaking.
1.4.4 Mobility of Equipment
In review of the different types of methods and equipment
needed for each type of technique, it was decided to list all of
the methods with the corresponding equipment to complete the task.
Method Technique
a) Sack Mixing
b) Drum Mixing
c) Pickup Mixer
d) Rotomixer
e) Plant Mixer*
f)
In-situ Plant
g) Pump Injector
h) Compartmental
i) Injection
Equipment
Shovel, water, wheel barrow, and small
bucket.
Shovel, wheel barrow, small mixer for drum.
Shovel, wheel barrow, small mixer self powered.
Self propelled rotovator to self propelled
Pugmill. Water from a garden hose. Small
vibrating tamper.
Self contained power, water, mixer screws,
conveyor optional crushing device, soil
scalper, Backhoe Loader.
Self propelled Rotomixer with water wagon
attached large scale vibrating tamping roller
compacting. Large cement belly dump truck to
spread M.F.T.
Special pumps which allow MFT to be injected
Directly into dredge spoils.
Dredge, pipes, open bins, and special mixing
techniques.
Direct slurry injection to underground sludges
which can be chemically stabilized. This
requires and boring device, and pumping of
extra strength MFT into underground application,
* NOTE: Best Available Technology
-------
1.4.5 SUMMARY OF PAST PROJECTS
TWELVE (12) TOXIC WASTE DETOXIFICATION INSTALLATIONS
USING "MFT" PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY MONITORED FROM
JULY, 1974 TO MARCH 1985.
1. Port of West Takasago, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan
Phase 1: from July 1974 to March 1975 (sludge)
Treated: 149,000 C.Y.
Prior to treatment: PCB's 100- 3,000 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.005 ppm (during this period the
PCB Standards of Japan was 0.005 ppm maximum)
Phase II: from April 1975 to March 1976 (sludge)
Treated: 296,000 C.Y.
Prior to treatment: PCB's 10-700 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.0005 ppm (during this period the
Japanese standards on PCBs became much stricter)
Phase III: from October 1973 to March 1979 (sludge)
Treated: 25,000 C.Y. (Okiso River which runs West Takasago Port)
Prior to treatment: PCB's 100-700 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.0005 ppm
2. Negi Mining Company's Wash pond, Wakayama, Prefecture, Japan
Treatment period March-April 1976
Treated 3,300 C.Y.
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
As 2-14 ppm ND less than 0.001 ppm
Cd 2.6-9.2 ppm ND less than 0.002 ppm
Cu 6,600-40,800 ppm 0.6-0.93 ppm
Pb 22-42 ppm ND less than 0.01 ppm
Zn 540-1,740 ppm ND less than 0.001 ppm
3. Kyocera (Kyoto Ceramics) Shiga Prefecture, Japan
Treatment period: December 1975 to February 1976
Treated: 8,200 C.Y. (sludge)
Prior to treatment: Pb 300-900 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.01 ppm or ND
4. Sanyo Electric Company, Tottori Prefecture, Japan
Treatment period: September 1976 (sludge)
Treated: 3,900 C.Y.
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
Cr 32,000 ppm Less than 1.74 ppm
Cr 6+ 73 ppm Less than 0.05 ppm
5. Sumida River, Tokyo, Japan
Treatment period: December 1976 to April 1977
Treated: 11,000 C.Y.
Prior to treatment: Hg 25-150 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.0005 ppm
10
-------
6. Ichi River, (Industrial Water Supply) Settling pond Hyogo, Japan
Treatment period: March 1976 to 1983 and 1985
Treated: 400 C.Y. per year
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
Cr 1,000-5,000 ppm Less than 1.0 ppra
Cr 6+ 2 ppm Less than 0.05 ppm
Pb 100-400 ppm ND
Cd 20-100 ppm ND
7. Itabitsu River, Fukuoka, Japan (sludge)
Treatment Period; Amount Treated
March 1974 13,000 C.Y.
August 1974 9,000 C.Y.
July 1977 1,000 C.Y.
Prior to treatment: Hg more than 25 ppm
After treatment: less than 0.0005 ppm
8. Dokai Bay, Oita, Japan (sludge)
Treatment period: March, 1975
Treated 4,600 C.Y.
Prior to treatment: more than 25 ppm Hg
After treatment: 0.0005 ppm
9. Kibu Bay, Okayama, Japan
Period of Treatment: June 1975
Treated: 11,600 C.Y.
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
Cn 100 ppm Less than 1.0 ppm
As 1000 ppm Less than 0.01 ppm
10. Yaka River, Hyogo, Japan
Treatment period: 1974 and 1975
Treated: 15,000 C.Y. per each year
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
Cr 10,000 ppm Less than 1.0 ppm
Cr +6 20-30 ppm Less than 0.05 ppm
11. Teikoku Chemical Co. Ltd., Hyogo, Japan
Period of treatment: 1976-1980
Treated: 19,600 C.Y.
Prior to Treatment After Treatment
T-Hg 10.1 ppm . ND
Pb 434 ppm ND
Cd 3.56 ppm ND
T-Cr 19.5 ppm ND
As 5.64 ppm ND
Zn 4610 ppm ND
11
-------
12. Niigata Plating Sludge, Niigata, Japan
Treatment period: 1976 through 1979
Treated: 5,600 metric ton (total)
Cyanide: to bring it to the ND state
% of "MFT" to be used on the amount of ppm of Cn
0.50%
0.75%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
0 ppm
0-100 ppm
1000-1500 ppm
1500-2000 ppm
2000-3000 ppm
3000-4000 ppm
4000-5000 ppm
5000+ ppm
Hexavalent Chrome: to bring it to the ND State
% of "MFT" to be used on the amount of ppm of Cr6+
0.50% 0 ppm (If the results of the extraction
0.75% 0-10 ppm leach test shows ie; 0 ppm on Cr6+
1.00% 10-20 ppm 0.5% of "MFT" will be used to
1.50% 20-40 ppm bring it to the ND state-even if
2.00% . 40-60-ppm results show 0 ppm on Cr6+ there are
3.00% 60-100 ppm other contaminants. Note; this is the
4.00% 100-140 ppm same for Cn above).
