PB95-182911
EPA-542-R-95-002 X
March 1995
Remediation Case Studies:
Bioremediation
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
REPRODUCED BY:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Recycled/Recyclable
> Printed with Soy/Canofa Ink on paper that
contains at kwst 50% recycled fiber
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies were prepared by Agencies of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any Agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its
use would not infringe pnvately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
Agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
(lovernment or any Agency thereof.
-------
PB95-182911
Remediation Case Studies:
Bioremediation
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
March 1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of nine case studies of bioremediation projects
prepared by Federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons
learned from early technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost
and performance which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup
technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation
technologies, and to consider cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of
innovative technologies. Roundtable member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to
complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These agencies recognize the
importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized from
greater coordination.
There are four case study reports, organized by technology, in this series. In
the future, the set will grow through periodic supplements tracking additional progress with
site remediation. In addition to this report on bioremediation projects, the following volumes
are available:
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment;
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction; and
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ
Vitrification.
Ordering information for these and other Roundtable documents is on the following page.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Chairman
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
11
-------
Ordering Instructions
The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI). To order, mail or fax the completed form below to: U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications
and Information, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, or FAX requests to (513) 489-8695.
Title
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies [106pp]
Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects [64pp]
Number Price
EPA-542-R-95-001 Free
EPA-542-B-95-Q02 Free
Please Send
Name.
.Date.
Organization.
Address
City/State/Zip.
. Telephone.
Internet Address
The following documents are available by calling the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4650 or writing
them at: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
Title
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation
Remediation Case Studies: Ground water Treatment
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing,
and In Situ Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies: Four Document Set
Number
PB95-182911
PB95-182929
PB95-182937
PB95-182945
PB95-182903
Price*
$17.50
$17.50
$25.50
$17.50
$67.00
Other Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) documents available from NTIS:
Title Number
Accessing Federal Databases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies (3rd Edition) PB94-144540
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation (3rd Edition) PB94-144557
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies
(3rd Edition) PB94-144565
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (2nd Edition) PB95-104782
* Additional fee for shipping and handling; next day delivery also available. Major credit cards accepted.
Price*
$17.50
$17.50
$44.50
$45.00
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ii
ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES 6
Land Treatment at the Brown Wood Preserving
Superfund Site Live Oak, Florida 7
Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 Bioventing
Treatment at Eielson Air Force Base Alaska 26
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the French Limited
Superfund Site Crosby, Texas 43
Low-Intensity Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel
Spill at Site 280 Hill Air Force Base Ogden, Utah 69
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation of
a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden,
Utah 86
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Bioventing
Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) Denver,
Colorado 104
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Land Treatment at
Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) Denver, Colorado 119
Land Treatment at the Scott Lumber Company Superfund
Site, Alton, Missouri 133
Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at
Umatilla Army Depot Activity Hermiston, Oregon 163
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide case studies of site cleanup projects
utilizing bioremediation. This report is one of four volumes which are the first in a series of
studies that will be prepared by Federal agencies to improve future remedy selection at
contaminated sites. For projects that are ongoing, interim findings will be updated in future
publications as additional data become available.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
They present cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts and several
large-scale demonstration projects and were prepared retrospectively, based on available
information and interviews with project personnel. The case studies are meant to serve as
primary reference sources, and contain information on the site; contaminants and media
treated; technology and vendor; cost and performance; and points of contact for the
technology application. The studies contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences
in the availability of data and information. Full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted
primarily for the purpose of technology evaluation, and data collection is often limited to
establishing compliance with contractual requirements or regulatory levels.
This volume contains reports on nine projects that include bioventing and land
treatment technologies, as well as a unique, large-scale slurry-phase project. In these projects,
petroleum hydrocarbons are the most frequent contaminants of concern. Two land treatment
projects in this volume represent completed cleanups at creosote sites.
Table 1 provides a project summary including information on technology used,
contaminants and media treated, and project duration. The table also notes highlights of the
technology applications.
Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media
treated and contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. While a summary of
project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for different projects because of site-
specific factors and differences in level of detail.
Cost data are shown on Table 2 as reported in the case studies, and have not
been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The dollar values shown in Table 2
should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the project was in progress (shown
on Table 1 as project duration).
The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled
consistently. However, the case studies themselves vary in terms of the level of detail and
format of the available cost data. Where possible, project costs were categorized according to
-------
an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).1 The WBS specifies costs as 1) before-
treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment costs. (Table 2 provides some
additional information on activities falling under each category.) In many cases, however, the
available information was not sufficiently detailed to be broken down in this way.
The column showing the calculated treatment cost provides a dollar value per
unit of soil or groundwater treated and, if possible, per pound of contaminant removed. Note
that comparisons using the information in this column are complicated by the fact that
calculated costs may only be available on a per cubic yard or per ton basis, and cannot be
converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk density data.
Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules,
and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in the case study
series represent early applications, and the costs of these technologies are likely to decrease in
the future as firms gain experience with design and operation.
Abstracts and On-Line Access
The case studies have been summarized in abstracts which precede each study
and provide key project information in a consistent format. The abstracts are based on
recommended terminology and procedures from the Guide to Documenting Cost and
Performance for Remediation Projects.
The case study abstracts are also available on-line through EPA's Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). To access CLU-IN by modem, call (301) 589-
8366, or to contact the CLU-IN help desk, call (301) 589-8368. CLU-IN is available on the
Internet; the telnet address is clu-in.epa.gov or 134.67.99.13.
'Additional information on the contents of the Work Breakdown Structure and on whom to contact for WBS
and related information is presented in the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation
Projects - see ordering instructions on page iii.
-------
e-scale treatment of a 1;
in place; novel air injection
system used to minimize air
Large
m
mi
ely low levels of
00 mg/kg)
Soil
levels of
and rel
BTEX
.a
"-> s
-1
§ I -
& C
2*J
as s
IM
o ° g
^ »"
Slss
.r
Field
wind
a
o
i
•8
O
•MM
PQ
v
1
U
c
I
•3
I
|i
f 1
ll
3
•s
00
J
i
J
I
g
S
it
CQ
H
I
ll
a.
-------
O
U
03
.a
t3
3
.2
1
S
.2
TS
O)
—
S
ca
1
u
>*»*
ft^
g
CM
Ml
C
1
."2
'S
-S
«
1
s
•*^ #
w #
o **
u g
•Si
Calculat
Treai
cu
"cS
O K
£
S3
O"
£»
0
"U
H
O ~
S S
o
8
oo'
S 8 o
|I§
H«<
H-l
O
t/3
13
C
•s
1
00
00
wi Wood Preservin
d Treatment)
S J
« d-
T3
S -s
rig fuel collection
not associated w
•3 °"
cd .S
Includes costs for flo
groundwater monitori
bioventing
2 g
a> -^
.si
1 i
^
' r-^
cd
cd
O
to
•o ^^
3 v^
S S S
t^"c p:
p |o
i T3
U
'oo
c
0)
§g
1
8
cd
m
a
•1
1
13
W
13 ^
> o
•a to
itJ 3>
for treatment; re
suited in econom
T3 cu
0 t"
Excavation not requii
large quantity treated
scale
OO
•o
to
T3
c
cd -o
.•3 2
° S
'o
c
0
, — ,
o
to
' (11
C 3
2 "to
i 1
O
CO
8. R o
8 8 g
os "-> 5g
s :f "->'
CN ' — i
H « ^
j
g
S
.H
ch Ltd. Superfund
e Bioremediation)
C 52
2 5
tt< 0*
o
o>
a.
to
13
JS
13
c
1
i
o
a,
3
c
cd
o
'cd'
o
to
OO
c
c
o
1>
_Q
cd
o
g o
li
U °
H
o"
00
r-i
C/5
to
CQ
If
— o
Se
B
^O
2
^
0>
c
o
o
§
13
'S
"S
Four injection wells.
of contaminants
'o
o
§, S
a
O ai
13 to
3
O
O
O
w
T3
S
o "^
| °
o
g
o
i/-i
8
0\
o
u-i
H
H
2
c^
to"
cd
DQ
a —
li
g
to
to
00
C
o
Relatively shallow bi
a
3
g
O
0)
1
1
00
c
s
00
c
0
JH
_^
'13
cd
s
z,
c
00
'i
T5
to
4J --^ "^
^J i! t
-§ g"*-
c o) ;*-;
^ T3 i
° S o
oo'
CN
U
'so
• S
e
o
S-
O
U
oT
03
§
O
PL,
.a
o
[_,
U
c
0
c
!§
Treatment using one
^ 2 *^
'oil
a ^ g
6 ^ to
O W fl>
(D r-5
I 1 f
I § 8
CD
S
'5j
o3
O
c/i "rt
4> CD
-o , — ^ *-*
3 |_l 2 ^
O p- . 5 <*i
.S S 5 3
r-, "g ^^ oo
U1 S O G
'
3
«
§
£
^H "^
< g
£> e
5 ta
ll
cd
&0
rt
"5?
system construct!
n system
is" 2
."ta *g
CN |
M 3
31
||
QJ ^>
^ -3
0>
2
1
0
c
0
OO
o
cfl
^H— 1
O
to
c
o
s
°5
l/~l
^
OS &"
-H O
II M
til
f-i S
ON 8
' T^-
. o3
H
u
c/5
"B
-------
a
en
O
U
if
C/3
WJ
c
01 O
° S
••a 5
« 5-
•^ .2
= "
rs
u
t
OH
SJD
.5
£
"*
Ji
is
c
—
o
^
J3
u
&
^
01
XJ
u
«£
II
u g
•o g
«j B
1 2
t3 k.
.S H
15
U
•8
*»>
S
H
•"£5
2
^
*
S
I
's5
£
i
"3
•O
b
S
aT
C
Z;
s
•o
o
^r
O
"3
c^
a
c
0
"S
a
Xl
1 G
|-2
.5 «
S £
i3 o
01 E
0 g
U 13
B
73 ^
« § ^ S1
g si -
"§ c .tt B-i "g
a> u w •? c
's fa S ^ ^
CX 2 rf "
c 3 rf g
Q ^ C ^
(N 10 Q
O\ O
"8 a
a >*-i 0
* ° £
ifi
•as
4> C O
•g1 o o
II
pi
7§|
H 8 3
CS <*-
ffl ^2
Qi
O
^
JJ
I
Q
X
I I3
cd ^
'1 t
E O
s y.
i 8
•3 O .«, S
U S S §
a ^
« "
I "e
||
" S 9
eti ~rt O
g-S-i
•S .1 I
a a S
'^ a °
i 5 a
o ao ~&
"If
°r^l
I
5 O O v
^ **" ^ 'a 13
to vl trt 2 p
*? *£ tt 'IB S
» II IP 'I II M
6 H CO < U O
-------
BIOREMEDIATION
CASE STUDIES
-------
Land Treatment at the
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site
Live Oak, Florida
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Live Oak, Florida
Site Name:
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund
Site
Location:
Live Oak, Florida
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Primary constituents in creosote
- Total PAH concentrations in stockpiled soil
ranged from 100 to 208 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
January 1989 to July 1990
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
John Ryan
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
(ReTeC)
1011 Southwest Klickitat Way,
Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 624-9349
SIC Code:
249IB (Wood Preserving using
Creosote)
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Construction of the land treatment area
(LTA) included installation of a clay liner,
berm, run-on swales, and a subsurface
drainage system
- Retention pond for run-off control; portable
irrigation system
- Treatment performed using three lifts of soil;
first lift inoculated with PAH - degrading
microorganisms
- Lifts cultivated once every two weeks; soil
moisture content maintained at 10%
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 4/8/88
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Martha Berry
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3016
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process; Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
This was one of the early applications
of land treatment of creosote-
contaminated soil at a Superfund site.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 8,100 cubic yards of soil treated in three lifts
- Mixture of lagoon contents; lagoon had a clay bottom and sandy contents, which
ranged from silty clay to fine sand
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- ROD specified cleanup goals for PAHs in terms of Total Carcinogenic Indicator Chemicals (TCICs)
- TCICs defined as the sum of the concentrations of six constituents: benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene;
benzo(b)fluoranthene; chrysene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
- ROD required reduction of TCIC concentration to 100 mg/kg within two years of initial seeding
Results:
- The cleanup goal was achieved within 18 months
- TCIC concentrations at 18 months ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Live Oak, Florida (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Total costs for treatment activities at this site were approximately $565,400 (including solids preparation and handling;
mobilization/setup; and short-term (up to 3 years) and long-term (over 3 years) operation costs)
- Over half of total costs (about $312,000) were for short-term operation
- Before treatment costs were approximately $58,000 (including mobilization and preparatory work, site work, and solids
collection and containment)
- After treatment costs were approximately $9,800 for demobilization
Description:
From 1948 to 1978, the Brown Wood Preserving site was used to pressure treat lumber products with creosote. While
pentachlorophenol was occasionally used, creosote was the primary wood preservative. Lumber was pressure treated in two
cylinders and wastewaters from these cylinders were discharged to a lagoon. The lagoon and soils at the site were
determined to be contaminated with high levels of organics (primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in
creosote) and the site was placed on the NPL in December 1982. In April 1988, following the completion of several interim
removal activities, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed specifying land treatment for contaminated soils stockpiled
during the interim removal activities.
Land treatment of the PAH-contaminated soils was performed from January 1989 to July 1990. Approximately 8,100 cubic
yards of stockpiled soil were treated in three lifts. The cleanup goal specified in the ROD was 100 mg/kg for Total
Carcinogenic Indicator Chemicals (TCICs - the sum of the concentrations of six PAHs selected by EPA based on the results
of a risk assessment) to be achieved within two years of operation. The cleanup goal was achieved within 18 months using
land treatment, 6 months ahead of the 2-year timeframe specified in the ROD. The concentrations of TCICs measured
during verification sampling (July 1990) ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg. The LTA was revegetated in October 1991 and
approximately 90% of the former LTA was covered with native grasses by March 1992.
The total treatment cost for this application at the Brown Wood site was approximately $565,400. The treatment costs
included solids preparation and handling, mobilization and setup, and operation costs. In addition, there were before-
treatment costs (mobilization and preparatory work, site work, and solids collection and containment) of approximately
$58,000 and after-treatment costs (demobilization) of approximately $9,800. This application is notable for being one of the
early applications of land treatment of creosote-contaminated soil at a Superfund site.
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 1 of 16
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a land treatment application at the
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund site,
located approximately two miles west of the
city of Live Oak in Suwanee County, Florida.
From 1948 to 1978, several different compa-
nies operated a lumber treatment facility at
the site, which pressure treated lumber
products mainly with creosote, and occasion-
ally with pentachlorophenol. Soil at the site
was found to have been contaminated with
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
After completion of several interim removal
activities at the site, a Record of Decision
(ROD) was signed on April 8, 1988. The ROD
specified the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a land treatment area (LTA) as
the remedial action for treatment of PAH-
contaminated soils that were stockpiled
during the removal activities. The ROD re-
quired that, within two years, the concentra-
tions of Total Carcinogenic Indicator Chemi-
cals (TCICs) in the soil must be reduced to
below 100 mg/kg. The concentration of TCICs
was measured as the sum of the concentra-
tions of six PAHs, which were selected by EPA
based on the results of a risk assessment.
Construction of the LTA was completed in
October 1988. Stockpiled soil was placed in
the LTA in three lifts, beginning in January
1989. Approximately 8,100 cubic yards of
stockpiled soil were treated in the LTA. Using
this land treatment application, the cleanup
goal of less than 100 mg/kg TCICs in soil was
achieved within 18 months, six months ahead
of the two-year limit specified in the ROD. The
LTA was revegetated in October 1991 and
approximately 90% of the former LTA was
covered with native grasses by March 1992.
This application is of note as it was one of the
early applications of land treatment at a
Superfund site contaminated with creosote
compounds.
The total costs for treatment activities at this
site were approximately $565,409, over half
of which were for short-term (up to 3 years)
operation.
(SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site
Live Oak, Florida
CERCLIS # FLD980728935
ROD Date: 8 April 1988
Background
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Information not available at this
time.
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Period of Operation: 1/89 - 7/90
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
8,100 cubic yards of soil
Historical Activity That Contributed to
Contamination at the Site: Wood preserving
Corresponding SIC Codes: 2491 B (Wood
Preserving using Creosote)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Manufactur-
ing process
Site History: The Brown Wood Preserving
Superfund Site (Brown Wood) is located about
two miles west of the city of Live Oak in
Suwanee County, Florida, as shown in Figure 1.
From 1948 to 1978, a lumber treatment
facility was operated at the site by several
companies. The layout of the facility is shown
in Figure 2. [3]
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
10
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 2 of 16
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
The lumber treatment processes at the site
included the pressure treatment of lumber
products, mainly with creosote and occa-
sionally with pentachlorophenol. Small rail
cars were used to move lumber to the two
treatment cylinders. A mixture of creosote
and water or pentachlorophenol and petro-
leum was used to treat the lumber.
Wastewater from the treatment cylinders
was discharged to an oil/water separator.
The creosote from the oil/water separator
was either sent to a storage tank for reuse,
or, if determined to be off-specification,
sent to the spent creosote storage tank. The
wastewater from the oil/water separator was
treated and discharged to a lagoon located
in the southwest corner of the site via a
culvert and drainage ditch. The treated
lumber was dried on rail tracks and stored in
an area north of the treatment cylinders. [1 ]
In 1981, a former owner of the facility notified
EPA that hazardous materials may have been
handled at the site. As a result, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulations
(FDER) conducted sampling at the site in July
1982, which showed that soil and sludge
contaminated with a number of organic
compounds were present in the area of the
treatment cylinders and the lagoon. Addition-
ally, the storage tanks and treatment cylinders
contained small amounts of solidified creo-
sote and pentachlorophenol. Based on these
results, EPA placed the site on the National
Priorities List in December 1982. [1]
In response to an administrative order issued
by EPA in September 1983, interim removal
activities were identified and specified in a
January 1988 Consent Order. [1] The interim
removal activities, conducted from December
1987 to March 1988, included:
• Removal and treatment of 200,000
gallons of lagoon water, using
flocculation, sand filtration, micron
filtration, and carbon adsorption, and
dismantling and disposing of the
former plant facility;
Brown Wood Preserving
Supcrtund Sue
Live Oak, Florida
Figure I. Site Location
Excavation, treatment (using stabiliza-
tion) , and disposal of approximately
15,000 tons of highly contaminated
sludge and soil at an Emelle, Alabama,
landfill operated by Chemical Waste
Management; and
WULMOM) --•
CVAKMATOA
NOT MMWN TO SCALE
Figure 2. Site Layout [3]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
11
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 3 of 16
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
• Sampling and analysis of soil and
water and stockpiling contaminated
soil for land treatment.
Regulatory Context: The 1988 ROD estab-
lished a cleanup goal of 100 mg/kg of Total
Carcinogenic Indicator Chemicals (TCICs) for
the stockpiled soil based on land treatment.
The concentration of TCICs was measured as
the sum of the concentrations of six PAHs,
which were selected by EPA based on the
results of a risk assessment. [1 ]
Remedy Selection: The following remedial
action alternatives were considered for the
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund site [ 1 ]:
• No action;
• On-site incineration;
• Off-site incineration;
• Land treatment;
• Treatment (mechanical or stabiliza-
tion) of sludge and off-site disposal of
wastes;
• Treatment (mechanical or stabiliza-
tion) and disposal of sludges and land
treatment of soils; and
• Biological treatment of sludges using
sequenced batch reactors followed by
land treatment of the resulting
biosludge and the contaminated soils.
Land treatment of soils was selected by EPA
as a remedial action for Brown Wood based
on cost and technical feasibility. Additionally,
this remedy provided an opportunity to utilize
and assess an innovative technology/
bioremediation in a controlled situation. [1,5]
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Martha Berry
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3016
Treatment System Vendor:
John Ryan
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTeC)
101 1 Southwest
Kiickitat Way
Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 624-9349
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: Soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant group: Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Creosote was the main contaminant at the
site. Creosote consists of approximately 200
individual compounds, many of which are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Six of these PAHs [benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b)fluoranthene,
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene] were selected by
EPA as indicator parameters based on the
results of a risk assessment. The total concen-
trations of these parameters in the stockpiled
soil ranged from ITO to 208 mg/kg. [ 1,8]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
12
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 4 of 16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major characteristics affecting cost or
performance of this technology and the values
measured for each are presented in Table 1.
These values represent the average values
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [ 11, 12]
measured during a March 1, 1989 sampling
event.
Parameter
Soil classification
Clay content and/or particle
size distribution
Field capacity
PH
Total Organic Carbon
Value
See discussion below
See discussion below
Not Available
6.9
1 1 ,790 mg/kg
Measurement Method
—
—
—
USEPA Method SW-846/9045
USEPA Method SW-846/9060
The matrix treated at Brown Wood was a mixture
of lagoon contents. The lagoon had a clay bottom
and sandy contents, which ranged from silty clay
to fine sand, but did not lend itself to a classifica-
tion analysis. [21]
• TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Supplemental Treatment Technology
Type Type
Land Treatment
None
Land Treatment System Description and Operation
Construction of the land treatment area (LTA)
involved site preparation, construction of the
components of the LTA, construction of a
retention pond, and installation of irrigation
and drainage systems. The locations of the
land treatment area, stockpile area, retention
pond, and lagoon are shown in Figure 3. [12]
Site preparation activities included clearing
vegetation and structures from approximately
four acres. An estimated 200 yds3 of contami-
nated soil were excavated during the site
preparation activities and stored in the central
stockpile area. [2]
The construction of the LTA included [2]:
• A clay liner, which ranged from 1 to 3
feet in thickness.
• A compacted clay berm around the
LTA that ranged in height from 2.5 to
7 feet and a 3-foot berm around the
soil stockpile area.
Figure 3. Land Treatment Area Location [12]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
13
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 5 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Land Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
• Run-on swales outside the treatment
area to prevent flowing surface water
from entering the site.
• A subsurface drainage system consist-
ing of lateral pipes spaced 50 feet
apart across the treatment area
connected to a main collector pipe.
The sump drained through a 15-inch
pipe into the retention pond.
• A 750,000-gallon retention pond to
hold run-off from the LTA that in-
cluded an overflow line to an on-site,
clay-lined lagoon.
• A portable irrigation system consisting
of individual sprinkles capable of
delivering water at 0.5 inches
per hour to a diameter of 70
feet. The system used water
from either the retention pond
or the lagoon.
System Operation: Land treatment
was performed in three lifts. For
sampling purposes, the LTA was
divided into eight half-acre subplots, as
shown in Figure 4. [10] A composite
sample was collected from each
subplot, during each quarterly sam-
pling event, until the concentrations of
TCICs contained in the soil within the
subplot was less than 100 mg/kg. [1,8]
An additional lift of soil from the
stockpile area was then placed in the
subplot and treated until the concen-
trations of TCICs in the soil were less
than 100 mg/kg. This process was
continued until all of the stockpiled soil
had been treated. The three lifts are
described below:
• The first lift was placed into the
LTA in January 1989. This lift
was approximately 3,300 yds3
of soil and 5 to 7 inches thick.
This lift was cultivated to a
depth of approximately 1 foot,
then irrigated and fertilized.
Twice a week, from March 1,
1989 until March 15, 1989,
the soil in the LTA was inoculated with
PAH-degrading microorganisms. [19]
The inoculum was developed by
growing seed cultures in mobile, on-
site reactor tanks equipped with
aeration and mixing equipment and
was sprayed onto the soil using the
irrigation system described above. The
land treatment area was then culti-
vated once every two weeks and
maintained at a 10% soil moisture
content level using the irrigation
system. Samples were collected on
3/1/89, 6/6/89, and 9/12/89. [2,19]
The second lift of soil was applied to
Subplots A, B, D, E, F, G, and H of the
LTA on September 12, 1989. The lift
Four Acre Land Treatment Area
H
A -H
Legend
one halt
acre subplots
•ufapM composite
locations
North
1 Inch : 100 feet
Figure 4. Subplot Locations [W]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 6 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Land Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
was 9 to 12 inches thick and included
approximately 3,000 yd3 of soil. As
with Lift 1, the LTA was then cultivated
once every two weeks and the mois-
ture content maintained at 10 per-
cent. Samples were collected on 9/16/
89 and 12/15/89. [2,19]
The third lift of soil was applied to
Subplots C through H of the LTA. This
lift was 4 to 7 inches thick and in-
cluded approximately 1,800 yd3 of
soil. As with the previous lifts, the LTA
was cultivated once every two weeks
and the moisture content maintained
at 10 percent. Samples were col-
lected on 3/15/90 and 7/24/90.
[2,3,11,12]
One problem encountered during system
operation was tilling the soil after heavy rains.
Soil drying normally took an average of 2
weeks before tractor access was possible.
[21]
Level D personal protective equipment was
required for all site personnel coming into
direct contact with the contaminated soil. The
equipment included coveralls, safety boots,
nitrile gloves, and particulate masks. [9]
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed in Table 2 are the operating parameters
affecting treatment cost or performance for
this application and the values measured for
each. The following operating parameters are
presented separately for each lift:
Total heterotrophs;
PAH degraders;
Mixing rate/frequency;
Moisture content;
pH;
• Residence time;
• Temperature;
• Carbon/total kjeldahl nitrogen; and
• Hydrocarbon degradation.
Hydrocarbon degradation was calculated
based on the difference in initial and final
TCIC concentrations in the first lift and divid-
ing this value by the amount of time required
for treatment of soil in that cell in the first lift.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
15
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 7 of 16.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
S -
o oo ^ -
o^oo-
' P* • r-
o «. o
2 ~ o -
3 «
N VO
2 2
2
NO
NO
"0
o
o. S
ON S
2
ON
CO
NO
3 s
s-
-g s r
all
1
E * I
l ° I
III
I 111
2 °
X x
x x *£
« <"! I !} ~
— f-
2 2
in to
2
S
*b "b S •?
— — c i
1
S 2
m o
o
= S
<*
01
1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1
"0*0 <"« Si - «o
2-9-S* - r>
s s
a
3
3
ie
o 3 -4^
a ? I
"s
u z
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 8 of 16.
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
^
oC
K
>^,
d
!
a
|
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 9 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
! timeline for this application is presented in Table 3.
Table3. Timeline [10-17,19,20]
Start D*U
End Date
Activity
December 8, 1983
December 1987
April 18, 1988
October 1988
January 1989
Marsh 1, 1989
March 1, 1989
June 6, 1989
September 12. 1989
September IS. 1989
September 16, 1989
December 15. 1989
March 14, 1990
March IS, 1990
July 24, 1990
January 1991
June 1991
November 1991
March 1992
March 1988
January 1989
March 15, 1989
Brown Wood added to National Priorities List.
Interim removal actions conducted at the site.
ROD signed.
Remedial action construction activities completed.
First lift of soil applied to all subplots.
Soil Inoculated wtth PAH-degradlng microorganisms at * frequency of two
application! per week.
Soil sampled and analyzed for PAHs and nutrients.
Soil sampled and analyzed for PAHs and nutrient*.
Soil from Subplots C and D sampled and analyzed for PAHs. Cleanup goal
met for all subplots except Subplot C.
Second lift of soil applied to all subplots except Subplot C.
Soil from all subplots except Subplot C sampled and analyzed for PAHs and
nutrients Cleanup goal met for all subplots except Subplots E and F.
Soil from Subplots C, I, and F sampled and analyzed for PAHs and nutrients.
Cleanup goal met for all subplots.
Third lift of soil (remaining soil In the stockpile area) applied to Subplots C
through H.
Soil from Subplots C through H sampled and analyzed for PAHs and
nutrients.
Soil from all subplots sampled and analyzed for PAHs and nutrients. Cleanup
goal met for all subplots.
Target date for completion.
Cultivation of the LTA completed
Vegetative cover planted over LTA.
Ninety percent of LTA covered with grass
ITREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals Standards
The ROD specified cleanup goals for poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in terms of
total carcinogenic indicator chemicals (TCICs).
TCICs were defined as equal to the sum of the
concentrations of the following six polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons:
Benzo(a)anthracene;
Benzo(a)pyrene;
Benzo(b)fluoranthene;
Chrysene;
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; and
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene.
These indicator chemicals were selected by
EPA based on their concentrations in sludge
and soil at the site and their carcinogenic
nature. [1]
The ROD required that within two years from
its initial seeding, the land treatment process
must reduce the concentration of TCICs to
100 mg/kg throughout the volume of the
material treated (based on quarterly sampling
results), and that, upon successful completion
of the bioremediation in the land treatment
area, the land treatment area must be reveg-
etated. [1,8]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 10 of 16
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Additional Information on Goals
The 100 mg/kg cleanup standard for TCICs
was based on the results of a risk assessment
for the site. This level corresponds to a
1 x 10'6 soil ingestion risk level. [1 ]
Treatment Performance Data [10, 11, 12, and 20]
Composite samples were collected from each
half-acre subplot, as described earlier in this
report. These samples were analyzed for
PAHs using EPA Method 8270. [9,10] Table 4
shows the concentrations of TCICs measured
in the seven sampling events during the
bioremediation of soils at Brown Wood.
Samples collected on 12/15/89 and 7/24/90
were collected after cultivating the soil lift with
previously applied lifts. Analytical results for
individual PAH constituents are presented in
Appendix A.
Table4. TCICConcentrations[9, 10, it, 12,20]
TCIC Concentration (mg/kg)
Subplot
Date
January 1989
March 1, 1989
June 6, 1989
September 12. 1989
September 15, 1989
September 16. 1989
December 15, 1989
March 14. 1990
March 15, 1990
July 24, 1990
Event
Soil application* (Llft#l)
Soil sampling
Soil sampling
Soil sampling
Soil application (Lift #2)
Soil sampling
Soil sampling
Soil application (Uft #3)
Soil sampling
Soil sampling
A
Yes
258
73
NA
Yes
71
NA
No
NA
59
B
Yes
103
46
NA
Yes
95
NA
No
NA
75
C
Yes
201
147
120
No
NA
72
Yes
25
77
D
Yes
255
478
1 5
Yes
44
NA
Yes
36
92
E
Yes
161
73
NA
Yes
til
18
Yes
59
57
F
Yes
126
63
NA
Yes
Itl
41
Yes
57
34
C
Yes
186
65
NA
Yes
49
NA
Yes
51
23
H
Yes
167
45
NA
Yes
86
NA
y««
54
27
*No samples were collected from lift #1 at the time of soil application. A TCIC concentration of tOO to 208 mgKg was measured
in the stockpiled soils prior to soil application.
NA - Not analyzed.
Performance Data Assessment
The land treatment application at Brown
Wood met the cleanup goal for TCICs in all 8
subplots, within 18 months. The data indicate
that biodegradation rates differed among the
subplots. For example, Subplot A achieved the
cleanup goal in LTA #1 sooner (i.e., within 3
months) than in Subplot C (i.e., within 9
months).
The land treatment application at Brown
Wood was conducted in 3 lifts, and the data
assessment is presented below for each lift.
Lift #1: An assessment of the data presented
in Table 4 indicates that the concentrations of
TCICs in the samples collected during the first
sampling event (3/1/89), after the first soil lift
was applied, ranged from 103 to 258 mg/kg.
The concentrations of TCICs in each subplot
measured in samples collected on 3/1/89 was
greater than the 100 mg/kg level. The concen-
trations of TCICs measured during the
6/6/89 sampling event were less than the
100 mg/kg level in all subplots except Sub-
plots C and D. The concentrations of TCICs
measured during a 9/12/89 sampling event
showed that the 100 mg/kg level had been
achieved for Subplot D, but not for Subplot C.
The concentration of TCICs measured in the
sample collected on 12/15/89 from Subplot C
was less than the 100 mg/kg level.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
19
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 11 of 16
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
An assessment of the relative rates of biodeg-
radation among the subplots for Lift #1
indicates that rates varied from as high as a
58 mg/kg decrease per month (e.g., for
Subplot A) to as low as a 13 mg/kg decrease
per month (e.g., for Subplot C).
Lift #2: On 9/15/89, a second lift of soil from
the stockpile was applied to all subplots
except Subplot C. This lift was sampled on
9/16/89 prior to tilling. The results from the
9/16/89 sampling event indicated that the
concentrations of TCICs in all subplots except
Subplots E and F were less than the 100 mg/
kg level. Concentrations of several PAH
constituents sampled on 9/16/89 were slightly
higher (within a factor of 3) than those mea-
sured in samples from the 6/6/89 sampling
event.
Performance Data Completeness
Sampling of Subplots E and F conducted on
12/15/89 indicated that the concentrations of
TCICs were less than the 100 mg/kg level in all
subplots of the LTA.
Lift #3: On 3/14/90, the third lift of stock-
piled soil was applied to Subplots C through H
of the LTA. This lift was sampled on 3/15/90
prior to tilling. The results from the 3/15/90
sampling indicated that the concentrations of
TCICs in Subplots C through H were less than
the 100 mg/kg level.
Verification samples were collected on
7/24/90 from all subplots. The results of this
sampling event indicated that the concentra-
tions of TCICs in all of the subplots in the LTA
were less than the 100 mg/kg cleanup goal.
The concentrations of TCICs measured in
these samples ranges from 23 to 92 mg/kg.
As discussed above, although the concentra-
tions of PAHs in the soil stockpiled for land
tr~^tment were measured during the removal
activities, the initial concentrations of PAHs in
the first lift applied to the LTA were not
measured. Additionally, once the cleanup
standard was achieved in a subplot, the
subplot was not monitored further unless an
additional lift of soil was applied. Therefore,
the available performance data are suitable for
characterizing indicator constituents in the
treated soil matrix, and for correlating con-
stituent concentrations and operating param-
eters.
Performance Data Quality
A rigorous quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) program for sampling and analytical
activities was outlined in the Remedial Design/
Remedial Action (RD/RA) Work Plan and
approved by EPA. [9] Appendices to the
quarterly status and semi-annual operation
and maintenance reports [10 through 1 7)
include raw QA/QC data from the laboratory
reports for each sampling event, including
results for matrix spike, duplicate, and blank
samples.
ReTeC conducted sampling and analysis activities
over the course of the soil remediation. EPA
performed oversight of sampling activities and
verified analytical accuracy and precision by
splitting samples during three sampling events.
Deviations from the field sampling procedures
outlined in the RD/RA Work Plan were observed by
EPA, but none were determined by EPA to be
serious enough to reject the data. The split sample
results were consistent for all three sampling
events. [8]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
20
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 12 of 16
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The remedial activities at Brown Wood were
managed by the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) with EPA oversight. The PRPs
Treatment System Cost
contracted with ReTeC to conduct the reme-
dial activities at the site.
Tables 5,6, and 7 present the costs for the
land treatment application at Brown Wood. In
order to standardize reporting of costs across
projects, costs are shown in Tables 5,6, and
7 according to the format for an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the cost elements
exactly as they appear in the WBS, along with
the specific activities, and unit cost and
number of units of the activity (where appro-
priate), as provided by the treatment vendor.
As shown in Table 5, the vendor provided
actual and estimated cost data that shows a
total of $565,406 for cost elements directly
associated with treatment of 8,100 cubic
yards of soil (i.e., excluding before and after
treatment cost elements). This total treatment
cost corresponds to $70 per cubic yard of soil
treated. In addition, the vendor provided cost
Cost Data Quality
data that show a total of $58,039 for before-
treatment costs and $9,827 for after-treat-
ment costs. The vendor indicated that there
were no costs in this application for the
following elements in the WBS: surface water
collection and control; groundwater collection
and control; air pollution/gas collection and
control; liquids/sediments/sludges collection
and containment; drums/tanks/structures/
miscellaneous demolition and removal; liquid
preparation and handling; vapor/gas prepara-
tion and handling; pads/foundations/spill
control; startup/testing/permits; training; cost
of ownership; dismantling; decontamination
and decommissioning; disposal (other than
commercial); disposal (commercial); or site
restoration. The vendor provided no informa-
tion on costs for monitoring, sampling, testing,
and analysis in this application. Note that the
vendor provided a total cost value for mobili-
zation and demobilization; the values shown
in Tables 6 and 7 were calculated based on
the assumption that these cost elements were
equal in value.