15% of regular Portland Cement was used in the above application.
Uniaxel compressive strength: 14-80 PSI (sigma 7)
900 hours of weatherometer tests have been conducted on the above.
On II Port of West Takasago. Three wells have been drilled at the
time of commencement of the project. The City of Takasago has
been monitoring the wells every 6 months for leaching and the results
have been negative.
12
-------
2.0 PILOT STUDY WORKPLAN DESCRIPTION
The Pilot Study to be performed at the United Chrome NPL
Site will be a comprehensive investigation of the on-site treat-
ment of conaminated soil using the "MFT" process. The study will
compare pre to post stabilization conditions.
The work plan is broken into five phases:
1) Sampling and testing
2) Stabilization and testing
3) On site Demonstration and Sampling
4) Sampling and testing
5) Analysis and reporting
2.1 Project Overview
The project will be a joint undertaking of the Invironmental
Protection Agency - Regic-n lO(EPA-RlO), Department of Environmental
Quality - State of Oregon (DEQ) and Firestone Resources Inc. (FRI).
The project will be managed by EPA-R10 John Barich - Environmental
Services Division, assisted by DEQ Tom Miller - Remedial Action
Section. The stabilization will be performed and managed by FRI-
Jim Thuney-Construction Supervisor. The following laboratories
will be utilized by the participants:
EPA-Manchester
EPA-Corvallis
DEQ-Portland
FRI-Century Testing Laboratory-Bend
13
-------
PILOT STUDY
UNITED CHROME SITE
CORVALLIS, OREGON
FLOW CHART
REAGENT
ACQUISITION .
DRAFT
PLAN
APPROVED PLAN
ALL PARTIES AGREEMENT
SAMPLING PROCESS
ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE
FORMULIZATION
EQUIPMENT
ACQUISITION
BAGGING
M.P.T.
•J
WASTE PROCESSING
_L
SITE CLEANUP
DEGREE OF HAZARD
FLAMMABILITY
CORROSIVITY
REACTIVITY
INFECTIVITY
TOXICITY
SAFETY &
ENVIRONMENT
QUALITY
CONTROL
ASSURANCE
FIGURE 2
14
-------
3.0 Monitoring Plan
In order that all parties are fully informed as to the scope and
nature of the monitoring plan, it is necessary to define what tests
will be completed at each of the five phases of work. As the owner
of this site, The City of Corvallis needs to be able to agree, with
the State of Oregon, the E.P.A.. and P.R.I. as to the need and
wishes of all parties. Following is a Phase to Phase detailed plan
for identifying what each party will be expected to achieve at a
specific phase.
Participants Identity Location Quantity Rationale
PHASE 1; SAMPLES OF UNTREATED SOIL - Kilograms (Kg.)
EPA (RIO)
EPA (RIO)
EPA (RIO)
1.1
1.2
1.3
S:W. Cor,
Drywe11
Drywe11
EPA (10) 1.4 Drywell
DISTRIBUTION OF BULK SAMPLE
EPA (RIO)
EPA (COR)
EPA (COR)
DEQ
FRI
FRI
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
10 Kg.
10 Kg,
150 Kg.
30 Kg.
10 Kg.
10 Kg.
1/4 Kg,
10 Kg.
100 Kg.
Background/Photo.
Tests, Ph., Density
% Moisture
Photographs, Exposed
Vertical section at
two locations.
Bulk Sample.
Tests: Total Chrome
Chloride, Sulfate & Pi-
Tests: Baseline BioAss
Tests: Baseline BioAss
Background Soil
Tests: Valence Chemist
Tests - Total Chrome
Background Soil
Analyze for Physical
Properties/Formulizati
15
-------
Phase 2
BENCH TEST - STABILIZATION
Participants Identity
FRI 2.1
DISTRIBUTION OF 2.1
EPA (RIO)
EPA (RIO)
EPA (COR)
DEQ
FRI
FRI
FRI
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Location Quantity Rationale
100 Kg. Stabilized Samples
2 Kg. Tests: Grain Size,
Permeability, Comp.
Volume Change
2 Kg. Tests: Total chrome
Sulfate, & Ph.
10 Kg. Tests: Bioassay BAsel
10 Kg. Tests Valence Chemis
for Chrome, Initial S
7,14, & 28 Day Leach
levels, Column & TCLP
10 Kg. Tests: Grain Size, Co
7 Day, Permeability
& TCLP.
10 Kg. Reserve Record Final i
56 Kgs. Reserve Samples
ALL DATA REPORTS TO EPA REGION 10
Decision memorandum by D.E.Q. & E.P.A. on whether to invite FRI to
complete Phase 3. This will be based on the review of the analytical
data, and other Site management considerations, and if there is no
increase in Biotoxicity, order of magnitude improvement in permeability
and significant improvement in leachate strength, in effect TCLP leachate
as good as E.P.A. toxicity levels. Memorandum will be available within
one week of all data.
16
-------
Phase 3
Participants
FRI
FRI
EPA (RIO)
FRI
Field Demonstration
Identity Location
3.1 Drywell
3.2(1-66) Pugmill
3.3 Pugmill
3.4(1-66) Discharge
Quantity
66 C. V.
66/.5Kg.
.5 Kg.
66/.5Kg.
Rationale
Treatment
Pretreatment
Record Samples
Pretreatment
Post Treatment
Record Samples
Cylinders taken for standard testing
FRI 3.5(1-5) Discharge
DISTRIBUTION OF 5 SAMPLES
5/6x12 Cyl. Post Treatment
EPA (RIO)
DEQ
EPA (COR)
FRI
3.5 (1) 'Discharge
3.5(2-3) Discharge
3.5 (4) Discharge
3.5 (5) Discharge
1/6x12 Cyl.
2/6x12 Cyl.
1/6x12 Cyl.
1/6x12 Cyl.
12 Cylinders taken for random cell
FRI 3.6(1-12) Discharge 12/6x12 Cyl,
DISTRIBUTION OF 12 SAMPLES
FRI
FRI
3.6 (1-9) Discharge 9/6x12 Cyl.
3.6 (10-12)Discharge 9/6x12 Cyl.
Post Treatment
Post Treatment
Post Treatment
Post Treatment
Post Treatment
For Random Cell
Test Wet Dry Cycles
Record Samples
CORE DRILLING 28 DAYS AFTER INITIAL SET
FRI 3.7(1-12) 5/Cell- 1" Dia Core Stabilized
Distribution of 12 Cores
EPA
FRI
FRl'
3.7(1-4)
3.7(5-8)
3.7(9-12)
I/Cell
I/Cell
I/Cell
1" Dia Core
1" Dia Core
1" Dia Core
Stabilized
Stabilized Permeabil
Stabilized Compres.
17
-------
Phase 4
Participants
EPA (RIO)
EPA (COR)
DEQ
DEQ
FRI
12 Cylinders
FRI
FRI
FRI
FRI
Testing Protocol
Identity Location
3.5 (1)
3.5 (2)
3.5 (3)
3.5 (4)
Seattle
Corvallis
Portland
Portland
Quantity
1/6x12 Cyl.
1/6x12 Cyl.
1/6x12 Cyl.
1/6x12 Cyl.
3.5 (5) Vancouver 1/6x12 Cyl.
from Random cell WET/DRY Cycles
3.6 (1-3)
3.6 (4-6)
3.6 (7-9)
3.6 (9-12)
12 Cores, 3 from each cell
EPA (RIO)
FRI
FRI
3.7 (1-4)
3.7 (4-8)
3.7 (9-12)
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Corvallis
Vanvouver
Vancouver
3/6x12 Cyl.
3/6x12 Cyl.
3/6x12 Cyl.
3/6x12 Cyl.
4/1" Core
4/ 1" Core
4/ 1" Core
Rationale
TCLP,dupicate Total
Chrome.
Bioassay
Valence Chem. Chrome,
Valence, Chem.Chrome
28 Days
TCLP,TOTAL CHROME
Test 3 Cycles
Test 12 Cycles
Test 24 Cycles
Reserve Record Sample
TEST: TCLP, Total Chr
Test: Compression
Test: Permeability
ALL DATA REPORTS TO EPA REGION 10
18
-------
4.0 WORK PLAN
Soil Stabilization Pilot Study at the United Chrome NPL Site
Phase 1. Samples from site.
Representatives from the EPA, DEQ and FRI will obtain samples
from the site at United Chrome, Corvallis, Oregon, for the pur-
pose of analysis and bench testing. Sample #1.1 will be a back-
ground sample, taken from the Southwest corner of the site, just
outside the security fence. This will be a 10 kilogram sample
obtained 3 inches under the surface, from a depth of 3 - 9 inches
in depth. This sample will be- retained by EPA Region 10, which
will give participants an indication of the soil characteristics
in the immediate area.
Sample #1.2 will be a composite sample from two locations in the
dry well area. One will be from the periphery and one from the poin
in the dry well, where the bulk sample will be obtained. Vertical
sections of the soil will be exposed and photographed, which will be
compared to similar soil columns after stabilization in phase 3.
Field determinations of pH, bulk density and moisture content will
be obtained from this sample.
Sample #1.4-, a 150 kilo'gram bulk specimen will be obtained from
the dry wall area. This sample will be divided by double quartering
between the participants. EPA Region 10 will receive 30 kilogram
sample #1.5, EPA Corvallis will receive 10 kilogram sample I1.6,
DEQ will receive 1/4 kilogram sample #1.8 and FRI will receive
100 kilogram sample #1.9. A background soil specimen of 10 kilogram:
each will be received by EPA Corvallis, sample #1.7, and FRI. ,
sample #1.10.
The participants will receive their respective samples with cus-
todial responsibility and transport the samples to their labora-
tories for testing.
Tests to be performed on the samples are:
EPA Region 10 will test sample #1.5 for total chrome, chloride,
sulfate and pH.
EPA Corvallis will test sample #1.6 and develop a baseline Bio-
assessment and retain sample #1.7 as a background specimen.
DEQ will test sample #1.8 for Valence chemistry on chrome.
FRI will test sample #1.10 for physical properties and retain
sample #1.9 for background specimen after testing for total chrome.
19
-------
Phase 2 - Bench Test Stabilization & Testing
Firestone Resources (FRI) will stabilize sample 12.1 in triplicate
and in sufficient volume to provide EPA Region 10 with two
kilogram samples 12.2 and 2.3, EPA Corvallis with 10 kilogram
sample 12.4, DEQ with 10 kilogram sample 12.5. The participants
will test the samples received for the following:
EPA Region 10: Sample *2.2 - grain size distribution (ASTM D422-63!
- permeability (ASTM 2434-68!