The cost data in Tables 5, 6, and 7 show
estimated values for construction activities
(solids preparation and handling, mobilization/
setup, mobilization and preparatory work, site
work, solids collection and containment, and
demobilization), which are based on proposed
unit prices provided by the vendor. No actual
cost data are availa1 !e for these activities. The
costs for operations and maintenance shown
in Table 5 are actual costs reported by the
vendor.
Vendor Input
Costs for similar operations were estimated by
the treatment vendor to range from $50 to
$ 100 per cubic yard of soil treated for quanti-
ties in excess of 3,000 cubic yards. [21 ]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
21
-------
Brown Wood Preservirig Superfund Site—Page 13 of 16
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 5. Treatment Cost Elements [21]
Cost Element
Solids Preparation and Handling
- spreading of contaminated soil
$2.77/yd5x 3,200 yd3
Mobilization/Setup
' installation of clay liner
$3.Z3yyd3 x 7foooyd3 s
- Installation of subsurface drainage network
lump sum
- construction of perimeter containment berms
$3.29/ftx 2,000ft
- shape retention pond
lump sum
- Installation of runon drainage swales
$f.15/ftx 3.000 «
- Installation of Irrigation system
lump sum
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
- 1988 OSJV1 (construction management)
- 1 989 O&M (includes approximately $40,000 for
groundwater monitoring)
* 1 990 Q&M (includes approximately $40,000 for
groundwater monitoring)
Operation (long-term - over 3 years)
- 1991 O8JVI (groundwater monitoring and site restoration)
- 1992 O&M {groundwater monitoring and site restoration)
- 1 993 O&M (groundwater monitoring and site restoration)
tOTAL
Co»t
$8,864
$22,610
$68,062
$6,580
$3.293
$3450
$20,312
$36.883
$194,118
$80,560
$60,477
$37,307
$22,891
$565406
Actual (A) or
Estimated (E)
Value
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
Table 6. Before Treatment Cost Elements [21]
Cost Element Cost
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- mobilization of equipment, material, and
personnel
lump sum $9,827
Site Work
- site preparation $23,906
$4,781. t7/acrex 5 acres
- fence
lump sum $22,610
Solids Collection and Containment
- stockpile remaining soil $1,696
$o,53vyd3x 3,200 yd3
Actual (A) or
Estlmated(E) Value
I
E
E
E
Table 7. After Treatment Cost Elements [21]
Co»« Element
Demobilization
- demobilization of equipment, material,
and personnel
lump sum
Actual (A) or Estimated
Cost (E) Value
$9,827 E
, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
$ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
22
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 14 of 16
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The total costs for treatment activities
conducted at Brown Wood were
approximately $565,400, correspond-
ing to $70 per cubic yard of soil
treated.
The treatment at Brown Wood was
completed using 3 lifts; the system
was constructed using a clay liner and
underdrain system.
Over half of the total costs for treat-
ment were for short-term (up to 3
years) operation.
Other costs in this application were
$58,039 for be fore-treatment activi-
ties and $9,827 for after-treatment
activities.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
• The cleanup goal was established in
terms of Total Carcinogenic Indicator
Compounds (TCICs), the sum of the
concentrations of 6 polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. A cleanup
goal for this application was specified
as 100 mg/kg TCICs in the LTA.
• The cleanup goal was achieved within
18 months, which was approximately
6 months ahead of the 2-year limit
specified in the ROD.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The concentrations of TCICs mea-
sured in samples collected during the
verification sampling event (7/24/90)
ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg.
Biodegradation rates were found to
have varied among the eight subplots.
During treatment of one lift, rates
varied from 13 to 58 mg/kg decreases
in TCIC concentration per month.
The treated soil in the LTA was ca-
pable of supporting vegetation.
This was one of the early applications
of land treatment of creosote-con-
taminated soil at a Superfund site.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
23
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 15 of 16
REFERENCES
1. Superfund Record of Decision. Brown
Wood Preserving, Florida, April 8, 1988.
2. Remedial Action Construction Report for
the Former Brown Wood Plant in Live Oak,
Florida, Remediation Technologies, Inc.
February 1989.
3. Executive Summary Closeout Report,
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site,
Live Oak, Florida, USEPA, December
1991.
4. "Report on the Remedial Investigation,
Brown Wood Preserving Site, Live Oak,
FL", by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &. Huber,
March 1987.
5. "Feasibility Study for the Live Oak Wood
Preserving Site, Live Oak, FL, by Remedia-
tion Technologies, Inc., August 1987.
6. Memorandum on Brown Wood Preserving
Site Consent Decree with Attachments
(consent decree). October 24, 1988.
7. Memorandum on Brown Wood Preserving
Site, Certification of Remedial Action
Construction Complete. April 5, 1989.
8. Superfund Site Closeout Report on Brown
Preserving Site, Martha Berry, Dec. 1991.
9. "Design, Operations and Maintenance
Plan for Bioremediation of Contaminated
Soil at the Former Live Oak, FL Wood
Preserving Site", June 1988, by Remedia-
tion Technologies, Inc.
10. "Quarterly Status Report Live Oak, FL April
15-July 15", August 1989, by Remediation
Technologies. Inc.
11. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report, October 1, 1989,
Live Oak Preserving Superfund Site", by
Remediation Technologies. Inc.
Analysis Preparation
12. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report April 1, 1990, Live
Oak Superfund Site, by Remediation
Technologies. Inc.
13. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report October 1, 1991,
Live Oak Wood Preserving Superfund
Site", by Remediation Technologies, Inc.
14. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report April 1, 1992, Live
Oak Wood Preserving Superfund Site", by
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
15. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report October 1, 1992,
Live Oak Wood Preserving Superfund
Site", by Remediation Technologies, Inc.
16. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report April 1, 1993, Live
Oak Wood Preserving Superfund Site", by
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
1 7. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report October 1, 1993.
"Live Oak Wood Preserving Superfund
Site", by Remediation Technologies, Inc.
18. Personal Communication and facsimile
containing treatment costs, Martha Berry,
March 18, 1994.
19. "Quarterly Status Report, Live Oak, FL.
January 15-April 15, May 1989, by Reme-
diation Technologies, Inc.
20. "Semi-Annual Operations and Mainte-
nance Status Report, October 1, 1990,
Live Oak Wood Preserving Superfund
Site," by Remediation Technologies, Inc.
21. Letter from John R. Ryan, ReTeC, to Linda
Fiedler, USEPA, containing comments and
information on draft cost and perfor-
mance report. Land Treatment at the
Brown Wood Preserving Site, January 11,
1995.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
24
-------
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site—Page 16 of 16
•APPENDIX A—INDIVIDUAL PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS [10-17,19, zoji
Concentration to mtft
Subplot
Caaittaient
Chrysene
Beruo(»)antht«cene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bei«o{»)|jy«n*
D1benzo(a,h)anthracene
lndet»
-------
Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20
Bioventing Treatment at Eielson Air Force Base
Alaska
(Interim Report)
26
-------
Case Study Abstract
Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20
Bioventing Treatment at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
Site Name:
Eielson Air Force Base Source Area
ST20
Location:
Fairbanks, Alaska
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
(BTEX)
- Soil TPH levels averaged 1,500 mg/kg
- Contamination is concentrated in areas
greater than 5.25 feet below ground surface
Period of Operation:
Status - Ongoing
Report covers - 7/91 to 7/94
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Vendor:
Ronald M. Smith
Battelle-Pacific Northwest Labs
Richland, WA
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Bioventing
- Bioventing conducted in conjunction with
several soil warming techniques
- Four experimental plots tested: passive
warming, active warming, surface warming,
and control
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: Alaska
- Federal Facilities Agreement
-ROD Date: 9/92
Point of Contact:
Capt. Timothy Merrymon
354 CES/CEVR
2258 Central Ave., Suite 1
Eielson AFB, Alaska 99702
Waste Source:
Spills and Leaks of JP-4 Jet Fuel
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Bioventing with various soil warming
techniques to demonstrate technology
effectiveness in a subarctic
environment.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Thickness of contamination in saturated zone - 6.1 meters
- Soil consists of interbedded layers of loose to medium dense gravel and sands
with varying amounts of silt to 6-9 feet
- Underlain by 600 feet of medium dense to dense sandy gravel
- No permafrost encountered at site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- TPH - 200 mg/kg in soil
- Benzene - 2 Ibs/day in extracted soil gas
- Remedial activities to be conducted in accordance with a Federal Facilities Agreement between U.S. Air Force, U.S. EPA,
and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Results:
- Bioventing project not complete at time of this report
- Preliminary results indicate that bioventing with soil warming stimulates in situ biodegradation year round in a subarctic
environment
- Active warming achieved higher biodegradation rates than passive or surface warming
- Ambient air samples showed no detectable concentrations of benzene 4 feet and 6 feet above ground level
Cost Factors:
- Estimated Capital Costs - $758,077 (including floating fuel collection devices, soil bioventing equipment, composting site
development, mobilization, groundwater remediation and engineering design)
- Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs - $177,160 (O&M of three components - floating fuel (5
year duration), soil bioventing (10 year duration), groundwater monitoring (30 year duration), including sample analysis
and monitoring of each component)
27
-------
Case Study Abstract
Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20
Bioventing Treatment at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (Continued)
Description:
As a result of spills and leaks of JP-4 jet fuel at a refueling complex at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) in Fairbanks, Alaska,
soil was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).
In November 1989, Eielson AFB was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) with the fuel-saturated area within the
Refueling Loop E-7, Source Area ST20 designated as CERCLA Operable Unit 1. A field demonstration of bioventing and
three soil warming techniques began in July 1991 including active warming, passive warming, and surface warming.
Specific cleanup goals include TPH (200 mg/kg in soil), and benzene (2 Ibs/day in extracted soil gas).
The field demonstration of the bioventing system was on-going as of July 1994. Available respiration test data for oxygen
consumption rates confirmed the occurrence of biological degradation processes. Preliminary results indicate that bioventing
with soil warming achieves biodegradation year round in a subarctic environment. Active warming was found to achieve a
higher biodegradation rate than passive or surface warming. It was noted that biodegradation is enhanced by adequate soil
oxygen, moisture, and nutrient levels; that injection wells are impractical at source areas with a naturally high concentration
of iron in the groundwater; and that high soil moisture content interferes with soil gas monitoring and reduces the number of
soil gas monitoring points that can be sampled.
The estimated capital cost of this application was approximately $758,000 and the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs are $177,160. Full-scale remedial activities at the site will be conducted in accordance with a Federal
Facilities Agreement between the U.S. Air Force, U.S. EPA, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
28
-------
ISITE
Refueling Loop E-7
Complex, Source Area
ST20, CERCLA
Operable Unit 1, Eielson
Air Force Base, Alaska
Alaska
Eielson AFB
Pago 1 of 14
ITECHNOLOGY APPLICATION IZZZ
In situ bioremediation (bioventing) of a
JP-4 fuel spill in a subarctic environment.
ISITE CHARACTERISTICS
iS/te History/Release Characteristics
Eielson AFB is located 26 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska and approximately 100 miles south of the Arctic
Circle.
Eielson AFB was constructed in 1944 and encompasses approximately 19,790 acres; 3,651 acres improved or
partially improved; 16,139 acres undeveloped land encompassing forests, wetlands, lakes, and ponds.
Eielson's primary mission since the early 1960s has been to provide tactical air support in direct support of Army
ground elements assigned to Alaska.
Past practices have caused groundwater and soil contamination.
Floating petroleum products were encountered in 1972 in a 6-m test hole at the ST20 E-7 aircraft refueling pump
house.
Field investigations conducted in 1989 around the pump house identified an area of petroleum, oils, and lubri-
cants (POL) contamination with floating product.
The source area was determined to be the ST20 E-7 Complex, one of three active refueling complexes located at
the south end of the runway.
The complex consists of the asphalt pad centered along the taxiway with adjacent areas of gravel and grass,
served by a fuel pump house (Building 1315), three 190,000-L defueling USTs, and several fueling and defueling
transfer pipes.
The initial date of operation is unknown.
The actual source of contaminants is JP-4 fuel spills in the refueling area and leaks of JP-4 fuel from delivery
lines for buried storage tanks. Fueling operations remain vital to the ongoing missions of the Base and will con-
tinue to serve as a part of future Base operations.
Eielson AFB was added on the National Priorities List (NPL) in November 1989.
The fuel-saturated area was assigned to CERCLA Operable Unit 1.
U.S. Air Force
29
-------
—^—^^-^——^——————^^———-^——^———^———————— Erafeon Bioventmg 2 of 14 ~~
i Contaminants of Concern ^••••^••^••••IMMIIIHIHIM^
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are provided below.
Property
Empirical Formula
Density @ 20°C
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure (20°C)
Henry's Law Constant
(atmXm^/mol
Water Solubility
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient
Organic Carbon
Partition
lonization Potential
Molecular Weight
Units
g/cm3
°C
mm Hg
mg/l
Kow
ml/g
ev
Benzene
C6H6
0.88
5.5
50
5.59x10-3
1,750
132
83
9.24
78.12
Ethylbenzene
C8H10
0.87
-95
8.5
6.43x10-3
152
1410
1,100
8.76
106.18
Toluene
C7H8
0.87
-95
26
6.37x10-3
535
537
300
8.5
92.15
Xylenes*
C8H10
0.87 (avg)
-47.9 to 13.3
7.7
7.04 x 10-3
198
1830
240
8.56
106.18
*AII 3 isomers (M.O.&P)
• Three static recovery wells were installed in the ST20 E-7 pump house test hole area and operated until February
1988, recovering 3,350 L of JP-4 fuel.
• Ten monitoring wells and numerous product probes were installed as part of the 1989 field investigation.
• Product measurements in 1993 indicated that the area extent of the measurable product has decreased, but product
thickness has increased slightly from 1989 at well 20M04.
• Smearing of the floating product caused by seasonal changes in the water table is expected to have occurred.
• The downgradient extent of benzene concentrations in ground water appears to be naturally degrading.
• The average contamination level is 1,500 mg total hydrocarbon per kg soil.
• The majority of the jet fuel is concentrated in areas below 5.25 feet.
• Figure 1 shows the approximate area of contamination.
U.S. Air Force
30
-------
Be/son Bioventing 3 of 14 ""•
Direction of
Groundwater Row
Area of Enlargement
Three 190,000 Liters
JP-4USTsandOne
«20MW13
uelPumphouse1315
TEST PLOTS
1. Surface Warming - air injection with
heat tape to warm the vadose zone
coupled with surface insulation.
2. Active - air injection with infiltrated
heated water to warm the vadose
zone coupled with surface insulation.
3. Passive - air injection with solar
warming in warm months coupled
with surface insulation in winter.
4. Control - air injection only.
Figure 1. Extent of Contamination.
LEGEND
Fuel Lines
Fuel Dispenser
Existing monitoring well
location
Approximate area extent
of floating product
Clean background plot
\
20M09
|A
Fuel
Pumphouse
1315
M039403K
U.S. Air Force
31
-------
Eelson Bioventing 4 of 14 ~"~
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Topography is generally flat and somewhat featureless with elevations ranging from 550 to 525 feet above
mean sea level, sloping downward to the north-northwest.
Soil conditions at E-7 generally consist of interbedded layers of loose to medium dense gravel and sands
with varying amounts of silt to approximately 2 meters below ground surface (bgs).
Sandy gravel is generally encountered at a depth of between 2.5 and 3 m. The upper 2.5 and 3 m consists of
a variety of lithoiogies including silty gravel, sandy gravel, gravelly sand, sand, and silty sand. These units
generally average 1 -m thick. Silty sands and gravels are underlain by medium dense to dense sandy gravel
more than 200 meters deep. Permafrost was not encountered during subsurface investigations.
The water table elevation at the site can fluctuate seasonably as much as 0.5 meters. Groundwater was
encountered at depths between 1.7 and 2.6 meters bgs. Groundwater flow is generally to the north northwest.
There is potential for interaction with surface water in the downgradient Refueling Loop ponds.
A
North
A'
North
20M04 53M04
Silty Grav«-
LEGEND
gg Silly Sand/Sandy an
Sand
& Gravely Sand
cyff\ Sandy Gram
20M01 WeH Numbtr
TO Total Otpth
-*• - Wat«rTatH»(M3)
SCALE
TD81 m
0 20m
Horizontal Seal*
TD81m
TD8 1 m
M030403td
Rgure 2. Cross Section A-A' for ST20 E-7 Complex
Nearby surface water bodies are used for local fishing and as possible sources of drinking water for moose.
Three main base water supply wells are also located directly down gradient from ST20-E7. Residences start
at approximately 1 to 1.2 miles from the ST20. The taxiway loop within ST20 is an airstrip which is in constant
use. Hangars and alert hangars surround the site.
i Site Conditions
The climate in the Eielson area is characterized as subarctic. Summer high temperatures are typically in the
low to mid-eighties. Winter low temperatures are typically well below zero with moderate snowfall. Annual
precipitation is 14 inches, annual lake evaporation is 10 inches, and net precipitation is 4 inches. The annual
average wind speed is 5 mi/hr.
i Key Soil or Key Aquifer Characteristics
Saturated Zone Data
Thickness of Contamination
Aquifer Thickness
Pore-Water Velocity
Hydraulic Conductivity
Effective Porosity
Total Porosity
Bulk Density
Value
6.1 m
91.4 m
10.0 cm/d
4ft/dto1000ft/d
30.0%
43.7%
1.60 g/cm3
Aquifer Test Data at well 54M01 (ST20) Value
Hydraulic Conductivity 1,480 ft/day
Horizontal Gradient 0.001
Storage Coefficient 0.07
Aquifer Thickness 20 ft
Effective Porosity 0.30
The average soil temperature during summer months is 40 °F. The silt content of the soil is 10%.
U.S. Air Force
32
-------
Eielson Biovonting 6 of 14
ITREATMENT SYSTEM
A bioventing system has been operating at ST20 E-7 since July 1991 to investigate the feasibility of executing
enhanced in situ bioremediation (bioventing) of soil contaminated with JP-4 fuel in a subarctic environment.
Bioventing involves the aerating of subsurface soils to maximize biodegradation of biodegradable com-
pounds while minimizing volatilization. Forced air in situ is used as a source of oxygen to promote microbial
growth and the degradation process. Bioventing in conjunction with methods of soil warming at the source
area have enhanced the biodegradation rate of JP-4 jet fuel in the soil.
Site trailer
Heat Tape
3 feet below the surface ' ^^^—p,..^—
12 parallel rows, svfr\CE WARMING :i
\ Water infiltration gallery
2 feet beiow the surface
U»nt WeH Construction Diagram
— 2" PVC Casing
Brown Sand and Gravel •
Gray Sandy Silt-
Gray Sand and Gravel -
(Strong HC Odor),
(No Recovery Below 8 Feet)
12 -
'•'•'.' '
'•'•'.' ^
'.'•'' /
**'"
1^
.
-Bentonite Plug
-10 Slot PVC Screen
- Gravel Pack (medium
graded silica sand)
2-inch diameter PVC bioventing well installed.
M03M031g
Figure 3
Figure 1 in conjunction with Figure 3 show the bioventing system.
The original system was composed of several groups of vadose wells on a 30' grid connected to centrifugal
blowers by insulated above-ground piping.
In 1992, the air injection system was modified replacing the grid system of air injection wells with one deeper
well in the center of each of the test plots. Additionally, a fourth test plot was added that uses a buried heat
tape to heat vadose zone soils.
U.S. Air Force
33
-------
—"—•-———•^—•-^-••••—•••^-•--————•—-•—-•--•—-•-—-—-—-—-—-•———-•——••-—"-^-—-————• Be/son Bioventing 6 of 14
IPERFORMANCE.- ' .' -.: ' . . .- - •>-—; •• •;.
iPerformance Qb/ectf yes •••••••••••'"••'•^^^
• To determine the effectiveness of the bioventing process in a sub-arctic environment and to evaluate potential
enhancement of the process through soil warming.
• To prevent further degradation of the groundwater quality by significantly reducing the amount of petroleum product
floating on the groundwater.
i Treatment Plan
• It is estimated that 99% of the volatile petroleum hydrocarbons can be degraded through bioventing.
• All groundwater with a concentration of benzene in excess of 5 ug/l is targeted for cleanup. The remediation goal is
to reduce the benzene concentration to below the drinking water standard of 5 MS/I-
• Bioventing at ST20 E-7 is being conducted as a three-year study which began in July 1991.
• To determine the effectiveness of bioventing in conjunction with soil-warming methods in a subarctic environment,
the source area is divided into four 50-foot-square experimental plots.
• The plots are set up to test the effectiveness of three different types of soil warming, and are compared to the fourth
control plot (Figure 1) which is maintained under ambient soil temperature conditions.
• One plot utilizes Passive Warming in which solar warming in late spring, summer, and early fall is enhanced by plastic
sheeting placed over the ground surface of the plot. Insulation is used to cover the plot to help retain heat during late
fall and the dark winter months.
• A second plot utilizes Active Warming in the vadose zone by infiltrating heated groundwater through soaker hoses
buried 2 feet below ground surface. Water at 35°C is added an approximate rate of 1 gallon per minute through five
parallel hoses spaced 10 feet apart. This plot is also covered by insulation year round.
• The third plot is a Surface Warming test plot using heat tape to add direct heat to the vadose zone soils. The heat
tape is buried in parallel lines 5 feet apart, 3 feet below the surface, and delivers heat at a rate of 6 W/ft.
• The fourth plot is the contaminated Control plot which is biovented with no artificial method of heating. Air at ambient
temperatures is simply injected into the contaminated soil.
• A Background plot of uncontaminated soil located away from the study area is also used for comparison.
• Air injection welts are installed in the center of each plot. The wells are screened from 6.5 ft to 13 ft to allow for
deeper air injection. The air injection system was reconfigured in 1992 to inject air in the deep bioventing wells only at
an average flow rate of 5 cubic feet per minute. Prior to 1992, a 30 foot grid system of shallower air injection wells
operating at 2.5 cfm was used.
• Major operation and maintenance at ST20 include weekly sampling of soil gas concentrations, regular monitoring of
soil temperature, and replacing the insulation material on the Active and Passive Warming plots as needed.
• Treatment of extracted soil gas is not anticipated.
The following assumptions were used:
• VOCs are released into the atmosphere at low rates during bioventing.
• No off-gas treatment or odor control was considered because flow rates are low.
• An air flow exchange rate of 0.6 pore volumes per day is sufficient to promote microbial activity.
• The effective porosity is 0.30.
U.S. Air Force
34
-------
Era/son Bioventing 7 of 14 ~~
^Performance Measures ••^^•^^•^^•^••••^••maiiiiii ammrnmrnmmmmmmmimsmtm;i^&^^j
Each experimental plot has multi-level soil gas monitoring wells and multi-level soil temperature probes.
Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and total petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil are measured regularly in order to
estimate bacterial growth. Approximately once a month, the air injection system is turned off, and the oxygen
levels are measured to see how quickly the microorganisms in the soil use the oxygen. Changes in soil gas
concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide are monitored and compared with the Background plot to
determine a relative biodegradation rate.
Preliminary conclusions show that bioventing in conjunction with soil warming is stimulating in situ biodegra-
dation year round in this subarctic environment. Active warming maintains soil temperatures above ambient
temperatures and thus increases biodegradation rates. The externally heated experimental plots are maintain-
ing more higher, summer-like temperatures than the control plot, despite ambient air temperatures as low as
-20°C.
25
20
15
10
a.
I
-5
- -I Active Warming
i^J Passive Warming
^Contaminated Control
Surface Warming
UncontanunatedBacic ground
/*'
' «r«
.< ?\: /*\ ,",,'; ,-w/.
-;' -- r--AV l :,T;- -»vfv-
i • * .« .
/ /^\
^'
~v A^
V
I SEP NOV I, JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV ..JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV ., JAN MAR
1991
1992
1993
1994
M03M03tc
Figure 4. Soil temperature in the four test plots and the background area.
In the sixteen-month period from August 1991 to November 1992, the average respiration rates in the three
original test plots are listed in the following table. The biodegradation rate in the Active Warming test plot is
over twice the rate measured in the Control test plot:
Test Plot
Active
Passive
Control
Biodegradation
August 1991 to November 1992
Average Respiration Rates
[mg/kg/day]
4.6
1.3
1.6
Hydrocarbon Removal
[mg/kgj
2,100
600
750
U.S. Air Force
35
-------
Figure 5 summarizes the average biogradation from October 1991 to January 1993. Here the average
biodegradation rates in the Active, and Surface Warming test plots are significantly higher than the rate mea-
sured in the Control test plot:
10
5. 6
ffl
a
cr
2 4
2.
O!
CD
• Active Warming
* Passive Warming
• Contaminated Control
» Surface Warming
OCTOBER
1991
JANUARY
1992
APRIL
AUGUST
NOVEMBER
JANUARY
1993
Rgure 5
A preliminary comparison of soil gas measurements taken from the Passive Warming test plot at the beginning of the
bioventing demonstration and six months later shows a 60% to 97% decrease in total hydrocarbon vapor concentra-
tions.
Contaminant concentrations In soil and groundwater have been analyzed. The draft results indicate that the concen-
trations of benzene in groundwater samples collected from wells at ST20 (E-7) in 1993 were generally lower (maxi-
mum 200 ug/L) than those observed in samples collected at the time of the last sampling round in 1989 (maximum
12,000 ug/L). After the bioventing treatability study is completed during the 1994 field season, Eielson AFB may con-
tinue remediation at the site using bioventing.
Surface emissions sampling has shown that benzene emissions are on the order of 0.00035 Ibs/area/day, well below
the Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation limit of 4 Ibs/area/day. Total TPH emissions were mea-
sured at 8.6 Ibs/area/day versus 135 Ibs/area/day of hydrocarbon removed through biodegradation.
Soil vapor extraction testing has shown that removal of hydrocarbons due to biodegradation is an order of magnitude
greater than hydrocarbon removal due to volatilization.
U.S. Air Force
36
-------
Eelaon Bioventing 9 of 14 •""
ICOST:
The three-year bioventing system at ST20 E-7 is being conducted as a joint Air Force/EPA study. Battelle is
the prime contractor for the Air Force and EPA component of the joint study.
Since the Eielson AFB Bioventing remediation is currently being conducted as study project, the system capi-
tal and operating do not accurately reflect the cost of remediating the ST20 E-7 site through bioremediation.
An estimate of the costs involved if bioventing is chosen as the alterative for remediation of Eielson AFB
source areas has been prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs and is summarized below. It should be
noted that these costs are for multiple sites under arctic conditions. A more general cost for bioventing on a
per cubic yard basis is found in Bioventing Performance and Cost Summary.
i Capital Cost wmmmmmmomm*mmmmmm i in i i wmmmwmmi&wMtoitotimzsz
Component Description Category Subtotal
Floating Fuel
Passive collection trenches installation $14,500
Product collection pipes/sumps/pumps/storage 20,500
Soil Remediation - Bioventing
Injection wells (30-35) 52,500
Above ground manifold system 140,000
Injection blowers 4,500
Trailer 6,000
Installation/Electrical/l&C 98,865
Start-up/Shakedown 10,000
Composting site development 16,180
Compost excavated soils 1,400
Groundwater Remediation $3,000
Subtotal $367,445
Mobilization & General Requirements @ 15% SB. 167
Subtotal $422,562
Contingencies
Bid Contingency @ 10% 42,256
Scope Contingency @ 20% 84,512
Subtotal $549,330
Other Costs
Administrative @ 5% 27,467
Services During Construction @ 10% 54,933
Legal & 5% 27,467
Implementation Cost Total $659,197"
Engineering Design® 15% 98,880
758,077
i Annual Operations & Maintenance Cost
Component Description Quantity Unit price Component Cost Category Subtotal
Floating Fuel (5 Years Total Duration) $21,000
Operating labor - 4 hours per week 208 hr 40 8,300
Electric power 1 Is 5,000 5,000
Trench maintenance 1 Is 500 500
Monthly monitoring 96 hr 50 4,800
Data management/Reporting 48 hr 50 2,400
Soil Remediation - Bioventing (10 Years Total Duration) $104,160
Fence and sign maintenance 48 hr 40 1,920
Operating labor - 8 hours per week 416 hr 40 16,640
Electric power 1 Is 20,000 20,000
Monthly monitoring 240 Is 50 12,000
Data Management/Reporting 192 hr 50 9,600
Sample analysis 20 ea 1,200 24,000
Maintenance 1 Is 1,000 1,000
Groundwater Monitoring (30 Years Total Duration) $52,000
Semi-annual sampling for VOCs 40 hr 50 2,000
Data Management/Reporting 20 hr 50 1,000
Sample Analysis 40 ea 1,200 48,000
Well Maintenance 11s 1,000 1,000
TOTAL $177,160
U.S. Air Force
37
-------
Belson Biovtnting 10 of 14 "—
1REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Eielson Air Force Base is implementing remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) activities at *he Refueling Loop
E-7 complex, designated Source Area ST20 (E-7), in accordance with the Federal Facilities Agreement between the
United States Air Force, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC).
The system is being operated on a test portion of the site by Battalia Columbus [sponsored through the United States
Air Force Armstrong Laboratory, the United States Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), and EPA].
The Air Force has been designated as the lead government agency in cleanup efforts at Eielson AFB, Alaska. As the
lead agency, the Air Force must ensure public involvement in all site-related decisions at Eielson AFB.
No permitting will be required for purge water from the monitoring wells. Eielson AFB will provide for any required
water treatment during well purging.
Eielson AFB will be responsible for analysis and disposal of any soil or groundwater wastes generated.
At the completion of the project all equipment will be left in place and will be turned over to the Air Force for
continued operation.
Administrative permits are not required for any treatment process carried out on the Base.
Bioventing is expected to achieve the Alaska DEC ARAR for soil of 200 ppm TPH within 10 years.
Recovered fuel is not a hazardous waste.
Bioventing meets air discharge limits specified by the State.
Institutional controls such as access restrictions, use of personal protective equipment, and continued use of the
Base water treatment plant must be considered to prevent exposure to contaminated media during and after remedi-
al activities.
The ST20 refueling complexes contain active underground fuel tanks, piping, and pump houses. Special flight-line
security passes are required for access, and additional security restrictions are imposed during Base exercises.
The aquifer is used as the only source of potable drinking water source for the nearby community of Moose Creek.
ISCHEDULE
Figure 6 shows the schedule of activities.
Air Force Contract Award
Site Characterization
Construction
Air Injection
In Situ Respiration Test
Water System Soil Heating
Reconfiguration ot Air Injection
Installation of Surface Warming Test Plot
Surface Warming Test Plot
Reconfiguration of Air Injection System
Soil Vapor Survey
Testing of Bioventing System
Surface Emnussions Testing
Vapor Extraction Testing
Other Testing and Sampling
Final Bioventing Report - Battelle
J /
i
a
•
1991
^S C
a-
&
) N D
a 'OB
BSBSE
1992
fFMAMJJASOr-
...••. 1 ra
a B'B- a; a :
:'•'•::'•*:
• • • • OB
:;:''::•:
4 DJ
P"W
9 '
FN
wi
1AM
ess
. g
993
J J AS
I^BS
a ;
aa
o i<
•V
£
H
B :
4 D J
£g
; I
FN
•w
•!
i .
199
\ A M 5
.11.1.0101......
"HOB
' ' •
• ' '
• . .
a i •
o ; :
a B D
4
AS
ssoq
• :
Emm
B .
a :
B •
o r>
i
ID ]
1
F
1
99
N
5
1 A
M03M031h
Figure 6. Interim Remediation Schedule.
U.S. Air Force
38
-------
^—————-—————————-—-—^—————~—'^^—^^^^— Eialton Bloviating 11 of 14
I LESSONS LEARNED
i Implementation Considerations
The ST20 refueling complexes contain active underground fuel tanks, piping, and pump houses. Special flight-line
security passes are required for access, and additional security restrictions are imposed during Base exercises.
The short construction season and arctic conditions affect implementation, operation, and maintenance.
Base snow removal plowing services for site access roads must be coordinated.
A bioventing system may be configured in several different ways to enhance biodegradation. The optimal configura-
tion of any given site will depend on site-specific conditions and remedial objectives.
The groundwater has naturally high concentrations of metals, including iron, arsenic, and manganese. Because the
concentration of iron in the water is high, the introduction of oxygen or air into the groundwater could cause precipi-
tation and fouling of equipment, wells, or the aquifer itself.
i Technology Limitations
Bioventing is an innovative technology, and data on effectiveness and time to achieve cleanup goals are limited. The
reliability and effectiveness of bioventing depend on oxygen, nutrients, moisture, and microbial populations present in
the soil.
Injection wells may be impractical from a maintenance standpoint at sources areas with a naturally high content of
iron in the groundwater.
High soil moisture content especially in the Active Warming plots interferes with soil gas monitoring and reduces the
number of soil gas monitoring points that can be sampled. In general, the deeper monitoring points where the most
contamination is present are the most difficult to sample. The use of heat tape may prove to be the preferred means
of soil warming since the problem of high soil moisture content is avoided.
Many types of batteries, as well as the electronics in many field instruments can be adversely affected by the cold.
Manufacturers literatures must be consulted for operating ranges. Additional time must also be allotted in the mom-
ing to check out and warm-up field equipment.
i Future Technology Selection Considerations/Alternatives iiiiiiii«^^^
SVE/Bioventing/Sparging:
• SVE is a reliable, proven technology for VOC remediation.
• SVE and bioventing are expected to remove a high percentage of the volatile compounds and perhaps up to 50 per-
cent of the residual contamination.
• Bioventing may release VOCs into the air at a very low rate.
• Air sparging releases volatile compounds to the SVE system. Catalytic oxidation of SVE off gas thermally destroys
organic contaminants.
• High-iron content in groundwater may limit feasibility of sparging using air.
U.S. Air Force
39
-------
Bolton Biovfttfng 12 of 14 "—
Removal:
• The removal alternative provides the greatest protection to future groundwater users in the shortest time frame
through source removal (active skimming and excavation) and groundwater extraction.
• Active skimming reduces the source of groundwater contamination by removing up to 50% of the floating fuel.
However, residual fuel contaminants may continue to leach to groundwater.
• Groundwater extraction is proven for removing contaminant mass, but not for aquifer restoration.
• Excavating "hot spots" eliminates current and future exposure from concentrated areas of contamination, but lower
levels of contamination in soil may be widespread.
• VOCs will be released to the air during excavation, composting, and air stripping.
• In addition, underground fuel lines, utilities, and fuel storage tanks may pose a hazard during excavation.
ISOURCES
i Major Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics
Treatment System
Performance
Cost
Regulatory/Institutional Issues
Schedule
Lessons Learned
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10
1,5,6,9
1,3,5,6,9,12,15
1,13,14,15,16,18
1,5,6,8,10,14
1,6,15
1,5,11
IREFERENCES
Administrative Record Code
[Information Repository,
Eielson Air Force Base, AK]
1. 003473
2. 003286
3. 003742
4. 003838
5. 003853
6. 003830
Document Description
U.S. Air Force. 1992. Environics TOG Task 3 Bioventing Feasibility Study: Eielson
Air Force Base. Annual Report, December 1992. In preparation for the U.S. Air
Force by BATTELLE Columbus Division, Columbus, Ohio.
U.S. Air Force. 1992. OUIB Record of Decision, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
September 1992.
U.S. Air Force. 1993. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Operable Unit 1
Management Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Draft Final, May 1993. U.8. Air
Force Environmental Restoration Program.
U.S. Air Force. 1993. Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report, Volume 1,
Text and Appendixes, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Draft, August 1993. U.S. Air
Force Environmental Restoration Program.