- unconfined compressive strength
(ASTM D2166-6<
- volume change (volume of stabilized
material per unit weight of waste/
reciprocal of bulk density of unstab-
•ilized soil)
EPA Region 10: Sample I2.3 - will test for total chrome, sulfate
and pH.
EPA Corvallis: Sample 12.4 - will run test on baseline Bioassay.
DEQ: Sample 12.5 - will test for Valence chemistry for .
chrome.
- will develop appropriate column
leaching procedure and run Tclp leach
test.
FRI Sample 12.6 , - will test for:
- gram size distribution (ASTM D422-62
- permeability (ASTM 2434-68
- unconfined compressive strength
(ASTM D2166-6
- Tclp leach test.
FRI will reserve 10 kilograms of final mix stabilized material
sample 12.7, as reference specimen. The balance of the stabilized
material will be retained by FRI as reserve samples, approximately
56 kilogram sample §2.8. This reserve will be available for
testing, as the need arises.
The participants will transmit to EPA Region 10, all of their un-
interpreted quality assured data of all physical, chemical, leaching
and bioassessment data.
The EPA and DEQ will decide on'vh'ether FRI will be invited to com-
plete phase 3, actual soil stabilization on site. The decision will
be based on a review of the analytical data and other site manage-
ment considerations. It is anticipated that if there is no increase
in biotoxicity, order-of-magnitude improvements in permeability,
and significant improvements•in leachate strength (e.g., Tclp
leachates at least as good as EPA toxicity levels, OEQ water quality
standards for chrome is better), that such invitation will be
issued in a decision memorandum. This decision memorandum will be
available within one week of availability of analytical data.
20
-------
ACID BATH
SMOKESTACK
. PUTINS BATH TANK.
•
. •. • . . i . ' . I •• •' . • .: ViAI'7 ,r» •!••>• %,-\ .1 .a- ,« ... • ',
;• '^'^'^•^^^^^•:f^ ••'••:.
?*'*-$T?ff3rfc$^?<^^ . '.. • ' I-'
-------
Field Demonstration
Phase 3. Soil Stabilization on Site
Firestone Resources (FRI) will stage processing equipment on the
concrete pad at the south end of the United Chrome building. The
material processing scheme is illustrated in figure 4.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEME;
A decon-unit will be moved to the sice entrance, with one door *
entering the facilities, with the other door to the interior of th
project. All persons entering or leaving the facility will have t
enter and leave by way of the-.decon unit.
Approximately £6 cubic yards of contaminated material (cm) is to t
excavated by backhoe from the drywell area, transported to the
staging area by bucket loader and stockpiled for processing. All
well.casings will be protected from damage by bracing during exca-
vations. Any temporary storage or stockpiling will be fully pro-
tected from run off and. precipitation. Processing of the cm will
be through a"self contained portable axam processor". See figure
4. With the small amount of material involved, certain equipment
may not be indicative of what would actually be. used on a large
scale job.
The sequence of events achieved in the "axarn processor" are:
1. Charging hopper with cm (size 1.5 c.y.)
2. Self enclosed belt feeder
3. Self enclosed conveyor
4. Self enclosed variable speed crusher
5. 'Vibrating screens 3/4" seivs
a) Oversize pile will-be returned to hopper
5. Self enclosed pulverizer
7. Self enclosed pre-mix hopper (1 c.y.)
8. Self enclosed agglomerator
a) feed from MPT hopper
b) feed from water tank •.
.' c) feed from charge hopper
9.•.Mixing with variable timer
10. Discharge container/ bucket of loader
The axam processor is a 1 cubic..yard batch type of device, with
timed .events. Each batch is weighted in the pug mill (agglomerato,
in the following sequence:
1. (cm) ' •/. ' \
2. "MPT".
3, .Haper, if required.
Processing: (See* figure -3 for product flow)'
Tha contaminated soil (cm) will be loaded into the charging hopper,
fed onto & belt feeder onto a conveyor, And onto a self enclosed
vibrating screen that will pass material 3/4" or'smaller. All ovci
sized material will be fed into a self enclosed variable speed cru:
-------
The crusher will break all of the rocks and other solid, down to
3/4 in minus. The fractured cm is then fed over vibrating screens
and fed into an amax pulveriser. The pulverizer will further break
up any solids to a 1/8 inch minus , and feed into the pug hopper.
FRI will add an appropriate conservative tracers to the cm which wi!
be used to evaluate the degree of honiogenity of mixing obtained with
the equipment.
As the cm is stored in the pug hopper, FRI.' will take a .5 kilogram
sample from each 1 yard batch. This will serve as a record of each
batch. These samples will be labelled 3.2 11-66), for reference.
CPA -Region 10 will ba given a composite sample from
the samples taken from the pug hopper which will be labelled samples
1 3. 3 of .5 kilograms. This sample will be representative of the
pre treatment cm.
The pug hopper will discharge into the pug mill mixer, one yard at
a time (or batch) . The cm is weighed in the pug by scales mounted
at the base of the pug. Upon weighing the cm, a predetermined amourv
of "HPT" will be added to the cm in each batch, and checked for wate:
content. (Hater will be added if needed) The cm and "MPT" ana
thoroughly mixed, estimated at approximately 15 minutes, at which
time the pug mill is emptied into a discharge hopper.
Ac this point FRI will take a .5 kilogram sample from each batch,
for reference, that will be labelled |3.4 (1 '.66).
»
Cylinders for Standard Test;
At the discharge hopper FRI will make up five cylinders 6 x 12 inch;
the cylinders will be given to:
EPA Region 10 (1) 13.5 (1)
OEQ (2) 13.5 (2 & 3)
EPA Corvallis (1) *3.5 (4)
(1) 13.5 (5), for testing.
The treated material will be returned to the excavated dry well ur«=a
and placed into four cells. Two to be compacted and two to be un-
compacted.
Cylinders from Random Cell;
A random call will be selected from which twelve cylinders will be
obtained for testing. Nine of . the cylinders of sample *3.G (I - &)
will be tested for wet dry cycles and three samples of &3.G (10 - 12)
will be retained as reserve. Special attention will be taken
to safeguard the well casing of: test wells in the excavated area.
Upon the placement of the treated' material back into the dry well
area in four cells/ the material be allowed to cure for 28 days, at
which time FRI will- obtain twelve 1 inch cores. Three from each
cell, one core of each cell of samples 13.7 (1 - 4) will be given to
EPA Region 10. The .other cores will be tested by FRI ., samples 3.7
(5 - 12).
23
-------
Any residual material will be placed back into the area of the
drywell, before the equipment is removed from the site.
After the equipment and processing machinery has completed its
function/ the equipment will be decontaminated by commercial
cleaners and readied for off site shipment. It is estimated that
the amount of time required will be between one and two weeks to
complete this pilot project.
All cylinder and cores will be transported by the participants to
their respective laboratories! with full custodial responsibility,
24
-------
INC./ U-CarfConcr«l«Syslen
Soil Stabilization Pilot Study at the United Chrome Site,
CONSTRUCTION SCHEME
MFT
AXAM PROCESSOR
1. Charging hopper with C.M
Size 1.5 C.Y.
[c
H -—
2. Self enclosed belt feeder
PRCFR1ETARY DATA NOTia
•This drawing contains Ideas, designs and
.data proprietary to U-Cart Concrete Systems.
Inc. and may not be used, disclosed to others
.or copied without its express written perrnta-
i 8. SelfJSnclqsed
a) feed from MFT Hopper
b) feed from Water Tank
4. Self enclosed Variable
speed crusher
5. Vibrating scr<
3/4" Seive
6. Self enclosed
Pulverizer
Pre-mix hopper
9. Mixing with
Agglomerator
Variable timer
a) Oversize pile
will be returned to hopper
-------
Phase 4 - Testing Protocal
The cylinders and cores resulting from phase 3 activities will be
tested by the following participants:
EPA Region 10: will test 4 cylinders 13.5 (1) and cylinders
s3.5 (9 - 12), develop Tclp extracts in duplicate and analyze
for total chrome.
EPA Corvallis: will repeat a bioassay on cylinder sample
13.5 (2).
DEQ: will complete valence chemistry for chrome on cylinders
sample 13.5 (3) initial set and valence chemistry for chrome
on cylinder sample #3.5 (4) at 28 days.
FRI will test cylinder sample 13.5 (5) for Tclp leach test
and total chrome.
FRI : will test cylinders sample 13.6 (1 - 3) to three wet
dry cycles, 13.6 (4 - 6) to twelve wet dry cycles, i3.6 (7 - 9)
to twenty-four wet dry cycles.
FRI (above) All materials from these tests and the three
untested cylinders sample 13.7 (10 - 12) will be forwarded to
EPA Region 10.
EPA Region 10: will test cores of sample S3.7 (1-4).
FRI will test cores of sample 13.7 (5 - 8 ) Compression
strength (ASTM D2166-66) and cores of sample 13.7 (9-12)
Permeability (ASTM 2434-68)
The EPA Region 10 will complete an analysis of the homogeneity
of mixing and placement of stabilized material with appropriate
microscopic examinations of the distribution of the conservative
tracers/ both in the test cylinders from phase 3 and in the peri-
pheral test section constructed in phase 3.
The products from phase 4 tasks will be quality assured, uninterprece
data reports. Each participant agrees to provide these in a timely
manner to EPA Region 10.
26
-------
Phase 5 - EPA Region 10 Report
Upon the receipt of all quality assured data reports/ uninterpreted,
from the participants, EPA Region 10 will complete an interpretive
report of the stabilization pilot study within six weeks. Regula-
tory and environmental findings will be developed jointly with DEQ
and EPA Region 10. The report will be available to all participants
and will represent the definitive public reporting of findings and
conclusions.
27
-------
5.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE
March 10 - 13
March 15 - May 30
June 15 - June 30
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
July 1 - September 30 Phase 4
October 1 - November 15 Phase 5
Obtain Samples
Testing of Samples, Bench
Testing and Results
On Site Demonstration (Field
Test)
Performance Test
Final Report
28
-------
REFERENCES
(1) CDM, "Capacity and Capability of Alternatives to Land
Disposal for Superfund Wastes - Waste Type and Quantity
Projections," September 19Q5, Table 3.1.
(2) CDM, "Capacity and Capability of Alternatives to Land
Disposal for Superfund Wastes - Alternative Technologies
for Treatment and Disposal of Soils Contaminated with
Organic Solvents," October iSflS, p. 2-i.
(3) Superfund Amendments and 'Reauthorization Act of 1986,
section 121.
(4) Region 10 working files, unpublished.
(S) USEPA, "Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,
Method 13XX," October 4, 1935 draft.
(6) Bond, F. W.t"Soil Stabilization Remedial Action Assessment,
Western Processing Site, Kenti Washington", ICF, Northwest,
Inc., for USEPA Region 10, June 1936, pp. 3-8 to 3-13 and
3-24 to 3-27.
(7) RCRA delisting model
IB) SQCEM
(9) Ecology and Environment, Inc., "Final Remedial Investigation
Report, United Chrome Products Site, Corvallis, Oregon,
106.0L32.0, " July 26, 1365, (two volumes).