U.S. Air Force. 1993. Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, Volume 3: Text and
Appendixes, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Draft, November 1993. U.S. Air Force
Environmental Restoration Program.
U.S. Air Force. 1993. Interim Remedial Action. Remedial Design: OUIB Source
Area ST-20 (E-7). Draft, September 1993. Prepared for Eielson Air Force Base
through Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas.
U.S. Air Force
40
-------
Eolion Bhvonting 13 of 14
7. 003926
8. 002694
9. 003375
10. On File in Information Repository
NOTE:
Additional Sources of Information
11. Office Copy
12. Correspondence [Project File]
13. Correspondence [Project File]
14. Correspondence [Project File]
15. Monthly Status Reports
[Project File]
16. Report
Key Personnel/ Points of Contact:
17. Capt. Catherine Vogel,
USAF
Contract/Project Officer
U.S. Air Force. 1993. Management Action Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Revision, 17 December 1993. U.S. Air Force Environmental Restoration Program.
343d Fighter Wing. Eielson Air Force Base Community Relations Plan for
Environmental Restoration. October 1991. Eielson Air Force Base Installation
Restoration Program.
343d Fighter Wing. Fact Sheet: Bioventing. December 1992. Eielson Air Force
Base Installation Restoration Program.
U.S. Air Force. Base-General Information for DPM FY-93 U.S. Air Force Scoring
Exercise. DPM Information Packet based on Site 20 data. Completed on 5
January 1994 by 354 CES/CEVR, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Submitted to
Engineering Science, Fairfax, Virginia.
A final report from Battelle summarizing the results and conclusions of the Site 20
bioventing research project will be prepared by December 1994.
Vogel, Catherine M. Soil Bioventing Under Arctic Conditions. The Military
Engineer Magazine, August 1993.
Kittel, Jeffrey A. Letter from Jeffrey Kittel of Battelle (Columbus, OH) in response
to a request from Capt. Catherine Vogel of HQ AFCESA/RAVW (Tyndall AFB, FL),
dated 31 December 1993. SUBJECT: Estimate to Complete the Bioventing Field
Research Project at Site 20, Eielson AFB, AK.
Battelle. Faxed submitta! from Battelle (Columbus, OH) to Lafayette Turner of
AFDTC/PKRA (Eglin AFB, FL), dated 5 March 1993. SUBJECT: Full-scale
Bioventing Demonstration in Alaska, Environics Task Order Contract Task 3,
Contract No. F08635-90-C-0064. Proposal for completion of the above referenced
task (includes proposed funding).
Vogel, Catherine M. Fax from Capt. Catherine Vogel at AL/EQ (Tyndall AFB, FL) to
Dave Blevins of 354 CES/CEVR (Eielson AFB, AK), dated 8 March 1993. SUBJECT:
FY 92 Bioventing Funding. Fax includes copies of the Battelle bills (monthly invoic-
es) for 3 September 1992 through 25 February 1993.
Battelle. Copies of Monthly Status Reports from Dr. Robert E. Hinchee of Battelle
(Columbus, OH) to Capt. Catherine Volge of AL/EQW (Tyndall AFB, FL) for August
1992 through December 1993. SUBJECT: (Thirteenth through Twenty-Ninth]
Monthly Status Report, Full-Scale Bioventing Demonstration in Alaska, Task 3,
Contract F08635-90-C-0064.
Bioventing Performance and Cost Summary, February 1994. Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, Texas.
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
U.S. Air Force
41
-------
Bilton Biovmting 14 of 14 "—
18. Contractor:
Mr. Ronald M. Smith
Project Manager for
Eielson AFB, Alaska
[RI/FS Contractor, OUs and SERs]
Dr. Robert Hinchee, P.E.
Project/Research Leader
[Bioventing Feasibility Study]
19. Capt. Chester Halcomb
Chief, Environmental Flight
20. Capt. Timothy L. Merrymon
Installation Restoration
Program Manager
21. Jennifer R. Kiger
Eielson AFB Bioventing
Technology Demonstration
Point of Contact
Management Operations
Battelle - Pacific Northwest Labs
Richland, Washington
Battelle - Columbus Division
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43264
354 CES/CEV
2258 Central Avenue, Suite 1
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska 99702-2225
354 CES/CEVR
2258 Central Avenue, Suite 1
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska 99702-2225
354 CES/CEVR
2258 Central Avenue, Suite 1
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska 99702-2225
IANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental A
Technology & Service /fcE*
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichael 303-741-7169
1REVIEW
Capt. Chester Halcomb
354 CES/CEV
2258 Central Avenue, Suite 1
Eielson AFB, AK 99702
U.S. Air Force
42
-------
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the
French Limited Superfund Site
Crosby, Texas
43
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the
French Limited Superfund Site, Crosby, Texas
Site Name:
French Limited Superfund Site
Location:
Crosby, Texas
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and Chlorinated Aliphatics; .
- Primary constituents included benzene, vinyl
chloride, and benzo(a)pyrene
- Site contaminants included volatile organics
(up to 400 mg/kg); pentachlorophenol (up to
750 mg/kg); semivolatiles (up to 5,000
mg/kg); metals (up to 5,000 mg/kg); PCBs
(up to 616 mg/kg) and arsenic
Period of Operation:
January 1992 to November 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendors:
Jonathan Greene
ENSR
3000 Richmond Avenue
Houston, TX 77098
(713) 520-9900
Gary Storms
Praxair, Inc.
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06810
(203) 837-2174
Technology:
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
- Two treatment cells designed to hold 17
million gallons each
- Mixflo™ aeration system used to maintain
dissolved oxygen concentration at 2.0 mg/L
- Tarry sludge dredged and treated separately
from subsoil in lagoon
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 3/24/88
- PRP Lead
SIC Code:
4953E (Waste management-refuse
systems; sand and gravel pit disposal)
Point of Contact:
Judith Black
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-6739
Waste Source:
Disposal pit
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
A large full-scale application of
slurry-phase bioremediation of a
lagoon at a Superfund site. An
innovative system was used to
minimize air emissions during the
remediation.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- Approximately 300,000 tons
- Soils varied from fine grained silts to coarse sand
- Sludges - tar-like consisting of a mixture of petrochemical sludges, kiln dust, and
tars (styrene and oils)
44
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation at the
French Limited Superfund Site, Crosby, Texas (Continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified maximum allowable concentrations in the lagoon subsoils and sludges for 5 contaminants:
benzo(a)pyrene (9 ing/kg), total PCBs (23 mg/kg), vinyl chloride (43 mg/kg), arsenic (7 mg/kg), and benzene (14 mg/kg)
- The ROD specified an action level for total VOCs of 11 ppm for 5 minutes at the site boundary at any time during
treatment
Results:
- The specified cleanup criteria were met within 10 months treatment for Cell E and 11 months treatment for Cell F
- There were no exceedances of the established criteria for VOC air emissions
Cost Factors:
- Total costs were approximately $49,000,000 (including project management, pilot studies, technology development, EPA
oversight, and backfill of the lagoon)
- $26,900,000 of total costs were for activities directly attributed to treatment (including solids, liquid, and vapor/gas
preparation and handling, pads/foundations/spill control, mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, training, and operation)
- $16,500,000 were for before-treatment activities (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring sampling,
testing, and analysis, site work, surface water, groundwater, and air pollution/gas collection and control, solids and
liquids/sediments/sludges collection and containment, and drums/tanks/structures/miscellaneous demolition and removal)
- $5,600,000 were for after-treatment activities (including decontamination and decommissioning, commercial and non-
commercial disposal, site restoration, non-treatment unit demobilization, topsoil, and revegetation)
Description:
The French Ltd. Superfund site in Crosby, Texas, is a former industrial waste disposal facility where an estimated 70 million
gallons of petrochemical wastes were disposed in an unlined lagoon at the site between 1966 and 1971. The primary
contaminants at the site included benzo(a)pyrene, vinyl chloride, find benzene, as well as arsenic and PCBs.
In 1983, the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) formed the French Limited Task Group (FLTG) to lead the remediation
at the site. The ROD, signed in March 1988, specified bioremediation of the lagoon. In addition, the ROD specified soil
cleanup goals for five target contaminants (benzo(a)pyrene, total PCBs, vinyl chloride, arsenic, and benzene). Slurry-phase
bioremediation of the lagoon was performed from January 1992 through November 1993. An innovative system (the MixFlo
system) was used for aeration in this application that minimized air emissions while supplying oxygen to the biomass. This
system used pure oxygen and a series of eductors to oxygenate the mixed liquor while minimizing air emissions. During
this time, approximately 300,000 tons of contaminated sludge and soil in the lagoon were treated to levels below those
specified in the ROD. In addition, air emission limits specified in the ROD were not exceeded during treatment. Total costs
for the system were approximately $49,000,000, including approximately $26,000,000 for activities directly attributed to
treatment.
This application is notable as being the first application of slurry-phase bioremediation at a Superfund site, and included
approximately $12,000,000 in technology development and pilot-scale testing work. According to FLTG, the costs for future
applications of slurry-phase bioremediation depend on site-specific chemical and physical conditions with oxygen and
nutrient supply being key factors affecting the cost of bioremediation systems.
45
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 1 of 23
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a slurry-phase bioremediation
application at the French Limited Superfund
Site (French Ltd.) in Crosby, Texas. This project
is notable for being a large, full-scale applica-
tion of slurry-phase bioremediation at a
Superfund site. In addition, an innovative
system (the MixFlo system) was used for
aeration that minimized air emissions while
supplying adequate oxygen to the biomass.
The French Ltd. site is a former permitted
industrial waste disposal facility, where an
estimated 70 million gallons of wastes from
area petrochemical companies were disposed
of on site between 1966 and 1971, primarily
in an unlined lagoon. Contaminants of con-
cern included polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons, chlorinated organics, and metals.
In 1983, the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) formed the French Limited Task Group
(FLTG) to lead the remediation at the site. A
Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying information
Site Information: French Limited Superfund
Site
Crosby, Texas
CERCLIS* TXD980514814
ROD Date: 24 March 1988
March 24, 1988. The ROD specified
bioremediation for remediation of the lagoon.
A slurry-phase bioremediation process was
operated from January 1992 through Novem-
ber 1993 to remediate approximately
300,000 tons of tar-like sludge and subsoil
from the lagoon. The slurry-phase
bioremediation process achieved the speci-
fied soil cleanup goals for the five target
contaminants (benzo(a)pyrene, total PCBs,
vinyl chloride, arsenic, and benzene) within
1 1 months of treatment.
Costs for the slurry-phase bioremediation
system including technology development,
project management, EPA oversight, and
backfill of the lagoon were approximately
$49,000,000. Approximately $26,900,000 in
costs were for activities directly associated
with treatment, which corresponds to $90/ton
for treatment of 300,000 tons of soil and
sludge.
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated With Applica-
tion? Yes (See Appendix A)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? No
Period of Operation: January 1992-
November 1993
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 300,000 tons of soil and
sludge; estimated as 70,000 tons of tar-like
sludge and 230,000 tons of subsoil, deter-
mined by borings of the lagoon bottom.
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Industrial Waste
Disposal
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953E (Waste
management-refuse systems; sand and gravel
pit disposal)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Disposal Pit
Site History: The French Limited Superfund
Site (French Ltd.), a former industrial waste
storage and disposal facility, is a 22.5-acre
site located in Crosby, Texas, as shown in
Figure 1. Between 1966 and 1971, approxi-
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
46
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 2 of 23
(SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
mately 70 million gallons of industrial wastes
from area petrochemical companies were
disposed of at the French Ltd. site. These
wastes included tank bottoms, pickling acids,
and off-specification product from refineries
and petrochemical plants. Most of this waste
was deposited in an unlined, 7.3-acre lagoon.
Wastes were also processed in tanks and
burned.
The lagoon was an abandoned sand pit which
had filled with water to depths of 20 to 25
feet. The primary contaminants found in the
lagoon were polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons, halogenated semivolatiles, halogenated
volatiles, nonhalogenated volatiles, metals,
and nonmetallic elements. The lagoon wastes
were concentrated in a layer of tar-like sludge
approximately 4 feet thick and a 5-6 foot
layer of subsoil. [1, 35, 37, 39]
The site is located within the 100-year
floodplain of the San Jacinto River and is
susceptible to periodic flooding. In May of
1979, a flood occurred and breached the
earthen dike which surrounded the lagoon. As
a result, contaminated sludges were washed
out of the lagoon and into an adjacent slough.
In 1982, EPA repaired the dike and pumped
the contaminated sludge from the slough
back into the lagoon. [1,9]
EPA identified approximately 90 companies
as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), and,
in 1983, the PRPs formed the French Limited
Task Group (FLTG). In 1984, FLTG agreed to
perform the cleanup. [1, 8, 9]
EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI)
at the site in 1983, and the FLTG conducted a
field investigation and a second RI in 1986.
Selection of a remedy for the lagoon was
based on the results of the 1983 and 1986
investigations and a Feasibility Study (FS). EPA
initially proposed incineration as the remedial
technology for the tar-like sludge and affected
subsoil at an estimated cost of $75 to $ 125
million. FLTG then investigated other more
cost-effective alternatives. In 1987, FLTG
conducted a pilot-scale bioremediation
treatability study in a 0.6-acre section of the
lagoon (see Appendix A). As a result of the
Figure 1. Site Location
study, a 1988 ROD replaced incineration with
in-situ biodegradation for remediation of the
site. [1,8]
Regulatory Context: The ROD specified risk-
based quantitative cleanup goals for five
types of contaminants on the bottom of the
lagoon at the French Ltd. site, as described
below under cleanup goals and standards.
The ROD also provided specifications for
groundwater recovery and treatment. [1]
Remedy Selection [1]: The following reme-
dial action alternatives were considered for
the French Ltd. site:
• On-site incineration of tar-like sludge
and contaminated subsoil;
• On-site incineration of tar-like sludge
and chemical fixation of contami-
nated subsoil in-place;
• Encapsulation of contaminants by
slurry walls and a multilayered cap;
• No action; and
• Biological treatment of tar-like sludge
and contaminated subsoil.
Biological treatment of sludges and contami-
nated subsoils was selected because it was
believed to be capable of meeting the
cleanup goals in a reasonable period of time
and at a lower cost than incineration.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
47
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 3 of 23
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
The ROD indicated that the probability of
bioremediation failing was less than for other
options. However, if bioremediation failed,
Site Logistics/Contacts
the ROD discussed the use of incineration as
a backup.
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Ms. Judith Black
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214)665-6739
PRP Project Coordinator:
Mr. R.L. (Dick) Sloan, Project Coordinator
FLTG, Incorporated (Primary Contact for this
Application)
15010 FM 2100
Suite 200
Crosby, Texas 77532
(713)328-3541
Treatment System Vendors:
Mr. Jonathan Greene (Design Contractor)
Senior Project Manager
ENSR
3000 Richmond Avenue
Houston, Texas 77098
(713)520-9900
Mr. Gary Storms (Subcontractor)
Applications Manager
Waste Management
Praxair, Inc.
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, Connecticut 06810
(203)837-2174
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix processed through the treatment system: Tar-like sludge and subsoil (in situ
within lagoon)
Contaminant Characterization [1]
Primary Contaminant Groups: Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons; halogenated
semivolatiles; halogenated volatiles;
nonhalogenated volatiles; and nonmetallic
elements.
The soil and tar-like sludge in the lagoon
contained a variety of organics, metals, and
PCBs. The specific types and concentrations
of constituents, as identified in the ROD,
included:
• PCBs up to 616 mg/kg;
• Volatile organics up to 400 mg/kg for
an individual contaminant;
• Pentachlorophenol up to 750 mg/kg;
• Semivolatiles up to 5,000 mg/kg for
an individual contaminant; and
• Metals up to 5,000 mg/kg for an
individual metal.
Concentrations of specific contaminants in
the soil and sludge are presented in the
Treatment Performance Data section of this
report.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
48
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 4 of 23
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Table 1 are the major matrix
characteristics affecting cost or performance
for this technology, and the values measured
for each.
The tar-like sludge was aromatic and oily, and
consisted of a mixture of petrochemical
sludges, kiln dust, and tars (primarily styrene
and soils). It was a thick, viscous, oily, black
layer about 4 feet thick that covered the
bottom of the lagoon. The subsoils varied
from fine grained silts to coarse sand. [38,
39]
Table 1. Matrix Classification [38,39]
Parameter
Value
Measurement Procedure
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
See discussion above
See discussion above
• TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Type
Pretreatment (solids) - mixing
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation
The slurry-phase bioremediation system used
at French Ltd. stimulated the indigenous
microorganisms with aeration, pH control,
and nutrients to biologically oxidize the
organic waste materials. The tar-like sludge
was sheared and introduced into the mixed
liquor using open-faced centrifugal pumps
mounted on articulated arms. The subsoil was
sheared and introduced into the mixed liquor
using conventional swinging ladder cutter
head dredges. Controlled shearing was a key
factor in controlling the growth of biomass.
Biomass growth was also controlled by
controlling the level of dissolved oxygen and
pH. [9. 35]
The tar-like sludge and subsoils were treated
separately. If the soils and sludge had been
mixed together, the sludge would have
coated the soil particles, and the mixture
would have had a greater specific gravity and
settled more rapidly, thus reducing treatment
effectiveness. Treating the sludge separately
kept the sludge from coating the soil particles
and maximized the surface area available for
treatment. [39]
System Description
As shown in Figure 2, the lagoon was divided
into two treatment cells, Cell E and Cell F, of
approximately equal volume. The two treat-
ment cells were created by installing a sheet
pile wall across the lagoon in a north-south
direction so there would be equal treatment
media volume in each of the two cells. This
configuration allowed for the sequential
remediation of the western cell (Cell E) and
the eastern ceil (Cell F). Additional benefits of
the sequential remediation approach were to
limit air emissions during the remediation;
reduce the amount of capital equipment that
had to be purchased; and allow for process
improvements over the duration of the
remediation. [9]
^ us ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
3 Technology Innovation Office
49
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 5 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (cont.)
The treatment cells were designed to hold a
total mixed liquor volume of 34.0 million
gallons (1 7.0 million gallons in each treat-
ment cell), and to maintain a minimum
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of 2.0
mg/L in the mixed liquor. Based on the results
of the treatability study (see Appendix A), an
oxygen uptake rate (OUR) of 0.30 mg/L/
minute was chosen as the design basis for
aeration supply. The oxygen requirements
were determined by multiplying the OUR by
the total mixed liquor volume. Oxygen
requirements for each cell were determined
to be approximately 2,500 pounds/hour. [9]
The main components of the bioremediation
process, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, in-
cluded a MixFlo aeration system, a liquid
oxygen supply system, a chemical feed
system, and dredging and mixing equipment.
A description of the MixFlo Aeration System,
sludge and subsoil mixing, chemical addition,
and residuals management is presented
below.
MixFlo Aeration System
According to the vendor, the FLTG chose a
pure oxygen system rather than an air-based
aeration system to lower air emissions during
site remediation. Greater amounts of organic
air emissions are released from air-based
aeration systems because larger amounts of
air are required to achieve a specific dis-
solved oxygen content. The MixFlo system
has higher transfer efficiencies than air-based
aeration systems (90% as opposed to 30%)
and uses high purity oxygen (90% or greater).
This combination of higher transfer efficiency
and high purity oxygen reduces offgases and
air emissions from the treatment process.
[35]
Gulf Pump Road
figure 2. French Ltd. Lagoon and Bioremediation Treatment Cell Configuration [9]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
50
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 6 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Sluriy-Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (cont.)
The MixFlo aeration system used at French
Ltd. dissolves oxygen in a two-stage process,
as shown in Figure 3. In the first stage, water
is pumped from the treatment area and
pressurized. Pure oxygen is then injected into
the water. The resulting two-phase mixture
passes through a pipeline contractor where
approximately 60% of the injected oxygen
dissolves. In the second stage, the oxygen/
water mixture is reinjected into the treatment
area using a liquid/liquid eductor. The eductor
dissipates the pumping energy in the oxygen/
water mixture by ingesting unoxygenated
water from the treatment area, mixing it with
oxygenated water, and then discharging the
overall mixture back into the treatment area,
dissolving 75% of the remaining oxygen. [9]
At French Ltd., oxygen was injected in eight
pipeline contactors into the mixed liquor at
enhanced pressure. The mixed liquor was
pressurized by pumps located on two pon-
toons. The pipeline contactors each supplied
three eductors. The circulation flow pattern in
the treatment cell established by the educ-
tors' discharge was supplemented by three
raft-mounted self-powered circulation mixers.
[9]
Pipeline Contractor
V
Lagoon
Eituctors
Pump
O;
O, Control
Figure 3 Schematic Diagram of Mixflow System (adapted from [41J)
Liquid Oxygen
Supply
_pxygenated
Water
Sludge
Mixer
Subsoil Circulation
Mixer Mixer Nutrient Addition
Lime
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Phosphate
Fertilizer
Not Drawn to Scale
Figure 4. French Ltd. Lagoon Treatment Process Flow Diagram (adapted from [9])
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 7 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation System Description and Operation (cont.)
Oxygen was distributed to the entire volume
of mixed liquor in the treatment cell by
creating a dual circulation pattern that moved
mixed liquor past and through the MixFlo
eductors to pick up oxygen, and circulated it
around the lagoon where oxygen was con-
sumed in the bioremediation process. [9]
The design of the MixFlo system was based
on the following criteria [9]:
• Capacity = 60,000 gpm;
• Motor Power = 3,400 hp;
• Oxygen Transfer Efficiency >90%;
• Temperature = 40°C;
• Oxygen Requirement = 2,500 lbs/hr;
• Liquid Depth = 10 feet;
• Pump Efficiency = 75%; and
• Saturation Oxygen Concentration
(C) = 0.9 x C4Q.C (tap water) = 27.5
ppm
Sludge and Soil Mixing
As described above, different equipment was
used for dredging and mixing the tar-like
sludges and subsoil. Four sludge mixers
provided the shear mixing of sludges neces-
sary to achieve biological treatment of those
solid materials. The centrifugal pump selected
for use on the sludge mixers had a capacity of
1,250 gallons per minute. [9] Four hydraulic
subsoil mixers provided the shear mixing of
lagoon bottom subsoils necessary to achieve
biological treatment of the waste constituents
adsorbed onto these solid materials. Maxi-
mum water depth was approximately 25 feet.
[9]
Chemical Addition
Simple batch systems for chemical addition
were used to control the pH and nutrient
chemistry of the mixed liquor during treat-
ment. A 35% solution of hydrated lime was
diluted on site to 15% concentration by
adding water. To offset nutrient losses,
nitrogen was added as hydrated urea (46%
nitrogen by weight) and phosphorus was
added as liquid ammonium phosphate. The
system was designed to add batches of up to
1,500 gallons of chemicals to the lagoon at
several locations. [9]
Residuals Management
After verification that soil and sludge cleanup
objectives had been achieved, reverse osmo-
sis was used to treat the surface water in the
lagoon. Approximately 40 million gallons of
surface water from the lagoon were pro-
cessed through the reverse osmosis system
and discharged to the San jacinto River. As
the lagoon was dewatered, it was backfilled
with clean soil. Residual solids were stabilized
by mixing with pebble lime in the ratio of five
parts solids to one part pebble lime. The site
was then planted with grass and native
vegetation and contoured to drain away from
the lagoon. [34]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
52
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 8 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Table 2 are the major operat-
ing parameters affecting cost or performance
for this technology and the values measured
for each. System throughput and hydrocarbon
degredation are described under system
description and treatment performance data,
respectively.
Table 2. Operating Parameters [10-33]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Dredging Hours
Mixing Hours
Moisture Content
PH
Residence Time
Temperature
Microblal Plate Count
Oxygen Uptake Rate
Dissolved Oxygen Content
HMB Catalyst Activity
Nutrient Nitrogen Content
Nutrient Phosphorus
Content
Value
2,500 Ibs/hr oxygen
358 to 1 .669 hrs/month
)', 1 64 to 2,052 hrs/month
70% to 95%
6.6 to 8.5
1 1 months (Cell F).
10 months (Cell E)
7 1.6 to 98.6° F
105tol07CFU/ml
0.9 to 30 mg/L/hr
0.5 to 4.0 mg/L
0.4 to 50 units
0.05 mg/L
0.05 to 1 0 mg/L
Measurement Procedure
—
...
...
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Timeline
A timeline for this application is provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Timeline ft, 9]
Start Date
—
4/87
...
...
1/91
7/9)
1/92
11/92
1/93
6/93
12/93
2/94
End Date
10/83
4/88
3/88
3/90
6/91
12/91
11/92
12/92
1 1/93
1/94
3/94
11/94
Activity
Site added to the National Priorities List
Biological treatment pilot study conducted on site In a
0,5-acrecell
ROD signed
Remedial Action Plan prepared
Remedial Design prepared
Cleanup facility construction completed
Bloremediation of Cell E
Transfer of bloremedlation equipment to
CellF
Bioremediation of Cell F
Post-treatment care and backfill of Cell I with clean
soil
Demobilization of treatment equipment from Cell F
Post-treatment care and backfill of Cell F with clean
soil
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
53
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 9 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The ROD specified maximum allowable
concentrations for five contaminants in
lagoon subsoils and sludges at the French Ltd.
site. [1]
These contaminants, listed in Table 4, were
specified in the ROD as indicator compounds
and the cleanup goals shown above were
developed based on the results from a risk
assessment using a 1 x 10 5 excess lifetime
cancer risk factor. Bioremediation was re-
quired until analytical results for all sampling
points (nodes) were in compliance with site
remediation cleanup goals for two consecu-
tive sampling events. Each sample from every
composited node sample was required to
meet the cleanup goals. [1,9]
In addition, the ROD specified an action level
for total VOCs in ambient air of 11 ppm for 5
minutes at any time during treatment. The
action level applied to the ambient air at the
site boundary for the 35 VOCs listed in
Table 5. [9]
Table 4. Cleanup Goals for Soils and Sludges [1]
Contaminant
Benzo(a)pyrene
Total PCBs
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
Benzene
Maximum Allowable Concentration
(mg/kg)
9
23
43
7
14
Table 5. VOCs Required to be Measured in Ambient Air [9]
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulflde
Carbon tetrachloroide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroe thane
2-ChloroethyMnylether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dichloroptopane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene chloride
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Total Xylenes
LIJ-Trichlproethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl Chloride
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
54
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 10 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data
Treatment performance was monitored using
subsoil and sludge samples and mixed liquor
samples. To assess compliance with cleanup
goals, subsoil and sludge samples were
collected from 52 grid sampling locations in
Cell E and 68 locations in Cell F. During each
bioremediation progress measurement
sampling event, approximately 50% of these
locations were sampled. Sludge and subsoil
samples were taken from the lagoon bottom
using a core sampling device from a
workboat. An OVM-PID meter was used to
measure volatile organic concentrations along
the surface of the core. The sludge sample
was taken from the sludge layer at the point
of highest volatile organic concentration. The
subsoil sample was collected from a compos-
ite of the subsoil from the upper 4-foot layer
of subsoil collected in each core. [9]
Tables 6 and 7 show the average concentra-
tions measured in the subsoil and sludge
during the bioremediation treatment of Cells
E and F, respectively. The values shown on
these tables are for composited samples
collected during the treatment process.
The five indicator compounds showed reduc-
tions in concentrations over the course of
treatment. For example, benzene was re-
duced from 608.0 mg/kg to 4.4 mg/kg in Cell
E, and from 393.3 mg/kg to 5.2 mg/kg in
Cell F. [13-20, 24-31]
Mixed liquor samples were collected at two
locations in each treatment cell, and analyzed
for the parameters listed in Table 8 to monitor
Performance Data Assessment
the treatment performance. One sample was
taken from the middle of the walkway across
the sheetpile wall that separates the two
treatment cells and a second sample was
taken at the middle of treatment cell using
the site workboat for access to the location.
[9] The mixed liquor contained about 5-10%
solids during operation. [38]
An ambient air monitoring program was
implemented to monitor potential releases of
VOCs from the bioremediation process.
Ambient air monitoring was completed using
automatic instrumentation equipment placed
at strategic points around the operating
bioremediation treatment cell. Table 9 shows
total VOC concentrations, reported as maxi-
mum organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings
at various locations around the site boundary
by month for January 1992 through August
1993. Total VOC concentrations ranged from
0.3 to 1.6 ppm, which were lower than the
action level of 1 1 ppm specified in the ROD.
[9]
Ambient air monitoring was also completed
using continuous sampling at points between
the bioremediation cell and the three nearest
potential receptors. Samples were analyzed
daily to provide a time-integrated measure-
ment of 35 VOCs and to provide data, on a
weekly basis, to calculate the health risk to
the nearest receptors. As reported by FLTG,
the health risk resuming from air emissions
was within U.S. EPA-approved health risk
criteria. [9]
The treatment results, shown in Tables 6 and
7, indicate that the cleanup criteria were met
within 10 months from the start of treatment
for Cell E (October 1992) and 1 1 months for
Cell F (November 1993). For individual
constituents, cleanup goals were achieved the
soonest for vinyl chloride (4 months in Cell E,
1 month in Cell F) and total PCBs (4 months
in Cell E, 1 month in Cell F); benzo(a)pyrene
required the longest amount of treatment
time to meet the cleanup goals.
Concentrations were reduced to below
detection limits in Cell E and 6.6 mg/kg in Cell
F for vinyl chloride; 4.4 mg/kg in Cell L and
5.2 mg/kg in Cell F for benzene; and 6.0 mg/
kg in Cell E and 6.8 mg/kg in Cell F for
benzo(a)pyrene. In addition, the ambient air
monitoring data show no exceedances of the
established criteria for releases of VOCs.
These data, in combination with the operating
data, indicate that organic compounds,
including vinyl chloride, benzene, and
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
55
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 11 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
"I
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 12 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
4
^
a
I
11
28,8888888888888888
cot?88f2£
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 13 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
benzo(a)pyrene were removed from the
lagoon via biodegradation. According to the
FLTG, available data indicate that PCBs were
biodegraded in the slurry-phase system to
concentrations below the action levels
established for French Ltd. Also, according to
the FLTG, arsenic and metals were not biode-
graded; they were dispersed in the final
residue. [38]
Table 9. Total VOC Readings by Month [37]
Month
January 1992
February 1992
March 1992
April 1992
May 1992
June 1992
July 1992
August 1992
September 1992
October 1992
November 1992
December 1 992
January 1993
February 1993
March 1993
April 1993
May 1993
June 1993
July 1993
August 1993
Total VOC* (ppm)
1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
1
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
"Total VOC concentrations as maximum OVA readings.
Performance Data Completeness
The available data characterize the concentra-
tion of five contaminants in the subsoil and
sludge over the course of the bioremediation,
as well as three potential indicator param-
eters (TPH, % solids, and % volatile solids).
Data are not available to match these treated
concentrations with concentrations in the
cells before treatment. The first samples
taken after mixing began were at Day 96 for
Cell E and Day 38 for Cell F.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
58
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 14 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Quality
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
procedures for sampling and analytical
activities are outlined in the second volume of
the Remedial Action Plan, entitled Quality
Assurance Plan. Monthly progress reports
prepared by the FLTG include discussions of
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process [38, 39]
QA/QC issues during the remediation. EPA
took split samples of confirmation samples
after the cleanup objectives had been met.
According to monthly progress reports, there
were no discrepancies between the samples
taken by FLTG and EPA.
FLTG contracted with ENSR to design the
slurry-phase bioremediation system, and with
Bechtel Corporation to construct the lagoon
remediation system. FLTG and ENSR selected
several key equipment vendors by competi-
tive bidding, including Praxair, Dredging
Supply, ITT Flygt, Sala, and Siemens. FLTG
directly hired personnel and support staff to
operate and maintain the remediation sys-
tems.
Treatment System Cost
All contracts were competitively bid. Con-
tracts were awarded based on commercial
terms and qualifications. Contract types
included lump sum, fixed unit price, and cost
reimbursable depending on the scale of work
and degree of definition.
According to the FLTG, the total cost of
remediating the soil and sludge in the lagoon
at French Ltd. was $49,000,000, including
costs for technology development, project
management, EPA oversight, and backfill of
the lagoon. The $49,000,000 total cost was
broken down into nine project elements by
the RPM and FLTG, as shown in Table 10.
[37, 39]
The FLTG also provided a breakdown of the
costs according to the format for an inter-
agency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), as
shown in Tables 11, 12, and 13. The WBS is
being used as a format for standardizing
reporting of costs across projects. No addi-
tional information on the specific items
included in each cost element shown in
Tables 11, 12, and 13 were provided by the
FLTG. [38]
As shown in Tables 11, 12, and 13, approxi-
mately 55% of the project costs were for
activities directly associated with treatment,
34% were for before-treatment activities, and
11 % for after-treatment activities. The
$26,900,000 in costs for activities directly
associated with treatment corresponds to
approximately $90/ton of sludge and soil
treated (for 300,000 tons treated).
Table 10. Breakdown of Project Costs by the
RPM and FLTG [37, 39]
Project-Element
Development and Pilot- Scale
Work
Floodwall
Operation, Maintenance,
Analytical
Dewatering
Fixation
Technical Support
Administrative
Demobilization
EPA Oversight
Total
Cost ($)
12,200,000
2.300,000
22,900,000
1 ,000,000
400,000
2.900,000
3,100,000
1 ,900,000
2,300,000
49,000,000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
59
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 15 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table It. Treatment Activity Cost Elements Provided by FLTG According to the WBS [38]
Cost Elements
(Directly Associated With Treatment)
Solids Preparation and Handling
Liquid Preparation and Handling
Vapor/Gas Preparation and Handling
Pads/Foundation/Spill Control
Mobilization/Set Up
Startup/Testing/Permits
Training
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
TOTAL TREATMENT ACTIVITY COST
Cost (dollars)
2,200,000
2,800,000
4,600,000
300,000
1 ,200,000
1 ,300,000
900,000
13,600,000
26,900,000
Actual or
Estimated
(A)or(E)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Table 12. Before-Treatment Cost Elements Provided by FLTG According to the WBS [38]
Cost Elements
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Site Work
Surface Water Collection and Control
Groundwater Collection and Control
Air Pollution/Gas Collection and Control
Solids Collection and Containment
Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection and
Containment
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition and
Removal
TOTAL BEFORE-TREATMENT COST
Cost
(dollars)
1,100,000
4,900,000
4,000,000
2,300,000
1,100,000
1 ,800,000
600,000
800,000
200,000
16,800.000
Actual or
Estimated
(A) or (E)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Table 13. After-Treatment Cost Elements Provided by FLTG According to the WBS [38]
Cost Elements
Decontamination and Decommissioning
Disposal (other than commercial)
Disposal (commercial)
Site Restoration
Demobilization (other than treatment unit)
Other (topsoil and revegetatlon)
TOTAL AFTER-TREATMENT COST
Cost
(dollars)
1 ,300,000
400,000
400,000
2,300,000
400,000
800,000
5,600,000
Actual or
Estimated
(A) or (E)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
60
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 16 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Cost Data Quality
The cost information presented above repre-
sents actual costs for this application. Cost
information was available for activities directly
PRP and Vendor Input [38-40]
associated with treatment, and for elements
associated with before-treatment and after-
treatment activities.
According to the FLTG, the costs for future,
similar applications are expected to be similar
to those incurred for French Ltd., and depend
on site-specific chemical and physical condi-
tions. The key factors which affect costs of
bioremediation systems are oxygen and
nutrient supply.
According to ENSR, costs for a second
generation system that did not require pilot
studies or sheet pile work would be about
40% less than those incurred at French Ltd.
According to Praxair, the cost of oxygen at
future similar sites will be affected by the
location of the site (local power rates affect
oxygen production costs), the distance from
the oxygen-producing plant (distribution
costs), the rate of oxygen consumption (site
supply system requirements), and the dura-
tion of the oxygen use (amortization of
installation/removal costs).