(10) Ecology and Environment, Inc., "Feasibility Study Report,
United Chrome Products, Corvallis, Oregon," USEPA lOfc.OL2S.o,
August 19, 1985
29
-------
- 7 5/ -A" r- £w Xr
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
UNITED CHROME NPL SITE PILOT STUDY
PREPARED
FOR
EPA - REGION 10
DEQ - OREGON
FIRESTONE RESOURCES, INC.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Description & Objectives
2.0 Quality Assurance Objectives
3.0 Quality Assurance Objectives
4.0 Sample Rationale
5.0 Sampling Procedure
5.1 Sample Indenification
6.0 Chain of Custody
7.0 " Laboratory Testing
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
UNITED CHROME N.P.L. SITE
PILOT STUDY
CORVALLIS, OREGON
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
This Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan
is intended to serve as a manual for use by all employees
of Firestone Resources, Inc. (FRI). All employees will
follow the correct prescribed procedures presented in the
manual. QA/QC staff and principal project staff to deter-
mine that the prescribed procedures are followed or, other-
wise, that the appropriate corrective action is taken.
This project will include a comprehensive investigation
of a onsite treatment of contaminated soil at United Chrome
Site; including physical and chemical testing of contaminated
sludge, sediment, soil, and analyses of potential impacts,
before and after treatment.
This Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan has been
prepared to document the measures that will be undertaken
by FRI to assure that the work performed will be of proper
quality to accomplish project objectives.
Acceptable results from this pilot study will demonstrate
that the "MFT" process may be used in remedial clean up with
acceptable results. The data obtained in this study will
assist the participants in analyzing similar technologies
and the potential utilization of that technology in remedial
clean up of similar hazardous waste sites.
2.0 FRI QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
The purpose of this program is to establish policies to
facilitate the implementation of regulatory requirements and
to provide an internal means for control and review to assure
that the work performed by Firestone Resources is of the
highest professional standards.
The responsibility for the overall direction of the
Quality Assurance Program rests with the corporate Director
of Quality Assurance who reports directly to the corporate
President.
The program is documented in this Quality Assurance/
Quality Control Plan has been formally reviewed by corporate
management. The policies and procedures specified by this
plan will serve to define acceptable practices to be employed
by personnel engaged to this project.
-------
3.0 PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
The project quality assurance objectives are as follows;
0 All scientific data generated will be of sufficient
or greater quality to stand up to scientific and
legal scrutiny.
0 All data will be gathered or developed in accordance
with procedures appropriate for the intended use of
the data.
0 All data will be of know or acceptable precision,
accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability within the limits of the project.
The FRI Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan has
been prepared in direct response to these goals. This plan
describes the Quality Assurance Program to be implemented
and the quality control procedures to be followed by FRI
during the course of the site pilot study investigation for
the United Chrome Site.
The procedures contained or referred to herein have
been taken from:
0 EPA Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-600/9-76-005)
0 EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846)
0 American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Publications
0 Published National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) methods and procedures
0 American Public Health Association Standard
Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes
-------
4.0 SAMPLE RATIONALE
This section of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Plan presents the scope and methodology of sampling and
testing activities at the United' Chrome site.
i
Sampling will be frequent enough to identify materials
and to describe all important material changes. The number
of samples collected will be adequate enough to permit
statistical treatment of the data generated. Methods of
sampling employed will preserve the integrity of material
parameters.
4.1 SAMPLING AND FIELD ACTIVITIES
This section of the QA/QC Plan will be used to supplement
the project work plan as necessary. The sampling activity
shall be performed in accordance with the work plan. All
information obtained from the site shall be recorded and
documented in a project field log book.
Members of the Project Staff working in field operations
shall keep a daily log book of the project activities. Items
to be included in the daily log, as appropriate, are:
•
0 Field activity subject
0 General work activity
0 Unusual Events
0 Changes to plans and specifications
0 Visitors on site
0 Weather conditions
0 FRI personnel on site
* Sampling locations
Copies of the daily log entries should be sent to the
Project Manager, or the Project Coordinator, approximately
on a weekly basis. After review of the logs, the copies
should be routed to other participants. All entries in
the daily log book shall be made in ink.
-------
As part of field operations, a photograph record shall
be prepared. Photographs should be in color. As examples,
photographs should be taken of the general site layout,
geologic features, field equipment and installations, sampling
stations, and field operations. When test pits or trenchs
are dug, color photographs should be taken of the subsurface
profiles if possible.
5.0 SAMPLE COLLECION PROCEDURES
The following general procedure is applicable to the
implementation of the United Chrome field sampling program:
0 Study the site map
0 Review the sample collection program to become
familiar with the overall scope of the study and also
sampling procedures and equipment, sample handling
procedures, and shipping requirements.
0 Determine the characteristics of the material to
be sampled; become familiar with the safety
precautions and practices; and obtain the necessary
safety equipment.
0 Obtain equipment and material necessary to perform
field sampling and analyses.
0 Calibrate all field equipment prior to field work
according to manufacturer's instructions of
internal procedures.
0 Fill out sample field collection report completely
prior to leaving the field location. (Field Log Book)
0 Label all sample containers with appropriate
information.
0 Complete chain-of-custody records which will
accompany all samples during shipment.
Samples obtained for analysis shall be prescribed
and maintained in appropriate containers. It is extremely
important that sample containers and sampling equipment
be cleaned properly prior to sampling to minimize the
potential for sample contamination.
-------
All containers shall have tight, screw-type lids
and should contain appropriate preservatives prior to
use. Each should then be labeled as to preservative,
sample type, and with other sample information as
appropriate.
Sampling equipment shall be cleaned thoroughly to
minimize sample contamination and cross contamination.
The methodology proposed is to thoroughly spray sampling
equipment with water, methanol, and then distilled water.
The Field Laboratory Supervisor may propose alternate
methods.
Transportation shall ensure that samples arrive at
the laboratory in time to permit testing in accordance
with project schedule or prior to the latest allowable
testing date.
5.1 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
All samples shall be adequately marked for identification
from.the time of collection and packaging through shipping
and storage. Sample identification shall include, as a
minimum:
0 Project name and number
»
0 Sample Number
0 Sampling Location (e.g., boring, test pit, depth
or sampling interval, and field coordinates)
0 Sampling date
0 Individual performing the sampling
6.0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Chain of Custody procedures are intended to document
sample possession from the time of collection to disposal,
in accordance with federal guidelines. For the purpose of
these procedures, a sample' is considered.
0 In one's actual possession
0 In view, after being in physical possession
0 Locked so that no one can tamper with it, after
having been in physical custody.
0 In a secured area, restricted to authorized
personnel.
-------
These procedures will be followed for all samples
subject to chemical analysis for this project:
0 A chain-of-custody record will be initiated in
the field for every sample. A copy of this record
will accompany its sample.
0 Each time responsibility for custody of the sample
changes, the new custodian will sign the record and
denote the date. A copy of the signed record will
be made by the immediately previous custodian and
sent to the Laboratory Director to allow tracking
of sample possession. All change of custody of
samples must be a person-to-person exchange of
custody documents and samples.
0 Upon sample destruction or disposal, the custodian
responsible for the disposal will complete the
chain-of-custody record/ file a copy, and send a
copy to the Project Manager or to his designated
representative for record keeping. All samples
not consumed during analysis shall be disposed.
0 The custody of individual sample containers will
be documented by indicating appropriate chain-of-
custody information on each sample tag or label
for all chemical analysis samples.
0 Prior to sampling, all personnel involved will
have recieved copies of the chain-of-custody
procedure.
7.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Testing performed for this project will
be in accordance with standard laboratory procedures.
All samples recieved for analysis must be accompanied
by a chain of custody form. The designated laboratory
custodian will inspect the.samples and review the attached
records for completeness. Each sample or subsample is given
a unique identification number. Samples are assigned the
appropriate project number and are logged into the laboratory
notebook by recording the date, project name, project number,
collection date, number of samples, and sample type.
-------
7.1 Sample Collection and Handling
The following procedures are implemented by field
and laboratory personnel during this phase of the project.
0 Summarize field data collection on field sheets
(Section 5.2)
0 Collect samples and transport to the laboratory
under suitable environmental conditions.
0 Review and process chain of custody forms. Code
samples with a unique number upon receipt in the
laboratory.
0 Log in samples in laboratory log and record
information on project log-in/data summary
sheets. Open chemistry project file and
indicate parameters on sample control board.
0 Refrigerate samples.
7.1.1 Laboratory Analysis
0 Review holding times and the amount of sample
available, and prioritize analyses.
0 Perform analyses within holding time according to
accepted procedures (EPA, ASTM, AC-AC, APHA) .
Analyst must be certified according to certification
program requirements.
0 In conducting the analyses, perform the following
quality control checks on a routine basis.
- Field Blanks
- Method Blanks
- Calibration Standards
- Spiked Samples
- Duplicate Samples
- Standards Performance Evaluation
0 Record pertinent data and observations on data
sheets.
-------
7.1.2 Data Verification
0 Calculate quality control data before completing
other calculations and before reporting data.
0 Complete data sheets; sign and date each page.
0 Enter quality control data on appropriate forms.
0 Request that another certified analyst or super-
visor approve the notebook or laboratory data sheets
by formal checking.
0 Record data on project data summary sheets; initial
and date form.
0 Check other parameters for relative concentration
values. (Alert supervisor if necessary).
0 File instrument charts (e.g./ metals) in
appropriate data files; enter information
required on form.
0 Indicate completion of analysis on sample control
board.
7.1.3 Report Preparation
0 Review data on project sheets and previous
similar project data, if available.
0 Check laboratory data sheets for comments
regarding sample analyses.
0 Review detection limits and report data with
appropriate significant figures and units.
0 Determine anion-cation balance when possible.
0 Submit data to Project Group for report
preparation.
0 Verify typed data by formal checking.
-------
7.1.4 Data Validation
Prior to transmittal of final data from the laboratory,
the responsible Laboratory Manager shall review the data for;
0 Reasonableness and consistency with anticipated
results.
0 Proper implementation of the anlysis control
procedures.
If his review indicates that the analyses meet project
quality requirements, the data are considered "final" and
may be released to project management.
-------
" X
\
HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM
UNITED CHROME NPL SITE PILOT STUDY
PREPARED
FOR
EPA - REGION 10
DEQ - OREGON
FIRESTONE RESOURCES, INC.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1. Health & Safety Requirements
Routine Health Care
Emergency Medical Care & Treatment
Page 2. Standard on Site Safety Practices
Personnel Precautions
Page 3. Level of Protection
Page 4. Work Zones
-------
February 6, 1987
Soil Stabilization Pilot Study at the United Chrome Site.
HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Prior to any hazardous waste site sampling/ a medical surveillance
program will be developed, and implemented to safeguard the health of
any persons who will be utilized within the work area. This program will
consist of:
1. Routine Health Care
Routine health care and maintenance should consist of:
1. Pre-project medical examinations to establish the individual's
State of health, baseline physiological data, an ability to wear
personnel protective equipment. The frequency and type of
examination to be conducted thereafter should be determined by
medical personnel knowledgeable in the area of toxicology.
2. Arrangements to provide special medical examinations, care, and
counseling in case of known or suspected exposures to toxic
substances. Any special tests performed depend on the chemical
substance to which the individual has been exposed.
2. EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT
The following items are included in the emergency care provisions:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of the nearest medical treatm
facility will be conspicuously posted, both next to the phone and
in at least one other location on the project site.
2. The facility's ability to provide care and treatment of personnel
exposed or suspected of being exposed to toxic substances will be
ascertained. In the event no treatment is possible, arrangements
will be made for consultants services.
3. All administration arrangements for accepting patients will be mai
in advance the nearest medical facility, in addition to emergency
treatment on the project site.
4. Arrangements will be made to obtain ambulance, emergency, fire an<
police services. Telephone numbers and procedures for obtaining
all emergency services will be conspicuously posted.
5. Emergency showers, eye washing stations, and first aid equipment
will be available onsite. At least 50% of the persons on site sh<
have had first aid training, to include CPR and Mouth to Mouth
breathing techniques.
6. Provisions will be made for rapid identification of the substance
to which a worker has been exposed. This information will be
placed on a tag and placed on the victim before he is removed
from the site for rapid identification purposes.
7. The Safety Officer will be responsible for the On-Site Program,
and is in charge of all activaties in the event of an unplanned
exposure.
-------
February 6, 1987
Soil Stabilization Pilot Study at the United Chrome Site.
STANDARD ONSITE SAFETY PRACTICES
The Safety Officer is responsible for establishing, and adjusting
if necessary, safety precautions appropriate to the individual hazardous
waste site being evaluated, such as the use of self-contained breathing
apparatus, etc. The Safetly Officer ensures that all participants
conduct their work in accordance with the project Health and Safety Plan
and applicable rules. The Safety Officer is authorized to direct any
person to leave the site if that person fails to observe safety rules
or requirements or in any way creates a safety hazard.
1. Personnel Precautions
Personnel precautions include the following:
1. Eating, drinking, chewing gum or tobacco, smoking, or any
practice that increases the probability of hand-to-mouth
transfer and ingestion of material is prohibited within any
fenced area of the project.
2. Hands and face must be thoroughly washed upon leaving the
work area and before eating, drinking, or any other activaties.
3. Whenever decontamination procedures for outer garments are
in effect, the entire body should be thoroughly washed as soon
as possible after the protective garment is removed.
4. No excessive facial hair which interferes with a satisfactory
fit of the mask-to-face seal is allowed on personnel required
to wear respiratory protective equipment.
5. Contact with contaminated or suspected contaminated surfaces
should be avoided. Whenever possible, don't walk through
puddles, mud and other discolored surfaces: kneel on ground:
lean, sit, or place equipment on drums, containers, vehicles,
or on the ground.
6. Any Drugs and/or alcohol can potentiate the effects of exposure t
toxic chemicals. Prescribed drugs should not be taken by personr
on operations where the potential for absorption, inhalation, or
ingestion of toxic substances exists unless specifically approved
by a qualified physician. Alcoholic beverage intake should be
avoided during work on this Pilot project.
7. There is an increased potential for fatigue and/or heat prostrati
when wearing protective garments ( due to dehydration, etc.).
-------
February 6, 1987
Soil Stabilization Pilot Study at the United Chrome Site.
LEVELS OF PROTECTION
Personnel must wear protective equipment when activaties involve
known or suspected atmospheric contamination, when vapors, gases,
or particulates may be generated, or when direct contact with skin-
affecting substances may occur.
Equipment to protect the body against contact with known or
anticipated chemicla hazards has been divided into four categories
according to the degree of protection afforded:
Level A Should be worn when the highest level of respiratory, skin
and eye protection is needed.
Level B Should be selected when the highest level or respiratory
protection is needed, but a lesser of skin protection is required.
Level c Should be selected when the types of airborne substances
is known, the concentrations are measured, and the criteria for
using air-purifying respirators are met.
The Level of Protection selected should be based primarily on:
Types and measure concentrations of the chemical substances in
the ambient atmosphere and its toxicity.
Potential or measured exposure to substances in air, splashes of
liquids, or other direct contact with material due to work being
performed.
On this pilot project the Zone Areas will dictate the appropriate
Level of Protection, which will be based on professional experience
and judgement.
Zone 1, Level A Protection shall govern.
Zone 2, Level B Protection shall govern.
Zone 3, Level C Protection shall govern.
Exclusion Zone No protection shall be required.
-------
February 6, 1987
Soil Stabilization Pilot Project Study at the United Chrome Site.
WORK ZONES
As this site has controlled access with the use of a Chain
link fence which surrounds the perimeter of the project, minimun
efforts will be required to restrain unauthorized persons from
entering the work area. The method of preventing and reducing
the migration of contamination and for controlling unauthorized
access is to delineate zones on the site where prescribed operations
will occur. Movement of Personnel and equipment between zones and
onto the Site itself will be by access control points. By this means
contamination would be expected to be contained within relatively
small areas on the site and its potential for spread minimized.
Four Zones are planned:
Zone 1: Production Area
The Digging, Processing/ and treatment of the Soils will be
considered to be the area that the highest level of contaminates
will be available.
Zone 2: Assessory Areas
Any area within the fenced area, but outside of immediate area
of construction, such as down wind, inside of the building, and
other areas of high risk.
Zone 3: Support Areas
The Decontamination Area, the Laboratory Area, and other areas
where low levels of contamination are likely to be located. This
area is considered a noncontaminated or clean area. Support Equipment
office, and maintenance area, is located within this zone.
Exclusion Zone: All areas outside of the Fenced Area, which are to
be considered as non-contaminated.
Any personnel leaving the Zone areas 1-3, must depart thru the decon
trailer, to obtain access to the Exclusion Area.
------- |