The cost of the MixFlo system will be affected
by the rate of oxygen dissolution (capital and
operating costs) and the oxygen dissolution
characteristics of the slurry.
As a result of the application at the French
Ltd. site, Praxair, Inc. has developed a new
oxygen dissolution technology—the In-Situ
Oxygenater™. This system dissolves oxygen
and suspends solids using approximately 25%
of the power required by MixFlo or by air-
based aeration systems while maintaining the
high-oxygen utilization efficiency of the
MixFlo technology.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Treatment costs, including project
management, pilot studies, technol-
ogy development, EPA oversight, and
backfill of the lagoon, were approxi-
mately $49,000,000.
Fifty-five percent of the costs
($26,900,000) were for activities
directly associated with treatment,
such as solids preparation and
handling, liquid preparation and
handling, vapor/gas preparation and
handling, pads/foundations/spill
control, mobilization/set up, startup/
testing/ permits, training, and opera-
tion (short-term - up to 3 years).
The $26,900,000 in costs for activi-
ties directly associated with treatment
corresponds to approximately $90/
ton of sludge and soil treated (for
300,000 tons treated).
Excavation was not required for
treatment at French Ltd., and the
relatively large quantity of sludge and
soil treated at this site resulted in
economies-of-scale.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Performance data indicated that the
cleanup goals for the five target
compounds (benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs,
vinyl chloride, arsenic, and benzene)
were met within 10 months for
treatment of one cell and 1 1 months
for the other cell.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
61
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 23
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
• Operations data show that vinyl
chloride, benzene, and
benzo(a)pyrene were biodegraded in
this application. Concentrations were
reduced to below detection limits in
Cell E and 6.6 mg/kg in Cell F for vinyl
chloride; 4.4 mg/kg in Cell E and 5.2
mg/kg in Cell F for benzene; and 6.0
mg/kg in Cell E and 6.8 mg/kg in Cell
F for benzo(a)pyrene.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Air emission limits were not exceeded
during this application.
The MixFlo system maintained a
dissolved oxygen level in the slurry of
2.0 mg/L, mixed the slurry, and
minimized air emissions.
The treatability study predicted
removal of volatile organic com-
pounds and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons during sludge and soil
mixing, and extended aeration within
275 project days. Full-scale treatment
performance data indicated that the
cleanup goals for the indicator
REFERENCES
4.
6.
Superfund Record of Decision. French
Limited, Texas, March 1988.
US. EPA, Design and Construction
Issues at Hazardous Waste Sites.
Conference Proceedings, Part 1, Solid
Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C., May 1991, EPA/
540/8-91/012.
"Superfund Site Gets the Bugs Out,"
ENR, August 2, 1993, pp. 32-33.
Superfund at Work: Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Efforts Nationwide, Spring
1993 (French Limited Site Profile,
Harris County, Texas).
Public Health Assessment for French
Limited, Crosby, Harris County, Texas,
Region 6. CERCLIS No.
TXD980514814. Addendum.
In-Situ Bioremediation at the French
Limited Site.
6a. Update on In-Situ Bioremediation at
the French Limited Superfund Site.
7. Case Histories: Four Selected Aban-
doned Waste Sites in Texas.
compounds were met within this time
period.
The treatability study demonstrated
the feasibility of bioremediation for
VOCs and SVOCs in soil and sludge
within the lagoon without exceeding
air emissions limitations.
8. French Limited: A Successful Ap-
proach to Bioremediation, 1992,
DEVO Enterprises, Inc., Washington,
D.C.
9. French Limited Remediation Design
Report, Executive Summary:
Bioremediation, Shallow Aquifer,
Crosby, Texas, June 1991.
10. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
January 1992.
1 1. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
February 1992.
12. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, March
1992.
13. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, April
1992.
14. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, May
1992.
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
62
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 18 of 23
REFERENCES (CONT.)
1 5. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, June
1992.
16. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, July
1992.
1 7. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, August
1992.
18. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
September 1992.
19. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
October 1992.
20. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
November 1992.
21. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
December 1992.
22. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
January 1993.
23. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
February 1993.
24. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, March
1993.
25. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, April
1993.
26. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, May
1993.
27. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, June
1993.
28. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, July
1993.
29. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas, August
1993.
30. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
September 1993.
31. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
October 1993.
32. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
November 1993.
33. Monthly Project Report, French
Limited Project, Crosby, Texas,
December 1993.
34. "Reverse Osmosis Reverses Conven-
tional Wisdom With Superfund
Cleanup Success," Mark Collins and
Ken Miller, Environmental Solutions.
September 1994.
35. "Biotreatment of PCB Sludges Cuts
Cleanup Costs," Ann Hasbach,
Pollution Engineering. May 15, 1993.
36. "What's New in Hazardous Waste
Cleanup?", Maretta Tubb, Texas
Construction. September 1993.
37. "Bioremediation at the French Limited
Site," Judith Black and Richard Sloan,
October 1993.
38. Letter to Ms. Linda Fiedler, TIO, from
R.L. Sloan, French Ltd. Project,
Comments on 1 February 1995 Draft
Report, February 6, 1995.
39. Comments provided by Jon Greene
and Dr. Dave Ramsden, ENSR, on
1 February 1995 Draft Report,
February 6, 1995.
40. Letter to Mr. Eric Oltman, Radian,
from Gary E. Storms, Praxair, Inc.,
Comments on 1 February 1995 Draft
Report, February 7, 1995.
41. "Oxygen Dissolution Technologies for
Biotreatment Applications," Gary E.
Storms, Praxair, Inc., 1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
63
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 19 of 23
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
64
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 20 of 23
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Identifying Information
French Limited Superfund Site
Crosby, Texas
Historical Activity at Site - SIC Codes:
Historical Activity at Site - Management Practices:
Site Contaminants:
Type of Action:
Did the ROD/Action Memorandum include a
contingency on treatability study results?
CERCLIS#: TXD9805 1 48 1 4
ROD Date: 24 March 1 988
4953 (Waste Management-refuse systems; sand and
gravel pit disposal)
Disposal Pit
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons: halogenated
semivolatiles; non- halogenated volatiles: metals; and
nonmetallic elements
Remedial
No
TreAtability Study Information
Type of Treatability Study:
Duration of Treatability Study:
Media Treated:
Quantity Treated:
Treatment Technology:
Target Contaminants of Concern:
Conducted before the ROD was signed:
Additional treatability studies conducted:
Technology selected for full-scale application:
Pilot
April 1987 to April 1988
Soil and Sludge (in situ)
0.5-acre cell
Slurry- Phase Bioremediation
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Semivolatile
Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Yes
Yes (laboratory/bench-scale and tank-scale studies of
bioremediation also conducted)
Yes
Treatability Study Strategy
Key Operating Parameters Varied:
Different aerators and mixers were used
Treatability Study Results
Range of Individual VOC Concentrations in Untreated
Soil and Sludge Matrix:
Range of Individual SVOC Concentrations in Untreated
Soil and Sludge Matrix:
Range of Treated VOC Concentrations in Soil and
Sludge Matrix:
Range of Treated SVOC Concentrations in Soil and
Sludge Matrix:
Upto3,500mg/kg
Up to 6,000 mg/kg
Less than 1 00 mg/kg
Less than 1 00 mg/kg
Site Logistics/Contact information:
French Ltd. Task Group
Mr. R.L. (Dick) Sloan
Project Coordinator
FLTG, Incorporated
15010FM2100, Suite 200
Crosby, Texas 77532
(713)328-3541
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
65
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 21 of 23
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Type of Treatability Study: Pilot-scale slurry-
phase bioremediation study of sludge and
subsoil contaminated with PCBs,
TREATABILITY STUDY STRATEGY [8]
benzo(a)pyrene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
arsenic, and other VOCs and SVOCs.
Treatability Study Purpose: The purpose of
the pilot-scale treatability study was to assess
the feasibility of bioremediation of the con-
taminated lagoon at the site, and to deter-
mine the following:
• Whether indigenous microorganisms
could be stimulated to destroy the
organic waste materials and clean up
contaminated soil in a reasonable
amount of time;
• How to control air emissions during
remediation;
• How to mechanically mix the micro-
organisms, oxygen, nutrients, and
mixed liquor to obtain satisfactory
reaction rates; and
• How long the cleanup would take.
Cleanup Goals/Standards: Cleanup goals
were not identified for the French Ltd. site at
the time of the pilot-scale treatability study.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION [8]
Treatment System Description and Opera-
tion: Earlier tests were performed from late
1986 to early 1987 using two 20,000-gallon
reactors to determine if microorganisms
could be stimulated to degrade site contami-
nants in a reasonable amount of time.
Subsequently, a pilot-scale test was operated
on a one-half acre cell on the west end of the
lagoon between April 1987 through April
1988. The equipment included ambient air
control, sparged air aeration, and mixers.
The study included the following operation:
• Aeration of the mixed liquor;
• Nutrient addition to grow the biom-
ass; and
• Shearing of sludges and contaminated
soil.
The sludge and soil were sheared so that the
contaminants would be brought into contact
with the microbes. A swinging-ladder dredge
was used to shear the soil and open-faced
centrifugal pumps were used for the tarry
sludge. Over the course of the pilot test,
many different aerators, mixers, and dredges
were tested. [8]
Procurement Process/Treatability Study
Cost: The cost of the pilot-scale treatability
test was $5 million.
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS [8]
Operating Parameters and Performance
Data: The initial reactor tests showed that the
native microorganisms could be successfully
stimulated to metabolize the organic waste
materials in a reasonable amount of time.
The results of the pilot test showed a reduc-
tion in concentration of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile com-
pounds (SVOCs), as shown in Figure A-l,
during the course of the study.
Performance Data Assessment: The results
in figure A-l show a reduction in concentra-
tion of 9 VOCs and 9 SVOCs to concentra-
tions of less than 100 mg/kg for individual
VOCs and SVOCs, and that bioremediation is
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
66
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 22 of 23
APPENDIX A: TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Reduction in volatile organic concentrations
in main waste lagoon using bioremediation
H-Hcn/cne
Toluene
Benzene
TCI- _
1,2 DCP -
1,2 DCE —
T 1,2 DCE
1,1 DCE
V.C. —'
VOLATILES
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
DAY
Reduction in scmivolatile organic compound
concentrations in main waste lagoon using bioremediation
Phenol
Pyrenc
— __POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS & PHENOL
Fluoranth. — .
Anthracene — S ^-
Phenanth.
Fluorcne
Acenaphth.'
Acenaphthy.
Naphth. ^
Source: French Limited Task Group
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
DAV
Figure A-1. Reductions in VOC and SVOC Concentrations During Pilot Test [8]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
67
-------
French Limited Superfund Site—Page 23 of 23
I APPENDIX A- TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.) [8]
a feasible technology for remediation of the
soil and sludge in the lagoon. The data
indicate that removal of these contaminants
occurred within 275 days of soil and sludge
mixing and dredging, and extended aeration.
Although no data are available at this time,
the results of the pilot test were used in
selecting specific equipment and in optimiz-
ing operational methods for the full-scale
remediation, including control of air emis-
sions and performing mechanical mixing.
The shearing equipment chosen allowed
two different implements to be attached,
one for shearing sludge and the other for
shearing soil.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The initial reactor tests showed that
the native microorganisms could be
successfully stimulated to metabolize
organic waste materials in a reason-
able amount of time.
The treatability study showed
reductions in the concentrations of
9 VOCs and 9 SVOCs from soil and
sludge in the lagoon to concentra-
tions less than 100 mg/kg for
individual contaminants. These
results were achieved within 275
days of sludge and soil mixing and
extended aeration.
u-s- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
-------
Low-Intensity Bioventing for Remediation
of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 280
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
(Interim Report)
69
-------
Case Study Abstract
Low-Intensity Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 280
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
Site Name:
Hill Air Force Base, Site 280
Location:
Ogden, Utah
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
(BTEX)
- Soil TPH concentrations measured as high as
5,040 mg/kg
- Soil gas TPH concentrations measured as
high as ll,200ppm
Period of Operation:
Status - Ongoing
Report covers - 12/90 to 6/94
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim
results)
Vendor:
Not Available
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Bioventing
- System consists of 1 injection well and 10
monitoring wells
- Air flow rate on blower discharge ranged
from 20 to 117 acfm; operated since 11/93 at
20 acfm
- Blower discharge pressure of 2 in. of Hg
Cleanup Authority:
State: Utah
Point of Contact:
William James
Remedial Project Manager
Hill Air Force Base
Ogden, Utah
Waste Source:
Spills and other releases of JP-4 jet
fuel
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Bioventing to remediate soils
contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Soil-gas permeability value - 0.057 darcy
- Porosity 30 to 50%; moisture content 1.4 to 18%; air conductivity 4.7 to 7.8
darcies; particle density 0.3 to 0.5 gm/cm3 and particle diameter 0.8 to 10 mm;
soil bulk density 0.37 to 0.48 gm/cm3; soil organic content 0.08 to 0.86%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- No specific cleanup goals established at this time
- Cleanup assessment will be conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for Petroleum
Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites," which are established by Utah Department of Health
Results:
- Bioventing project was not complete at time of this report
- Respiration rate tests from 4/91 to 11/93 indicate hydrocarbon degradation is occurring
- As of 11/92, soil gas TPH concentration reduced to less than or equal to 2,600 ppm
- Estimates of the mass of contaminants removed have not yet been reported
Cost Factors:
- Total Capital Cost (estimated) - $115,000 (including construction of piping system, buildings, process equipment, and
startup)
- Total Annual Operating Cost (estimated over 4 years) - $24,000 (including labor, electricity, lab charges, maintenance, and
monitoring)
70
-------
Case Study Abstract
Low-Intensity Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 280
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah (Continued)
Description:
As a result of spills and other releases of JP-4 jet fuel at the 280 Fuel Storage Lot at Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah,
soil was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).
TPH concentrations were reported as high as 5,000 mg/kg in the soil and 11,200 ppm in the soil gas. A low-intensity
bioventing system was installed at the site and has been in operation since December 1990. No specific cleanup goals have
been established at this time. The final cleanup assessment will be conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric
Cleanup Levels for Petroleum Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites", which are established by the
Utah Department of Health.
The bioventing system includes one injection well (100 ft. depth) and 10 monitoring wells (varying depths). During the
operation of this system, the air flow rate of the blower discharge had been varied between 20 and 117 acfm (at a discharge
pressure of 2 in. of Hg) in order to optimize air flow rates while eliminating volatilization. Available data from respiration
rate tests (4/91 to 11/93) indicate that hydrocarbon degradation is occurring. As of November, 1992, soil gas TPH
concentrations had been reduced from 11,200 mg/kg to below 2,600 mg/kg. Estimates of the mass of contaminants removed
have not yet been reported.
The estimated total capital cost for this application is $115,000. The total annual operating cost, estimated over 4 years, is
$24,000 exclusive of final site characterization. During this application, it was noted that biodegradation is enhanced by
maintaining adequate soil oxygen, moisture, and nutrient levels and that estimates of biodegradation are more accurate if
oxygen depletion is used instead of carbon dioxide formation. In addition, it was noted that air flow rates can be optimized
to low levels ranging from 40 to 67 acfm.
71
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
^™ Page 1 of 14 ™
SITE I
Operable Unit: Hill Air Force Base,
area around the 280 Fuel Storage Lot as
shown on Figure 1.
City, State: Ten miles south of Ogden, Utah
,/ToO»fcn
EUTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Hill
A ir Face
0 5 1
TbSrt SoiST
Figure 1. Location of Hill AFB. Uuh and Site of JP-4 Fuel Spill (914 Site).
This summary addresses field application of
bioventing and associated investigative methods
performed in 1991 and 1992. Remedial activities at
the site were carried out by the U.S. Air Force and
the USEPA.
CZSITE CHARACTERISTICS:
History / Release Characteristics
• Hill Air Force Base has been in operation since 1942, and the 280 Fuel Storage Lot has been in place since 1941.
• In 1989 four underground JP-4 jet fuel storage tanks (25,000 gal. each) were removed and replaced with two above
ground tanks (25,000 gal. each).
• The most recent recorded spill in the area occurred in 1982. No other fuel releases are documented; however, others
are suspected to have occurred during the life of the system.
• Site remediation began in November 1990. Figure 2 shows a detail of 280 Fuel Storage Lot and various wells and
monitoring locations that have been installed.
\ContamlnantS Of
Specific contaminants of greatest concern in the unsaturated zone were: benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene
(BTEX). Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration was also monitored throughout the remediation due to rel-
ative ease of analysis compared to the specific compounds.
Groundwater was found to be contaminated downgradient of the site. TPH as well as BTEX were found.
Trichtoroethylene was also found in the groundwater but was not a specific target of the bioventing operations.
The soil vapor at the ground surface was found to have hydrocarbon levels within acceptable limits.
U.S. Air Force
72
-------
Hill (Site 280) - 2 of 14 —
i Contaminant Properties*
Properties of contaminants
Property
Empirical Formula
Density © 20°C
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure (20°C)
Henry's Law Constant
(atm)(m3)/mol
Water Solubility
Octanot-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc
lonization Potential
Molecular Weight
•All 3 Isamors (M, O, & P)
Units
g/cm3
•c
mm Hg
mg/l
Kow
mi/g
ev
Table 1
focused upon during remediation
Benzene
C6H8
0.88
5.5
50
5.59 X 10-3
1,750
132
83
9.24
78.12
Ethylbenzene
C8H10
0.87
-95
8.5
6.43X10-3
152
1410
1,100
8.76
106.18
are provided
Toluene
C7H8
0.87
-95
26
6.37 X 10-3
535
537
300
8.5
92.15
below.
Xylenes*
C8H10
0.87 (avg)
-47.9 to13.3
7.7
7.04X 10-3
198
1830
240
8.56
106.18
i Nature & Extent of Contamination:
Remedial investigation field activities at the site
provided TPH and BTEX concentrations as
shown in Figures 2, 3,4 and 5 and as described
below.
• Figure 3 shows soil contamination by TPH at sev-
eral cluster well locations as a function of depth
down to the water table as sampled in September
1991. (Note that the wells are not in a straight line
and that horizontal distances shown on the figure
are the approximate radial distances from the
injection well.)
• Figure 4 shows the soil gas TPH concentration in
ppm as monitored in September 1991.
• Figure 5 shows the extent of BTEX contamination
in the groundwater at the site as monitored in
1992. Note, BTEX plume has migrated downgradi-
ent from the fuel tank area.
'••-..
imp
Conttor
SUP TO
CW7
SIIPlO
cwt
SUP 2O
A -•
'
O SMP= Surface Monitoring Point
• CW> Soil Vapor Clutter Well
A Other Monitoring Point* M indicated
/ A-A's Cron Section Trace
n Injection Well
SOFMt
Figure 2. Hill AFB 280 rite Map IlluitraUng Ihe Locations of (he Soll-Cai
Monitoring Wells (CW), the Suface Monitoring Points (SMP), and
Ihe Injection Well (IW).
U.S. Air Force
73
-------
HiH(Sit»2BO)-3ofU —
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Rgure 3. Geological
Cross-section of the
280 Site Showing
Known Geological
Features and Soil
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon
Concentrations
(mg/kg); Data
Collected September
1991.
Figure 4. Geological
Cross-section of the
280 Site Showing
Known Geological
Features and Soil-
Gas Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (ppm);
Data Collected
September 1991.
4790
47M
4770
4750
4730
4710
-4«»0
4*70
InjMlion A'(EMI)
CW4 W.II CW1
Sand with Gray*! and Cloy
Silty Sand
Sand
47*0
-4670
Figure 5. Site 280.
Isoconcentration
of BTEX Levels
Determined from
Ground water
Samples
Collected During
October 1992.
400F«Bt
"J85 Oitt Ira
vwns
A lr*K*nW
-------
Hta(Slt»2eO)-4of14 —
Wydrogeologlc (/^••^mragB™™®*^^ • zzz
• The spill is contained in the Prove formation, which is a delta outwash of the Weber River. The formation consists of
mixed sands, silts and gravels with occasional clay lenses. Figures 3 and the similar figures show the typical lithoto-
gy in cross section.
• The formation extends to a depth of approximately 120 feet and is underlain by a 200 to 300 foot thick clay layer.
• The area contains three aquifers: the shallow aquifer, the Sunset aquifer and the Delta aquifer. The contamination is
confined to the shallow aquifer. A water table map of the shallow aquifer (the perched water table) in the vicinity of
the 280 Site is shown in Figure 6.
• Groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer was found but was not an immediate concern to health because
the groundwater is present only in discontinuous perched zones. In addition, groundwater is consumed either upgra-
dient from the 280 Site in the shallow aquifer or from the confined Delta or Sunset aquifer.
• The shallow, Sunset and Delta aquifers (in descending order) occur beneath and contiguous to Hill AFB
• The depth to the shallow water table is from 100 to 110 feet bgs.
• The Delta and Sunset aquifers are not contaminated.
• There are buried utilities in the site area. These are not a conduit for contamination movement.
• No potable groundwater supply wells are thought to be affected by the site.
/400Peet
Figure 6. Contour Map for Perched Water Table at Hill
AFB Site 280; Data Collected October 1992.
CW4
<"1
U.S. Air Force
75
-------
HiH
-------
Hill (SHo 280)-6 of 14
LZTREATMENT SYSTEM:
System Description
• The treatment system consists of 1 injection well (IT), 10 monitor wells.
• Although not part of the treatment system, cone penetration tests were used to sample the groundwater at six
locations. In addition, the soil vapor at the ground surface was monitored at seven locations (designated BMP on
figure 2).
• The rate of diffusion and soil permeability of gas through the vadose zone was studied by several means:
Air was injected for several months at a constant rate from a single source and the subsurface pressure dis-
tribution and oxygen concentration were monitored.
A helium trace test was conducted from December 1992 through February 1993.
• The discharge of the blower is connected to the injection well from which air is distributed through the vadose zone
and finally vented through the ground surface to maintain high oxygen concentrations in and remove carbon dioxide
from the contaminated soil.
iSystem Operation*
The blower was operated at various flow rates with a discharge pressure of 2 in. Hg. The blower was periodically
turned off to allow for installation of additional wells or performance of in situ respiration tests.
The blower flow rate is maintained so that hydrocarbon emission at the ground surface is at an acceptably low con-
centration.
i Watt Design Ctose-up ••••••''• . ..• mi,,, =
The well system consists of one injection well (280-IW), soil gas monitoring wells and water monitoring wells
as noted the the table below.
Table 3 - Injection and Monitoring Wells
Wall Designation
280-IW
280-CW1
280-CW2
280-CW3
280-CW4
280-CW5
280-CW6
280-CW7
280-CW8
280-CW9
280-WW7
280-WW8
280-WW9
280-WW10
280-WW11
280-WW12
280-WW13
280-WW13
280-WW14
Depth, ft.
100
91
91
91
90
90
90
90
90
90
107
125
110
124
115
109.5
124
139
92
Comments Casing
Injection Well
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. Intervals
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. Intervals
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. intervals
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. Intervals
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. Intervals
Soil gas monitoring at 10 ft. intervals
Deep soil gas monitoring well
Deep soil gas monitoring well
Deep soil gas monitoring well
Screened 5 ft. above and 10 ft. below water table
and soil gas monitoring at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 1 0 ft.
Screen from 90 ft. to 1 25 ft.
and soil gas monitoring at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 ft.
Screened 5 ft. above and 10 ft. below water table
and soil gas monitoring at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 ft.
Water Sampling Well
Water Sampling Well
Water Sampling Well
Water Sampling Well
Water Sampling Well
Soil gas monitoring at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 ft.
Than each 10 ft.
Size. Inches
4
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.25
See Figure
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
U.S. Air Force
77
-------
' Hi// (Sita 2BO) -7 of 14
•Key Design Criteria mmmHtB^^ .,, , ".,;,;
No specific design criteria were established in the document. However, for bioventing operations, key design
criteria would include:
• vadose zone air conductivity;
• soil moisture content;
• soil gas oxygen concentration at monitor wells;
• soil nutrient concentration; and
• hydrocarbon composition in the soil;
i Key Monitored Operating Parameters
Total blower flow rate in acfm (actual cubic feet per minute - continuous measurement).
Soil moisture content (intermittent measurement).
Soil TPH content (intermittent measurement).
Air pressure in the vadose zone.
Soil vapor hydrocarbon concentration (intermittent measurement).
Soil vapor % oxygen content (intermittent measurement).
Soil vapor % carbon dioxide content (intermittent measurement).
Concentration of helium in the vadose zone.
U.S. Air Force
78
-------
Hill (Site 260) -8 of 14
[^PERFORMANCE:
^Performance Objectives*
• Remediate the site.
• Optimize the airflow rates to maximize bioremediation while eliminating volatilization.
• Determine the affect of bioventing at the site.
• Determine airflow parameters in the vadose zone.
i Treatment Plant
• A study was conducted to determine the extent of contamination at Site 280 by taking soil and gas samples in a
number of wells. (See Figures 3 through 5.)
• A pilot scale , low-level bioremediation, treatability study was conducted for site characterization.
• In situ respiration tests were performed to determine the effectiveness of each air injection flow rate step in promot-
ing biodegradation. Soil gas O2 monitoring was used to calculate the mass of hydrocarbon degraded in this phase.
• The extent of site contamination was determined by taking soil samples in the wells at five foot depth intervals and
the TPH and BETX concentrations were determined by gas chromatography.
• The treatment of site 280 is ongoing and not complete as of June 1994.
^Preliminary Results ••••••nrf ^-w^«^^ •••••-'
• Figures 7 shows the results of the preliminary respiration test at monitor wells CW4, CW5, CW7, CW8 and CW9.
Oxygen was consumed at all monitoring the wells tested. This indicates biological degradation occurring when oxy-
gen levels are replenished continuously.
4770-
•
4750-
5J
* 4730-
«
,2 4710 •
•
4690-
4670-
A(Wrat) Injection A'(Ea*t)
WWBCVTO WW7CW7 WW8CW8 CW4 W» CW5
1
DO
p. 002
Q.ooi
rj.oot
Q.001
a. 008
O 005
n.oo2
D.005
P] 0
a .001
a o
i<.ooi
a .001
a o
P. 004
a .001
a <.ooi
=
1 p .004
P .065 T
P .005 f •°°7
JL p .008
P. 008 T
A .008 P -012
P. 006 9 -002
P. 004 P -014
P.OOS P .024
D. 005 P .028
i.026 P •««
=
—
ao
u.oo>
D.018
p.002
T
D.OOI
T
p.027
T
p. 003
T
P.004
Do
-4770
•
•47SO
-
-4730
•
•4710
•
-4690
•4670
CW = Soil G»» Cluster Wall .008 = In situ r««pintion rate (% CWhr)
Figure 7. Preliminary In Situ Respriation Profile, September 1992.
U.S. Air Force
79
-------
Hill (Site 2SO) -9 of 14
i Operational Performance '•
Volume of air circulated
The following table show the air flow rates overtime and related activities.
Table 4 - Air Injection Flow Rates
Oct. '90 - Dec. '90
Dec. '90 - Apr. '91
Apr. 91 - May '91
May '91 - July '91
July '91 - Aug. '91
July '91 - Sept. 91
Sept '91 - Sept. '92
Sept. '92- Oct. '92
Aug. '92 - Oct. '92
Sept. '92
Oct. '92
Oct. '92 - Dec. '92
Dec. '92 - Feb. '93
Feb.'93-Apr.'93
Apr. '93 - June '93
June '93 - July '93
July '93 - Oct. '93
Oct. '93 - Nov. '93
Nov. '93 - present
Wells 280-IW, CW-1, CW-2 & CW-3 Constructed.
Air Injection at 67 acfm.
No air Injection - respiration test.
Air Injection at 67 acfm.
well construction.
Blower off - Drilling.
Air injection at 67 acfm.
No air injection - in situ respiration test.
CRT construction.
SMP construction.
280-WW well construction.
Air injection at 45 acfm.
Helium tracer test. Air Injection at 67 acfm.
Air injection at 67 acfm.
Air injection at 40 acfm.
No air injection - in situ respiration test.
Air injection at 117 acfm.
No air injection - in situ respiration test
Air Injection at 20 acfm.
• Figure 8 shows the concentration of soil gas TPH in November 1992, after about 11/2 years of blower operation at 67
acfm.
4790
4770-
4750-
4730
4710
4690
4670
A(W««t)
WW9CW9
WW7CW7
WW8CW8
Injection
CW4 W«
1740
]820
3820
JI40
3 MO
18*0
I 940
]MO
32,eoo
I NF
MO
I MO
1720
|720
I NF
I MO
]MO
1720
|200
1180
I MO
•]«80
IMO
12M
32(0
32»0
192
147
1110
A1 (East)
CW5
13(0
3340
] 370
33(0
4790
4770
4750
4730
- 4710
-4690
-4670
CW» Soil Ga* Cluster Wall 890 » Soil Ga» THC (ppm) NF-No Flow
Figure 8. Soil-Gas Total PetroJeum Hydrocarbon Concentrations (ppm); November 1992.
U.S. Air Force
80
-------
• Figures 9 and 10 show the concentration of soil gas oxygen and carbon dioxide, respectively, in November 1992,
after about 1 1/2 years of blower operation at 67 acfrn.
4750-
4730
4670
P»J
;:
r
piu
pi 10
>NF
Ilia
111.7
PIU
11U
INF
17JO
b7.«
ln|«GUon
47» 4790
4771 "70
475, ^ 4750-|
47*8 «7»
•471IU. 4710
- 46* 4690
4671 4670
pu
•12.1
INF
i«j
3«J)
^7i
17^
INF
P'U
17.7
J1U
317J
*'(EM)
cvn
>1U
llU '
47W
•477(
•47W
4731
"4671
CW.8oilG«Clu«WW.II 2.0.C«tonOloxide(p.fe.ni) CW . Soil G-Clurter WeH 20Ji. Oxy9.n Cone.ntrm.on (percent) NF. No Flow
Figure 10. Sofl-Gas Carbon Dioxide (percent); November 1992. Figure 9. Soil-Gas Oxygen (percent): November 1992.
• The soil vapor TPH concentration at the surface did not appreciably change when the blower was on or off.
Treatment Performance*
• Figure 12 shows the results of the respiration or biodegradation rate (mg/kg/day) tests for one well at different times
during the test period, April 1991 through November 1993. This is considered representative for the site. These data
indicate that the hydrocarbons are being destroyed over time.
Well 280-CW1 at 20 Feet Depth
BiodegraOation Rales (mg/kg/day)
O October/November!993 = 0.193
O June 1993 = 0.164
September 1992 .0.313
* April 1991 - 2.27
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Hours After Injection
Figure 11. Soil-Gas Monitoring Well 280-CVV1 (20 Feel) BiodegradaUon Data Comparison.
U.S. Air Force
81
-------
Hill
-------
——— • " • ' " "" Hill
-------
Hill (Site 280) -13 of 14 —
Table 6 - Schedule for Hill AFB, Building 280 Low-Intensity
Bioremediation Activities
Task Date
Installation of Initial Soil Gas Wells and Nov. 1 990 to Dec. 1 990
Collection and Analysis of soil Samples
Air Injection Installed Dec. 1 5, 1990
Gas Flow Rate Test #1 Dew. 1990 to Apr. 1991
Air Injection Turned Off Apr. 23. 1991
In Situ Respiration Test #1 Apr. 1 991
Installation of Additional Soil Gas Wells July 1 991
Collection and Analysis of Soil Sample July 1 991
Air Injection Reinitiated Sept. 5, 1991
Gas Flow Rate Test #2 Sept. 1991 to Sept. 1 992
In Situ Respiration Test #2 Sept./Oct. 1992
Tracer Test Dec. 1 992 to Feb. 1 993
Gas Flow Rate Test #3 Oct. 1 992 to June 1 993
Second Annual Report Apr. 1993
In Situ Respiration Test #3 June/July 1 993
Gas Flow Rate Test #4 J uly to Sept. 1 993
In Situ Respiration Test #4 Oct/Nov. 1993
Gas Flow Rate Test #5 Nov. 1 993 to Apr. 1 994
EPA Final Report January 1994
In Situ Respiration Test #5 April/May 1 994
Final Site Characterization Aug. 1 994
Hill AFB Final Report Nov. 1 994
CHLESSONS LEARNED:
Care must be taken to insure that laboratory test methods are consistent throughout the project so results may be
compared throughout the test.
i Key Operating Parameters i
• Biodegradation is enhanced by adequate soil oxygen, moisture and nutrient level.
* Air Flow rates can be optimized to low levels, 40 to 67 acfm in this test.
i Technology Limitations i
Bioventing is limited to hydrocarbons that can be degraded by the local bacteria. In addition, sufficient soil oxygen,
moisture and nutrients are required.
Estimates of biodegradation are more accurate if oxygen depletion rather than carbon dioxide formation is used.
Various carbon dioxide sinks exist in the system. These would include biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with
the soil. Oxygen is not as sensitive to these sinks.
Soil chemistry criteria should be developed to establish when the application of nutrients would be beneficial to the
bioventing process.
U.S. Air Force
84
-------
Hill (Sit» 280) - 14 of 14
CZSOURCES
1 Major Sources for each Section*
Site Characteristics:
Treatment System:
Performance:
Cost:
Regulatory/Institutional Issues:
Schedule:
Lessons Learned
Source #s 1, 2,3 (from list below)
Source #s 1, 4, 5
Source #s 1, 4, 5
Source #s 6
Source #s 1,4,5
Source #s 1
Source #s 1, 4
tUst of Sources and Additional References1
1. Final Report to U.S.E.P.A; Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes at CERCAL and RECLA sites: Hill AFB 280 Site,
Low-Intensity bioreclamation: January 1994.
2. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology, EPA-600/8-90/003, Mercer et al., GeoTrans, Inc.,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
3. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, R. C. Weast and M. J. Astle, 62 nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL., 1981.
4. Notes of telephone conversation between W. White (SWEC) and R. Elliott (Hill AFB) on 3/1/94 and 3/8/94.
5. Response to Stone & Webster letter (2/16/94) by R. Elliott received on 3/7/94.
6. Fax from Greg Smith, Great Lakes Environmental Center, to Roger Long, SWEC, dated 5/5/94.
GZANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichael 303-741 -7169
d REVIEW:
Project Manager
This analysis accurately reflects the
performance and costs of this remediation
William R. James, PhD, P.E.
Remedial Project Manager
Hill Air Force Base
U.S. Air Force
85
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation
of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
86
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation
of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
Site Name:
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914
Location:
">gden, Utah
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
- TPH concentrations in untreated soil ranged
from <20 to 10,200 mg/kg with average soil
TPH concentration of 411 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
October 1988 - December 1990
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Not Available
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Waste Source:
Spill of JP-4 Jet Fuel
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
One of the early applications
involving sequential use of SVE and
bioventing technology.
Technology: Bioventing Preceded by SVE
Bioventing
- 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15) located on the
southern perimeter of the spill area; 31
monitoring wells; 3 neutron access probes
(for soil moisture monitoring)
- Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with
4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from
10 to 50 feet below ground surface
- Monitoring wells - ranged in depth from 6 to
55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casings,
screened from 10 to 50 feet below ground
surface
- No treatment of extracted vapors required
(hydrocarbon concentrations <50 mg/L; use
of catalytic incinerator not required)
- Air flow - 250 acfm
- Soil moisture - 6 to 12%
- Nutrients added - C:N:P ratio of 100:10:10
SVE
- 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11 located in areas
of highest contamination), 31 monitoring
wells, 3 neutron access probes (soil moisture
monitoring)
- Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with
4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened from
10 to 50 feet below ground surface
- Plastic liner installed over part of spill area
surface to prevent local air infiltration and
bypassing of air flow to the vent well
directly from the surface
- Monitoring wells - range in depth from 6 to
55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casing and
a 2-foot screened interval to the bottom of
the well
- Catalytic incinerator for extracted vapor
- Air flow - 1,500 acfm (maximum), 700 acfm
(typical)
Cleanup Authority:
State: Utah
Point of Contact:
Robert Elliot
OO-ACC/EMR
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, Utah 84055
87
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bio venting for Remediation of a
JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah (Continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 5,000 yds3 contaminated by spill (surface area of 13,500 ft2)
- Approximate extent of 10,000 mg/kg JP-4 contour covered area 100 by 150 feet
- Formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses
- Air permeability ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 darcies
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- 38.1 mg/kg TPH
- Cleanup conducted under Utah Department of Health's "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for Petroleum-
Contaminated Soil at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites"
Results:
- Achieved specified TPH levels
- Average TPH soil concentrations in treated soil reduced to less than 6 mg/kg;
- 211,000 Ibs of TPH removed in approximately 2 years of operation;
- Removal rate ranged from 20 to 400 Ibs/day
Cost Factors:
- Total costs of $599,000, including capital and 2 years of operating costs
- Capital costs - $335,000 (including construction of piping and wells, other equipment, and startup costs)
- Annual operating costs - $132,000 (including electricity, fuel, labor, laboratory charges, and lease of equipment for 2 year
operation)
Description:
In January 1985, an estimated 27,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel were spilled at the Hill Air Force Base Site 914 when an
automatic overflow device failed. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil ranged from <20 mg/kg
to over 10,000 mg/kg, with an average concentration of about 400 mg/kg. The spill area covered approximately 13,500 ft2.
The remediation of this spill area was conducted from October 1988 to December 1990 in two phases: the soil vapor
extraction (SVE) phase followed by the bioventing phase. The SVE system included 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11) located in
the areas of highest contamination, 31 monitoring wells, and a catalytic incinerator. The typical air flow rate through the
vent wells was 700 acfm, with a maximum of 1,500 acfm. In addition, a plastic liner was installed over part of the spill
area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow to the vent well directly from the surface. Within a
year, the SVE system removed hydrocarbons from the soil to levels ranging from 33 to 101 mg/kg. Further reduction of the
hydrocarbon concentration in the soil, to levels below the specified TPH limit, was achieved by using bioventing for 15
months. The bioventing system included 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15), located on the southern perimeter of the spill area,
and the monitoring wells used for SVE system. Because hydrocarbon concentrations were <50 mg/L in the extracted vapors,
the catalytic incinerator was not required for this phase. Biodegradation was enhanced by injecting oxygen, moisture, and
nutrients to the soil. Average TPH concentrations in the treated soil were less than 6 mg/kg.
The total capital cost for this application was $335,000 and the total annual operating costs were $132,000. In monitoring
biodegradation rates, oxygen depletion was found to be a more accurate estimator of biodegradation rate than carbon dioxide
formation. Carbon dioxide sinks, such as biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with the soil, limited the usefulness of
carbon dioxide formation as a process control parameter.
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
of15
CUSITE:
Operable Unit: Hill Air Force Base, area
around Building 914 as shown on Figure 1.
City, State: Ten miles south of Ogden,
Utah
CZiTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
This analysis addresses field application of soil
vapor extraction (SVE) as well as field and bench
scale application of bioventing. The two methods
were used sequentially at the site.
City Cut
Figure 1. Location of Hill AFB, Utah and Site of JP-4 Fuel Spill (914 Site).
CZSITE CHARACTERISTICS
i Site History/Release Characteristics
Hill Air Force Base has been in operation since 1942, and Building 914 since 1972.
In January 1985 27,000 gallons (estimated) of JP-4 jet fuel were released when an automatic overflow device failed.
2000 gallons were recovered as free product.
The spill had an initial extent (Figure 2) of approximately 13,500 ft2.
No other fuel releases are documented; however, others are suspected to have occurred.
Site remediation began in December 18,1988.
i Contaminants of Concern
• Specific contaminants of greatest concern in the unsaturated zone were: benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene
(BTEX). However, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration was more frequently monitored throughout the
remediation due to relative ease of analysis compared to the specific compounds.
• Groundwater contamination was not an immediate concern because the groundwater is present only in discontinuous
perched zones.
• No other specific compounds occurring in the original spill were identified.
U.S. Air Force
89
-------
•• Contaminant Properties
Properties of contaminants
Property
Empirical Formula
Density 6 20°C
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure (25°C)
Henry's Law Constant
Water Solubility
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc
lonization Potential
Molecular Weight
*AII 3 isomers (M, O, & P)
iMMafur** A Extent of Con\
focused upon during remediation are provided
Units
g/cm3
"C
mm Hg
(atm)(m3)/mol
mg/l
Kow
ml/g
ev
lamination &**
Benzene
C6H6
0.88
5.5
96
5.59 X10-3
1,750
132
83
9.24
78.12
?: x* u' : :•:•'.-. •••:•' ' ' '. '.-.:••••
Ethylbenzene
C8H10
0.87
-95
10
6.43X10-3
152
1410
1,100
8.76
106.18
::- •'
below.
Toluene
C7H8
0.87
-95
31
6.37X10-3
535
537
300
8.5
92.15
Xylenes*
C8H10
0.87 (avg)
-47.9 to1 3.3
9
7.04X10-3
198
1830
240
8.56
106.18
i
Remedial investigation field activities at the site provided TPH concentrations as shown in Figures 2 and 3
and as described below.
• In January 1985, approximately 27,000 gallons of JD-4 jet fuel were accidentally released, of which about 2,000 gal-
lons were recovered as free product.
• It was estimated that 5000 cubic yards of soil were contaminated by the spill.
• Soil samples were taken at each vent well location at five foot depth intervals down to 66 feet (see Figure 2).
• Soil concentrations were found to vary from <20 to 10,200 mg TPH per kg soil with an average of 411 (as of 10/88).
• Nine of the soil samples were analyzed for concentration of benzene, toluene and xylene. The benzene concentration
was <20 mg/kg for all samples. The toluene concentration ranged from <20 to 308 mg/kg. The xylene concentration
ranged from <20 to 600 mg/kg.
Figure 2. Hill AFB. Utah,
Site Map Illustrating the
Locations of Vent Wells
and Monitoring Ports.
Appronmau viieol of
>odi>10jOOOnit/k|JP-
4. ifui RoUn>, Brown.
ud Gunn.ll. 1915
Waste OK
Containment
Vl.V2.uc. -VtuWfeU
A. E. CMC. - Monitor VfcO
NA1. NA2.MC. • NnmB Aocw Prate
U.S. Air Force
90
-------
Hill-Bio*9nting3of1S
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Figure 3. Vertical Isoconcentration
View of Sampled Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Concentration (mg/lcg of
soil) as a Function of Depth (ft) Prior
to soil Venting (10/88).
•10 -
-15 .
-20 -
-25 -
•40 -
-45 -
-50
VS
1^
V6
V7
V8
I
VI0
iw»v«ntw.»d»«lgn«ttom.
V11
A1
Hydrogeologlc Units
The spill is contained in the Prove formation, which is a delta outwash of the Weber River.
The formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses.
The formation extends to a depth of approximately 50 feet and is then underlain by a 200 to 300 foot thick clay layer.
Areas of high TPH soil concentration appear to correlate with the presence of clay lenses.
mmSKe Conditions i
• Hill AFB elevation ranges from 5010 to 4570. The elevation in the vicinity of the spill is 4760 feet.
• The area has an arid climate with average ambient temperature of 58°F. The average minimum is 22°F, and the aver-
age high is 85°F.
• Precipitation averages 20.1 inches per year. With a maximum monthly precipitation of 6.4 inches occurring in May.
• The direction of groundwater flow at the site is from the east to the west.
i Key Soil or Key Aquifer Characteristics
Units
g/cm3
g/cm3
mm
Property
Porosity
Particle density
Soil bulk density
Particle diameter
Soil organic content
Moisture content
Permeability
Hydraulic conductivity
Air conductivity
Depth to groundwater
Groundwater temperature
Groundwater pH 9 25*C
Aquifer thickness
cm*
cm/s
darcy
ft
*C
ft
Range or value
30 to 50
0.3 to 0.5
0.37 to 0.48
0.8 to 10
0.08 to 0.86
1.4 to 18% with average of <6%
10-« to 10-io
10-12 to 10-1°
4.7 to 7A
variable due to arid conditions, approximately 50 ft.
10 to 12
7.2 to 73
10 to 15
U.S. Air Force
91
-------
HSI - Biovunting 4 of JS ——
dTREATMENT SYSTEM
• Both soil vapor extraction (SVE) and bioventing were used at this site. Bioventing is still active.
• Both soil vapor extraction and bioventing use forced air flow through the contaminated formation. However, each
method is used for a different purpose and is optimized for different operating conditions.
• SVE normally uses significantly higher air flow rates than does bioventing. The higher air flow acts to strip the hydro-
carbons, transferring them from the soil to the gas phase.
• Soil vapor extraction is more applicable to treating high concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons.
• SVE will remove hydrocarbons from the pore space thereby preparing the soil for bioremediation. Some bioremedia-
tion also occurs during SVE.
• With bioventing, air flow aerates the soil to promote biological conversion of the hydrocarbon to biomass, CO2 and
H2O. The CO2 and the H2O are removed in the gas phase. Bioventing can be used to treat less volatile hydrocarbons.
i Overall Process Schematic'
On-Site
Analytical Trailer
Literal Venti
Venial Venu
Figure 4. Cancepcuil drawing of the Hill AFB.Uuh,
Field Soil Venting Sue.
i System Description
The treatment system as shown in Figures 2 and 4 and as described below consists of 15 vent wells, 31 monitor
wells and 3 neutron access probes. The system also uses a single background vent well, which is not shown on the
figures.
Vent wells allow for soil gas to be actively removed from the formation. The monitor wells are used to analyze in situ
soil gas composition and measure vacuum efficiency. The neutron access probes extend to a depth of 50 feet and
are used to monitor soil moisture.
The background vent well is similar in design and operation to the other vent wells but is located 700 feet north of the
spill site and is used to establish baseline soil gas conditions in the uncontaminated formation. A separate blower
was used with the background vent well.
A plastic liner was installed over part of the spill area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow
to the vent well directly from the surface.
Additional equipment shown in Figure 4 includes the blower (two in parallel), catalytic incinerator, and associated
manifold piping.
U.S. Air Force
92
-------
Hill - Uovunting S of IS —
i System Operation
Soil Vapor Extraction Phase
• The blower suction is connected via the manifold piping to vent wells 5 through 11 which are located in the contami-
nated formation.
• Air flow is induced from the ground surface, through the contaminated formation, into the vent manifold, to the blow-
er and finally discharged through the catalytic incinerator.
• A plastic lining restricts air flow directly from the surface to the vent wells, requiring the air flow into a longer path lat-
erally across the formation to the vent wells
• The catalytic incinerator is used to destroy hydrocarbon gasses that are vented from the formation.
Bioventing Phase
• After it was determined that the soil vapor extraction was no longer efficient for removing hydrocarbons from the for-
mation, the bioventing phase was initiated by changing the blower suction manifold to wells 12 through 15, on the
periphery of the contaminated formation.
• Soil gas was drawn from the wells (with additional soil gas being drawn from a soil pile remediation project) at a
reduced flow rate. At this flow rate, the total hydrocarbon concentration was reduced to below 50 mg/l. The incinera-
tor, therefore, was not required and was permanently removed from service.
Well Design Close-Up
The vent wells are all approximately 50 feet deep. They all have 4 inch diameter PVC casing and a screened
interval of 40 feet. The screened interval begins approximately 10 feet below ground surface The depth of
the monitor wells varies from 6 to 55 feet They all have 1 inch diameter PVC casing and a 2 foot screened
interval at the bottom of the well. The details of the well design are shown in Figure 5. The following table
gives the depth at the bottom of each monitor well designated in Figure 2.
Well
A
B
C
E
F
H
J
K
Depth (ft)
30
6
40
25
25
46
30
25
Well
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Depth (ft)
25
48
30
30
30
6
55
6
Well
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
Depth (ft)
25
6
55
25
30
30
U.S. Air Force
93
-------
Hill-BoostingOof 15 —
•typical VMrtWcU. 50 ft fepth
with PVC casing
iypfca< Monitor MM-30 ft dapth
MVffl ^TTW CSBMnft J
ifftoSSl
40 ft. OCB n.
me
2n.(UBn.
•bMrfPtC
Figure 5 • Typical Well Datgn
i Key Design Criteria i
No specific design criteria were established in the document. However, for SVE key design criteria would
include the following:
• vacuum pressure in the wells
• air flow rate through the vent wells
• air temperature in the wells
• hydrocarbon composition in the vent gas
For bioventing operations, key design criteria would include:
• soil moisture content
• soil gas oxygen concentration at monitor wells
• soil nutrient concentration
• hydrocarbon composition in the soil
i Key Monitored Operating Parameters
SVE parameters monitored
• Total blower flow rate in acfm (actual cubic feet per minute - continuous measurement).
• Air flow Rate for a set of wells (continuous measurement).
• Offgas percent oxygen (continuous measurement).
• Offgas percent carbon dioxide (continuous measurement).
• C13/C12 isotope ratio (intermittent measurement).
Bioventing parameters monitored
• Soil Moisture content (intermittent measurement).
• Soil TPH content (intermittent measurement).
• Soil vapor Hydrocarbon concentration (intermittent measurement).
• In situ soil vapor percent oxygen content (continuous measurement).
• In situ soil vapor percent carbon dioxide (continuous measurement).
U.S. Air Force
94
-------
11 ' ' ' ' ' Hill - Biovunting 7 of IS ~~
EH PERFORMANCE "~
i Performance Objectives
Remediate the site so that soil TPH is within the limit set by the Utah Department of Health (38.1 mg/kg).
Determine the affect of SVE at the site.
Determine the affect of bioventing at the site.
Conduct a btoventing/soil venting study that will generate sufficient data to demonstrate effectiveness and provide
support for designs at other similar sites.
i Treatment Plan
Initial Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples in the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography. A plot of this data is given in Figure 3.
Soil Vapor Extraction Phase (bioventing is not optimized during this phase)
• Perform SVE with a maximum 1500 acfm (700 acfm is typical) flow for the site. Vent gas is collected through vent
wells 5-11, which are located in the areas of highest contamination. The system operation is 24 hours per day.
• Measure effectiveness of SVE by monitoring the air flow rate and the exit soil gas concentration. (This data was not
presented in the report).
• Measure the effectiveness of bioventing by continuously monitoring the concentration of soil gas O2 and CO2. If a
typical hydrocarbon composition is assumed, the amount of hydrocarbon degraded can be calculated by comparing
either the rise in CO2 or the decrease in O2 relative to the background concentrations. This method should give a
conservative estimate since hydrocarbon converted to biomass or partially degraded to another organic compound is
not accounted for.
• Cease venting operations at three points in time and allow for "natural" biodegradation to occur. Measure the effec-
tive respiration as depletion of soil O2 concentration. This allows for determination of the rate of reaction (blodegra-
dation) and the associated rate constant.
• Qualitatively analyze the CO2 which occurs in the soil gas. Use the C13 / C12 isotope ratio to determine the origin of
the carbon in the CO2. The testing should be able to differentiate CO2 which is from the atmosphere, hydrocarbon-
based, and derived from carbonate rock .
Interim Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples near the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography. Note, this data set is not as complete as the initial data
set. No plot is provided.
Bioventing Phase (bioventing is optimized during this phase)
• Reduce the air flow rate from 1500 acfm to 250 acfm. Redirect the air flow so that vent wells on the perimeter of the
of the site are used for vapor extraction. These steps increase the residence time for biodegradation. Also, soil
moisture is removed at a slower rate at the reduced air flow. The system operation is 24 hours per day.
• Add water to the spill site surface to increase the soil moisture level to between 6 and 12%.
• Add nutrients, such as phosphates, nitrates, and ammonia, with water to the spill site. The nutrients were added in a
C.-N.-P ratio of 100:10:10 based on the soil TPH analysis taken in 9/89.
• Perform in situ respiration tests to determine the effectiveness of the steps to promote biodegradation. Soil gas O2
monitoring was used to calculate the mass of hydrocarbon degraded in this phase.
Final Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples in the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography.
U.S. Air Force
95
-------
Hit-
\Resutts
Figures 6 and 7 show the results of three successive respiration tests at monitor wells M and Y, respectively.
Oxygen is consumed at a reduced rate at monitor well Y over the course of the respiration tests. The final test
shows virtually no oxygen depletion in the area. This indicates a low level of biological degradation occurring. The
low rate of degradation may be due to reduced soil hydrocarbon (i.e. remediation is nearly complete) or to low levels
of soil moisture. Soil moisture would tend to be depleted due to the relatively high air circulation rates established
for SVE. At site M, the ©2 depletion rate (biodegradation rate) increases with successive respiration tests. This is a
location below the plastic cover. The data indicates that remediation is not complete and that the area was formerly
oxygen starved.
Figures 8 and 9 show soil gas concentrations of O2, CO2, and hydrocarbon at the monitor well locations and the vent
well locations after the conclusion of the third respiration test. The data show that high levels of O2 correlate with
low levels of hydrocarbon and CO2. In general, a high level of oxygen with little carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon sug-
gests that any JP-4 originally in the soil has been removed. Also, note that vent well hydrocarbon levels are all lower
than the monitor well levels. This occurs because the 40 foot screen of the vent wells collects a composite sample
of the soil gas in the vicinity. As a result, local areas of high concentration are diluted.
Pint Ten Initialed 12/19/88
Second Ten tniuaied 1/13/89
Thud Ten Initiated 5/26A9
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time(Min)
Fim Ten Initialed 12/19/S*
Second Ten Intaialod 1/13/89
Thud Ten Initialed 5/26*9
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 (000
Time (Min)
Figure 6. The Results of the Three Successive In Situ
Respiration Test at Monitoring Point Y
(65 feet below tad surface), Hill AFB, Utah.
Figure?. The Results of the Three Successive In Situ
Respiration Test at Monitoring Point M
(25 feet below land surface). Hill AFB. Utah.
20
20.
20.
20-
20
OO, alCOi BHydroearbon
1 Hydrocarbon
Concentrations
>1500
I
0
I
1500
! - looo
-500
AABBAPKTBFRMHQC
Monitoring Point
Figure8. JP-4 Hydrocarbon (HC), O ,and CO .Concentrations 9 June
1989 in the Monitoring Points at the Conclusion of the Third In
Situ Respiration Test
1500 ^
1000
Figure 9. JP-4 Hydrocarbon (HC). O, and CO^ Concentrations 9 line
1989 in the Vents at the Conclusion of the Third In Situ
Respiration Test
U.S. Air Force
96
-------
The carbon isotope study is used to determine the origin of CO2 in the soil gas. The possible sources include the
atmosphere, degraded hydrocarbon, and decomposition of carbonate rock in the formation. The isotope ratio is
characteristic of a given source of carbon. The laboratory analysis shows that vent gas CO2 has an isotope ratio
characteristic of petroleum and that less than 0.2% of the soil gas volume is due to CO2 not derived from the JP-4.
i Operational Performance
Volume of air circulated
The following table and figure show the air flow volumes and the affect on T.PH removal.
As of Date
12/18/88
12/19/88
1/13/89
4/1/89
5/26/89
9/30/89
11/14/90
Total vented soil gas
in 1000'sof acf
0
42.5
540
8642
45,000
167,000
512,000
Figure 10 shows how the fraction of hydrocarbon removal due to bioventing has been affected by the changing air
flow rates. In general, as the air flow rate is reduced, removal due to SVE decreases. The rate of biodegradation is
unchanged, but the relative contribution of biodegradation increases.
90-
80-
6 70-
- 60-
g. 50-
.1 40-
CO
# 30-
20-
10-
Enha
Biodegi
AoivitM
X '
need
•adation
s Begin ^ __
f
High Rale Extraction Low Rate Extraction '
DJFMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJ JASON
H 1989 1990
Month of Operation
Volume of water added
As of Date
5/28/90
9/21/90
Figure 10. Percent of Recovered Hydrocarbon Attributed to
Biodegradation Reactions at the Hill AFB, Utah, Soil
Venting Site Based on Oxygen Consumption in the
VcntGu
Total gallons of
water added to surface
0
1,000,000
Average water
flow rate - gpm
30
U.S. Air Force
97
-------
Mass of nutrients added
• 300 Ib of N as ammonium nitrate, 30 Ib of P as treble superphosphate were added to the soil.
• Nutrients were added in three phases from a/10/90 to 9/21/90. The nutrients were applied by direct surface addition,
tilling of the first six inches of soil, and irrigation of the area.
System Downtime
SVE system was down for six days because the hydrocarbon vapor catalytic incinerator was out of service.
Treatment Performance
Total Pounds Contaminants Removed
As of Date
12/18/88
9/30/89
10/1/89
11/14/90
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed by
vapor extraction
0
114,400
114,400
118,200
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed
by bioventing
0
23,200
23,200
92,900
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed
0
137,600
137,600
211,100
Rate of TPH removal
Ib/day by
vapor extraction
200-400
200-400
20
(not given)
Figures 11 and 12 show the estimated cumulative hydrocarbon removal due to soil vapor extraction and bioventing
as a function of time.
O N
Date
Figure 11. Cumulative Hydrocarbon Removal (Volatilized and
Biodegraded) at Hill AFB, Utah, Soil Venting Site
(from 18 December 1988 to 14 November, 1990)
Performance Assessment
It is estimated that 211,000 Ib of hydrocarbon were removed from the site as a result of SVE and bioventing. The
original spill was estimated at 27,000 gallons. At the time of the spill, 2000 gallons of free liquid were recovered. If a
specific gravity of 0.75 is assumed for the remaining hydrocarbon, the mass of the spill would be approximately
156,200 Ibs. Despite the discrepancy in the estimates, the soil sampling at the end of the remediation showed that
the site was sufficiently cleaned to meet the regulatory requirements.
U.S. Air Force
98
-------
" • ' • HHI - Biovunting 11of15 —
• Figure 13 shows the average soil hydrocarbon concentrations at initial, intermediate and final phases of the site
remediation.
Depth
(feet)
20
Hill AFB Building 914 Soil Samples
101
80
728
-1568
1422
]216
I
5
100
Depth
(meters)
10
15
20 100 100
Hydrocarbon Concentration (mg/kg)
CZl Before EZZ Intermediate sa After
Figure 13. Mean Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations at 5-Foot Intervals Prior to Venting (Before),
After High RAte Operating Mode Venting but Before Low Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and
Nutrient Addition (Intermediate), and After Low Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and Nutrient
Addition (After).
• Following the demonstration, the state of Utah approved closure of the site.
U.S. Air Force
99
-------
--—-—--—-•—-----——-—---—--—--------—-~——*-----^---——-—~--———^——-—-————-— Hill - Biovunting 12 of IS —
d COST :
i Capital Costs (thousands of dollars)
Construction of Piping System $25
Construction of Wells $130
Equipment Costs $150
Startup Costs $30
Total Capital Cost $335
i Annual Operating Costs (thousands of dollars):
Electricity (9 $0.07/kWhr)S $13
Propane (@$1.30/gal) $24
Labor $40
Laboratory Charges $11
Maintenance Labor & Parts $20
Lease of Incinerator $24
Total Annual Operating Cost $132
i Cost Sensitivities (thousands of dollars)
Incinerator salvage value $10 (if originally purchased instead of leased)
U.S. Air Force
100
-------
Hill • Biovunting 13 of 15 —
CZREGULATORY / INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• The Davis County Health Department was involved in the planning stage of the SVE activities (1987).
• The site cleanup assessment was conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for
Petroleum-Contaminated Soil at underground Storage Tank Release Sites", which are criteria published by the Utah
Department of Health.
• The recommended cleanup levels (RCL's) are presented for TPH, benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. These
were derived from the above DOH guidelines by project personnel.
• The numerical levels are assigned based on the source of the spill (gasoline, diesel, or waste oil) and the environmen-
tal sensitivity of the area. The jet fuel has physical characteristics which lie between those for gasoline and diesel
fuel. The RCL's are derived from the criteria for these listed fuels.
• Three levels of sensitivity are established based on the susceptibility of the groundwater to contamination from the
spill leachate. Because of uncertainty in the ranking criteria, RCL's for Level I sensitivity (the lowest set of values)
were used to assess the site cleanup.
• During combined SVE and bioventing operations, the catalytic incinerator was removed from service permanently
once system modifications were made that reduced the soil vent gas hydrocarbon concentration below the permit
limit of 50 mg/l.
Target Cleanup Levels/Criteria:
Contaminant
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Level I RCL1
Soil mg/kg
65
<0.2
<100
<1000
<70
Site maximum
Soil mg/kg
38.1
<0.15
18
2.5
<0.15
1. RCL's for specific aromatic compounds are for either gasoline or diesel releases. The RCL for JP-4 is midway
between the value for gasoline and diesel.
1. SCMFDUIF
Task
Laboratory Studies
SVE Phase (ORNL)
Initial site soil analysis
First respiration test
Second respiration test
Third respiration tast
Intermediate site soil analysis
Bioventing Phase (Battelle)
Nutrient addition tests
Final site soil analysis
Start Date
5/87
10/88
10/88
12/19/88
1/13/89
5/26/89
10/89
10/1/89
9/21/90
12/90
I
End Date Duration, months
11/87
9/30/89
—
12/22/88
1/18/89
6/9/89
—
12/90
11/90
—
6
12
—
—
—
—
—
15
2
—
1 I
U.S. Air Force
101
-------
- H3I - Biovmnting 14 of 15 —
EH LESSONS I FARMED !
i Key Operating Parameters
SVE is preferable if the cleanup is required to proceed at a pace faster than that allowed by typical bioventing rates.
However, provisions may be necessary for air emissions control.
SVE is enhanced by high air flow rates and the presence of volatile hydrocarbons.
Biodegradation is enhanced by adequate soil oxygen, moisture and nutrient level.
Soil moisture appeared to have a greater impact than did nutrient level.
i Implementation Considerations
The system modifications required to decrease the soil gas hydrocarbon concentration below the permit limit
included use of vent wells only at the periphery of the spill (areas of low soil TPH concentration) and reduced soil gas
flow rates. These steps served to decrease the motive force for air stripping and increase the residence time for
biodegradation.
The above steps would enable direct venting to the atmosphere of the untreated soil gas, but the total time required
to clean up the site would be increased.
High air flow rates favor SVE but may retard biodegradation if too much soil moisture is removed or If contaminants
do not have adequate residence time in the soil matrix.
Contaminants (TPH) migrated in the formation over the course of the remediation activities. This was likely due to
gravitational flow of the hydrocarbon, entrainment in seeping groundwater, or entrainment in the SVE ajr stream.
Interim and final soil analysis should be sufficiently comprehensive to account for these possibilities.
Technology Limitations
SVE is limited to hydrocarbons that are sufficiently volatile to allow air stripping.
Bioventing is limited to hydrocarbons that can be degraded by the local bacteria. In addition, sufficient soil oxygen,
moisture and nutrients are required.
Estimates of biodegradation are more accurate if oxygen depletion rather than carbon dioxide formation is used.
Various carbon dioxide sinks exist in the system. These would include biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with
the soil. Oxygen is not as sensitive to these sinks.
i Future Technology Selection Considerations
The plastic cover did not result in significant air flow redirection at the spill site. This is probably because vent well
screened intervals began at a depth of 10 feet and vertical hydraulic conductivity is lower than horizontal hydraulic
conductivity at the site. Air distribution in the formation is in general an important parameter to address.
Methods to optimize bioventing and SVE as a simultaneous process should be addressed in greater detail. However,
at this site it was preferable to maximize bioventing (at the expense of SVE) in order to avoid air quality issues asso-
ciated with the high vent gas flow rate.
Soil chemistry criteria should be developed to establish when the application of nutrients would be beneficial to the
bioventing process.
U.S. Air Force
102
-------
dSOURCES
Major Sources For Each Section •
Site Characteristics: Source is 1,2,3 (from list below)
Treatment System: Source is 1,4,6
Performance: Source is 1,4,6
Cost- Source is 1,4,5
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: Source is 1 ;4,5
Schedule: Source is 1,4,5
Lessons Learned: Source is 1,4,5
• Chronological List of Sources ••iMtM>i^ - ' ..... , :
1. Final Report for Hill A.F.B. JP~4 Sit* (Building 914) Remediation, Battelle, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, July, 1991.
2. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Wafer Remediation Technology, EPA-600/8-90/003, Mercer et al., GeoTrans, Inc.,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
3. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, R. C. Weast and M. J. Astte, 62 nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1981.
4. Notes of telephone conversation between W. White (SWEC) and R. Elliott (Hill AFB) on 3/1/94 and 3/8/94.
5. Response to Stone & Webster letter (2/16/94) by R. Elliott received on 3/7/94.
CHANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact Dr. Richard Carmtenael 303-741-7169
d REVIEW
Project Manager
This analysis accurately reflects the
perform anceand costs of this remediation:
Mr. Robert Elliot
OO-ACC/EMR
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, Utah 84055-5137
U.S. Air Force
103
-------
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Bioventing Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB)
Denver, Colorado
(Interim Report)
104
-------
Case Study Abstract
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Bioventing Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB), Denver, Colorado
Site Name:
Lowry Air Force Base
Location:
Denver, Colorado
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
- Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TRPH) concentrations of 15 to 14,000
mg/kg were measured in soil samples below
the area excavated for landfarming
- BTEX concentrations in soil samples were
lower than cleanup criteria
Period of Operation:
Status - Ongoing
Report covers - 8/92 to 4/94
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim
results)
Vendor:
Engineering Science, Inc.
1700 Broadway, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80290
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Bioventing
- 6 piping manifolds (each consisting of two
10 ft, 2 in diameter screens)
- Placed in excavation at right angles (in a
horizontal plane), surrounded with 1 to 2 ft
layer of pea gravel
- Aerated to maintain an oxygen concentration
greater than 14%
- Carbon dioxide concentration maintained at
less than 4%
Cleanup Authority:
State: Colorado
Point of Contact:
Lt. Tom Williams
3415 CES/DEV
Lowry AFB, CO 80230
Waste Source:
Underground Storage Tank
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Bioventing to remediate soils
contaminated with heating oil which
contained relatively high
concentrations of TPH and relatively
low concentrations of soluble
contaminants (e.g., benzene).
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- No estimates have been made of the quantity of soil treated or hydrocarbon
product degraded at the time of this report
- Moist, firm sandy clay in top 10-15 ft
- Medium to coarse-grained sand in next 15-80 ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Treated soil - TPH < 500 mg/kg; TRPH < 500 mg/kg; and BTEX < 100 mg/kg
- Cleanup conducted under EPA and State of Colorado Underground Storage Tank Regulations and the Colorado
Department of Health's Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) action levels
Results:
- Bioventing project was not complete at time of this report
- No TRPH, BTEX, or TPH data are available at this time
- Bioventing system maintained adequate O2 levels in the contaminated soil and removed CO2 from the soil
Cost Factors:
- Final cost data were not available
- Total Capital Cost - $28,650 (including equipment, site work, engineering, project management)
- Annual Operating Costs - $32,875 per year (including electricity, maintenance, laboratory charges)
105
-------
Case Study Abstract
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Bioventing Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB),
Denver, Colorado (Continued)
Description:
As a result of a leak of heating oil from an underground storage tank (UST) at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado,
soil was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).
Following excavation of contaminated soil to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below ground level, soil sampling from the bottom of
the excavation indicated that TRPH concentrations of 15 mg/kg to 14,000 mg/kg remained in the soils. A bioventing
system, consisting of six bioventing piping manifolds, was installed at the bottom of the excavation and began operating in
August 1992. The soil was aerated to maintain an oxygen concentration greater than 14% and a CO2 concentration less than
4%.
The bioventing of the contaminated soil at this site was ongoing as of April 1994. The target cleanup levels for the soil
were TPH to less than 500 mg/kg; Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) to less than 500 mg/kg; and BTEX
to less than 100 mg/kg. The cleanup is being conducted under the authority of the Colorado Department of Health
Underground Storage Tank Program. While no TPH, TRPH, or BTEX data were available at the time of this report, the
bioventing system was found to have maintained adequate O2 and CO2 levels in the soil.
The total capital cost for this application is $28,650 and the estimated annual operating costs are $32,875. It was noted
during this application that key operating parameters for bioventing are soil moisture, oxygen content, and carbon dioxide
content; and that more frequent and better reported respiration test results would provide a more complete picture of the
progress of the bioventing process, and indicate when final soil samples should be collected.
106
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Ptgu1of12 HS
CZSITE
EZTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Defense Finance
Accounting Service -
Denver Center
Location of Tanks.
Lowry Air
Force Base
DENVER
E. 6th Ave.
E.AIamada Ave.
£. Mississippi Ave.
E. ISff Ave.
0 1 2 miles
Scale
EZSITE CHARACTERISTICS:
This analysis covers the use of bioventing
to bioremediate soils contaminated with
heating oil. The treatment began 5 August
1992 and is currently ongoing. This analy-
sis covers performance through
1993.
Lowry Air Fore* Ba«
D«nv«r
COLORADO
MOIMOSOv
iS/te Htstory/Release Characteristics*
• The Defense Finance Accounting Service - Denver Center (DFAS-DE) is located on Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) at
the east edge of the City of Denver, Colorado.
• This project was carried out in response to a suspected release of petroleum hydrocarbons (heating fuel oil) from
an UST at the (DFAS-DE), adjacent to building 444.
• A suspected leak of 10,500 gallons of heating fuel oil was discovered by a discrepancy in inventory measure-
ments during February 1992.
• Underground storage tank (UST) removal efforts commenced March 2,1992, with uncovering of the suspected
leaking UST, Tank 424. The soil above the tank was free of hydrocarbon odor.
• Leakage was confirmed by visual inspection of the removed tank on March 16,1992.
• Initial notification of the release was provided in a letter dated April 7,1992, to the CDH Underground Tank
Program.
U.S. Air Force
107
-------
"•"•"""—••—-^——————————___ i_omy Bioventing 2 of 12
Contaminants of Concerm
• Contaminants of greatest concern in the soil are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes), heating oil,
and diesel fuel.
Contaminant Properties*
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are:
Property Units Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes*
Empirical Formula C6H6 csHio c/Hs GsHio
Density @20°C g/cm3 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87
Vapor Pressure @ 20"C mm Hg 100 10 36.7 10
Henry's Law Constant tetmXm3) 5.59 X10'3 6.43 X10'3 6.73 X10-3 7.04 X10-3
@ 25°C mol
Water Solubility @ 20°C mg/l 1,800 200 500 200
Log Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient; 2.13 3.15 2.69 2.77-3.2
Log Kow
Site Specific Soil- ug/l air 0.48 3.42 0.77
Air Partition mg/kg soil
Coefficient; Kh /Kd
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc ml/g 83 1,100 300 240
lonization Potential ev 9.25 8.76 8.82 8.56
Molecular Weight 78.12 106.18 92.15 106.18
*AII 3 isomers (M, O, & P)
i Nature & Extent of Contamination
4 USTs (Tanks 424, 425, 426 and 427) were removed.
It was determined that only Tank 424 leaked.
Components of the heating fuel oil did not significantly affect the groundwater. Heating fuel oil contains relatively low
concentrations of soluble components (such as benzene) compared to lighter petroleum fractions such as gasoline.
Groundwater treatment was not deemed necessary, but it was monitored during remediation activities.
Groundwater benzene concentrations from 4 monitoring wells ranged from 1.7 to 3.1 ug/L. Concentrations of
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were well below State standards and MCLs. Low TRPH concentrations (0.3 mg/L
or less) were measured in 3 wells; 23 mg/L of TRPH was observed in the downgradient well.
The soil was saturated with petroleum product immediately above the water table at 45 feet below ground surface.
Residual fuel appeared to be confined with depth in some areas by a layer of finer-grained, dense sand encountered
at 35 feet below the ground surface.
U.S. Air Force
108
-------
Lowry Biavunting 3 of 12
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Remedial investigation field activities at the site have included:
Plume (Too View)
05*8/92
LEGEND
AFFAC-0 SH££N f
\ a • ja \ ,
«£, 3 1.7 \L
\
\ AFFAC-4
\ ^v '
^
AFFAC
BOILER BUILDING 444 '
*x COMRESSOR /
<$? BUILDING /
i
/ ,y^ , ,\, , ,4
,, x x \ AFFAc-11 j N\ n cm-
V
X,
S^^- AFFAC-fi^
/ ' ^^ i*^i
1 ' ^_^ , ^"r*"'.
.
FFAC-3^
$•'•• r >
\ ^. 424 .'•' 425 / 426
y ~~ "~
s j 1 L .._
^ 1 ^v
^ V
^ \
w \
\ ^- \
AFFA07 gJ MONflERING WELL LOCATION
WATER TABLE ELEVATION CONTOUR,
V_ — - - DASHED WHERE INFERRED (GROUND
= ionFFFTl
1 000 GALLON
HOLDING | £ . 1 FREE PRODUCT OR OILY SHEEN IN
>^*'^ TANK
1
i . \
S S3 ^\ AFFAC-5
XJ— t
1
AFFAC-o 1 1
n»® f\
af U\
s®
\
\
K x ' t x
X "^ X. ffb \ ^ TRANSF
^ 1 "X Hp
^ ,CTX ^~ ^
V,
\
^. T-^, 'op ® \ \
\, ^ ^MJ- AFFAC_1^. ^ N
^ X \ 022
s^ "^ *C\ A
^
X.
>
^ %, ^
• — v.
AFFAC-7 ® ^ x
X \
\
X
Xy
*-CURB
032 'TRPHt WELL SAMPLED 4/06/92 WfTHTRPH
S31TBENZENE) CONCENTRATION IN m^\- AND
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
1 1 RESIDUAL FUEL IN SOIL
I 1 BELOW TANKS
f
b
-@&-
3RMER PAD SWW
T
i
0 go 40 80
FEET
'.RING WELL 11 WAS ALSO USED AS A FREE
CT RECOVERY WELL RECOVERY WELLS WERE
RILLED NEAR MONITERING WELLS 2 AND 4.
FREE PRODUCT THICKNESS AND
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
UST SITE ASSESSMENT LOWRY AIR
FORCE BASE DENVER,
COLORADO
MO1B4050J
Hydrogeoloqic Units
• Thicknesses of unconsolidated alluvium >80 feet occur at the location of the DFAS-DE tanks.
• A layer of moist, firm sandy clay occupies the top 10 to 15 feet.
• The next 15 to 80 feet is a medium to coarse-grained sand.
• Aquifer is a water table aquifer.
• Groundwater gradient is roughly 0.4% to the northeast.
U.S. Air Force
109
-------
iStte Condtttons
• Elevation is about 5,390 feet.
• Average annual air temperature is SOT. Diurnal temperature fluctuation averages 29T. Record high 105T; record low
temperature -30T.
• 14.81 inches precipitation/year; 58.3 inches of snow/year.
• 70% of possible sunshine.
• On the average, the first freeze is around October 12 and the last freeze is around May 5.
• Direction of groundwater flow is from the southwest to the northeast.
iKey Sot or Key Aquifer Characteristics Measured
Property Units Range or value
Soil moisture content (landfarm) % 6% to 11 %
Hydraulic conductivity cm/s 1.8 to 78.4 X10-4
Depth to groundwater feet 45
Aquifer thickness feet >35
Depth to bedrock feet >80
Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally from 1 to 4 feet in monitoring wells at this site.
U.S. Air Force
no
-------
Lowry Bioventing 5 of 12
dTREATMENT SYSTEM
Three remediation technologies are being used to remediate this site. The three technologies selected com-
plement each other and are not competitive, one with another
• Landfarming for the soil removed from the excavation.
• Bioventing for the soil remaining in the excavation.
• Product only pumping for the free product found floating on the water table.
• This report addresses bioventina only.
i The Treatment System*
• 5,400 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil was removed from the excavation. Soil that had indications of
hydrocarbons present was excavated by a track hoe, hauled to a treatment location and is undergoing above ground
biotreatment (landfarming).
• Soil was removed from below the tanks to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below ground surface.
• Soil sampling from the bottom of this excavation indicated that petroleum contamination remains below the excava-
tion and above the water table in the northern part of the excavation. TRPH concentrations of 15 mg/kg to 14,000
mg/kg were measured in bottom soil samples. BTEX concentrations were less than RAC III criteria in all samples. The
maximum concentrations of TRPH and BTEX were all observed at the 35 foot depth. The next highest concentrations
were observed at the 40 foot depth. Limitations of the reach of excavation equipment and concerns with sidewall sta-
bility prevented the removal of contaminated soils at depths greater than 35 or 40 feet, because the groundwater was
at 45 feet. As a result, 5 to 10 feet of residual contaminated soil was left in place.
• Before backfilling, 6 bioventing piping manifolds (each manifold consisting of two 10 foot iong; 2" diameter polyvinyl
chloride [PVC] screen) were installed at the bottom of the excavation in areas determined to contain residual contami-
nation. The 10 foot manifold sections were placed in the excavation at right angles (in a horizontal plane). These
screens were surrounded with a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of pea gravel. Each manifold connected to a 2" diameter PVC
riser pipe that extended to the ground surface. These bioventing manifolds are aerating the remaining contaminated
soil, thereby enhancing biodegradation of the residual fuel by naturally occurring soil microorganisms. The manifolds
can also be used to introduce nutrients to the contaminated soils to enhance further biological fuel degradation rates.
U.S. Air Force
111
-------
•Extent of Excavation
Figures
6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
AFFAC-9
-
M3RAVEL AREAj
BOILDEFRBLT?D.NG
#444
SIDEWALK
VMPN-2
VMP N-1
t ATPBAI «! V-T-J 2' ™C BIOVENTING
CONTOoL ^^ AIR SUPPLY PIPE
vMPS-1
AFFAC-10
BIOVENTING SYSTEM
LEQEND
~. ) APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
S RESIDUAL FUEL
CONTAMINATION IN SOIL
© GROUNDWATER MONITORING
WELL
® AIR INJECTION RISER PPE AND
VAPOR MONITORING POINT
i Overall Process Schematic
FEET
Blower,
Figure 4
Process F/ow Diagram
To second set of three manifolds
•Air Supply Pipe
/Ground Surface
Bottom of
Excavation
Clean Fill
N1 ft. to 2 ft.
PVC Manifolds Pea Gravel
iKey Afon/tored Operating Parameters
• Oxygen concentration is maintained at greater than 14%.
• Carbon dioxide is maintained at less than 4%.
U.S. Air Force
112
-------
Lowiy Biovfttting 7 of 12
[PERFORMANCE
^Performance Objectives*
• There are no RODs or FFAs. However, compliance with EPA and State of Colorado UST regulations is required.
• The soil bioventing operations will be completed when composite soil samples indicate TRPH concentrations have
been reduced to less than 500 mg/kg.
i Treatment Plan i
If within the soil matrix the oxygen (02) level is low and the carbon dioxide (CC>2) level is high.it is assumed that
microorganisms are degrading the hydrocarbons present. If biodegradation is occurring, then the process is limited
by the depleted oxygen level. The microorganisms will consume the hydrocarbons at a high rate if the oxygen used
by the microorganisms is replaced by bioventing.
Wells will be installed and soil samples taken at some future time to confirm that the TRPH has been reduced to
below 500 mg/kg.
The cleaned soils will remain in place after soils bioventing treatment is completed.
i Operational Performance
The radius of oxygen influence created by the bioventing system exceeded the boundaries of soil contamination.
Figure 5 shows the soil gas concentration of oxygen (O^ and carbon dioxide (COj) at selected monitoring wells
(AFFAC-n) and vapor monitoring points (VMP S-n). The data show that the O2 initially (before treatment) was low,
between 2% and 6%. At the same time the CO2 was high, between 6% and 12%. After the bioventing system was
placed in operation, O2 levels increased and remained high, between 14% and 21%. During this same period, CO2
levels decreased and remained low, between 0% and 6%. This indicates that lack of oxygen originally was limiting
the biological destruction of the fuel oil hydrocarbons. Since bioventing commenced, adequate oxygen is available
for bioremediation to take place.
22.0%
20.0%
16.0%
4.0H
2.0K
0.0%
Bioventing
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide vt Time
250
400
450
Day* 8nc« Start of Siovwitno
Xo.,:AFFAC-4
X COj:AFFAC-4
Do,: AFFAC-9
QcO,:AFFAC-«
• • • • *
O g,: AFfAC-10
OcOj:AFFAC-10
Oo.,:VMp-3
Ocp2:VMP-3
See Figure 2 for the location of monitoring wells (AFFAC-n) and Figure 3 for the location of vapor monitoring
points (VMP S-n).
U.S. Air Force
113
-------
• The bkDventing system is effective in maintaining high O2 levels In the contaminated soil len in place. The system also
effectively removed CO2 from the contaminated soils.
System Downtime
• The bioventing system was down for a short (unspecified) time because of a damaged supply pipe.
iTreatment PerformancemmmmmmMmmmmm^*w<$^«w>-:: >'••••••••' ,- i
Total Pounds Contaminants Removed
• No estimates have been made of the quantity of soil treated or the quantity of hydrocarbon product destroyed.
U.S. Air Force
114
-------
Lowry Bioventing 9 of 12 ~~
i Capital Costs
Equipment
Site Work
Buildings/Structures
Mechanical/Piping
Electrical
Subtotal
Engineering
Project Management
Testing
Cumulative Subtotal
General & Administrative Overhead Costs @ 9.5%
Total Capital Costs
Annual Capital Cost (Over 2 years)
i Operating Costs (per year)
Electricity (@ $0.07/Kwhr)
Laboratory Charges
Maintenance Labor & Parts
Monitoring
Subtotal
Total Annual Operating Cost
$2,700
$3,700
$900
$650
$1,000
$8,950
$5,000
$2,200
$10,000
$26,150
$2,500
$28,650
$14,325
$1,400
$1,750
$5,400
$10,000
$18,550
$32,875
U.S. Air Force
115
-------
•"^— ——•—• ——— Lowry Bioventing 10 of 12 "•"
GZREGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ~l
• The USTs were removed in conformance with American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1604 and the
National Fire Protection Association Code 30.
• The EPA and the State of Colorado review all documents produced by this project including the Quarterly Monitoring
Reports. In addition, Lowry AFB personnel meet with the EPA and the State of Colorado once/month. Local commu-
nities are invited to the monthly environmental meetings.
i Cleanup Criteria
• The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) Action Levels are:
Compound mg/kg
Total (Recoverable) Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) 500
Total Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) 100
• The CDH's "Basic Standards for Ground Water" includes:
uo/L
benzene 1
toluene 1,000
ethylbenzene 680
xylenes none
• The MCL standard for benzene is 5 pg/L, the MCL for xylenes is 10,000 \ig/L, but there is no MCL for TPH.
• Shallow groundwater beneath Lowry AFB is not being used as a drinking water supply and there is little or no likeli-
hood that this will change.
• Target Cleanup Levels/Criteria:
Contaminant mg/L
TPH 500
EUSCHEDULE I
• There is no "originally planned schedule." Remediation will continue until the site meets the foregoing CDH regulatory
requirements.
• As of May 1992, site restoration and assessment activities were completed by June 1992. Estimated time of comple-
tion was estimated to be 2 years.
• The bioventing system began operation August 5,1992, and operates continuously.
• As of April 1994 treatment is not complete.
U.S. Air Force
116
-------
Lowry Bioventing 11 of 12
E2ILESSONS LEARNED
iffey Operating Parameters
• The key operating parameters are soil moisture, soil oxygen content and soil carbon dioxide content.
• More frequent and better reported respiration tests would provide a more complete picture of the progress of the soil
remediation. It would also indicate when final soil samples should be obtained.
iImplementation Considerations
• The time required for biotreatment is longer than other treatment methods such as incineration.
• Can be performed on site, reducing the need to excavate large quantities of soil.
i Future Technology Selection Considerations
• Both landfarming (above ground bioventing) and in situ bioventjng appear to have been successful at this site, but
data is insufficient to make a judgment as to which process performed better.
U.S. Air Force
117
-------
Lowry Biovanting 12 of 12
tMaJor Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics: 1, 2, 6 and 7
Treatment System: 1 and 7
Performance: 1,3,4 and 5
Cost: 8
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: 1
Schedule: 1 and 8
i Chronological List of Sources and Additional References
1. Underground Storage Tanks Site Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver,
Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong
Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., May 1992.
2. Underground Storage Tanks Site Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan, Appendices, Lowry Air Force Base,
Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong
Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., June 1992.
3. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training
Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., October 1992.
4. Quarterly Monitoring Report-January 1993, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air
Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., January 1993.
5. Quarterly Monitoring Report-November 1993, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air
Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., December 1993.
6. RREL Treatability Data Base, Version 4.0, EPA, November 15,1991.
7. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology, EPA/600/8-90/003, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK 74820, March, 1990.
8. Personal Communication with Kent Friesen, Engineering-Science, Inc., 1700 Broadway, Suite 900, Colorado 80290
(Phone, 303/831-8100).
ESANALYSIS PREPARATION I
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichael 303-741-7169
PREVIEW
Project Manager
This analysis accurately reflects the
performance and costs of this remediation
Lt. Tom Williams
3415CES/DEV
Lowry AFB, CO 80230-3214
U.S. Air Force
118
-------
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Land Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB)
Denver, Colorado
(Interim Report)
119
-------
Case Study Abstract
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Land Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB), Denver, Colorado
Site Name:
Lowry Air Force Base
Location:
Denver, Colorado
Contaminants:
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TPH)
- Contaminated soil - BTEX < 100 mg/kg;
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TRPH) up to 11,000 mg/kg; 3,100 mg/kg
average
- Stockpiled soil - average TRPH of 3,983
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
Status - Ongoing
Report covers - 7/92 to 9/93
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim
results)
Vendor:
Engineering Science, Inc.
1700 Broadway, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80290
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Soil spread on plastic sheeting to thickness
of 14 to 18 inches
- One-time addition of ammonium nitrate
nutrients (C:N:P ratios of 200:10:1)
- Soil aerated twice a month (April-November)
- Soil moisture content 10%-15%
Cleanup Authority:
State: Colorado
Point of Contact:
Lt. Tom Williams
3415 CES/DEV
Lowry AFB, CO 80230
Waste Source:
Underground Storage Tank
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Land treatment to remediate soils
contaminated with heating oil which
contained relatively high
concentrations of TPH and relatively
low concentrations of soluble
contaminants (e.g., benzene).
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Soil type firm sandy clay and medium to coarse-grained sand
- Soil moisture content ranged from 6% to 11 %
- 5,400 yd3 treated plus three additional truckloads of contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Treated soil - TPH < 500 mg/kg; TRPH < 500 mg/kg; and BTEX < 100 mg/kg
- Cleanup conducted under EPA and State of Colorado Underground Storage Tank Regulations and the Colorado
Department of Health's Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) action levels
Results:
- Land treatment project was not complete at time of this report
- No TRPH, BTEX, or TPH data are available at this time
- Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon levels as of September 1993 ranged from 1,300-1,700 mg/kg
Cost Factors:
- Total Capital Cost - $104,257 (including site work, permitting, construction/mobilization/demobilization, pilot testing,
project management); pilot testing was $76,000 of the total capital costs
- Estimated Annual Operating Costs - $18,460 per year (including laboratory charges, maintenance, monitoring)
120
-------
Case Study Abstract
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Land Treatment at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB)
Denver, Colorado (Continued)
Description:
As a result of a leak of heating oil from an underground storage tank (UST) at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado,
soil at the site was contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX). An estimated 10,500 gallons of fuel oil were released. The USTs in the area were removed and the contaminated
soil was excavated. Land treatment was selected for the excavated soil; treatment of about 5,400 cubic yards began in July
1992 and is ongoing at the time of this report. For this land treatment application, nutrients (ammonium nitrate) were added
in a one-time application, the soil is tilled twice a month, and soil moisture content is kept between 10 to 15% by weight.
The target cleanup levels for the soil are TPH to less than 500 mg/kg; Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH)
to less than 500 mg/kg, and BTEX to less than 100 mg/kg. The cleanup is being conducted under the authority of the
Colorado Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Program.
The estimated completion time for the land treatment operation was two years. However, as of September 1993, the
treatment had not been completed. While no TPH, TRPH, or BTEX data were available at the time of this report, levels of
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TEPH) sampled as of September 1993 showed levels in the range of 1,300 to
1,700 mg/kg. These data and the results of a pilot test, which showed a general decrease in TEPH over time, appear to
indicate that land treatment will be effective, though no projections for a completion date are available at this time.
The total capital cost for this project is $104,257 including $76,000 for pilot testing, and the estimated annual operating costs
are $18,640. Available information to date indicates that the credibility of the land treatment soil assessment would have
been improved if an adequate, random sampling program had been used for sample collection. In addition, laboratory
analysis should have been consistent throughout the pilot test or an explanation of inconsistencies provided.
121
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Page 1of11 ••
CZSITE:
Figure 1
Defense Finance
Accounting Service -
Denver Center
EZTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
This analysis covers the use of landfarming to
bioremediate soils contaminated with heating oil.
The treatment began 1 July 1992 and is currently
ongoing. This analysis covers performance through
September 1993.
EH SITE CHARACTERISTICS
iS/te History/Release Characteristics i
The Defense Finance Accounting Service - Denver Center (DFAS-DE) is located on Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) at
the east edge of the City of Denver, Colorado.
This project was carried out in response to a suspected release of petroleum hydrocarbons (heating fuel oil) from
an UST at the DFAS-DE adjacent to building 444.
A suspected leak of 10,500 gallons of heating fuel oil was discovered by a discrepancy in inventory measure-
ments during February 1992. In response to the suspected release, an emergency UST removal and site assess-
ment project was performed.
Underground storage tank (UST) removal efforts commenced March 2,1992, with uncovering of the suspected
leaking UST (Tank 424). The soil above the tank was free of hydrocarbon odor.
Leakage was confirmed by visual inspection of the removed tank on March 16,1992.
Initial notification of the release was provided in a letter dated April 7,1992, to the CDH Underground Tank
Program.
U.S. Air Force
122
-------
Lowry-2of11
i Contaminants of Concern
• Contaminants of greatest concern in the soil are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes) and
heating oil.
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are:
Property Units
Empirical Formula
Density @ 20°C g/cm3
Vapor Pressure @ 20°C mm Hg
Henry's Law Constant (atm)
@25"C
Water Solubility ® 20°C mg/l
Log Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Log Kow
Site Specific Soil-
Air Partition
Coefficient; Kh /Kd
pg/l air
mg/kg soil
Benzene
CgHg
0.88
100
5.59X10-3
1,800
2.13
Ethylbenzene
C8H10
0.87
10
6.43X10-3
200
3.15
0.48
Toluene
C7H8
0.87
36.7
6.73X10-3
500
2.69
3.42
Xylenes*
C8H10
0.87
10
7.04X10-3
(m3)/mol
200
2.77-3.2
0.77
83
9.25
78.12
1,100
8.76
106.18
300
8.82
92.15
240
8.56
106.18
&8$S8Sffl$SS$fe8/&i$$8^£&&t%!!&&.'?": . '•.:.• • '. ]
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc ml/g
lonization Potential ev
Molecular Weight
'All 3 isomers (M, O, & P)
I Nature & Extent of Contamination
• 4 USTs (Tanks 424, 425, 426, and 427) were removed.
• It was determined that only Tank 424 leaked.
• Tanks 424, 425, and 426 had a capacity of 24,000 gallons each. Tank 427 had a 6,000 gallon capacity. All 4 tanks
were steel.
• Components of the heating fuel oil did not significantly affect the groundwater. Heating fuel oil contains relatively
low concentrations of soluble components (such as benzene) compared to lighter petroleum fractions such as
gasoline. Groundwater treatment was not deemed necessary, but it was monitored during remediation activities.
• Groundwater benzene concentrations from 4 monitoring wells ranged from 1.7 to 3.1 ug/L. Concentrations of
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were well below State standards and MCLs. Low TRPH concentrations (0.3
mg/L or less) were measured in 3 wells; 23 mg/L of TRPH was observed in the downgradient well.
U.S. Air Force
123
-------
Lowry -3 of 11 ~™~
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Remedial investigation field activities at the site included:
Figure 2
Plume (Plan View)
'
\
AFF«^ls»££«
I **\
\ AFFAC-4
v V'-v
' AFFAC
BOILER BULDUG *44y
'*. CCWRESSOfl>
,^80 feet occur at the location of the DFAS-DE tanks.
• A layer of moist, firm sandy clay occupies the top 10 to 15 feet.
• The next 15 to 80 feet is a medium to coarse-grained sand.
• Aquifer is a water table aquifer.
• Groundwater gradient is roughly 0.4%.
• Approximately 9,000 cubic yards of soil was removed from the excavation. This soil was a combination of course-
grained sand and sandy clay.
• Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of sandy clay soil excavated from above the tanks was stockpiled separately and
used for backfill of the excavation.
• Clean fill from offsite was used to backfill remainder of the excavation.
• Elevation is about 5,390 feet.
• Average annual air temperature is 50°F. Diurnal temperature fluctuation averages 29°F. Record high 105°F; record low
temperature -30°F.
• 14.81 inches precipitation/year; 58.3 inches of snow/year.
« On the average, the first freeze is around October 12 and the last freeze is around May 5.
• Direction of groundwater flow is from the southwest to the northeast.
^ Key Soil or Key Aquifer Characteristics
Property
Soil moisture content (landfarm)
Hydraulic conductivity
Depth to groundwater
Aquifer thickness
Depth to bedrock
E '
Measured '"'";•;;;•?--'-"-'•;;;;"-------"'
Units
%
cm/s
feet
feet
feet
".. :.. . i
Range or value
6% to 11%
1.8 to 78.4X1 0-4
45
>35
>80
I
U.S. Air Force
124
-------
Lowry-4of1l
d TREATMENT SYSTEM
Three remediation technologies are being used to remediate this site. The three technologies selected com-
plement each other and are not competitive, one with another.
• Landfarming for the soil removed from the excavation.
• Bioventing for the soil remaining in the excavation.
• Product only pumping for the free product found floating on the water table.
• This reort addresses landfarming: only.
Extent of Excavation
Figure 3
DFAS-06
BOILER BUILDING 444
LEGEND
MONtTERINGWELL
LOCATION
VENT PIPE LOCATION
AFFAC—3
i
/•
i
V.
424
• «
»
r.-
^
425 y
^
/
429
1
f
/
/
427
-LIMIT OF
EXCAVATION
FEET
DFAS-DE TANKS
EXCAVATION
LOWRYAIR FORCE BASE
DENVER, COLORADO
i Overall Process Schematic!
Excavation
Figure 4
Process Flow
Landfarm
Clean Fill
U.S. Air Force
125
-------
' Lowry-5of11 —
• Soil berms, 2 feet wide by 2 feet high, were constructed on plastic sheeting used for the landfarming operation and
the edges rolled back over the berms.
• Contaminated soil was spread on the plastic sheets to a thickness of 15 inches. Orange synthetic mesh fencing 3 to
4 feet high was installed around the landfarm for security and to prevent animal intrusions.
• Trie application of agricultural fertilizers to soil used in landfarming operations had C:N:P ratios of 200:10:1 as recom-
mended for hydrocarbon biodegradation. Ammonium nitrate nutrients with this ratio were applied and tilled into the
soils once.
• Optimum moisture for biodegradation ranges from 10 to 15% by weight. Moisture was added to the landfarming soils
during the dry summer months to maintain this range.
• Based on Lowry AFB soil and contaminant conditions, a minimum landfarming treatment period of 12 to 18 months
was expected for reduction of heating oil residuals from 3,100 mg/kg to <500 mg/kg.
• Assuming that a maximum of 10% by weight of the heating fuel oil will volatilize, 1.9 tons of total volatile hydrocar-
bons could volatilize to the atmosphere during the anticipated landfarming treatment term.
I/fey Monitored Operating Parameters
A pilot test was performed to verify treatability.
TRPH concentrations are used to monitor microbial activity, verify biotreatment of the soil, and document removal of
petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil. When TRPH concentrations have been reduced to 500 mg/kg, a letter will be
sent to the CDH to confirm successful treatment.
if/re Treatment System
A pilot test was conducted over a six month period in 1992 to assess the effectiveness of providing soil amendments
to aid in the treatment process.
5,400 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil was removed from the excavation.
Soil was removed from below the tanks to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below ground surface.
Soil that was saturated with fuel oil or had olfactory or PID indications of hydrocarbons present was excavated by a
track hoe, hauled to a treatment location on an abandoned paved airstrip, and stockpiled on plastic sheets.
The stockpiled soils had an average TRPH concentration of 3,100 mg/kg (the maximum observed was 11,000 mg/kg).
BTEX was <100 mg/kg.
The soil is being remediated using above ground biotreatment (landfarming). In landfarming, soil microbes use petro-
leum hydrocarbons as their primary carbon source. Soil tilling supplies sufficient oxygen to the soils for biodegrada-
tion and produces a homogeneous mixture of soil, moisture, and added nutrients. Nutrients including available nitro-
gen (N), phosphorous (P), and various trace elements were added once by application of an agricultural fertilizer in
aqueous solution.
The thickness of the stockpiled soils during treatment was 14 to 18 inches.
The soil was aerated with a farm plow to provide oxygen to the soil bacteria. Soil Tilling is performed twice a month
from April to November.
U.S. Air Force
126
-------
Lowry-6of11
CZ PERFORMANCE
i Performance Objectives
• There are no RODs or FFAs. However, compliance with EPA and State of Colorado UST regulations is required.
• The soils biotreatment operations will be completed when composite soil samples indicate TRPH concentrations
have been reduced to less than 500 mg/kg.
i Treatment Plan
• The soil is being remediated using above ground (ex situ) biotreatment (landfarming).
• The remediated soils will be used for fill material on Lowry AFB property after soils biotreatment is completed.
i Operational Performance
DFA8-DE FULL SCALE LANDFARM
SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
First Samples
Dates:
Sample I.D.
AFFAC-SP3
AFFAC-SP4
AFFAC-SP5
AFFAC-SP6
AFFAC-SP7
AFFAC-SP8
AFFAC-SP9
AFFAC-SP10
Mean
April 23-27,1 992
TRPH*
(mg/kg)
5,400
5,300
5,300
1,200
1,700
1,300
1 1 ,000
660
3,983
Latest Samples
Dates:
Sample I.D.
LF-9/2/93-1
LF-9/2/93-2
LF-9/2/93-3
Sept. 2, 1993
TEPHt
(mg/kg)
1,700
1,300
1,400
1,467
* Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
t Total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
M0194060q
Eight samples of soil stockpiled from the excavation were analyzed for TRPH before being removed to the landfarm.
The data labeled "First Samples" in Figure 5 presents this data.
On September 2nd soil samples from 3 locations in the 100,000 sq. ft. landfarm were analyzed for TEPH. The data
labeled "Latest Samples" presents this data.
The samples from April 1992 indicate that the contaminated soil was not homogeneous before it was placed for land-
farming.
It is difficult to determine the average level of TEPH for the landfarm from only the three samples that were taken on
2 September, 1993.
Three additional truck loads of diesel contaminated soil were added to the landfarm subsequent to this sampling.
This contaminated soil resulted from a 150 gallon diesel fuel spill from a delivery truck.
U.S. Air Force
127
-------
Lowry-7of11 —
Pilot Test
The results of the pilot study showed an uncharacteristic increase in TEPH between weeks 8 and 12. Except for this
all samples show a general decrease in TEPH over time. No reason for the increase between weeks 8 and 12 was
given.
PILOT TEST
TEPH vs Time
80%
60%
Q.
Ill
c
0)
O)
CO
.c
O
-80%
-100%
56 84
Days into test
112
i Treatment Performance
161
Qcell#1
'Cell #2
^ Cell #3
V Cell #4
* Cell #6
M01M060T
• 9,000 cubic yards of soil were removed from the excavation. 3,000 cubic yards of this were clean soil removed from
over the tanks.
• The landfarming project is not complete at this time and the evaluation of the performance of this treatment method
is incomplete.
• The data presented in Figure 5, however, suggests that the performance of the landfarming project will be
satisfactory.
U.S. Air Force
128
-------
dCOST
Lowry-Bof11
\CapitalCostsi
Site Work
Permitting & Regulatory
Startup Costs
Subtotal
Engineering
Project Management
Pilot testing
Construction/Mobilization/Demobilization
Fees® 1.5%
Cumulative Subtotal
Total Capital Costs
Annual Capital Cost (over 2.5 years)
i Estimated Operating Costs (per year)
Laboratory Charges
Maintenance Labor & Parts
Monitoring
Subtotal
Total Annual Operating Cost (estimated)
Total Annual Operating & Capital Costs (estimated)
Cost/Ton (estimated)
iCost Sensitivities
Effects of Assumption Changes
The estimated cost is subject to the following sensitivities:
• An increase in the landfarm
treatment time of 40% (to 3.5 years)
$14,600
$1,500
$2,400
$18,500
$1,500
$6,000
$76,000
$1,480
$277
$104,257
$104,257
$41,700
$500
$16,640
$1,500
$18,640
$18,640
$60,340
$17
$/ton
Added $2
U.S. Air Force
129
-------
•~~~~~—_____________________________„__—__—____«__i^___^_—_ Lowry-9 of 11 —
[TIREGULATORY/INSTITUTIONALISSUES I
• The USTs were removed in conformance with American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1604 and the
National Fire Protection Association Code 30.
• The EPA and the State of Colorado reviewed all documents produced by this project including the Quarterly
Monitoring Reports. In addition, Lowry AFB personnel meet with the EPA and the State of Colorado once/month.
Local communities are invited to trie monthly environmental meetings.
\Cleanup Criteria
The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) Remedial Action Category III (RAC III) Action Levels are:
Compound mg/kg
Total (Recoverable) Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) 500
Total Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) 100
• The CDH's "Basic Standards for Ground Water" includes: ug/L
benzene 1
toluene 1,000
ethylbenzene 680
xylenes none
• The MCL standard for benzene is 5 M9/U the MCL for xylenes is 10,000 (jg/L, but there is no MCL for TPH.
• Shallow groundwater beneath Lowry AFB is not being used as a drinking water supply and there is little or no likeli-
hood that this will change.
• Target Cleanup Levels/Criteria:
Contaminant mg/L
TPH 500
[HSCHEDULE
Landfarming began treatment on 1 July 1992.
As of September 1992, the estimated time of completion was 2 years.
As of April 1994 treatment is not complete.
U.S. Air Force
130
-------
———-—^——-—————~-™~~-—————————————_— Lowry-10of11
GZ LESSONS LEARNED
I Key Operating Parameters mmmmtmwmmm
The key operating parameters are soil moisture, soil oxygen content and temperature.
The credibility of the 2 September 1992, landfarm soil assessment would have been improved had an adequate, ran-
dom sampling program been applied at that time. The variability of the TRPH analysis in the initial landfarm soil sam-
ple could have been used to determine the number of samples required for the later sampling program.
The sample collection and laboratory analysis should have been consistent throughout the pilot test or an explana-
tion provided for the inconsistency in the data.
Implementation Considerations and Technology Limitations
• Adequate space for landfarm ing is required.
• Time is required for biotreatment. For example, it is slower than other treatment method, such as incineration.
• Soils must be excavated for landfarming to be used.
t Future Technology Selection Considerations
• Both landfarming (above ground bioremediation) and in situ bioventing appear to have been successful at this site,
but data, thus far, is not sufficient to make a judgment as to which process performed better.
U.S. Air Force
131
-------
dSOURCES
i Mayor Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics: 1, 2, 6 and 7
Treatment System: 1 and 7
Performance: 1, 3, 4 and 5
Cost: 8
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: 1
Schedule: 1 and 8
i Chronological List of Sources and Additional References
1. Underground Storage Tanks Site Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver,
Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong
Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., May 1992.
2. Underground Storage Tanks Site Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan, Appendices, Lowry Air Force Base,
Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong
Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., June 1992.
3. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air Training
Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., October 1992.
4. Quarterly Monitoring Report-January 1993, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air
Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., January 1993.
5. Quarterly Monitoring Report-November 1993, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, prepared for Headquarters Air
Training Command/DEV, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Armstrong Laboratory/OEB, Brooks AFB, Texas, prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., December 1993.
6. RREL Treatability Data Base, Version 4.0, EPA, November 15,1991.
7. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology, EPA/600/8-90/003, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK 74820, March, 1990.
8. Personal Communication with Kent Frlesen, Engineering-Science, Inc., 1700 Broadway, Suite 900, Colorado 80290
(Phone, 303/831-8100).
EZ ANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichael 303-741-7169
REVIEW
Project Manager
This analysis accurately reflects the
performance and costs of this remediation
Lt. Tom Williams
3415 CES/DEV
Lowry AFB, CO 80230-3214
U.S. Air Force
132
-------
Land Treatment at the Scott Lumber Company
Superfund Site
Alton, Missouri
133
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site
Alton, Missouri
Site Name:
Scott Lumber Company Superfund
Site
Location:
Alton, Missouri
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- PAH concentrations were measured as high
as 0.326 mg/kg in lagoon water, 12,400
mg/kg in sludge, and 63,000 mg/kg in soils
- Benzo(a)pyrene ranged from 16 to 23 mg/kg
at initiation of treatment
Period of Operation:
December 1989 to September
1991
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Christina Consentini
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
(ReTeC)
1001 S. 24th Street, W., Suite 105
Billings, MT 59102
(406) 652-7481
SIC Code:
249IB (Wood Preserving - using
Creosote)
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Construction of land treatment area included
a clay liner and berms, run-on swales, and
subsurface drainage system
- Retention pond and irrigation system
- Treatment performed using two lifts of soil
- Indigenous microorganisms used to support
biodegradation
- Nutrients added to Lift No. 1; none added to
Lift No. 2
- Cultivated once every two weeks
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA (removal action)
- Action memorandum date:
7/10/87
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Bruce A. Morrison
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region 7
Emergency Planning and
Response Branch
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913) 551-7755
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon; Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
This was one of the early
applications of land treatment at a
Superfund site contaminated with
creosote compounds.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 15,961 tons of soil treated in two lifts
- Classified as sand per USDA system
- Approximately 4% of soil passes a No. 200 sieve
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Action levels in soil were established for total PAHs at 500 mg/kg and for benzo(a)pyrene at 14 mg/kg
- Total PAHs was defined as the sum of 16 specific PAH constituents
Results:
- Land treatment achieved specified action levels for PAHs and benzo(a)pyrene
- Lift No. 1 - Total PAHs reduced from 560 to 130 mg/kg, and BAP from 16 to 8 mg/kg, in 6 months of treatment
- Lift No. 2 - Total PAHs reduced from 700 to 155 mg/kg and BAP from 23 to 10 mg/kg, in 3 months of treatment
Cost Factors:
- Total Costs for Removal Action - approximately $4,047,000 (including $1,292,000 for the land treatment contractor (over
3 years), $254,000 for laboratory analyses, EPA contractors and EPA oversight)
134
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site, Alton, Missouri (Continued)
Description:
From 1973 to 1985, the Scott Lumber Company, located near Alton, Missouri, operated a wood treating facility used to
preserve railroad ties with a creosote/diesel fuel mixture. As a result of these operations, soil at the site was found to have
been contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations as high as 63,000 mg/kg. An Action
Memorandum was signed in July 1987, which specified the construction and operation of a land treatment unit (LTU) as a
removal action for treatment of PAH-contaminated soils at the site. Cleanup activities were performed in three phases. The
first two phases involved decontamination and removal of surface debris and sludge at the site and excavation and
stockpiling of contaminated soil at the site. Phase III involved on-site land treatment of the contaminated stockpiled soil.
Land treatment was performed from December 1989 through September 1991, and 15,961 tons of soil were treated during
this application. Stockpiled soil was placed in the LTU in two lifts. Approximately 200 Ibs per acre of ammonium
phosphate fertilizer were added to the first lift to adjust the nutrients in the soil. No nutrient adjustments were made to the
second lift. Each lift was cultivated once or twice a week and irrigated, as necessary, to maintain a moisture content
between 1% and 4%.
Action levels for the soil at the site, established by EPA, were 14 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and 500 mg/kg for total
PAHs. Land treatment at the Scott Lumber site reduced levels of BAP and total PAHs to below action levels. In Lift 1,
BAP concentrations were reduced from 16 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg and total PAH concentrations were reduced from 560 mg/kg to
130 mg/kg within 6 months. In Lift 2, concentrations were reduced from 23 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg for BAP and from 700
mg/kg to 155 mg/kg for total PAHs within 3 months. The total costs for this removal action were $4,047,000, including
$1,292,000 for the land treatment contractor and $254,000 for laboratory analyses. Site demobilization was completed in
September 1991.
135
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page! of 2 7
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARYI
This report presents cost and performance
data for a land treatment application of
contaminated soil at the Scott Lumber Com-
pany Superfund site (Scott Lumber), located
near Alton, Missouri. From 1973 to 1985, this
company operated a wood treating facility
that preserved railroad ties with a creosote/
diesel fuel mixture. As a result of these
operations, soil at the site was contaminated
with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), which were major components of the
creosote/diesel mixture used at Scott Lumber.
An Action Memorandum was signed on July
10, 1987, which specified the construction
and operation of a land treatment unit (LTU)
as a removal action for treatment of PAH-
contaminated soils at the site. Contaminated
soil was excavated and stockpiled on site.
Land treatment was performed from Decem-
ber 1989 through September 1991, and
approximately 15,960 tons of soil were
treated in the LTU. The soil in the LTU was
cultivated and irrigated on a weekly or bi-
weekly basis. Ammonium phosphate fertilizer
was added to the first lift to adjust the nutri-
ents in the soil. No nutrient adjustments were
made to the second lift. Site demobilization
was completed in September 1991.
Action levels established by EPA for soil at the
site were 14 mg/kg for benzo-a-pyrene (BAP)
and 500 mg/kg for total PAHs.
Land treatment at the Scott Lumber site
reduced levels of both BAP and total PAHs to
below the soil action levels. In Lift 1, BAP
concentrations were reduced from 16 to
8 mg/kg, and total PAH concentrations were
reduced from 560 to 130 mg/kg. The most
rapid decreases in total PAH concentrations in
Lift 1 occurred within the first 6 weeks of
treatment. In Lift 2, concentrations were
reduced from 23 to 10 mg/kg for BAP and
from 700 to 155 mg/kg for total PAHs. The
land treatment system was operated for 6
months for Lift 1 and 3 months for Lift 2.
The total removal action costs were approxi-
mately $4,047,000, including approximately
$1,292,000 in costs incurred by the land
treatment contractor.
(SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site
Alton, Missouri
CERCLIS #: MOD068531003
Action Memorandum Date: 7/10/87
Background
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Removal Action
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Yes (see Appendix A)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Operating Period: 12/89 - 9/91
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
15,961 tons
Historical Activity That Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Creosote wood treating
Corresponding SIC Code: 2491B
(Wood Preserving Using Cresote)
Waste Management Practices That Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Surface Impound-
ment/Lagoon; Spill
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
136
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 2 of 27
(SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Site History: The Scott Lumber Company
Superfund (Scott Lumber) site is located
within Oregon County in south-central Mis-
souri, approximately one mile east of the
town of Alton, Missouri, as shown in Figure 1.
From 1973 until 1985, Scott Lumber operated
a wood treating facility that preserved railroad
ties with a creosote/diesel fuel mixture. A plan
view of the site is shown in Figure 2. The
process consisted of treating wood using
several retort tanks. Waste management
practices at the site included discharging
creosote contaminated sludge generated
during the wood treatment process to an
unlined storage lagoon located on site. In
addition, an estimated 300 or more gallons of
preservative were released during one spill
incident, and the direct discharge of creosote
waste into the soil was suspected. The creo-
sote sludge was classified as a K001 -listed
waste by EPA. [ 1 ]
Site investigations conducted by EPA indicated
that the site was principally contaminated with
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Figure 1. Site Location
which ^ET£ the major components of the
creosote/diesel mixture used in the wood
preserving operations. Most of this contami-
nation was located within or near the wood
treatment area of the site. [ 1 ]
FOfUMII
TMATMNT
FOftMtH
TMATIMNT
UNIT
CONTAUINATtD
•-o
muma
•uiLomo
/ \^
INTIHMTTINT
•TMAM
D
KALI
figure 2. Plan View ofSLC Site [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
137
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 3 of 27
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Three phases of cleanup activities were
conducted at Scott Lumber in response to a
July 10, 1987 Action Memorandum. Phase I
occurred in 1987 and involved the decontami-
nation and removal of surface debris and
sludge at the site. Phase II occurred from July
to September 1988 and involved the excava-
tion and stockpiling of contaminated soil
identified at the site. Phase III occurred from
1989 to 1991 and involved the on-site land
treatment of contaminated soil. [1] This report
focuses on Phase III of the cleanup activities.
Regulatory Context: Action levels for the soil
at the site were established by EPA and
approved by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry in 1987. The action
levels were 14 mg/kg for benzo-a-pyrene
(BAP) and 500 mg/kg for total PAHs. [1,2]
Total PAHs refer to the 16 constituents listed
in Appendix B of this report.
Remedy Selection: Three methods were
considered for remediation of PAH contami-
nation at the site: 1) excavation and off-site
disposal; 2) encapsulation with on-site dis-
posal; and 3) land treatment. On-site land
treatment was determined to be the best
alternative because it was the most cost-
effective method for permanently eliminating
the identified contaminants at the site, and It
was an innovative treatment technology. [2,4]
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator:
Bruce A. Morrison
U.S. EPA - Region 7
Emergency Planning and Response Branch
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, Kansas 661 15
(913) 551-7755
Treatment System Vendor:
Christina Cosentini
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTeC)
1001 S. 24th Street W, Suite 105
Billings, Montana 59102
(406) 652-7481
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System:
Soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Croup: Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs were found in the water and sludges of
the unlined storage lagoon and soil at the site.
PAH concentrations were measured as high as
0.326 mg/kg in lagoon water, 12,400 mg/kg in
sludge, and 63,000 mg/kg in soils. [4]
Concentrations for individual PAHs in un-
treated soils, prior to excavation, are shown in
Table 1.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
138
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 4 of 27
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (cont.)
Table 1. Contaminant Characterization [4]
PAH Constituent
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chiysene
Benzo(b)/(k}fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)peiylene
Average
(mg/kg)
I 73
43
780
893
1,700
163
836
755
243
262
236
130
75
16
90
Soil*
Range
("•SW
0.1 5 to 2,000
0.34 to 440
0.051 to 7,500
0.47 to 10,000
0.48 to 3 1,000
0.45 to 14,000
0.31 to 1 7.0OO
0.1 9 to 13,000
0.23 to 4,300
0.61 to 4,900
0.62 to 3,200
0.74 to 1,600
0.47 to 770
0.37 to 180
0.35 to 830
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost
or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each are presented in
Table 2. A particle size distribution of soils at
Scott Lumber, using U.S. standard sieves, is
shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [9]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Gay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
pH
Field Capacity
Value
Sand (Gravel and sand with
minor silt fractions)
See below
6.8 to 8
Not available
Measurement Method
USDA
—
—
_
Table 3. Particle Size Distribution [9]
Sieve No.
10
20
4O
60
100
200
Pan
% Finer
54.89
27.92
17.07
1O.35
6.22
4.14
0.00
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
Unconsolidated soils near the ground surface
primarily consist of a cherty clay interspersed
with dense clay..Chert is a biochemical rock
that consists of fibrous chalcedony, quartz,
and silica. The total thickness of the unconsoli-
dated soils that overlie the area's porous
limestone is not known. [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
139
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 5 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Types
Land Treatment
None
Land Treatment System Description and Operation
Construction of the land treatment unit at
Scott Lumber began in 1989 and involved the
following activities:
• Site preparation;
• Construction of a clay liner in the land
treatment area;
• Construction of berms, run-on swales,
monitoring wells, and lysimeters
around the land treatment area;
• Installation of a subsurface drainage
system in the land treatment area;
• Construction of a water retention
pond;
• Installation of an irrigation system for
the land treatment area;
• Construction of a fence around the
land treatment area; and
• Placement of contaminated soil in
the land treatment area.
The locations of the land treatment area,
contaminated soil stockpile area, and water
retention pond, as well as the subsurface
drainage layout, are shown on Figure 3.
Site preparation activities included removing
three buildings from the proposed land
treatment area and relocating sawdust and
scrap wood debris at the site prior to
regrading the surface topography. While
regrading, a new area of subsurface creo-
sote-contaminated soil, approximately 100
feet in diameter, was discovered near what
was once the retention pond.
Approximately 5,000 tons of contaminated
soil were excavated from this area and
added to the stockpile of soil to be
remediated. The area was backfilled with
clean fill material. [1,2]
Construction of a clay liner in the land treat-
ment area involved the compaction of the top
1 foot of in-situ soil and the addition of a
compacted 2-foot clay layer. The in-situ and
fill clay layers totaled 3 feet. To inhibit fluid
permeability within the clay layers, the com-
pacted clay surface was broken up and
loosened between placement of 6-inch lifts,
and soil moisture was maintained at 1% to 4%
greater than the optimum determined by the
Modified Proctor Test. Perimeter berms were
constructed around the LTU to the same
specifications as the clay liner. [1,2]
An underdrain system was constructed above
the clay layer to collect and drain water to a
retention pond. The system consisted of a 9-
to 10-inch thick sand layer containing a
•nwimr i«
-
-
_
.
COwr-uowTW SOIL
• 1 1 •!
1 __„ — —
„ _-,•?;£•""
'" ^^T'Smi^rr^. ""*
" r* __^ ^/ ^KiHtL.*1 wrvrTr- .^
y
\
«m* — .
) ^ ^fll
... OCCONTAWIMAIION I
i aa r
\ ""-sr- -
J, ~- -•"""I'
" v--
A •"""
'" r*"
~
-" f
,1
** f *'" -— --^i -.--*""""" r -
•
,
-
"II
-
i
-
j
H
1
.--~
\
LAND TREATMENT-"
UNIT
J J _J__i_ L_
I
fr IOD 50 0
1 SCA4J ' = 100
r
'"*' V"""'
---" u----
\
_--\
U — '"f«- PE
V^a?
•-
L _L»
l ! !
,--t
_. "
"
""H •
ffFOJUTED
HEAOWI"
N'piw'Houstyd -
•
Mm £fi
1-
CMTOff r—
— ) KM [
EuMficrO
>* Dtnaoi
H
v^ — ~
— ~:-.— '-^——^_~~~~1
SO IOC
^. f—
>i_ _
j— s
'1 ' *N
/
1
|!
i
,i
figure 3. LTU at Scott Lumber [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
140
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 6 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Land Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
drainage pipe network consisting of HOPE
perforated pipe 1.5 inch thick by 12 inches
wide wrapped in a geotextile membrane. The
HOPE pipe was connected to 6-inch header
pipes placed within the top 6 inches of the
clay liner. These header pipes were also
perforated and drained to the retention pond.
Each header pipe was surrounded by gravel
backfill and covered with a geotextile mem-
brane, figure 3 shows the subsurface drainage
network within the LTU. [1 and 2]
A retention pond was constructed in the
southeast corner of the LTU to receive the
potentially contaminated LTU runoff water
collected by the underdrain system. It was
lined with a 40-mil HDPE liner that overlay a
3-inch sand cushion, and had a storage
capacity of approximately 1 million gallons.
When the capacity of the retention pond was
exceeded during rainy periods, excess water
was discharged to the Alton Wastewater
Treatment Plant located adjacent to the site.
[2]
A 2- to 4-inch layer of topsoil was placed on
top of the underdrain layer to guard against
tilling damage and to decrease the leaching
potential of contaminated soil. A cross section
of the LTU, showing the location and thickness
of individual soil layers, is presented in
Figure 4. [2]
LTU Operation
Contaminated soil from the stockpile area was
placed in the LTU in 2 lifts. The first lift was
placed into the treatment area in December
1989, and treatment occurred from May to
November 1990 (6 months). This lift con-
sisted of approximately 9,000 tons of soil and
averaged 9 inches in thickness. The remaining
stockpiled soil was placed on the LTU in
December 1990 and May 1991, and treat-
ment of the second lift occurred from May to
August 1991 (3 months). The second lift
consisted of approximately 7,000 tons of soil
and averaged 7 inches in thickness. [1 and 2]
After the first lift of soil was placed in the
treatment area, a portable irrigation system
was installed. The irrigation system consisted
of a 4-inch aluminum pipe placed along the
base of the southern LTU berm. Water was
pumped from the retention pond, through this
line, to a moving wheel lateral line. The lateral
line was manually rolled east to west at 40-
foot intervals along the southern berm pipe,
and water was distributed to the LTU from the
lateral line through impulse sprinkler heads
spaced every 40 feet. During the summer
months, the LTU was irrigated approximately
once a week. [2] The irrigation activities for
the first lift began during the first week of June
1990, and for the second lift during the third
week of May 1991. [8]
Contaminated Soil to be Treated
Zone of Incorporation (Topsoil) 2 to 4 inches
Sand Layer
(Including Underdrain Pipe Network) 10 inches
Compacted Clay Liner
2 feet
In-situ Compacted Clay Liner
1foot
figure 4. LTU Cross Section [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
141
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 7 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Land Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
Following placement of each lift in the LTU
large rocks and debris were removed from the
contaminated soil, utilizing an alternating
series of cultivating and rock and debris
collecting activities. Cultivation broke up the
soil and brought rocks, wood, and other
debris to the surface, where they were col-
lected with a tractor-mounted Anderson Rock
Picker. The rocks and debris collected that
were greater than 3 inches in length were
placed in a designated stockpiling area for
segregation and decontamination. [2] The
tilling activities for the first lift began during
the first week of June 1990, and for the
second lift during the third week of May 1991.
[8]
Treatability study results indicated that suffi-
cient indigenous microorganisms existed in
the soil at this site to support biodegradation.
[4]
Approximately 200 pounds per acre of
granular, ammonium phosphate fertilizer was
applied to the first lift to obtain a ratio of soil
organic content to nitrogen to phosphorus of
100:2:0.4. No nutrient adjustments were
necessary for the second lift. [2]
Each lift was cultivated to aid the aerobic
bioremediation process. The soil was culti-
vated using farm equipment (chisel plow, tiller,
or subsoil ripper) for specific soil conditions.
For example, the subsoil ripper was used to
break up thick, compacted, silty clays, and the
chisel plow was used for routine soil cultiva-
tion. Each lift was cultivated approximately
once a week while rock and debris removal
was occurring, and twice a week when no rock
and debris removal took place. [2]
Soil samples collected in October 1990
indicated that total PAH concentrations were
approximately 130 mg/kg and BAP concentra-
tions were approximately 8 mg/kg and treat-
ment of Lift #1 was complete. Treatment of
Lift #2 was completed in August 1991, and
final concentrations were reported to be 155
mg/kg for total PAH and 10 mg/kg for BAR Site
closure was completed in the autumn of
1991; activities included the disposal of debris
at the Butler County landfill, regrading por-
tions of the site, seeding and fertilizing the
site, and demobilizing office trailers and
equipment. [1]
Health and safety requirements for this
operation included compliance with the
permissible exposure limit for PAHs set by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion.
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring was conducted
throughout operation of the LTU. The ground-
water monitoring program was conducted to
detect any migration of PAHs from the LTU to
the groundwater. Four shallow groundwater
monitoring wells screened between 30 and 35
feet below ground surface were installed in
each corner of the LTU. Two deep monitoring
wells screened between 95 and 100 feet
below ground surface were installed in the
northwest (upgradient) and southeast (down-
gradient) corners of the site. Shallow wells
were based on the depth to the groundwater,
while deep wells were based on depths of
nearby private wells. [8]
Before placement of the compacted 2-foot
clay layer, four groundwater lysimeters were
installed inside the perimeter berms to moni-
tor contaminant migration through the clay
liner. To minimize the development of a
migration route, the lysimeter collection tubes
were laterally trenched to locations outside
the LTU. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
142
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 8 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [1,2]
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each during this treatment application are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Operating Parameters [1,2, 9]
Parameter
Value
Measurement
Method
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
PH
Residence Time (for
treatment)
Temperature
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Once a week during rock removal, twice a
week otherwise
10 to 20%
6.8 to 8
Lift #1 - 6 months
Lift #2 - 3 months
No data available
72 mg/kg/mo. for Lift #1
182 mg/kg/mo. for Lift #2
Soil organic content:nitrogen:phosphorus
adjusted to 100:2:0.4 for Lift #1
No nutrient adjustment for Lift #2
Calculated
Not known
Timeline [1,2,6]
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Timeline [1.2,6]
Start Date
1973
July 10, 1987
August 1 987
July 1988
1989
December 1989
May 1990
December 1990
May 1991
May 1991
September 1991
End Date
1985
—
November 1987
September 1988
1991
—
November 1990
_
—
August 1991
—
Activity
Scott Lumber Co. operated
Action Memorandum signed
Phase 1 of removal action - decontamination and removal of surface
debris
Phase II of removal action - excavation and stockpiling of contaminated
soil
Phase 111 of removal action - land treatment of contaminated soil
First lift- soil placed In LTU
Treatment process (filling, rock removal/washing, nutrient adjustment,
Irrigation) of first lift
Second lift - first load placed In LTU
Second lift - second load placed In LTU
Treatment process (no nutrient adjustment) of second lift
Ste demobilization complete
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
$ Technology Innovation Office
143
-------
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 9 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Action levels for the soil at the site were
established by EPA. The action levels were
14 mg/kg for benzo-a-pyrene (BAP) and
500 mg/kg for total PAHs. [1 and 2] Total
PAHs refers to the 16 PAH constituents listed
in Appendix B to this report.
Additional Information on Goals
Action levels for soil at the site were based on
McClanahan's relative carcinogenic risk of BAP
compared to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, as well as action levels previously
approved by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry for cleanup of soil at
similar sites. [2]
Treatment Performance Data
Between April and November 1990, EPA
collected soil samples from a 5,000-square
foot subplot within Sampling Area F shown on
Figure 5. This subplot measured 50 feet north/
south by 1 00 feet east/west and was located
on the east side of Sampling Area F. Three
50-ml aliquot samples were collected every
two weeks during treatment of the first
lift from quadrants north, south, and
east. These samples were analyzed for
total PAHs by GC/MS analytical Method
3230. 2A, an EPA Region 7 modification
of a CLP analytical method for extrac-
tion and analysis of water and solids for
semivolatile organic compounds. [7]
Samples were collected within Sam-
pling Area F because it was conve-
niently located near the decontamina-
tion and office areas, was out of the
way of most facility operations, and the
marker flags placed within the subplot
could be lined up with permanent
markers on the adjoining berm. [2 and
5]
Appendix B. The averages of the total PAH
concentrations were calculated and plotted
against each sample date, as shown in Figure
6, and average BAP concentrations were
plotted against each sample date, as shown in
Figure 7.
The individual PAH analytical results by
sample date for Lift #1 are presented in
Appendix B by subplot location. Aver-
age concentrations were calculated for
each PAH constituent measured in the
three Subplot F quadrants, as shown in
Appendix B, by sample date. Total
PAHs were calculated for each sample
date by summing the analytical results
for all 1 6 PAH constituents shown in
22.000 SO FT
LAND (TREATMENT
~~ UFJTr' f " '
© ; ® 0
22.500 so rr 22,500 so FT | 23,250 so FT
20.700 SO. FT
® © • ®
22.500 SO FT 22.500 SO FT 23.250 SO FT
Figure 5. Sampling Locations [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
144
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 10 of 27
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.) |
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
In Lift #2, concentrations were reduced from PAH concentrations for Lift #2 were collected
23 to 10 mg/kg for BAP and from 700 to in May 1991. [ 1 ]
155 mg/kg for total PAH. Initial BAP and total
Cf>
§
O
0)
O)
CO
100-
04/19/90
05/31/90 06/28/90 07/26/90 08/23/90 09/20/90 10/18/90
06/14/90 07/12/90 08/09/90 09/06/90 10/05/90
Sample Date
NOTE- Treatment began in May 1990.
Figure 6. Total PAH Concentrations During Treatment of Lift No. 1 (based on Appendix B)
S
I
0)
u
O
O
-------
•Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 11 of 27
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Groundwater monitoring was conducted on a
quarterly basis during operation of the LTU. No
data are available on the results of groundwa-
ter monitoring.
During initial soil loading and LTU system
start-up, air monitoring of PAHs was con-
Performance Data Assessment
ducted using NIOSH Method 5515. Gilian
pump monitors placed on equipment used
during the cultivating and loading operations
detected airborne PAHs at concentrations as
high as 6.8 jug/m3 during an 8-hour sampling
period. [2]
A review of analytical data for treatment of
soil in Subplot F of Lift No. 1 indicated that
average total PAH concentrations decreased
from 560 to approximately 130 mg/kg within
6 months of treatment, and the average BAP
concentration decreased from 16 to approxi-
mately 8 mg/kg in the same time frame. A
rapid decrease in average total PAH and BAP
concentrations occurred within the first six
weeks of the treatment, when the average
total PAH concentration decreased from
approximately 560 to 190 mg/kg, and the
average BAP concentration decreased from
approximately 20 to 12 mg/kg. The action
level for total PAH was reached after a few
days of treatment, and, for BAR within the first
6 weeks of treatment.
Performance Data Completeness
A review of the analytical data for a 3-ring
PAH (phenanthrene) shows a reduction from
65 to 5 mg/kg (92%) over a 6-month time
frame, while data for a 5-ring PAH
(indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene) shows a reduction
from 19 to 6 mg/kg (68%) over the same
period. These data show that biodegradation
is faster for PAH constituents with fewer
benzene rings (in this case, biodegradation for
phenanthrene was faster than for
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene).
A review of air monitoring data for PAHs
indicated that the maximum concentration
measured was less than the permissible
exposure limit set by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.
Soil samples were collected during treatment
of a small area that represented slightly
greater than 1 % of the total LTU area.
Subplot F was sampled on a 2-week basis
during treatment of the first lift to monitor
treatment performance. Soils in Lift No. 1
were assumed to be homogeneous with
respect to PAH concentrations. Subplot F was
Performance Data Quality
selected for sampling because of ease of
accessibility, proximity to the decontamination
area, and the ability to leave marker flags on
the subplot.
Constituent-specific analytical data for the
16 PAHs of interest during this cleanup are
only available for treatment of the first lift.
Laboratory analytical data are accompanied
by statements certifying that the data have
met all quality assurance requirements unless
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
otherwise indicated in the data packages. Dupli-
cate samples were collected from each quadrant
and are included in each data package. [6]
The removal activities at Scott Lumber were
financed by EPA. EPA contracted Remediation
Technologies, Inc. to conduct the land treat-
ment activities at the site. [1 ]
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
8 Technology Innovation Office
146
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 12 of 27
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost [1]
Total removal action costs at Scott Lumber
were approximately $4,047,000. Because
little information was provided on the specific
elements included in these costs, a break-
down of these costs into the elements of an
interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
was not completed at this time. Actual costs
for treatment activities (i.e., those incurred by
the land treatment contractor) are shown
below by year:
1989 $690,000
1990 $352,000
1991 $250,000
TOTAL $1,292,000
The $1,292,000 in total costs for treatment
activities corresponds to approximately
$81/ton of soil treated, for the 15,961 tons of
soil treated in this application.
Additional costs at Scott Lumber were in-
curred by the ERGS contractor ($1,666,000);
TAT ($207,000); EPA Direct ($187,000); EPA
Indirect ($395,000); laboratory analyses - CLP
($254,000); and ERT/ERU ($46,000).
Cost Data Quality
Total cost information was provided by the
EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) for this
project, and includes cost for several activi-
ties. The specific cost elements included in
each activity are not available at this time.
Vendor Input
Costs for similar operations were estimated by
the treatment vendor to range from $50 to
$ 100 per cubic yard of soil treated for quanti-
ties in excess of 3,000 cubic yards.[21 ]
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED I
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Total removal action costs were
approximately $4,047,000, including
approximately $1,292,000 in costs
incurred by the land treatment con-
tractor.
The discovery during construction of
the LTU and resulting excavation and
treatment of an additional 5,000 tons
of contaminated soil added approxi-
mately $65,000 to the contractor
costs and delayed the construction of
the LTU by one month.
The OSC indicated that contract
expenditures were minimized during
this remediation because the ERCS
contractor project manager was not
required to be present on site during
routine bioremediation activities.
The OSC identified calculating vol-
ume, rather than mass, as a preferred
method to quantify the amount of soil
to be treated in the LTU. Weighing
truckloads of soil was more costly
than surveying soil stockpiles or using
overflights to determine volume.
The treatment at Scott Lumber was
completed using 2 lifts; the system
was constructed using a clay liner and
underdrain system.
*. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
lj Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
$ Technology Innovation Office
147
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 13 of 27
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup goal for total PAHs at
Scott Lumber was established in terms
of the sum of the concentrations for
16 specific polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. Cleanup goals for this
application were specified as 500 mg/
kg for total PAHs and 14 mg/kg for
benzo(a)pyrene, one of the 16 speci-
fied PAHs.
The cleanup goals were achieved
within 6 months for Lift #1 and
3 months for Lift #2.
• Land treatment at the Scott Lumber
site reduced total PAH concentrations
from 560 to 130 mg/kg, and BAP from
16 to 8 mg/kg, in Lift #1. In Lift #2,
concentrations were reduced from
700 to 155 mg/kg for total PAH and
from 23 to 10 mg/kg for BAP.
• The most rapid decreases in PAH
concentrations in Lift 1 occurred
within the first 6 weeks of treatment.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
This was one of the early applications
of land treatment of creosote-con-
taminated soil at a Superfund site.
A laboratory/demo-scale treatability
study conducted using site soils
demonstrated the feasibility of
bioremediation for treatment of
creosote-contaminated soils at Scott
Lumber.
REFERENCES
1. Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report,
Scott Lumber Company Site, non-NPL,
Alton, MO, July 10, 1987 - October 1,
1991. Bruce A. Morrison, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, January 15,
1993.
2. On-Site Bioreclamation of Creosote-
Contaminated Soil at the Scott Lumber
Site. Bruce A. Morrison, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Paper 92-27.04,
from the Air and Waste Management
Association Conference, 85th Annual
Meeting and Exposition, June 1992.
3. Memorandum Request for Exemption
from the $2 Million Limitation at the Scott
Lumber Company Site, Alton, MO. Morris
Kay to J. Winston Porter, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 15 July 1988.
Additional information provided by the
OSC and Contracting Officer concern-
ing the procurement and contracting
processes at the Scott Lumber site
(and other removal action sites) is
provided in Reference 10. Reference
10 is available from the U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI),
RO. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH
45242; (fax orders only -
(513)489-8695).
4. Final Report, Feasibility of Biological
Remedial Action at Scott Lumber Com-
pany Site, Alton, MO. Ecology and Envi-
ronment, Inc., March 1988.
5. Personal communication, Bruce A.
Morrison, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 11 April 1994.
6. Analytical data reports: 4/19/90, 5/31/90,
6/14/90, 6/28/90, 7/12/90, 7/26/90, 8/9/
90, 8/23/90, 9/6/90, 9/20/90, 10/5/90,
10/18/90; provided by Bruce A. Morrison.
7. Standard Operating Procedure; Extraction
and Analysis of Water and Soils for
Semivolitale Organic Compounds, Sep-
tember 21, 1989.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
148
-------
"Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 14 of 27
REFERENCES (CONT.)
8. Memorandum; Response to Information
Request for Scott Lumber Site, Bruce
Morrison to Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA,
Januarys, 1995.
9. Letter from Christina Cosentini to Linda
Fiedler, Scott Lumber information request,
Februarys, 1995.
10. Procuring Innovative Treatment Technolo-
gies at Removal Sites: Regional Experi-
ences and Process Improvements, U.S.
EPA, Publication 542/R-92/003, August
1992.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
149
-------
•Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 1 5 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Identifying Information
Site Identifying Information
Site Name: Scott Lumber Company
Site Location: Alton, Missouri
CERCLIS #: MOD068531003
Action Memorandum Date: 7/10/87
Treatability Study Strategy
Type of Treatability Study
Laboratory/Demo-Scale of Soil Bioremediation
The purpose of this treatability study was to
assess the feasibility of bioremediation for
creosote-contaminated soil by: (a) growing a
microbial culture capable of degrading PAHs;
(b) demonstrating that the site soil was not
toxic to the microbes; and (c) evaluating the
relative biodegradability of PAH constituents.
Three test runs were completed during this
study. The overall philosophy of conducting
the three runs was to measure system perfor-
mance under differing conditions of soil and
creosote loadings and reloadings. As shown in
Table 1, Run No. 1 received an initial creosote
loading of 1 % and no additional loadings. The
purpose of this run was to observe the bio-
degradation of PAH constituents with no soil
present. In addition, after microbes were killed
(Week 4), Run No. 1 was used as a control run
to assess the potential for PAH removal by
processes other than biodegradation. Run No.
2 received an initial creosote loading of 0.5%
and then was reloaded with 0.5% creosote at
2 and 4 weeks. The purpose of this run was to
investigate the potential enhancement of
biodegradation of higher-molecular-weight
PAHs by the addition of more easily degraded,
lower-molecular-weight PAHs. Run No. 3
received the same creosote loadings as Run
No. 2 but was also loaded and reloaded (at
times of creosote loading) with 10% clean soil.
The purpose of this run was to investigate the
potential inhibition of biodegradation due to
possible soil toxicity. [4]
Table A-1. Schedule for Loadings and Reloadings Used in Treatability Study [4]
Week
0 (start)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Run#l
1 % creosote
0%soil
No loading
No loading
No loading
Microbes killed
0.5% creosote loading
Run terminated
Creosote and Soil Loading (%)•
Run #2
0.5% creosote
0% soil
No loading
0.5% creosote reloading
No loading
0.5% creosote reloading
No loading
Run terminated
Run #3
0.5% creosote
10% soil
No loading
0.5% creosote
1 0% soil reloading
No loading
0.5% creosote reloading 1O%
soil reloading
No loading
Run terminated
*AII loadings are in weight/volume percentages.
Treatment System Description
Bioremediation System
Description and Operation
The bioremediation system consisted of three
aqueous bioreactors and related equipment.
The bioreactors used were 10-20 liter
plexiglass vessels, which were aerated and
mixed using humidified air. The three
bioreactors were placed in a walk-in environ-
mental chamber which was kept at a constant
temperature of 30°C. [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
150
-------
•Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 16 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatment System Description (cont.)
Microbial cultures used in this study were
grown using sludge from the site and a nearby
publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
System operation involved loading the
bioreactors with an aqueous slurry of clean
soil from the site, creosote, inorganic nutri-
ents, and microbial cultures. The three
bioreactors were loaded and reloaded with
varying quantities of soil and creosote.
Bioreactors were maintained at a pH of 7.0
Treatment Performance Results
using sulfuric acid, and operated for approxi-
mately 6 weeks. [4]
Procurement Process
Ecology ^Environment, Inc. was tasked by
EPA Region VII through a Technical Assistance
Team (TAT) Zone II contract to perform the
treatability study as a Technical Assistance
Project (TDD No. TPM-8801-001).
Treatment Performance Data
Treatment performance data were collected
for oxygen uptake rate, PAH constituent
content, solids content, and organic carbon
content. Oxygen uptake was measured to
indicate microbial activity levels. Microbial
respiration was the only mechanism for
consuming dissolved oxygen in the
bioreactors. A gas chromatograph coupled
with flame-ionization detector (EPA Method
610) was used to measure the concentrations
of PAH constituents. Solids content was
analyzed by measuring the concentrations of
dissolved solids (DS) and volatile suspended
solids (VSS). DS measurements indicated the
amount of inorganic nutrients and creosote
present in the bioreactors, and VSS measure-
ments were used as a rough estimate of the
microbial community size. Results from
organic carbon analyses yielded values for
both soluble organic carbon (SOC) and total
organic carbon (TOC). These measurements
indicated the amounts of dissolved and total
creosote, respectively, in each bioreactor.
Samples for each of these parameters were
collected from the bioreactors by dipping a
beaker into the solution and collecting liquid
free of froth and organic sheen.
Data on the oxygen uptake rate for the 3 runs,
as a function of time, are presented in
Table 2. Data on the concentrations for both
individual and total PAH constituents for the 3
runs, as a function of time, are presented in
Table 3. The DS, VSS, SOC, and TOC concen-
trations for the 3 runs, as a function of time,
are presented in figures 1 -4, respectively
[note - Bioreactor 1 shown on the figures
corresponds with Run No. 1, Bioreactor 2 with
Run No. 2, and Bioreactor 3 with Run No. 3].
[4]
Performance Data Assessment
The oxygen uptake data indicate that a
microbial culture capable of degrading PAHs
was grown during this study. Oxygen was
actively consumed in each of the bioreactors,
and rates of oxygen consumption increased
significantly after reloadings in response to
substrate addition. Run Nos. 2 and 3, which
were reloaded during the run, experienced the
greatest increases in oxygen consumption
rates. Since creosote was the only organic
substrate present and no physical or chemical
mechanism was identified for oxygen con-
sumption, the uptake of oxygen in the
bioreactors was attributed to biodegradation
of PAHs. VSS results show that the size of the
microbial community (biomass) increased
over the course of the study in proportion to
creosote reloading, indicating that a microbial
community capable of degrading PAHs had
been established.
In addition, the oxygen uptake data, which
showed comparable results for Run No. 3
(which included loading and reloadings with
10% soil) as for Run Nos. 1 and 2, indicate
that site soils were not toxic to the microbial
community.
However, with respect to the biodegradation
of PAHs, the results of the treatability study
did not establish the relative biodegradability
of PAH constituents. PAH analytical data from
the 3 runs are not consistent with data for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
151
-------
•Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Results (cont.)
Table A-2. Oxygen Uptake Rate (mg/L/min) [4]
Day
9
1 5
19
Run No. 1
0.078
0,131
0.049
Run No. 2
0.067
0.24
0.202
Run No. 3
0.178
0.291
0.218
Loadings
Creosote loaded in all 3 runs on Day 1
Creosote loaded in Run Nos. 2 and 3 on
Day 14; also, soil loaded In Run No. 3 on
Day 14
No additional loadings between Days 15
and 19
creosote loadings and reloadings. For ex-
cultures in this study, and that bioremediation
ample, Run No. 1 (the 1% creosote loaded on appears to be feasible for creosote-containing
Day 0, containing 90% PAHs) corresponds
with an expected PAH concentration of 9,000
mg/L, while only 855 mg/L of PAHs were
measured. However, the data indicate that
PAHs are biodegraded using the microbial
soils at Scott Lumber.
Performance Data Quality
The PAH analyses included matrix spike test
quality control efforts. [4]
Table A-3. PAH Data [4]
PAH Concentration. (mf/L)
Comm.nl
Acvupb-
th«ne
fhMNUV
theoe
hm
xsz.
>«mo<*)-
B«nzo(b)'
fluoran-
thene
fluoran-
thene
ChryBen*
Anthit-
CIUIXVM
thi«n«
Pytetv*
TOTM,
Hun No. I
0
7
14
21
26
65
11
BDL
BDL
BDL
134
53
65
75
36
228
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
33
13
16
18
9
13
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
14
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
24
9
12
13
10
21
8
BDL
BDL
BDL
55
13
BDL
BDL
BDL
164
50
6
BDL
BDL
92
36
48
56
32
855
193
147
162
87
Control Run
Sefore
5 mm
J5 mfn
30 mm
1 hour
6 hour
6hourdup.
BDL
7
BDL
7
8
9
7
20
49
38
63
63
48
41
BDL
34
30
35
37
29
25
6
14
11
19
19
20
17
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
II
BDL
13
14
15
12
BDL
22
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6
BDL
5
6
8
6
BDl
20
10
13
16
22
19
18
41
33
53
53
43
36
44
204
122
2O8
216
194
142
Run No. 2
0
7
14 before
14 after
26 before
26 after
39
39 froth
75
19
BDL
15
6
19
18
13
322
173
167
134
130
131
288
229
208
BDL
BDL
79
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
80
40
45
33
31
28
63
51
33
16
20
14
16
13
20
23
30
14
18
12
13
II
26
21
33
17
20
14
16
14
27
24
62
29
34
23
34
27
67
53
35
19
BDL
1 1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
65
19
BDL
26
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
192
87
BDL
BDL
6
31
31
20
234
120
118
93
94
95
24«
189
1.369
553
442
454
346
482
794
623
Key:
before: Before creosote reloading.
after: After creosote reloading.
dup.: Duplicate analysis of previous sample.
froth: Analysis of froth above bioreactor medium.
BDL: Below the detection limit (detection limit ranged from 5 to 2Oppm, depending on PAH constituent).
*Sample extraction difficulties.
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
l| Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
s Technology Innovation Office
152
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 18 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Table A-3 (cont). PAH Data [4]
MH Conc.ntr.lioM (m»t)
dmnunt
dn»
Haaam-
HMW
hni
>«»(*)-
«*«op.)-
BMIM{*)- BuocMt-
pyiMM th«i«
•»»(*}-
Buor«n-
Ihen.
Chry««ne
*±T
«»««•»
ttwwi-
ttrm
iy«.
TOTAL
Run No. 3
0
7
14 before
1 4 niter
!4dup.
26 before
26 after
39
S9
-------
•Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 19 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
HIY-
0 •lOKKACfOn •
t- IIOAEACTOItl
0 IIOHEACICHO
Figure A-1, Dissolved Solids Data [4]
KIVi
0 • IOMACT«M
0 IKMIACtOft 1
Figure A-2. Wattle Suspended Solids Data [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
154
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 20 of 27
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
l.B -
l.T -
i.e -
1.1 -
J.4
1.1 -
o.» -
o.a
O.T
o.a
0.4
o.s
o.t
o.i
It
DAYI
U
CO
14
KIYi
0 iiimtAcroii i
4- inlllACTO* >
figure A-3. Soluble Organic Carbon Data [4]
0
KIVi
0 HOKIACtOH 1
4 •lOfttCtOK I
0 •lom Acton i
. Tote/ Organic Carbon Data [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 21 of 27 •
• APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE
§
i
ts2r'1o>oooom
•—J_i'N|p')'ninoofy*
i!
it
— M — •"•"
00
ul
z £
*
o z
—T LJ
d E
5
i
g
s
s
CD
LJ
o o -^ o o
in
m
0>
o>
-
r 3 o\ in
8
rM _ „ _
oo8888§8gjzzz~zz'zzzzoo
O O
N M
LJ U
£ £ Z
a <
% o -
m- N I
2 5 a
!l!l
i S «
1*
C ul
fe 0 O
gg D U
u £ d
UJ ul
z z
loJ
1
I
S
I
i
z z
ul ul
X
Ul
i
Ul
CO
ul
z
III
ooooooo
oo
oo
u
o o o o o o
oooooooooo
y s ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
156
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 22 of 27 i
• APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.)!
I
> § > g > > >
8 g g | 8 8 8
>§>§>>
~
>>
8 8
Q «>
V n ==•
ro Q ^
(^ Z
|B S
uJ ui S
Q 2 3
Z N r
i
UI
u
s
2 1
3 - 5 §
P £ ? i
rO t^» f*1* O
ff\ \ci *Q CJ
fo c — in
Is- <*> in N
g 8
*
S82°®2«*S-2*
— — IS —
— ._ —.X
O
N
I
CO
u|
u
O
U
1
5
O
CO £,
uJ
Z
i
UJ
CO
5
^
S
I
U4 UJ ui
1 5 E
§
is
< u.
oooooooo
oo
o o
O O
— — — — — — — -.,-.--- — — -~-.j.
888588888888888^88888888888888
jj s ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
157
-------
t Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 23 of 27 .
APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.)
O ft-
ffl rf
'*>u';!nifiui-
8 8
(X CO
>>>">oS>>^>§^§S
RSogoRoooo
8
ro
>O
(M
in in in
«
>>>>>§§§§§§>>>>>>>>>>>>>§§§§§>
CD
S
I
ul
ul ui 2!
u, i i 1
Q
'
z z
ul
ul
I
1
I
i I
u. a.
u> ul
Z I
UJ cO
o? S?
O O
S g
ul ul
CO CQ
ul" u)
Z Z
«s
f>4 Z
_: ui
5- S
0 5
H, " fc
£
y ~ - u
Z Q Z £C
CO ft
ui ul
£ £ § §
i 5 1 3
i
OOOO
QOOOOOOOOOO
OO
^^^ISfr^Sft-fe^Sr^fr^fefrfr^S-S-^S-SS-S
SSSeoooooooooooooooooooooo
us ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
158
-------
i Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 24 of 27 •
APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.) I
1
1
N «• —
N «- —
N
N
I
1
a
0=
8
p»
in
N — — — N N
f*i 0 fjV f*i o o fi "•' O ^ ™"' «-J "•' -^ o o f~* (*"i
8
§
% % 2 * % 2.
oo in «t o
•" fO — —
§ §
Z X
1
u
i
UJ
m
UJ
I
O 0
3 3
u. u.
oo
^-. I
Q
-------
' Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 25 of 27 .
• APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.) 1
S§!
1
5
§
> > >
in i- m
o 2 ° O o
8 S 8 S S S 2
8 g 8 §
a 8 x §
N o vo tn
ro t- —
§ S >
^_^ . X
2
UJ u)
Z I
o
CO
ui
s
o
I
o"
e 5- a o
'—•' C 1 J-N K
D N
I I
Q Z CO
ui
g UJ
II
UJ
CO
O
Nl
to co
s I
I
O.
I
fe o o
u u! ui
z z
|
1
oooooooo
o
w I
O Z
X ul
3 ?
u. a.
oo
IS
^ 3.
S i
s §
5 3
O
u
m
^
?l
N ul
5 §
CQ £
uj" ul
Z Z
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
160
-------
• Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 26 of 27 •
I APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.) I
> — --
a
I
«
§
I
!
3
I
East
East
Sout
Duplic
North
Duplicat
ooo
oo
oooooo
I
Z
oo
oo
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
' Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site—Page 27 of 27 .
APPENDIX B—PAH ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIFT ONE (CONT.)
1
a
a
I
•59
u
!
East
O o.
§•
ft 4
tt i
**
Q
s. ^
o 6"
2 o
2 Z 0
Z
UJuJ
e
I
uJ
CO
t j N—*
o o
M M
LJ LJ
LJ uJ ;? U Q t5
NJ 1 "
G
^-05
Q
oooooooooo
i/Tiniouiinuiinoooo'oo
ggi.gi.g§sss
oooo
gio>g>5vQ>g>
o&oo'oo'oo'ocroo'
oooooooo
Qv^5\5lgi»
oOM'oo oooo W
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
162
-------
Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Hermiston, Oregon
163
-------
Case Study Abstract
Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon
Site Name:
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
(UMDA), Explosives Washout
Lagoons, CERCLA Soils Operable
Unit
Location:
Hermiston, Oregon
Contaminants:
Explosives
- Primary soil contaminants include 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT); hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX); and octahydro-
1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-telrazocine (HMX)
- Contaminant levels >100 ppm limited to soils
in the first 2 to 4 feet below the surface of
the lagoons
Period of Operation:
May 1992 to November 1992
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Vendor:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Composting
- Excavated soil screened and mixed with soil
amendments
- Nonaerated and aerated windrows composted
for 40 days
- Treated soil mixed with top soil and
revegetated, redeposited in excavated area, or
landfilled
- Windrows contained contaminated soil
(30%), cow manure (21%), alfalfa (18%),
sawdust (18%), potatoes (10%), and hen
manure (3%)
- Mixed 3 to 7 times per week, temperature 15
to 60°C, oxygen up to 21%, moisture 30 to
40%, pH 5 to 9
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Point of Contact:
Remedial Project Manager
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Hermiston, OR
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Field demonstration of windrow
composting to biodegrade explosives-
contaminated soils.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 244 cubic yards (8 windrows, 28 cubic yards each)
- Predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine sand
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Concentrations of explosives in soil to be below 30 ppm; target compounds were TNT and RDX
- Top 5 feet of soil below the lagoons to be excavated, treated, and returned to the excavated area
Results:
- Windrow composting performance after 40-day treatment generally reduced the levels of target explosives to below the
cleanup goals
- TNT reduced from 1,600 to 4 ppm (aerated and nonaerated)
- RDX reduced from 1,000 to 7 ppm (aerated) and 2 ppm (nonaerated)
- HMX reduced from 200 to 47 ppm (aerated) and 5 ppm (nonaerated)
164
-------
Case Study Abstract
Windrow Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil at
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- No costs were available for the field demonstration
Projected cost for full-scale windrow composting:
- Capital cost for treatment activities - $1,840,000 (including equipment, buildings, structures, mechanical/piping, and
electrical)
- Five-year operating cost - $2,000,000 (including power, amendments, fuel, labor, and maintenance)
- Full-scale costs assume 20,000 tons of soil, 5-year project duration, nonaerated windrows, mixed daily, 30% soil loading,
30-day treatment periods, and compliance with RCRA Waste Pile Facility Standards
Description:
From approximately 1955 to 1965, the Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA) operated a munitions washout facility in
Hermiston, Oregon, where hot water and steam were used to remove explosives from munitions bodies. About 85 million
gallons of heavily-contaminated wash water were discharged to two settling lagoons at the site. The underlying soils and
groundwater were determined to be contaminated with explosive compounds, primarily TNT, RDX, and HMX, and the site
was placed on the NPL in 1987.
Windrow composting was used in a field demonstration at UMDA from May to November 1992 to treat 244 cubic yards of
contaminated soil. Nonaerated and aerated windrows were treated for 40 days, using several soil amendments, and tested for
residual contamination, TNT was reduced from 1600 to 4 ppm (aerated and nonaerated), RDX reduced from 1000 to 7 ppm
(nonaerated) and 2 ppm (aerated), and HMX reduced from 200 to 47 ppm (aerated) and 5 ppm (nonaerated) in the 40 day
treatment period. With the exception of HMX (aerated), these levels were below the targeted soil cleanup levels of 30 ppm.
Costs were not available for the field demonstration. The costs for a full-scale application of windrow composting at
Umatilla were estimated assuming treatment of 20,000 tons of soil, 5-year project duration, nonaerated windrows, mixed
daily, 30% soil loading, 30-day treatment periods, and RCRA Waste Pile facility standards. The capital cost for the full-
scale application was estimated as $2,118,000, and the annual operating cost as $527,000,
165
-------
CHNQLOGY APPLICATION ANALYS8
^ ft <• -. f ' t -> v
Page 1 of 12 22
Umatilla Depot Activity (UMDA)
Explosives Washout Lagoons
CERCLA Soils Operable Unit
Hermiston, Oregon
This analysis covers a field demonstration of windrow
composting to biodegrade explosives contaminated
soils. The demonstration was conducted from January
1992 to January 1993 to provide information for a full-
scale remedial design.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
I Site History/Release Characteristics
• UMDA is a 20,000 acre facility established in 1941 whose mission has included storage of chemical munitions and
containerized chemical agents as well as the disassembly, assembly, packaging and storage of conventional munitions.
• From approximately 1955 to 1965, UMDA operated a munitions washout facility where hot water and steam were
used to remove explosives from munition bodies.
• A total of about 85 million gallons of heavily contaminated wash water was discharged to two settling lagoons.
• Surface buildup of explosives was periodically excavated, but underlying soils and ground water became contaminated.
. Based on investigations initiated in the late 70s and accelerated in 1986 through the RCRA program, the lagoons were
placed on the NPL in 1987. UMDA is currently in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program.
• Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants of Concern identified in the Risk
Assessment are:
Soil:
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene (TNB)
1,3-Dinitrobenzene (DNB)
2,4,6-Trirtitrotoluene (TNT)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT)
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX)
Nitrobenzene (NB)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)
Ground water:
same as soil plus
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (2,6-DNT)
N,2,4,6-Tetranitro-N-methylaniline(Tetryl)
•• Contaminant Properties
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are:
Property at STP*
Empirical Formula
Density
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure
Water Solubility
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
logKow
Site Specific Soil-
Water Partition
Coefficient; Kd
Units
g/cm3
°C
mmHg
mgll
ml/g
TNT
C7H5N306
1.65
81
5.51 E-6
150
2.00
1.00
'STP - Standard Temperature and Presure; 1
RDX
C3H6N606
1.83
205
4.03E-9
60
0.87
0.21
atm,25°C
HMX
C4H8N808
1.90
286
3.33E-14
5
0.26
0.44
i Nature & Extent of Contamination
• Elevated levels (>100 ppm) of contaminants limited to soils in the first 2 to 4 feet below the surface of the lagoons.
• Detectable concentrations found down to the ground water table due to vertical migration in highly permeable soils.
• Contaminant distribution varies versus depth and among borings indicating influence of microlithology.
• Concentrations for all explosives outside the lagoons were significantly lower than beneath the lagoons as lateral
migration did not appear significant.
• Little correlation found between soil and ground water contaminant concentrations.
US Army
Environmental Center
166
-------
Soil Sampling Results: Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Umatilla - Page 2 of 12 •
TNT *
<1.9
ROX » 204
HMX.
I
23
TNT
ROX
1 TNT RDX HMX
TNT RDX HMX
0 40 0 40 0 40
1400
1300
Site ID SB4-5
50tt
imtt.
TNT RDX HMX
0 40 0 40 0 40
1400
1600
150
47
50 ft
rSile ID SB4-6
TNT RDX HMX
0 40 0 40 0 40
740
iiiKSite ID SB4-8
NOTE: Additional surface and borehole sampling outside ol the lagoons revealed significantly lower levels ol contamination
Site ID numbers refer to borehole identification numbers used in site documentation
Legena
all concentrations _^^T
Surface soil
sample Subsurf
S
™
ac
#
5f
e
j|||| Fine sand
(•.'/•.'• •'vj Well graded [7
! v •'. ' t •' 'J sand !£
I] Silt
''f^'i Sandy gravel
p-
I,
/'
N
/
** *~ off scale value (>40 ppm)
— profile line obtained from
plot of discrete sampling
points
^r.^_^ LiJ Nota: concentrations <40 ppm
f%V-V-^ Gravel V Ground water are within rectangle and
ti^J •*• level concentrations >40 ppm are
borehole printed along right edge.
sample
US Army
Environmental Center
167
-------
Umatilla - Page 3 of 12
Site Conditions
• Surrounding region characterized by a semi-arid, cold desert climate
• Surrounding land use is primarily irrigated agriculture.
• The six foot deep lagoons were constructed with relatively permeable gravels
• Soil beneath the lagoons is clean fine sand with gravel in the top 5 to 7 feet and predominantly sand below 25 to 35 feet;
sand varies in character; gravel is fine grained with 1/4 to 1/2 inch particles; minor amounts of silt encountered as thin 1 to
24 inch seams.
• Ground water levels vary between 44 to 49 feet below the bottom of the lagoons.
Key So/7 Characteristics
Parameter
Depth
Oft
4ft
10ft
Comment /a" date taken from tour soil borings beneath lagoons]
pH
Moisture Content [%]
Total Organic Content [%]
7.6-8.4 7.9-8.4 8.1 -8.3 Relatively uniform and typical of mineral soils in arid regions
3.5-5.3 4.8-17.5 4.7-16.7 Higher for silt lenses; mean value of 7.2
0.9-7.3 1.2-3.6 0.8-2.2 Corresponds with level of explosives contamination; mean value of 2.6
Site soils are predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine sand:
• Quincy fine sand is a very deep, excessively drained soil formed in mixed sand. Permeability is rapid and water-holding capacity is
jow. Effective rooting depth is greater than 5 feet. However, 80 percent of roots are found in the upper 12 inches. Soil pH gradually
increases with depth from about neutral to 8.5 at 5 feet. Nearly 100 percent of the upper layer passes the 40 mesh sieve and about
30 percent passes the 200 mesh sieve. Wind credibility is extremely high if vegetation is removed, which is the case at portions of
Umatilla. Organic matter is generally less than 0.5 percent.
• Quincy loamy fine sand is very similar but occurs on slightly flatter slopes and has slightly more silt and clay in the upper layer,
resulting in a higher water holding capacity
US Army
Environmental Center
168
-------
Umatilla - Page 4 of 12
Hi TREATMENT SYSTEM
^ Overall Process Schematic
Amendment Mix
(4xVolumeolSa!)
Excavated
Contaminated
Soil
(Average Mai
Concentration
6000-7000 ppm TNT)
Screen
Mixing Pad Soil-Amendment Mix
(Mnxing done by (1000-2000 ppm TNT)
windrow composter)
Windrows
Treated Soil
Mixed with Top Soil
and Revegetated
H <3 in or crushed
Rocks
Water
~*" I J Washed Rocks
Wash Basin
Excavated Area
or
Landfill
Compost System Close-up
Side View
Containment
Berm
TOD View
Compost
Windrows
Windrow
Turner
Temporary
Structure
Asphalt
Pad
Compost
Windrows
Sump to
55 gal Drums
or Recycle
into Compost
Aerated Windrow
Note: Not all windrows were treated using aeration systems
Compost Woodchips Perforated Air Air
Windrow Piping Blowers Hose
Network
US Army
Environmental Center
169
-------
Umatilla - Page 5 of 12 —
Compost Composition
The compost amendment recipe was developed through
bench-scale treatability studies.
Factors taken into consideration included'
• carbon:nitrogen ratio • pH
• moisture content • cost
• homogeneity • texture
• seasonal availability • form
• total metabolic energy content • porosity
• rate of carbon substrate use
The recipe utilized in windrows with a 30% soil loading
rate was approximately:
Hen Manur«(3V.)
Potatoes(10%)
Sawdust(18%)
Alfalfa(18%)
Contaminated So!l(30%)
:bw Manur»(21%)
Key Monitored Operating Parameters
Parameter
Range of Values*
Method of Control
Mixing Frequency
Temperature"
Oxygen
Moisture
pH
3 to 7 times/week
15to60°C
=0 to 21% O2
30 to 40%
5 to 9
Frequency of windrow turner operation
Unaerated Windrows - No control other than effects of mixing
Aerated Windrows - Aeration blowers set to cool to set point of 55°C
whenever 60°C was exceeded
Unaerated Windrows - No control other than effects of mixing
Aerated Windrows - Aeration blowers set on an operating cycle of
15 minutes off/20 seconds on in addition to temperature control
Garden hose water addition used to maintain a 50 to 80% Water
Holding Capacity (WHC) level
Controlled through selection of compost amendment composition
' Range ol values observed during composting ol contaminated windrows
" Temperature used as primary indicator ol composting activity
US Army
Environmental Center
170
-------
' Umati/la • Page 6 of 12 —
PERFORMANCE
Performance Objectives ••••••••••^^
• Achieve cleanup goal of 30 ppm TNT and RDX in top 5 feet of lagoon soils..
• Achieve optimum mixing frequency, soil loading rates, and degree of aeration during treatment.
• Determine potential treatment benefits from adding fresh amendment to active compost
windrows (supplementation) and initiating new windows with active compost from existing
windrows (seeding).
Treatment Plan
A total of 6 uncontaminated and 2 contaminated windrows approximately 28 yd3 in size were composted
for 40 days either with or without aeration and with varying degrees of mixing and soil loading:
Mixed
Daily
Mixed
3 Times/
Week
Soil Loading Percentage
10%
20%
30%
Uncontaminated
Windrow
Contaminated
Windrow
Aerated
Windrow
Initial Process Optimization Efforts
r- Uncontaminated Windrow Treatment-
• Successful thermophilic composting observed in windrows
with soil loading up to 30%.
• Aeralion resulted in temporary overheating and a more
rapid, but less prolonged, heating and composting for the
blower configuration utilized.
• Windrow temperature increased and interstitial oxygen levels
decreased to previous levels quickly (within an hour) following
the temporary upset (temperature decrease and oxygen level
increase) of mixing -— Daily mixing frequencies were assumed
to be appropriate for future treatments
• Supplementation of active windrows through the addition of
fresh amendment (5% by volume) resulted in rapid return of
higher temperature levels indicating the potential to exceed the
normal period of active thermophilic composting.
r- Seeding Results
The effects of a 5% recycle from active to initiating
piles was conducted in a series of 40 day runs in 50
gallon insulated, aerated, fiberglass tanks:
Based upon theoretical principles, the seeding
approach should have illustrated some benefits.
However, no concrete evidence of benefits was
discovered in this study under the conditions tested.
US Army
Environmental Center
171
-------
Umatilla - Page 7 of 12 <
• Contaminated Windrow Treatment
Kev Measured Parameters
Temperature
Supplementation
20 30 40
Treatment Days
60
£
= 40
20
pH and Moisture Level
Oxygen Level
20 r
a 16 -
&
x12 -
° 8 -
20 30 40
Treatment Days
D % Moisture
fpH
10
8
6 .
4
2
0
Note: All data provided for
nonaerated windrow at times
immediately before mixing by
windrow turner. Aerated
windrow data differed
primarily by having oxygen
levels in the 10 to 20% range
during periods of high
composting activity
TO
20 30 40
Treatment Days
50
60
Contaminant Removal Effectiveness
Concentration Reduction
10 20 30
Treatment Days
Concentration Reduction
(Log Plot)
f- Legend
10 20 30
Treatment Days
TNT
RDX
HMX
40
Aerated versus Nonaerated Windrow Performance
Percent Removal Concentration After 40 Day Treatment
Aerated Nonaerated Aerated Nonaerated
TNT
RDX
HMX
99.8% 99.7%
99.2% 99 8%
76 6% 96 8%
4 ppm 4 ppm
7 ppm 2 ppm
47 ppm 5 ppm
Testing of Treated Product
Explosives Intermediates Analysis - Likely intermediate products (2.4D-6NT; 4A-2.6DNT; 2.6D-4NT, and 2A-
4,6DNT) were shown to be effectively removed (<:5 ug/g after 40 days).
Clean Closure Leaching Test (CCLT) - leachable explosives were removed after 40 days to a high degree (>99.6%
removal for TNT, >98.6 for RDX, and >97.3 for HMX in the nonaerated windrow).
Leachate Toxicity Testing - complete detoxification observed using cenodaphnia dubia as a test organism.
Extractable Mutagenicity Testing - toxicity reduction reduced during composting as measured through Ames assay.
Oversized Rock Washing - Preliminary rock washing tests indicated that further development of techniques would be
necessary to achieve cleanup criteria However, other investigations have revealed that cleanup criteria can be
achieved by composting small (<3 in.) rocks with soil Minor modifications to the windrow composter will be made to
implement this method during full-scale remediation at Umatilla
US Army
Environmental Center
172
-------
Umatilla - Page 8 of 12 <
COST
The UN/IDA windrow composting demonstration summarized in this analysis contained enhanced levels of
analytical sampling as well as peripheral investigations. A cost estimate was developed to be
representative of full-scale windrow composting at UMDA. The estimate (+30% to -15% accuracy) was
based upon cost data from the demonstration and assumed:
• 20,000 tons of soil composted in a
• 5 year total project time with
• unaerated windrows, mixed daily, containing a
• 30% soil loading and composted for
• 30 day treatment periods with
• RCRA Waste Pile facility standards in effect.
• Capital Costs
Equipment (Backhoe, Dump Truck. Front-End Loader, $567,000
Water Pump. Windrow Turner)
Site Work 280,000
Buildings/Structures 322,000
Mechanical/Piping 26,000
Electrical 129,000
Construction/Mofailization/Demobilization @ 8% 111,000
Construction Equipment, Consumables @ 5% 69,000
Fees @ 1.5% 20,000
General & Administrative Overhead Costs @ 9 5% 150,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 168,000
Contingency @ 15% 276,000
Total
$2,118,000
•• Operating Costs
Power (@ $0.07/Kwhr) $1,000
Amendments (@ $so/ton) 195,000
Diesel Fuel (@ $i.io/gai) 19,000
Labor «3> $20/hr Operator; $167hr Technician 116,000
excluding overhead)
Off-site Analytics ($220/sampie) 21,000
Maintenance 64,000
Contractor Markup & Profit @ 10% 42,000
Contingency @ 15% 69,000
Total Annual Operating Cost $527,000
Total 5-Year Present Worth
Operating Cost $2,104,000
Cost/Ton
$211
Cost Sensitivities
— Effects of Assumption Changes
The $211/ton estimated cost is subject to the following
sensitivities-
Accounting for salvage value of
equipment following treatment -$12
Elimination of RCRA Waste Pile
facility requirements (imer system) -$5
Elimination of temporary structure
in mild climates -$10 to-15
With a 40% rather than 30%
soil loading rate -$5 to-6
With 20 day rather than 30 day
windrow compost periods . . -$5
With 3 times/week rather than daily
mixing of compost with turner . -$1
'ost versus
leanup Time
400-
= 300.
t
£200.
re
\y^ ,$211
T
I
I
I
l" 3 5 8 10
Protect Duration [Years]
.osi versus
'acility Size
(for a 2-year
project
duration)
700,
eoo
c
£ soo.
2 300.
Q *"
100.
0
\_
Tons Treated in 2 Years
US Army
Environmental Center
173
-------
Umatilla - Page 9 of 12 —
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• The explosives contaminated washout water sent to the lagoons is a listed RCRA waste. The compost windrows may
be classified as waste piles under RCRA and therefore be subject to the facility design requirements of 40 CFR 264
Subpart L which include liners and leak detection systems At UMDA these standards were not determined to be
applicable because of the low reactivity hazard (explosive levels <12%) and low concentrations of 2,4-DNT (a listed
RCRA waste), however, EPA Regional Administrators may make alternative determinations at other sites.
• An Army Explosives Hazard Review must be performed for work involving explosives. The hazard review of the
compost turner determined that soils containing greater than 10% explosives by weight or chunks of explosives greater
than 1 inch in diameter must be avoided.
• Windrow composting was the technology selected for overall clean-up of the CERCLA site in the Record of
Decision. It was the preferred alternative to incineration and other composting schemes. The rural local community
preferred composting not only because of apprehensions about incineration but also for the economic benefits the
purchase of amendment materials would have for local farmers.
• Level C personal protective equipment was used for handling contaminated soils.
i- Cleanup Criteria
• Concentrations of explosives in soil must be below 30 ppm (TNT and RDX listed as target compounds).
• The top five feet of soil below the lagoons is to be excavated, treated, and returned to the excavated area.
SCHEDULE
For Demonstration Activities at UMDA
1992 1993
[JAN [FEB [MAR [APR [MAY |JUN [JUL [AUG [SEP |OCT |NOV [DEC [JAN [FEB |MAR
p *j Test & Safety Plan Deve/opment/Obtainment of Regulatory Approval
U w Composting Seed Demonstration
\4 ^| Uncontaminated Windrow Tests
| Contaminated Windrow Tests
k
Site Demobilization
(including equipment from
other composting activities)
Projection for Full-Scale Cleanup at UMDA
1993 1994
[SEP [OCT [NOV [DEC [JAN |FEB [MAR [APR |MAY JJUN |JUL [AUG JSEP pCT JNOV
L »J Excavation and Site Preparation
Windrow Composting
US Army
Environmental Center
174
-------
Umatilla - Page 10 of 12
LESSONS LEARNED
Key Operating Parameters
• Amendment composition affects the biodegradation rate of explosives
• Temperatures appropriate for thermophilic organisms (50 to 60°C) enhance biodegradation
• Mixing with a windrow turner leads to a more rapid and extensive degradation.
• Moisture content should remain near 60%of the Water Holding Capacity.
• Aeration of windrows produced higher operating temperatures and reduced odor, however, the nonaerated
windrows exhibited equal, or better, removal of TNT, RDX, and HMX.
• A soil loading rate of up to 30% soil in the soil-amendment mix produced satisfactory results.
• A treatment period of 40 days was sufficient to remove greater than 99% of TNT and RDX and leave residual
levels of contamination less than 30 ppm A composting period of 30 days was determined to be adequate for
future composting at UMDA
• Oxygen depletion in the unaerated windrows was found to occur soon after mixing (within an hour) and a daily
turning frequency was adopted for future treatment.
• Seeding the initial mix of aerated static pile reactor compost piles with active compost from ongoing piles did
not reveal any clear benefits under the conditions studies.
• Supplementation of fresh amendment to active compost windrows illustrated the potential to exceed the
normal period of active thermophilic composting
Implementation Considerations
• During composting inside the temporary structure, release of water vapor from the compost during turning
reduced visibility Accumulations of ammonia were also noted. Additional exhaust fans, personal protective
equipment and modified operating procedures were used as remedial measures Full-scale ventilation
requirements should be evaluated for future applications
• Additional effort was required to maintain the shape and configuration of the windrows. A small front end
loader was found to be suitable for this purpose Maintenance of the windrows was further complicated for
windrows which had aeration systems.
• Water supply requirements must be considered in advance. Substantial quantities of water may be required
to replace moisture lost during the composting process and to maintain adequate moisture levels Several
thousand gallons of water were used per windrow at UMDA
• A commercially available windrow turner performed well mechanically and provided good results in
composting operations Some modifications may be useful to optimize performance such as variable mixer
speeds, exhaust filtration, and the addition of deflectors to minimize the potential for projectiles such as small
stone to be thrown during turning
• Field instrumentation employed was suitable for monitoring the composting process Less intensive
monitoring than was employed in this demonstration would be more appropriate for future applications
• Improvements in compost sample preparation and analysis protocols would be beneficial. Field analytical
methods for explosives in compost would be useful in process monitoring, with laboratory analyses used for
confirmation of cleanup criteria. Modifying the compost sample preparation procedure to minimize drying time
would speed operations.
• The windrow composting treatment was successfully conducted under a wide range of ambient temperatures.
Thermophilic conditions were attained during summer months when daytime highs were well above 100°F, as well
as during late autumn when nighttime lows dropped below freezing. From these observations, it appears that with
proper containment within an enclosure and with slight adjustments to turning frequency to control heat losses
from the material, windrow composting can be implemented year round
US Army
Environmental Center
175
-------
Umatilla - Page 11 of 12
Technology Limitations
• Although detailed projections of costs have been made based upon the results of demonstration
activities at UMDA, there is a lack of cost data from full-scale completed remediations.
• The cost of the technology is sensitive to the availability and cost of amendment material, cleanup criteria
for a given site, and the treatment facility standards deemed applicable to the composting operation.
• The presence of other contaminants such as metals may preclude the use of the technology for some
sites with explosives-contaminated soils.
• Areas for further progress include efforts to increase compost soil loading percentages, decrease compost
cycle times, and improve methods to treat oversized rocks screened from the compost windrows.
Future Technology Selection Considerations
• The treatment at UMDA built upon earlier results from studies which illustrated the susceptibility of
explosives to microbial degradation, the effectiveness of mechanically agitated in-vessel and aerated static pile
composting systems, and the influence of process parameters such as soil loading percentage and compost
amendment composition
• The treatment at UMDA further demonstrated that windrow composting of explosives contaminated soil:
+ will effectively remove both explosives (TNT, RDX, and HMX) and selected TNT intermediates,
+ will reduce toxicity to a high degree,
+ is relatively simple to implement and operate, and
+ is cost effective in relation to alternative treatments.
ANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Services
245 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210
Contact Bruno Brodfeld (617) 589-2767
US Army
Environmental Center
176
-------
Umatilla - Page 12 of 12
SOURCES
Major Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics: Source #s (from list below) 5,6,8 and 9
Treatment System: Source #s 1,2 and 7
Performance: Source #s 1 and 2
Cost: Source # 1
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: Source #s 1,2,5,6,12 and personal communication with Capt. Kevin Keehan, U.S. Army
Environmental Center (410) 671-1278.
Schedule: Personal communication with Capt. Timothy O'Rourke, U.S. Army Environmental Center,
(410)671-1580.
Lessons Learned: Source #s 1,2,5,7, 9, 11, 12 and personal communications with Capt. Keehan.
Chronological List of Sources and Additional References
1. Windrow Composting Engineering/Economic Evaluation, CETHA-TS-CR-93050, prepared for U.S. Army Environmental
Center, prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., May 1993.
2. Windrow Composting Demonstration for Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon,
CETHA-TS-CR-93043, prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Center, prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., April 1993.
3. Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Soil at the U.S. Army Umatilla Depot Activity, prepared by U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA). presented at the EPA Forum on Innovative Treatment Technologies, San Francisco,
CA, November 1992
4. The Preparation and Analysis of Soil Compost Material for Inorganic and Explosive Constituents, CETHA-TS-CR-92067,
prepared for USATHAMA, prepared by U.S Geological Survey, October 1992.
5. Feasibility Study for the Explosives Washout Lagoons (Site 4) Soils Operable Unit Umatilla Depot Activity (UMDA) Hermiston,
Oregon, CETHA-TS-CR-92017, prepared tor USATHAMA, prepared by CH2M Hill and Morrison Knudsen Environmental
Services, April 1992.
6. Explosives Washout Lagoons Soils Operable Unit Supplemental Investigation Technical and Environmental Management
Support of Installation Restoration Technology Development Program Umatilla Depot Activity Hermiston, Oregon, CETHA-BC-
CR-92016, prepared for USATHAMA, prepared by Morrison Knudsen Environmental Services and CH2M Hill, April 1992.
7. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Proposed Plan: Umatilta Depot Activity (UMDA) Explosives Washout Lagoons
Soils Operable Unit, information brochure prepared by UMDA, April 1992
8. Risk Assessment for the Explosive Washout Lagoons (Site 4) Umatilla Depot Activity, CETHA-BC-CR-92014, prepared for
USATHAMA, prepared by Dames & Moore, March 1992
9. Optimization of Composting for Explosives Contaminated Soil-Final Report, CETHA-TS-CR-91053. prepared for USATHAMA,
prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., November 1991.
10. Characterization of Explosives Processing Waste Decomposition Due to Composting, AEC TIC #4078, prepared for
USATHAMA, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1991.
11 Composting for Army Hazardous Waste - Briefing to Mr. Walker, prepared by USATHAMA, March 1991.
12. Evaluation of Composting Implementation, prepared for USATHAMA, prepared by Remediation Technologies, Inc., August
1990.
13 Evaluation of Composting Implementation A Literature Review. CETHA-TS-CR-91078, prepared for USATHAMA, prepared
by ENSR Consulting and Engineering, July 1990
14. Phase 1 Characterization of Explosives Processing Waste Decomposition Due to Composting, ORNUTM-11573, prepared
for USATHAMA, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. January 1990
15 Proceedings for the Workshop on Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soil, CETHA-TS-SR-89276, prepared by
USATHAMA, New Orleans, LA, September 1989
16 Testing to Determine Relationship Between Explosive Contaminated Sludge Components and Reactivity, AMXTH-TE-CR-
89096, prepared for USATHAMA. prepared by Arthur D Little, Inc , January 1987
17 Composting Explosives/Organics Contaminated Soils, prepared for USATHAMA, prepared by Atlantic Research Corporation
May 1986
18. Engineering and Development Support of General Decon Technology for the U S. Army's Installation Restoration Program,
Task 11: Composting of Explosives, prepared for USATHAMA, prepared by Atlantic Research Corporation, September 1982.
US Army
Environmental Center
•• P*^
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-386-541/22009
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library f,nL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |