EPA-600/2-77-153b
August 1977
OIL SPILL: DECISIONS
FOR DEBRIS DISPOSAL
VOLUME II
LITERATURE REVIEW
AND
CASE STUDY REPORTS
by
Robert P. Stearns
David E. Ross
Robert Morrison
SCS Engineers
Long Beach, California 90807
Contract No. 68-03-2200
Project Officer
John S. Farlow
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spill Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
N. I
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(IERL - Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both effi-
ciently and economically.
This two part report comprises both a user's manual for oil
spill debris land disposal by land cultivation, sanitary land-
filling, or burial, and a technical backup manual which includes
the results of a literature search and four case studies. The
report is intended to provide both the directions for oil spill
debris disposal and the rationale behind them. Oil spill On-
Scene Coordinators and local officials should find this report
directly applicable for prior planning and during spill cleanup
operations. For further information, please contact the Oil &
Hazardous Spills Branch of the Resource Extraction & Handling
Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report was prepared to guide persons responsible for
disposing of oil spill cleanup debris in selecting suitable sites
for debris deposition and in effecting proper disposal opera-
tions. A literature search and four case study investigations
were conducted to verify the practicality and environmental
acceptability of each disposal method described.
Project results are presented in two volumes and an intro-
ductory film.
The "Procedures Manual" (Volume I) is designed to be useful
as both an office and field guidebook. Land disposal topics
covered include site selection, disposal method selection,
implementation of three alternative disposal techniques, site
monitoring procedures, and possible correctional measures for
environmental problems. All available disposal methods which
may be employed when incineration or other processing is
impossible or impractical were investigated prior to selection
of the three recommended alternatives: land cultivation,
burial, and incorporation into sanitary landfills with refuse.
An outline for a training course on oil spill debris disposal
is included in Volume I.
A 15 minute color training film was prepared as a companion
to the Procedures Manual.
Supporting technical data is presented in an Appendix
volume, "Literature Review and Case Study Reports" (Volume II).
Volume II contains a summary of the current literature relating
to physical and chemical interaction of oil and soil, biological
degradation of oil spill debris, the relationship of oily waste
disposal to vegetation, and oil spill debris disposal methodol-
ogies. Calculations are provided to indicate the theoretical
limitations on degradation, evaporation, and other factors to
verify data reported in the literature. Disposal cost estimates
are also included. A bibliography of 67 pertinent references is
provided.
Volume II also contains a description of four case studies
conducted at sites that have accepted oil spill cleanup debris
and/or oily wastes. The land cultivation disposal method was
used to aerobically degrade the oil material at two sites. Oil
i v
-------
spill debris was buried with soils in specially constructed
cells at the other two sites. Samples of oily material, sur-
rounding soils, and local groundwater were analyzed for various
constituents to determine the extent to which the disposal
activities at each site impacted the environment.
This report was submitted in satisfaction of EPA Contract
Number 68-03-2200 and describes work completed from June 1975
through January 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures x
Tables xii
Acknowledgements xiv
1. Introduction 1
2. Part 1 - Oily Waste Disposal on Land:
Summary of Literature Review 2
Background 2
Physical and Chemical Interactions of Oil
and Soil: Migration and Volatilization of
Oily Material s 3
Debris Characteristics 3
Soil Characteristics 6
Migration of Oil through Soil 10
Potential Impacts of Oily Waste Disposal
on Water Quality 14
Evaporation of Oil during Land Application . 14
Fate of Evaporated Oil in the Atmosphere . . 19
Biological Degradation of Oil Spill Debris. . . 20
Nutrients 21
Moisture 22
Oil Surface Area 23
Oxygen 24
Temperature 26
pH 27
Organic Material 27
Other Factors Affecting Oil Degradation
Rates 28
Time for Complete Oil Degradation 29
Relationship of Oily Waste Disposal to
Vegetation 29
Oil Spill Debris Methodologies 31
Land Cultivation (or Landfarming,
Landspreading, or Land Treatment) 32
Lagooning 38
Landfill ing with Solid Waste 39
Landfilling without Refuse (Burial) 41
Comparison between Methods 44
Estimated Disposal Costs 44
References 5(J
VI 1
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
3. Part 2 - Case Studies of Oil Spill Debris Disposal
Sites 56
Overview 56
Section 1 - Case Study Site A, Southern
California 62
Background 62
Climate 62
Geology and Soils 66
Groundwater 66
Surface Water 71
Oily Wastes Received 71
Operating History and Disposal Procedures . . 71
Land Cultivation Procedures 71
Case Study Monitoring 74
Analytical Results 75
References 80
Section 2 - Case Study Site B, Little 81
Mountain, Utah 81
Background 81
Climate 86
Geology and Soils 86
Groundwater 86
Surface Water 90
Oil Spill Debris Disposal 90
Case Study Monitoring 93
References 100
Section 3 - Case Study Site C, Northern
California 101
Background 101
Climate 101
Geology and Soils 101
Groundwater 105
Surface Water 105
Oil Spill Debris Disposal 107
Debris Disposal Activities 107
Routine Monitoring and Corrective Actions . .109
Case Study Monitoring Ill
Analytical Results 113
References 119
Section 4 - Case Study Site D, Cranston,
Rhode Island 120
Background 120
Climate 123
Geology and Soils 123
Groundwater 123
Surface Water 123
Debris Disposal Activities 123
Case Study Monitoring 129
Analytical Results 131
v i i i
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
References 136
Appendices 137
A. Guidelines for Field Sampling - "Procedures
for Disposal of Oil Spill Cleanup Debris" . 138
B. Methodology for Analyzing High Molecular
Weight Hydrocarbons 145
ix
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Oil, Gas and Water Flow Pyramid 8
2 Two Phase Oil and Water Systems 9
3 Generalized Effects of Soil Characteristics upon
Oil Flow 12
4 Illustration of Idealized Subsurface Oil Flow 13
5 One-Dimensional Soil Column 17
6 Effect of Water on Decomposition 23
7 Schematic Cross Section of Debris Burial Site as
Designed and Constructed 43
8 Location of Case Study Site A 63
9 Site Map - Case Study Site A 64
10 Cross Section, Case Study Site A 67
11 Typical Soil Profile, Case Study Site A 68
12 Well Logs, Case Study Site A 69
13 Groundwater Contours, Case Study Site A 70
14 Oily Wastes Deposited at Site A 73
15 Mixing of Oily Waste and Sands, Case Study Site A ... 73
16 Location of Case Study Site B - Little Mountain, Utah . 82
17 Oblique Photo of Case Study Site B 83
18 Site Map - Case Study Site B 84
19 Cultivated Surface Two Years After Oil Application,
Case Study Site B 85
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
20 Soil Profile Based upon Sieve Analysis - Case
Study Site B 88
21 Cross Section, Case Study Site B 89
22 Well Logs - Case Study Site B 95
23 General Area Map and Groundwater Movement - Case
Study Site C 102
24 Site Map, Case Study Site C 103
25 Soil Profile Based upon Sieve Analysis - Case
Study Site C 106
26 Cross Section, Case Study Site C 106
27 Aerial View of Disposal Operations at Case Study
Site C, 1971 108
28 Partially Completed Site Being Filled - Site C 108
29 Cross Section of Typical Debris Disposal Site
before Filling - Site C 110
30 Cross Section of Typical Debris Disposal Site
after Filling - Site C 110
31 Well Logs - Case Study Site C 112
32 Location of Case Study Site D - Cranston,
Rhode, Island 121
33 Site D - April 21, 1976 121
34 Site Map and Groundwater Movement - Case Study
Site D 122
35 Cross Section - Case Study Site D 125
36 Soil Profile Based upon Sieve Analysis - Case
Study Site D 126
37 Section View of EPA Debris Disposal Plan -
Case Study Site D 128
38 Well Logs - Case Study Site D 130
xi
-------
TABLES
Number Pa g e
1 Basic Variables in Oil Spill Cleanup Debris 4
2 Oil Degradation Rates at Selected Land Cultivation
Sites 35
3 Comparison of Land Disposal Methods for Oil Spill
Debris 45
4 Estimated Unit Costs for Oil Spill Debris Disposal
Operations 46
5 Example Cost Estimate for Hypothetical Oil Spill
Debris Land Cultivation Operation 49
6 Summary of Case Study Site Information 57
7 Summary of Environmental Conditions at Case Study
Site 58
8 Well Location vs Theoretical Migration 59
9 Summary of Climatological Data - Case Study Site A. . . 65
10 Results of Soil and Water Sample Analyses, Wells A,
B, C, and D - Case Study Site A 76
11 Results of Surface Soil/Oil Sample Analyses -
Case Study Site A 78
12 Summary of Climatological Data - Case Study Site B. . . 87
13 Application Rates of Materials Added to Land
Cultivation Plots - Site B, Little Mountain, Utah ... 92
14 Parameters Analyzed by Dr. J. Skujins during
Monitoring at Case Study Site B 94
15 Rationale for Test Well Locations, Case Study Site B. . 96
xi i
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
16 Results of Soil and Water Sample Analyses, Case
Study Site B - Little Mountain, Utah 97
17 Summary of Climatological Data - Case Study Site C. . . 104
18 Results of Soil and Water Sample Analyses, Well B -
Case Study Site C 114
19 Results of Soil and Water Sample Analyses, Wells C,
D, and E - Case Study Site C 116
20 Summary of Climatological Data - Case Study Site D. . .124
21 Results of Soil and Debris Analyses from Wells A,
B, C, and D - Case Study Site D 132
22 Results of Water Sample Analyses from Wells 4, 9,
10, and 11 - Case Study Site D, Cranston, Rhode Island. 134
x i i i
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This manual and supporting literature and case study reports
are the result of extensive cooperation between EPA, industry,
university, and SCS personnel. The guidance and assistance of
Mr. John Farlow, Project Officer, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (IERL) of U.S. EPA, Edison, New Jersey, is
gratefully acknowledged. Also, Messrs. Robert Landreth and
Dirk Brunner, MERL, Cincinnati, contributed to the project.
Other individuals participating in the project are listed
below:
Case Studies and Background Information
Mr. Jack Bryant, Long Beach, CA
Mr. Donald Berger, EPA Region I, Boston, MA
Mr. Robert Castle, URS Corporation, San Mateo, CA
Mr. John Conlon, EPA Region I, Boston, MA
Mr. Jack Coombs, Exxon Oil Company, Baytown, TX
Mr. Robert Huddleston, Continental Oil Company, Ponca
City, OK
Mr. Jack Jamar, Oxnard, CA
Mr. Jere Johnson, Exxon Oil Company, Baytown, TX
Mr. Floyd Nichols, EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO
Mr. Richard Raymond, Sun Oil Company, Marcus Hook, PA
Dr. George Rice, EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO
Dr. John Skujins, Utah State University, Logan, UT
Mr. Forrest Smith, Standard Oil Company, San Francisco,
CA
Laboratory Analyses and Film Preparation
• Mr. Brett Falkenstein, AIE Photography, Houston, TX
t Mr. Uwe Frank, IERL, EPA, Edison, NJ
a Mr. Douglas Heath, EPA, Washington, DC
• Mr. Michael Roberts, Analytical Research Laboratory,
Monrovia, CA
t Mr. Rick Spalla, Rick Spalla Video Productions,
Hollywood, CA
t Dr. F. J. Week, Week Research Laboratories, Industry, CA
SCS project participants were Robert P. Stearns, Project
Director; David E. Ross, Project Manager; and Robert Morrison.
xiv
-------
Dr. Ronald J. Lofy reviewed much of the technical information,
and Dr. Dallas Weaver contributed analytical expertise to the
literature review summary. Mr. Kenneth Borgers developed the
film script and monitored all filming activities. The film was
prepared by Rick Spalla Video Productions, Hollywood, CA.
Clerical support was provided by Roxanne Martin, Lona Taylor,
and Susan Biddle.
xv
-------
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II
Volume II includes information developed as a basis for
preparation of the oil spill debris land disposal procedures
manual, Volume I. This supporting information is presented in
two parts:
Part 1 -
Oily Waste
Review;
Disposal on Land: A Literature
• Part 2 - Case Studies of Oil Spill Debris Disposal Sites
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review represents state-of-the-art informa-
tion available through mid-1976. Many investigations of oily
waste disposal to land are currently underway, and so much more
information is expected to be available in the future. For
example, little is now known about the impacts of growing edible
crops on oil-treated land, but some research is ongoing and more
is planned. Consequently, this literature review should be
viewed as a first step in compiling data relevant to oil spill
debris disposal, not the final word.
CASE STUDIES
Four case
deposited were
concerning each
illustrate how
1imi ted analyti
wel1s were dri1
Groundwater, so
some of the env
immediate vicin
study sites where oil spi
investigated. Pertinent
site was gathered and is
others dispose of oily wa
cal program was performed
led, and soil and oily wa
il, and oil samples were
ironmental impacts of the
ity of the disposal sites
11 debris has been
background information
reported here to
ste. In addition, a
at each site. Test
ste samples obtained.
analyzed to determine
operations in the
Results of these field studies suggest that oil migration
away from a debris disposal site can occur, especially in porous
soils. However, the evidence to date is insufficient to document
the area! extent or environmental effects of such migration.
-------
PART 1
OILY WASTE DISPOSAL ON LAND:
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
BACKGROUND
In the United States alone, an estimated 76 million liters
(20 million gal) of potentially dangerous materials are released
annually to the environment by a reported 13,000 accidental
spills. Over 60 percent of the material reported spilled is of
an oily nature (36).* Much work has been devoted to developing
and refining methods of removing spilled wastes from water or
soil; but the ultimate problem of what to do with the resultant
debris has not been resolved.
Recently, it has become obvious that past debris disposal
practices may cause secondary pollution problems rivaling those
of the initial spill. Thus, one objective of this project was
to investigate the literature and compile information pertinent
to oily waste disposal.
Literature sources contain very little information specifi-
cally related to oil spill debris or its disposal. Much of the
literature information cited in this volume was developed from
studies of wastes by petroleum refineries. Also, several oil
industry experts on oily waste disposal were consulted and inter-
viewed. For the purposes of this literature review, the
interaction between oil and the environment is considered similar
if not identical, whether the waste oil is from a refinery
operation or is contained in oil spill debris.
This information provides the basis for the selection of
oil spill debris disposal methods presented in Volume I of this
project report. Five major topics are addressed in this review:
1. Physical Interactions of Oil and Soil: Migration and
Volatilization of Oily Materials;
2. Chemical Impacts of Oily Debris Disposal;
*References, identified by arabic numbers and listed alphabeti-
cally, are numbered consecutively starting on page 50.
-------
3. Biological Degradation of Oil Spill Debris;
4. Relationship of Oil Disposal to Vegetation; and
5. Disposal Methodologies.
For the purposes of this review, it is assumed that contami-
nation of ground and surface waters by oil is to be avoided.
Investigation of the specific environmental and health effects
of oil contaminated waters is beyond the scope of this project.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL INTERACTIONS OF OIL AND SOIL: MIGRATION
AND VOLATILIZATION OF OILY MATERIALS
In dealing with the migration of oil within the soil matrix,
it is necessary to recognize the role of debris. An oil spill
cleanup can generate various types of debris, depending upon
spill and cleanup locations, oil type, cleanup methods, and many
other factors. Table 1 indicates some typical variables and
lists basic characteristics which could be encountered. Consid-
ering just these variables, a huge number of different combina-
tions of oil and debris are possible. However, for the purpose
of determining oil spill debris characteristics and disposal
methods (other than incineration), it is not necessary to study
a multitude of combinations; only gross differences in physical
conditions need be considered. A basic understanding of oil
flow characteristics from debris material and through the under-
lying soil is particularly important so that proper disposal
techniques can be used to prevent captured and disposed oil from
recontaminating the environment.
Significant removal (to the atmosphere) of certain oily
components can be achieved through the process of volatilization.
The degree of oil loss by volatilization and subsequent movement
through the soil matrix is related to the vapor pressures of the
oil substances and the partial pressure of oxygen in the soil
environment. (These factors also influence the rate of aerobic
biological degradation of the oily wastes, as discussed later.)
Debris Characteristics
Four basic characteristics of oil spill debris influence
the potential for immediate and long term oil migration from the
debris mass:
t Oil content;
t Water content;
t Chemical content; and
§ Biodegradabi1ity of solid debris and/or sorbents.
3
-------
oo
h— 1
CQ
LU
Q
CL
ZD
^
^-
LU
0
— 1
1
t-H
D-
oo
i
i — i
o
s
00
LU
CQ
^C
£2
=£
^*
O
00
ca
.
r~*
LU
CO
1—
-o
cu
c
•1—
fO
i.
4-3
c
LU
CO
"O
• r—
r—
O
oo
-o
CD
=>
CO
^—
(O
o
'i
cu
o
s- c
cu cu
4J 4->
3 O
o
4->
c
r- 0)
•1" 4 *
o c
o
o
cu
CO
4_)
c
cu
.0
S-
o
00
o
C|_
o
cu
CL
^
-a
c
fl3
oo
-
•£
§
CO
s-
cu
Q.
CO
Q
•-'
1
f
'
J.
CO
n:
•
r~
cu
o
^
-
cu
T3
3
s_
o
r-'
4_>
s_
• r-
Q
CM
CO
c
CD
CO
s_
CD
CD
t — ^
CM
0
_1
.
CM
^
O
1
•
CM
O
-a
o
CL
,_
ra
S-
™s
40
to
':z-
CM
-o
CO
CD
cc.
CM
CO
\x
o
o
a:
CO
CO
CD
£1
•r—
CO
r—
E
LU
CO
CJ
0
s-
Q.
ea
o
<£
+J
s-
CO
Q
CO
CU •
CU O «— ^
s •*->
ro CD O
CU 4->
CO " O)
CO CO
CO -i— •>
c "OS
ro CD 4-> a>
4-> t— E 4- CO
CD 4-> S- -r- 3
CO S- OS- M-
OJ 3 4-> T3 CD
> 4-> OO • C£
>d- LO IO
CU
c
o
*d-'
-------
In general, the higher the oil content in collected debris,
the greater the likelihood that oil would escape from the mass
at the disposal site at the time of (or very soon after) deposi-
tion. Debris containing a relatively low percentage of oil would
tend to retain oil on surfaces of vegetation, soil, rocks, and
other debris constituents. The maximum oil sorption capacity of
a number of sorbents in the presence of water has been exten-
sively researched (53). However, the rate of oil release from
sorbents under disposal site conditions has not been evaluated.
The degree of emulsification and the ratio of oil to water
also determine the extent to which the oil/water mixture will
flow (5, 24, 66). A highly emulsified oil/water mixture may be
less likely to flow from debris and into the underlying soil than
an unemulsified oil contained in spill cleanup debris.
Pore spacing within the debris particles is another factor
that affects the potential for oil release. The smaller the
pores (as in a silty or clayey soil collected during cleanup of
an oil spill on land), the less likely that oil will migrate
from the debris.
The solid fraction of oil spill debris can include various
materials such as naturally-occurring solids (rocks, sand, dirt,
seaweed, etc.) and added sorbent materials (straw, polymerics,
etc.). The degree to which the solid portion of spill debris
degrades and the corresponding rate of degradation influences
the long term outward migration rates of the oil.
Biodegradable debris buried underground with or without
refuse can readily degrade under anaerobic conditions. However,
the oil itself will degrade very slowly in this atmosphere,
requiring many decades. Debris that degrades either anaero-
bically underground or aerobically in a land cultivation opera-
tion will tend to release any undegraded oil which is absorbed
within or absorbed onto the surface. Pore spacings between
debris particles will also change during debris degradation, thus
influencing oil migration.
Oil spill debris collected from a water environment may
contain a water-in-oil emulsion. Typically, a water-in-oil
emulsion exhibits the properties of a heavy petroleum product.
Such an emulsion is a two-phase system - the continuous phase
and the water held in suspension. With this combination, the
viscosity of the mixture may be significantly higher than the
viscosity of either constituent alone (44).
Little data exist on the range of viscosity obtained with
different oil and water combinations. However, it is generally
recognized that viscosity increases can be significant (25). In
the Bay Marchard Fire of 1972, for example, a sample of crude
taken before the fire had a viscosity of 3 centipoise at 70°F,
-------
while after the spill the emulsion was measured at 900 centipoise
(47). The viscosity of a water-in-oil emulsion entrained in oil
spill debris would expectedly be somewhat lower than 900 centi-
poise due to evaporation of both water and volatile gases from
the oil .
Several formulations of chemicals are used occasionally to
facilitate oil spill cleanup and to minimize further contamina-
tion. Depending on their characteristics, the chemical additives
are used as dispersants, emulsifiers, detergents, and degreasers
(58). In general, these chemicals act to separate the oil into
miniscule particles and increase exposed surface area. The
viscosity of chemically treated oils is decreased, and, thus,
the potential for outward flow of oil from spill debris is
increased. Oil column experiments with oil -detergent emulsions
show that the oil-chemical mass can more readily percolate
through porous sand than does the unemulsified oil. Oil treated
with detergent has been observed dispersed throughout consider-
able depths of beach sand (34, 46). Normally, untreated oils do
not penetrate sand beyond several centimeters. Data on viscosity
properties of emulsions of oil and other types of chemicals are
generally lacking. The degree to which flow is enhanced is
dependent on the type of oil, the particular chemical (s) used,
the relative chemical-oil concentrations, and the specific
reactions occurring between the oil and chemical (s).
Soil Characteristics
Once oil has flowed from the debris mass to the underlying
soil, geohydrol ogical conditions at the land disposal site will
determine the potential for further oil migration and possible
environmental degradation.
Soil porosity and permeability are the two factors that most
significantly affect subsurface oil flow. These factors are
related according to Darcy's Law, which defines the flow of any
fluid through a porous medium completely saturated with a single
homogeneous fluid. Equation 1 shows this relationship (16):
(Eq. 1)
where V = velocity of fluid through a column of permeable
material s ;
P = constant which depends on the character of the
material (coefficient of permeability);
L = length of column; and
h = difference in head between the ends of the column.
-------
However, porous media such as soil and spill debris are not
always homogeneous since water and gases are also usually present
to varying degrees. The classic three-phase fluid-flow pyramid
depicted in Figure 1 illustrates the more typical situation
encountered (66). Interactions between the three materials occur
at the various interfaces and affect the respective flow rates
as well as the relative permeabilities of each. The permeability
rates are in turn affected by viscosity ratios, interfacial
tensions, temperature, and pressure gradients.
In the case of an oily waste deposited in soil, the more
volatile components may have already evaporated. The remaining
water and oil then participate in a two-phase system. The
various combinations between these two can be graphically
portrayed, as shown on Figure 2. With such oil and water
systems, a relatively high level of oil saturation is required
before flow will commence (21, 35, 39, 66).
Assuming that the degree of soil saturation by oil is
sufficient for flow to commence, the porosity, hydraulic
gradient, and permeability of the soils are the major parameters
controlling the rate and extent of subsurface migration. The
porosity of a soil is an important factor in determining
potential oil infiltration. At a fixed level of residual satura-
tion, oil will flow through a particular set of pores (16).
Assuming that these pores are interconnected as shown in Figure
2, there is a certain probability that a chain of pores able to
pass a particular phase will exist (44).
It is difficult to precisely delineate the transition
between pendular saturation (where the wetting phase is not
continuous and the non-wetting is in contact with a solid
surface), and funicular (where wetting phase is in contact with
a solid surface).
The higher the degree of saturation, the greater the proba-
bility of interconnection. Saturation can be visualized as a
function of three factors:
• The size of the entry to a pore;
t The number of pores which are occupied by the oil phase;
and
• The extent to which a particular phase saturates a
stratum.
The potential for movement of oil through soils is reduced
with increasing soil moisture content. The movement of oil in
soil, therefore, depends largely upon the degree of oil satura-
tion, hydraulic gradient, and soil permeability (38). Oil
-------
100% OIL
5% WATER
w///,
100% WATER
100% GAS
ESSENTIALLY ONE PHASE FLOWING
ESSENTIALLY TWO PHASES FLOWING
APPRECIABLE FLOW OF ALL THREE PHASES
FIGURE i. OIL, GAS, AND WATER PYRAMID
(AFTER WYLLIE, REF. ee).
8
-------
WATW-WET SAND
OIL-WET SAND
ftnduior saturation to water
Funicular, saturation fo oil
Legend
CD Water
• Oil
Pendular saturation to oil
Funicular saturation to water
Funicular saturation to both
water and oil
Funicular saturation ft» both
oil and water
Funicular saturation to v«ater
Insular saturation to oil
Oil
ttturotion
Nor>-wetting phase (oil)
equilibrium saturation
-Funiculor — '-"•'-- Oil
VOO 90 SO 79 tO SO «0 50 70
••Insular
o
saturation
Funicular saturation to oil
Insular saturation to water
Wetting-phase (oil)
equilibrium saturation
Funicular ' • Pendulor
o ib ?ot so
. , .
renaulor
Wetting-phase (water)
equilibrium saturation
so eo 70 eo 90 100%
_ Water
Saturation
- . .
Funicular-
%\00 90 80 10 60 50 40 JO 20 'lO 0
I I'll ' I II ' I '* I
0 K> 20| 30 40 SO 60 70 SO 90 IOO*
lnsular_J FJnkular
FIGURE 2. Two PHASE OIL AND WATER SYSTEMS
(AFTER PlRSON. REF. 44).
-------
adhering to soil grains inhibits oil movement until oil content
increases to levels where a set of pores become interconnected.
"Pores facilitating oil flow are those which are larger
than pores passing only water and smaller than pores passing only
gas. The number of pores occupied by oil also depends upon the
particle size, distribution of the soil and the degree of oil
saturation," according to Pirson (44). If water content were
increased and the degree of oil saturation maintained constant,
the oil would be forced to occupy fewer pores of larger size than
it did previously (22). Soil with a relatively high water
content has been shown to retard oil infiltration from waste oil
deposition sites on land.
The preferential wetting of soil particles by water will
greatly influence the ability of the oil to migrate. Clayey
soils, for example, tend to hinder oil flow because the pore
spaces are occupied by water. Granular soils generally do not
retain water as readily and thus present an easier flow path for
oil (21). However, even granular soils can hinder oil flow if
saturated with water. A study conducted by the U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory showed that even fine sands, when water
saturated, are impervious to most oils (18). Thus, nearly all
soil types if under maximum field capacity will present an
effective barrier to the migration of oil. Oil infiltration
into soil at a debris disposal site can be minimized by sorting
and compacting the soil prior to waste deposition. However, any
water soluble contaminant contained in the oil or debris may
leach into the underlying saturated soil.
This behavior is also evidenced when oil seeps into the
ground to a point near an aquifer. In the capillary zone
immediately above the water table, the water content begins to
increase, reaching 100 percent at the water table. In very fine-
grained sediments, the capillary zone may be 0.38 to 0.46 m
(15 to 18 in) thick; in coarser-grained material, 2.5 to 7.6 cm
(1 to 3 in) is common.
Migration of Oil through Soil
The expected extent of oil migration from spill debris
through underlying soils and the oil transport rate are influ-
enced by site-specific characteristics of the oil and underlying
soil. The complex interactions of these variables create a
situation where quantitative oil migration predictions are nearly
impossible. However, information is available to enable an
approximation of the total volume of soil required to immobilize
a given mass of oil. Equation 2 shows the relationship (16):
Volume of soil required to n ?0 x V
attain immobile saturation = p <-— (Eq. 2)
(volume i n cu yd) r
10
-------
where: V = volume of oil in barrels
P = porosity of soil
S = residual saturation
Typical values of residual saturation (S ) are shown below
(14): r
Oil Type _Sr_
Light oil and gasoline 0.10
Diesel , 1ight fuel oil 0.15
Lube and heavy fuel oil 0.20
Equation 2 suggests that soils of high porosity can best
impede both vertical and lateral oil migration away from the
disposal area. It is difficult to precisely portray oil pathways
due to the multi-faceted variables possible. A generalized
cross-section consists of vertical movement under the force of
gravity with some degree of lateral dispersion depending upon
soil homogeneity. Figure 3 depicts some qualitative oil migration
patterns possible through different soil types.
As the descending body of oil reaches the top of the
capillary zone, the oil begins to spread over the water table.
It spreads in a layer, roughly the thickness of the capillary
zone, and elongates in the direction of the water's movement.
The oil continues to move, forming a pancake-shaped layer, until
it reaches immobile saturation or returns to the surface at a
discharge point (16).
Vertical oil movement will eventually be interrupted for
one of three reasons: (1) the oil will spread until immobilized
by soil absorption; (2) it will encounter an impermeable bed of
soil; or (3) it will reach the groundwater table. An idealized
cross-section of this movement is shown on Figure 4.
Most oil that contacts groundwater will float near the water
surface though some of the lighter oil fractions may diffuse into
the water (22). Floating oil tends to move with the water and is
absorbed continually by soil particles which it contacts. This
soil filtering process will eventually remove the entire non-
soluble oil fraction.
Water contaminated by the soluble oil fraction can theoreti-
cally move significant distances down-gradient depending on
characteristics of the aquifer, the amount of oil being leached,
and the threshold of analytical capability. However, available
records of case histories indicate that actual migration is
minimal. For example, in a land cultivation operation in Marcus
Hook, Pennsylvania (50), 66.8 m3 per ha (170 bbls/acre) of crude
11
-------
O
z
o
or
i-
in
LJ
_i
i— i
CD
O
*!?"
S.
2
1-
<
z
l— t
Q
<
UJ
cc
a.
(T>
u.
D
f A
u;
LU
Q.
<
X
in
D
UJ
N
i-*
_J
<
cc
LU
z
LU
_)
t-i
O
V)
V)
o
o
UJ
z
LU
O
O
s
o
X
.
UJ
J
— 1
CD
<
LU
^»
S
a
UJ
D.
>
J
I
(2
t—t
X
1
<
>-
1-
HH
_J
CD
in z
D «
o >
UJ CC
z <
LU >
O
O X
2 H
O «
X 3
t
• — t
LU >-,
_1 O
CQ tn
^
LU Q
2 UJ
CC -
LU LL
a. •-
t-
cn <
in cc
LU '-
_i w
i i
CQ o
o
_l
U.
z
o
Q.
U
I/)
»—i
o:
UJ
\-
u
<
ce
<
i
o
o
in
LL
o
(fl vO
i_ -*
u .
UJ u.
LL UJ
U. en
UJ
Q
UJ
N
>
<
M O
_l
< Ct
ce uj
UJ I-
z LL
LU <
ro
LU
o:
D
12
-------
mm
«iW»!i
HI
i /i
I i ' i ' i ' i i i i I i I i ' i '
r I II || |'(l ' I I I
m
13
-------
oil were rototilled into the ground to a depth of 15 cm (6 in).
After one year, corings indicated that the oil had migrated only
0.3 cm (1/8 in). Like the Marcus Hook investigation, other
studies representing widely divergent oil types, geohydrologic
conditions, and disposal methods, have indicated that the
distance of subsurface migration of bulk oil is small.
Potential Impacts of Oily Waste Disposal on Water Quality
Leaching of oily wastes into groundwater can generate
serious pollution problems. Oils in groundwater can contaminate
water wells or may be transported to surface waters where they
may pose difficulties for conventional water treatment plants.
Even the most permissive water quality criteria state that oil
should be entirely absent from public supplies. Furthermore,
oil from oil spill debris can contain many contaminants, includ-
ing heavy metals and other ions. Upon degradation, the organic
acids and decomposition gases may leach salts present in the soil
and thus cause additional groundwater contamination.
The amount of metallic and other elemental and chemical
contaminants in oils depends upon the source of the oil. The
range of concentrations can be from virtually zero to fractional
percentage ranges (3,000 ppm). For example, crude oils of
Venezuelan origin contain high concentrations of vanadium while
waste motor oils can contain significant amounts of lead. Oil
spill debris comprised of oils with high metals concentration
could be a local source of environmental contamination if
improperly disposed of on land, particularly if the site overlies
usable groundwater.
Insufficient information is available to enable the predic-
tion of environmental contamination from oils disposed of on
land. Chemical contamination from improperly situated debris
disposal sites may be a major threat, since several heavy metals
have been shown to be relatively immobile in various soils. On
the other hand, studies of sewage sludge disposal on land have
indicated lead may be a very mobile metal in soils (56). A
potential problem could occur from continuous use of a particular
site for disposal of a high metals content oil, such as used
motor oil. Such a site would likely become indefinitely unusable
for other purposes such as residential development or production
of edible crops unless covered with several meters of uncontami-
nated soils at the conclusion of disposal operations.
Evaporation of Oil During Land Application
Oily materials can migrate from the land disposal site by
subsurface migration, surface runoff, and volatilization. The
potential for oil loss from a debris disposal site depends mostly
on the types of hydrocarbons in the debris. Clearly, high vapor
pressure hydrocarbons such as propane will vaporize before any
14
-------
significant degree of outward migration or biological oxidation
can occur in soils. However, lower vapor pressure hydrocarbons
such as heavy oil, residual fuel oils, grease, solid paraffins,
and high molecular weight asphaltenes may migrate or be biologi-
cally oxidized before they are ever evaporated.
In order for a component of a hydrocarbon contained in a
soil or debris to evaporate and be transported to the atmosphere,
it must have a pathway available. This pathway would also allow
atmospheric oxygen to reach the oil surface; hence, local aerobic
conditions must exist. If the required moisture, nutrients, and
microbiological species also exist at this aerobic interface,
biological decomposition can readily occur as the microorganisms
utilize the free energy available in the oxidation of the hydro-
carbons. Thus, in considering the potential for evaporation of
oil from a debris disposal site, the relative rates of biological
oxidation and evaporation must be considered.
Experimental evidence shows the range of time constants
relevant to biological oxidations. The actual biological time
constants depend upon the specific hydrocarbons, oxygen and water
partial pressures, temperature, biological species and genetics,
along with nutrient availability. The range of values is gener-
ally between two and 20 months under reasonable, controlled
aeration and moisture conditions.
One can compare these approximate time values with expected
evaporation rates of hydrocarbons through soils. The rate of
evaporation depends upon the vapor pressure of the hydrocarbon,
soil porosity, tortuosity, and surface absorption characteristics
of the soil. The following derivations have been compiled from
various sources (6, 15, 31, 64). The mass transport can be
described by:
VC <**• 3>
where C = oil concentration
D ff = effective diffusion coefficient
v * = divergence operator
v = gradient operator
t = time
The effective diffusion coefficient would include the
various soil parameters mentioned above. If it is assumed that
surface absorption does not change with time (i.e., the surfaces
do not absorb the hydrocarbon), the effective diffusion rate can
be approximated as:
15
-------
= D°
T
where D0 = intrinsic diffusion rate of the hydrocarbon
« = void fraction
T = tortuosity
The boundary conditions for a one-dimensional soil column
can be approximated by assuming the concentration of oil is zero
at the surface of the soil and proportional to the vapor pressure
of the hydrocarbon at a distance x-| below the surface. For this
case, we are considering a problem as shown in Figure 5. In the
vertical distance X] deep into the soil all the oil was evapor-
ated, but a fresh supply exists for all x _> x-| . Or, in other
words, the boundary conditions are:
C = 0 at x = 0
C = C0 at x _> x-j
The flow rate through the surface, under these boundary
conditions would be:
j . 'eff £-•>.? ^ 0*. 5)
The value of x will be increasing slowly with time. This
rate of increase will depend on the amount of free oil in the
soil. Using units for J of g/cm^ sec and for Cg of g/cm3 (vapor
density) and calling 3 (in units of g/cm3) the initial oil
content of the soil, the distance x can be described as:
p
Sx = /tj dt = D0 J -£ t (Eq. 6)
U T A
Dn a Cnt ,
or x = ( ° BT ° )* (Eq. 7)
Substituting the following typical values for a silty sand
with a 10 percent initial oil content:
?
DQ = 0.1 cm /sec
a = 0.25
T = 3
6 = 0.1 g/cm3
16
-------
AIR
SOIL SURFACE
SOIL, NO OIL (OIL HAS EVAPORATED)
.::.-;.;-:.::::vx AXIS
•':::••'••::
''
FIGURE 5. ONE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL COLUMN.
17
-------
and a value for C0 of 1 x 10~4 g/cc (characteristic of a very
highly volatile hydrocarbon like gasoline), it can be found that:
x = 2.80 x 10"3 /? cm
for t = 1 mo = 2.6 x 106 sec
x = 4.6 cm
Therefore, even for a highly volatile hydrocarbon deposited
in a soil to a concentration of 0.1 g/cm3 approximately one
month would transpire before all oil in the top 4.6 cm layer
would evaporate.
Assuming a heavier fuel oil material with a vapor pressure
corresponding to a saturated vapor phase concentration in the
10~° g/cm3 range, it can be found that x = 0.46 cm in one month
or approximately 1.6 cm in a year. If it is assumed that the
initial layer of contaminated oil is 25 cm deep, approximately
6 percent of the oil could be evaporated in two years. Hence,
relative to the time constants associated with the biological
decomposition, the evaporation rate is low.
Heavy oils and oil products have even lower vapor pressures
or vapor phase concentrations. For example, oil used in diffu-
sion pumps has a vapor phase composition in the 10"^ to 10-15
g/cm3 range. Using this range of values, Equation 7 indicates
that oil evaporation is insignificant.
At least one interesting conclusion can be drawn from the
above analysis. The relative amounts of evaporated versus
biologically oxidized oil can be affected by the disposal
techniques employed. Considering the diffusion of oxygen, it
becomes clear that for any hydrocarbon with a vapor pressure
less than approximately 100 mm of Hg, the minimum ratio of
evaporation to biological oxidation can be achieved by maximizing
the depth of the plowed or mixed soil/oil layer as long as the
soil is not completely saturated with water. Theoretically,
replowing such a mixture of oil and sandy soil would be unneces-
sary until the oxidation of oil is complete. This procedure
will result in lower biological oxidation rates, but will
decrease the evaporation rate even more. For example, if the
plowed layer thickness were doubled with the same amount of
oil/cm^ the oil concentration per unit volume would be decreased
by a factor of 2. For the same time period, this would mean x
would increase by /2 or that the total amount evaporated (ex)
/o~
would be reduced by -x- = ^0.7. The diffusion rate in the vapor
phase of oxygen is the same order of magnitude (slightly higher)
as that of hydrocarbons. The C0 term appropriate for oxygen
transfer to the oxidation front (assuming the biologicaloxida-
tion is oxygen limited) is in the range of 3 x 10~4 g/cm3.
18
-------
Consequently, it can be concluded that the percent of oil
evaporated would be minimized by allowing conditions to develop
where the biological oxidation rate was limited by the diffusion
of oxygen from the surface.
Under oxygen mass transport limiting conditions, the ratio
of the amount of oil evaporated to the amount of biologically
oxidized oil can be approximated as:
R = v x 3>4 (E 8)
. 3.4
3 x
which correcting for the relative diffusion rates for oil and
oxygen can be approximated as:
R - (— ^ - T)h (Eq. 9)
3 x 10~4
o
where C = vapor phase density of the oil in (g/cm )
n _ (M.W.)
pu 22,400
where pO = vapor pressure in atmosphere and
where M.W. = molecular weight
It should be noted that these criteria would contradict
those required to minimize potential groundwater contamination.
One general criterion which would be valid for both situations
would be to refrain from plowing when measurements indicate
that a reasonable oxygen partial pressure exists in the soils
(say about 2 percent oxygen). In general, coarse-grained soils
will require less periodic plowing than fine-grained soils, not
only because void fractions are less but because water drains
less rapidly from the surface layers, impeding oxygen diffusion
into the oil .
Fate of Evaporated Oil in the Atmosphere
Because disposal of oil spill debris on land may involve
handling, mixing, and discing, evaporation of collected oils
could be increased. Once the hydrocarbon vapor from a debris
disposal site enters the atmosphere, its exact fate and its rate
of reaction depends on its particular characteristics. Ulti-
mately, all evaporated oil in the atmosphere is oxidized. The
19
-------
saturated, straight chain hydrocarbons are relatively unreactive
in photochemical reactions, and so remain in the air for long
periods. Many of the aromatics are very reactive in photochemi-
cal reactions involving ozone, NOX, and ultraviolet light.
Reaction products are typical of normal photochemical smog-
forming reactions.
Very little air pollution from oil evaporation would be
expected from oil soil! debris disposal operations. A large
(24,000 gal or 91 m^} oil spill would increase the total hydro-
carbon air pollution in Los Angeles by only 0.01 percent over a
100-day period, based on 1973 emission rates and a 6 percent
evaporation rate from a land cultivation disposal site.
BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION OF OIL SPILL DEBRIS
Oil is an organic substance and as such is subject to
microbial degradation under favorable conditions. The most rapid
oxidation of oily substrates occurs under aerobic conditions.
Hydrocarbons may degrade only slightly if at all in an anaerobic
environment (20). The fact that many pools of oil are still
present beneath the earth's surface attests to the long term
stability of oil in the absence of oxygen.
Under aerobic conditions, oil biodegradation is the result
of microbiological attack in the soil regimen. Although the
quantity and kinds of microorganisms present in soils vary with
location, most soils contain millions or billions of microbes
per gram. Some lack indigenous oi1-uti1izing microorganisms
(29). But most researchers agree that bacteria and fungi
possessing the ability to metabolize hydrocarbons are widely
distributed in nature. In the soil, these microbes will be most
numerous near the surface where oxygen, moisture, and food
sources are readily available.
Many studies list more than 100 species and 30 genera of
bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungi that can metabolize one or
more fractions of crude oil. It has been reported that 66
percent of the hydrocarbon oxidizers found in ordinary soils
were Pseudomonas species (8). Pseudomonas can grow under a wide
range of conditions and with very little food. Bacteria out-
number fungi in most soils by a large margin. Also, bacteria
reproduce more rapidly, so it is likely that bacteria are
responsible for most of the decomposition of hydrocarbons in
soils (20). This is further demonstrated by the increase in
numbers of hydrocarbon-degrading soil bacteria after application
of oil (43). However, enrichment effects caused by the oil-
stressed conditions can kill off certain species of microbes
and favor others. Studies have shown that after decomposition
is completed the soil returns to a microbial equilibrium close
to that of pre-oil addition levels (55).
20
-------
Although the degradation process involves a multitude of
microbes and environmental parameters, Equation 10 describes in
general the degradation process:
CxHy + °2 nutrients > Heat + H2° + C02 + cellular blomass
(Eq. 10)
Thus, for maximum degradation to occur, a suitable combina-
tion of nutrients and microbes must be present in the debris
itself or in the soil. Repeated application of oily materials
to soil will promote and sustain oi1-decomposing strains.
However, in such a carbon-rich environment, lack of nutrients
such as phosphorus and nitrogen may limit microbial growth (29).
There are also a variety of other environmental conditions which
affect degradation of oily materials in the soil including
moisture, oil surface area, concentration, oxygen, temperature,
pH, and the presence of organic matter. The relationships of
these factors to oil degradation in soil are discussed below.
Nutrients
The types and quantities of nutrients present at an oil
disposal site on land are of extreme importance. The capacity
of microorganisms to grow in a given habitat is governed by the
organisms' ability to utilize available nutrients. Aerobic
bacteria require various types of nutrients and minerals includ-
ing compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus and trace amounts of
potassium, calcium, sulfur, magnesium, iron, and manganese.
Studies have shown that ammonium phosphate is especially
important in the microbial growth of favorable cultures (3, 14,
62).
The lack or absence of both nitrogen and phosphorus is
especially significant as it will retard the natural decomposi-
tion process, resulting in a slower microbiological degradation
of oily waste (60). The degree to which these nutrients improve
decomposition has not been thoroughly quantified. Fertilizer
has been frequently applied to compensate for these deficiencies
although studies indicate that this has little effect until about
50 percent of the oil has been degraded (29, 49).
The amount of fertilizer (nitrogen and phosphorus) required
to degrade a given volume of soil is not yet thoroughly under-
stood. Experimental data from fertilizer (urea-phosphate)
amended plots show an accelerated decomposition of oil. Amending
the soil improves its nutritional status and encourages the rapid
increase of oil-utilizing bacteria. This increase in numbers is
accompanied by a decrease in the amount of the saturate fraction
present in the recovered oil (14, 65). Over-fertilization should
be avoided since it can result in nitrate and salt contamination
of drainage water (14).
21
-------
Debris materials mixed with the oil can also affect the
bacterial population. In fact, the nature of oil spill debris
may be inherently detrimental to decomposition of the entrained
oil. For example, straw in debris has a relatively high nitrogen
demand during degradation. Decomposition of the straw can thus
retard the degradation of oil by robbing nitrogen from the
biologically mediated process.
Moisture
Moisture is a universal transport medium for all biological
processes (34). Water is needed to transport nutritional and
energy substrates and metabolic waste products in and out of the
cell. Thus, some moisture must be present in the debris or the
soil at the disposal site if oil biodegradation is to occur. On
the other hand, too much moisture in the debris-soil matrix can
impede aeration and thus limit aerobic microbial activity (17).
Figure 6 illustrates how the rate of oil decomposition (commonly
expressed as the rate of C02 evolved) is affected by different
soil-water conditions. Note that very moist soil impedes degra-
dation. The different curves in each set are for various oil to
soil ratios.
The optimum ratio of moisture to oil to encourage decomposi-
tion is primarily a function of soil type, debris characteris-
tics, and climatic conditions. Available information indicates
that a 20 percent water content would provide sufficient moisture
to enhance oil degradation in spill debris (17).
Oil Surface Area
Since microbial activity takes place at the water/soiI/oil
interface, the oil surface area exposed to microbial activity
will affect its rate of oxidation (33, 41). The greater the area
of oil/soil/water interface, the faster the microbial decomposi-
tion rates, assuming favorable mineral, nutritional, and tempera-
ture conditions exist.
This interfacial relationship is especially pronounced where
oil contacts a groundwater table. Microbial degradation will
occur very slowly where oil spreads above a water table. With
increasing water saturation of soil, the interstitial space
between the oil/soil and oil/water decreases. This reduction
limits the accessibility of bacteria to oil. Oil in contact with
groundwater will eventually degrade as it spreads over the
aquifer, since more interfacial area for microbial access is
provided.
Some hydrocarbons, such as the heavier oils, tend to be
resistent to decomposition because a relatively low surface area
is usually exposed to microbial attack (17).
22
-------
z
o
10
o
0-
UJ
Q •
IL
Z UJ
oo:
UJ D
KZ
< o
2 £
V
IL <
o a:
i- a
o uj
UJ I-
IL LL
u. <
LU ^>
LU
CC
"IV1OJ. AS Q3anSV3W SV) NOIlISOdWOD3a 110
23
-------
Soil microorganisms may also influence the surface area of
oils through the production of emulsifying compounds (25). Such
biological emulsifiers can increase the water solubility of the
hydrocarbons and make them more susceptible to leaching and
groundwater transport. Chemical detergents and emulsifiers
have been applied to oil spills to aid in cleanup. The presence
of such chemicals in spill debris tends to reduce oil surface
tensions and may subsequently hinder biodegradation. Also, some
detergents are fatal to microbial species that degrade hydro-
carbons.
Oxygen
Oxygen is required for the rapid degradation of oils since
most microbes that utilize hydrocarbons as an energy source are
aerobic (42). It is generally agreed that a minimum of 3 to 4 mg
of oxygen per mg of oil are required to completely oxidize the
oil into carbon dioxide and water (42). This relatively high
oxygen demand is due to the fact that oil has a high carbon and
hydrogen content but is very low in oxygen. Thus, to encourage
oil degradation, the material must be continuously exposed to
an oxygen source.
The oxidizing materials can be atmospheric oxygen, sulfate,
sulfite, nitrate, nitrite, or other compounds which provide net
free energy for supporting life forms when combined with the oil
or substrate material (11, 67). Atmospheric oxygen provides the
best source for the most rapid degradation. In comparison, the
reaction kinetics of sulfate-reducing bacteria utilizing $64 =
and oil as an energy source are approximately one order of magni-
tude slower than aerobic bacteria using atmospheric oxygen (2,
4). Also, sulfate reaction products include hydrogen sulfide, a
noxious gas that may be toxic to the oi 1-degrading bacteria.
To promote the transfer of oxygen to waste oil in a land
disposal site, the land cultivation technique has evolved. The
procedures are applicable to certain types of oil spill debris,
as discussed in Section 4. As noted in Section 1, land cultiva-
tion by the periodic mixing of waste oil with surface soil will
increase oil degradation rates but will promote oil volatiliza-
tion.
An alternative method of increasing oxygen transport to
waste oil in land disposal sites has been suggested: pumping
oxygen to the soil/oil mass through a system of buried pipes.
Forced convection via pipelines could be desirable where very
high rates of oxygen transfer to the oil is required and when
increased oil vaporization is not a problem. If relatively low
rates are required, transfer by natural diffusion would provide
sufficient oxygen.
24
-------
An estimate of the oxygen requirements can be made as
fol1ows:
Assume:
• Initial oil/soil mixture is 25 cm thick;
. Initial oil content is 0.1 g/cm3;
. The molecular formula for the oil is (CH2);
. The oxidation is complete;
. Soil biomass does not change with time or is much less
than 0.1 g/cm3; and
. 300 days are required for complete oxidation.
Therefore:
, The oxygen requirements are described by
CH2 + 3/2 02 — C02 + H20 (Eq. 11)
or
3.43 g of 02/g of hydrocarbon
2
. The total oil content is 2.5 g/cm
Therefore:
• The 02 mass transfer rate must be greater than or equal
to 3.3 x 10 g/sec cnr
A lower bound on the diffusive mass transfer per unit area
can be estimated by:
Q = °eff $f = Do ^ (Eq. 12)
2
Where Q = mass flow rate in g/cm sec
D P f f = effective diffusion coefficient for 0 2 in soil
DQ = diffusion coefficient of 02 in (Np + 20% C02) - 0.18
a = porosity - 0.25
T = tortuosity = 3
25
-------
^Y = gradient of oxygen concentration
If it is assumed that oxygen partial pressure is near zero
where the biological oxidation is occurring, the term dc can be
described as <^L = £°_ . , _ 1oX
dz Az (Eq. 13)
Where C = Q^ concentration in air = 3 x 10 g/cm^
Therefore:
0 . - 9/cm Sec
Assuming that the average distance required for oxygen
diffusion before it is biologically reacted is on the order of
10 cm (to partially compensate for the rough open surface of a
plowed field); then
Q = 4.5 x 10"7 g/cm2 sec
This calculated mass transfer rate for oxygen diffusion is
sufficient to satisfy the biological requirements. Hence, it can
be concluded that diffusive mass transfer is sufficient to
decompose land disposed oil within 300 days and under the other
assumed conditions. If biological oxidation within a shorter
time period is required, forced convection would be necessary to
achieve oxygen transport.
Temperature
Microbial growth can proceed under a wide range of tempera-
tures, although most species attacking oil are active in the
mesothermic range of 20 to 35 C (29). Each type of the hundreds
of various microorganisms that interact to degrade oil are most
active in specific temperature ranges. In general, it is agreed
tnat oxidation is faster in warm or hot climates than it is in
colder areas. Temperature also determines to a certain extent
the types of microbial species present (62, 65). Dry, warm
soils, for example, are characterized by a larger number of
actinomycetes, while wetter soils do not display this abundance.
The effectiveness of bacterial species to degrade oil at
different temperatures was demonstrated by Westlake ej^ aj_. (14,
65). Results showed that bacterial enrichments obtained at 4 C
(39 F) can degrade the same oil at 30 C (86 F) but at a reduced
rate. However, bacterial cultures at 30 C (86 F) are unable to
utilize the same oil at 4°C (39°F).
26
-------
There is virtually no possibility of a fire occurring at an
oil spill debris disposal site due to spontaneous combustion.
Heat is released during biological degradation, but decomposition
temperatures do not exceed 71°C (160 F), the limiting maximum
temperature for microbial survival. Significantly higher temper-
atures are required to ignite most oils. Spontaneous combustion
can theoretically occur in spill debris containing more reactive,
cracked oil products, but such hydrocarbons would evaporate
before combustion could occur in a debris mass. There has been
no incidence of spontaneous combustion reported in spill debris
or in oily waste products from petroleum refineries.
£H
The relative acidity or alkalinity of the interstitial
regions of a soil will largely determine what types of micro-
organisms will flourish there. Yet the pH of the soil is depen-
dent upon a number of other factors including the mineral content
and composition and the presence of acidic organic detritus. In
general, neutral or slightly alkaline pH will favor bacterial
growth. Investigators report that the optimum pH range for the
growth of various species of hydrocarbon-degrading Pseudomonas
was between 6.0 and 9.0 (8). On the other hand, a pH below 6.0
tends to favor the growth of fungi. One technique that may be
useful in the disposal of oil spill debris would be application
of a buffering agent in the soil which would discourage fungal
dominance. The role of certain clays (particularly montmoril-
lonite) as soil buffers has been documented (1).
Organic Material
The presence of organic material in soil (other than the
oil components themselves) can also influence the degradation of
oil spill debris. Almost all microorganisms that are known to
be capable of degrading hydrocarbons will preferentially
metabolize alternative food sources (e.g., carbohydrates) if
they are available. This could be a problem where oil spill
debris disposal is attempted in organic-rich soils or where such
debris is purposely mixed with organic-rich solid wastes.
Organic products of bacterial metabolism may be toxic to
soil microorganisms. However, most microbial cell waste in soils
is comprised of various polymers which may degrade further in the
presence of oxygen to humic and fluvic acids, materials that are
commonly found in soils. Westlake ert aJL (14) reports that
ureaphosphate treated oil plots showed a more rapid rate of
revegetation than was observed for control plots, thus indicating
the residues remaining after microbial activity were not toxic
to plants (14, 65).
27
-------
Other Factors Affecting Oil Degradation Rates
Literature sources contain very little information concern-
ing quantitative biodegradation rates of oil. Conflicting data
from various studies illustrate the lack of standard procedures
for measuring oil degradation rates. Some broad statements
concerning relative degradation rates of various petroleum types
can be made on the basis of some studies assuming all other
conditions are equal (48).
Crude oils vary greatly in composition but consist qualita-
tively of hydrocarbons and compounds containing oxygen, sulphur,
nitrogen, and trace amounts of metals (22). Hydrocarbons may be
broadly classified as paraffins, cycloparaffins, and aromatics.
Within these three families, thousands of combinations are
possible, with their susceptibility to microbial oxidation
varying according to the molecular weight and structure of each
(65).
Hydrocarbons with high molecular weight, high viscosity,
complex crystal 1inity, and/or toxic constituents tend to degrade
at slow rates. Crystal 1inity is especially important. Paraf-
fins, because they are straight-chained, are the easiest for
microbes to degrade although the relatively low surface area
available on paraffins acts as an impediment to degradation (57,
63). For oils with branched molecular structures, the rate of
decomposition is drastically decreased. Cycloparaffins seem to
be utilized poorly by microbes, but rates vary according to the
molecular complexity of the ring structure (60). Aromatic
compounds are utilized at a slower rate than the branched
paraffins. The higher weight petroleums which usually contain
the aromatic and cycloparaffinic rings and the paraffinic sub-
stitutes of the rings are the most difficult to oxidize (8, 17,
26). These petroleums include the bitumens and asphalts.
Overall, it can be generalized that straight, chain medium
molecular weight hydrocarbons (such as paraffins) are the most
easily oxidized with cycloparaffins and aromatics progressively
more resistent depending upon the complexity of their crystal-
1inity (8, 59). This wide diversity in possible crystal combina-
tions results in differential decomposition rates (55). Vari-
ances in the degradation of refined and unrefined oils create a
further complication when attempting to quantify rates of
degradation. Since refined oils generally contain a higher
percentage of lighter, more toxic molecules, decomposition rates
can vary widely (37).
Most research involved in defining this problem has shown
that the utilization of hydrocarbons by individual isolates
varies significantly. The pattern of high decomposition vari-
ability between hydrocarbons is one reason why reliable, quanti-
tative decomposition rates for oils is lacking (63).
28
-------
Time for Complete Oil Degradation
Degradation of oil contained in spill debris will occur
within several months to several years under the most favorable
aerobic conditions, depending upon environmental conditions such
as temperature, nutrient availability, and moisture content.
Thousands of years may be required under the most favorable
anaerobic conditions. Thus, the particular method used for land
disposal will determine how long the oil in oil spill debris will
remain undegraded. Burial methods inhibit aeration and thus
increase degradation time while landspreading promotes aeration
and accelerates degradation.
All other factors being equal, waste oil in colder climates
will degrade more slowly than in warmer areas. During the winter
months, microbial activity may even cease in cold areas. But
degradation will proceed even in the northern areas of Canada
during summer months (14).
RELATIONSHIP OF OILY WASTE DISPOSAL TO VEGETATION
Many researchers have studied the effects of land deposited
oil on various plant species. Results of those studies relevant
to oil spill debris disposal are summarized here. The informa-
tion is most directly related to the land cultivation method of
disposal, since crops grown on land previously used as an oil
spill debris spreading ground could contact the remaining oily
material and degradation products. If properly buried, the oil
debris in a sanitary landfill or burial site would be below the
plant root zone and would thus not be likely to affect crops.
It is well known in oil producing regions that crude oil on
land can inhibit crop growth. Vegetation can be affected for
various reasons. For example, bacteria that convert the oil to
organic matter create anaerobic conditions in the soil subsur-
face. It is largely the inability of plant roots to obtain
sufficient oxygen and moisture which inhibits plant growth (45).
Initial oil contact with soil usually stops plant growth because
the volatile fractions enter the plants and seeds creating a
debilitating narcotic effect (55).
The ability of plants to resist oil contamination is
directly related to the depth of rooting, ease of replacing
leaves, and the possession of storage organs or underground
stems, particularly rhizomes (40). Researchers generally agree
that large concentrations of oil may create immediate toxic
conditions for plants.
The extent and duration of inhibited soil fertility depends
largely upon the concentration and depth to which the soil is
saturated with undegraded oil. Soil containing degraded oil will
exhibit signs of increased fertility. Increase in soil fertility
29
-------
is attributed to a higher organic and nitrogen content produced
by the nitrogen fixing bacteria and an increase in porosity and
the moisture-holding capacity of the soil. Even fairly sensitive
crops such as vegetables can tolerate a considerable quantity
of crude oil in the soil (45).
For example, a study by Plice (45) showed that after one
year, there were negligible differences between crops of wheat,
barley, and rye grown on plots treated with oil as compared to
corresponding crops grown in untreated soil. After three years,
it was reported that the oiled plot produced yields approximately
20 percent higher than those from untreated plots. Carr found
in his studies of soybean growth that light applications of oil
actually improved growth (10).
The concentration at which oil addition is toxic to vegeta-
tion is of the order of 1 kg per m of soil, depending upon
vegetative and soil types. Even soils saturated to depths of
more than 1.2 m (4 ft) eventually showed signs of increased
productivity although the period required for soil reclamation
was 7 yrs (9). It has been suggested that oil pollution damage
to plants can be minimized by heavy fertilization (45). This
action is probably a simple mass-action effect operating by
forcing the necessary nutrients into the plant.
There is no indication that higher plants can utilize the
energy content of oil for growth purposes. Plants will increase
the rate of moisture loss and can complete with the microorgan-
isms utilizing the oil for available nutrients. On the other
hand, a number of studies have indicated that the microbial
populations present in the rhizosphere are enhanced in both
numbers and species diversity over populations in root-free
soils. This is due in part to the release of amino acids and
vitamins by plant tissue. The synergistic relationship is
completed by the microbial production of metabolic by-products
beneficial to plant growth.
Further study is required to define the extent to which
rhizospheric bacteria are capable of degrading oil spill debris
substrates and, if so, what the degradation rates are. The
existence of plants may also increase oxygen requirements in the
oil/soil mixture and root zone by providing more carbon in the
form of root tissue.
The potential advantages of plant growth on the site could
come from improved aesthetics, decreased surface runoff and
erosion, and a ready visual indication of whether the soil
moisture is adequate for biological decomposition of the oil.
In rough terms, if vegetation is thriving, sufficient moisture
is likely to be available for oil degradation as well as for
plant growth.
30
-------
Treatment and disposal of oil spill debris by 1andspreading
can also create environmental problems. As noted, 1andspreading
tends to increase volatilization of oils into the atmosphere.
Also, potential reuse options for a landspreading site may be
limited due to the presence of heavy metals and other contami-
nants at or within several centimeters of the soil surface.
Preliminary studies have begun on the effects of growing edible
crops on oily waste landspreading plots. Although no firm
conclusions are available, it is clear that plants can take up
heavy metals from the soil and concentrate them in their leaves
and stalks. At this point, it is thought best to refrain from
using vegetation grown on landspread sites for human or animal
consumption until further information is available.
OIL SPILL DEBRIS DISPOSAL METHODOLOGIES
Oily wastes have been generated since the first discovery
of oil in the nineteenth century. Methods of managing oil-
bearing wastes have evolved in the oil refinery industry and are
still changing today. Much of the technology applicable to the
disposal of oil spill cleanup debris must be borrowed from the
refinery industry, since very little attention has been devoted
to this final necessary step in oil spill cleanup procedures.
The literature contains little reference to operating procedures,
environmental factors, or costs associated with oil spill debris
disposal. Indeed, the primary reason for this subject study and
manual is to fill this data void.
It should be emphasized that the oil spill debris requiring
disposal could contain mostly oiled soil, vegetation, rocks,
sorbents, and other solids collected during spill cleanup. Any
excessive oil should have been recovered prior to or after debris
collection but certainly before disposal. Also, in many cases,
debris consisting largely of oiled soil can be used as a road
base, reducing or eliminating the need for disposal.
Whatever debris remains after recovery of the usable
fraction must be properly disposed of to ensure that any adverse
environmental impacts at the disposal site are minimized or
prevented. Four basic methods are available for proper debris
di sposal :
• Land cultivation (also called landspreading, land-
farming, and land treatment): Debris is spread in thin
layers and periodically mixed with soil to assure
adequate aeration and mixing of soil microbes with the
oily substrate;
. Landfilling with refuse: The oil spill debris is
deposited in a sanitary landfill and buried along with
mixed municipal refuse and/or compatible industrial
solid waste and sludges and covered with soil;
31
-------
• Land-filling without refuse (also called burial): The
debris is deposited alone in trenches, canyons, or other
suitable areas and covered with soil; and
. Lagooning: The debris is placed in a diked area and
left to degrade and/or evaporate.
Other methods may have limited applicability. For example,
oil spill debris can conceivably be composted. The composting
process is akin to land cultivation except that the compost
product is generally marketed instead of left in place. Given
the poor demand for compost made from municipal refuse, oil spill
debris based compost would probably not be a highly saleable
item (12).
Note that this study is concerned only with land disposal
alternatives. Investigation of incineration and other processing
methods are beyond the scope of the project. However, such
processing methods should definitely be considered if they are
available and the debris is amenable for treatment.
There are no standard operating procedures for handling oil
spill debris or similar wastes at a land disposal site. The
basic goal for each disposal method is to receive the oily
waste and process or sequester it as rapidly as practical so that
environmental hazards are minimized. Available information per-
taining to each of the four disposal methods is addressed below.
Land Cultivation (or landfarming, landspreading, or land treat-
ment)
Land cultivation of oily waste materials is being practiced
in various locales throughout the world. Primarily implemented
at oil refineries to dispose of refinery wastes, the technique
is deemed directly applicable to oil spill debris that does not
contain excessively large or bulky solids, unless the bulky
items are removed. Oil spill cleanup debris from at least two
separate instances have been processed by landspreading, one in
Utah and one in southern California. Conditions at both of these
sites are described in detail in Part 2 of this volume.
The land cultivation process is known by various other
terms, including landfarming, landspreading, and land treatment.
Regardless of the name, the process involves spreading oily
wastes thinly over the land so that subsequent cultivation and
mixing will expose all oil to air and soil microbes. As pre-
viously noted, essentially all soils contain the bacteria, yeast,
and fungi that can degrade oil (28). In the presence of oil,
these bacteria can multiply to sufficient numbers to consume most
of the oil even when only relatively small numbers are originally
present.
32
-------
The spreading process is continued until a large area is
covered by the oily waste material. Nothing further is done
until any water present has evaporated to such a point that a
tractor can be driven over the surface.
A tractor-drawn rototiller, plow, or harrow is used to
break up the oily crust and mix it with the soil organisms
present in the surface layer of the soil. Practices vary from
one location to another with respect to the frequency of such
mixing. A common practice is to plow the material into the
ground to a depth of about 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 in) and to periodi-
cally aerate and blend the oily waste with soil. In the warm,
humid southern United States, a rototiller may be used to mix
soil and oily waste to depths of from 20 to 35 cm (8 to 14 in).
As noted, it may not be necessary to mix at all if accelerated
decomposition rates are not required. However, all practitioners
of land cultivation contacted do till the soil/oil mixture at
least twice per year for several years.
The application rates for oily waste material vary from
about 2 to 5 cm (1 or 2 in) in thickness in the cooler, more
humid northern parts of the U.S. and Canada to as much as 7 to
10 cm (3 and 4 in) in the warmer subtropical climates of the
southwestern United States. Dependent on the thickness of the
oil waste layer and the percent by weight oil content, the rate
of degradation and disappearance of oil may require anywhere
from one to two years or more.
It was calculated for one refinery where specific informa-
tion was available that between 5.6 to 9.5 m3 (1,500 to 2,500
gal) of oily sludge of approximately 1 to 1.5 percent by weight
oil could be disposed of per 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) at each application
(28). Dependent on the geographical area and other considera-
tions, as many as two or three applications per year on the same
plot of land appear to be possible.
Rudimentary laboratory analyses for one refinery indicated
that a maximum of 6 percent by weight oil could be applied to
their particular soil (28). The analyses also indicated that
prescribed amounts of fertilizer should be applied concurrently
with the application of oily sludge to aid in accelerating the
rate of degradation and to provide essential nutrients where
they are lacking.
Observations during oily waste degradation at one site
indicate that the material changes from an oily, odorous, black
sludge to a dried, cracked, cakey soot-like material which
crumbles in the hand. The particular effect of oil degradation
is dependent on soil and oil types.
Research into land cultivation methods and mechanisms has
increased significantly within the last several years under the
33
-------
impetus of oil companies searching for economical techniques for
treating oil residues from refining operations. Although petro-
leum refinery wastes are not necessarily similar to oil spill
debris, the degradation mechanisms appear to be applicable for
oil spill debris for the purposes of this report.
In general, research shows that the time required for
complete oil degradation in soil at a land cultivation site is
primarily a function of oil concentration (20). For example, in
a 1938 study, various plots were treated using oil to soils
ratios of 0.10, 0.20, and 1.1 to a depth of 15 cm (6 in). The
oil was mixed with soil only at the first application. It was
estimated that after 2 to 3 yrs, cultivation of most crops on
all 3 plots could be resumed without detrimental effect upon the
crop yields (32). (However, it is recommended that such vegeta-
tion not be eaten.)
A recent project at the Shell Oil Company's Houston Refinery
has demonstrated that about 30.8 m3 per ha per mo (3,000 gal/ac/
mo) can be decomposed by land cultivation during the warm summer
months. Other oil companies have reported decomposition rates
varying from 0.10 to 22 percent of the total amount of oil in
the soil degraded monthly. Fertilizer and weekly or monthly
aerations were implemented during most of the studies. Research
by other companies has shown much higher rates of degradation,
as shown on Table 2. In the study by Shell Oil, a plot was
disced to a depth of 15 cm (6 in) using an application of about
0.13 m3 of oil per m3 soil (1 gal/ft3). At the 15 cm application
depth, this loading rate is about 187 m3 oil per ha (20,000 gal/
ac) (20). Differences in decomposition rates and microbial
species for the hydrocarbon types tested within the plot were
minimal (50).
Oil application rates in land cultivation operations have
been established mostly by trial and error experimentation.
Basically, the goal is to apply as much oil as possible to a
given area of land such that oil degradation rates are within
acceptable limits. The limits depend on how long the land is
available for oily waste disposal and/or how frequently oil is
to be spread. An estimate of the optimum oil concentration in
soil to promote degradation can be calculated, as described
below.
For aerobic biological decomposition of oil in soils,
oxygen must be transported through the soil to the oil. The
major mode of oxygen transport in soils is via gas phase diffu-
sion. Diffusion requires interconnected void spaces in the
soils. But it is these same interstitial void spaces which
contain the oil, water, and microorganisms. Thus, for any soil
with a void fraction <*, the oil content must be less than <* if
any significant oxygen transport is to occur. This provides an
34
-------
TABLE 2. OIL DEGRADATION RATES
AT SELECTED LANDSPREADING SITES (50)
(Values shown are in percentage reduction
in oil concentration after one year)
Location of Field Sites
Type of Oil
Marcus Hook,
Pa.
Tulsa
Okla.
Corpus Christi ,
Texas
Average
Used crankcase oils
Crude oils
Home heating oil (#2)
Residual oil (#6)
Average
69.2
54.2
86.0
48.5
73.8
77.5
90.0
65.5
60.8
54.2
86.0
59.4
67.9
61.9
87.3
57.8
64.5
76.7
65.1
35
-------
absolute upper bound to the oil content in the range of 20 to 25
percent by volume.
Oxygen transfer can be approximately described by equation
14 (more refined form of equation 12):
Q =
(-P-3) dc _ D 'AC
(Eq. 14)
T dz T AZ
2
where: Q = oxygen transport rate; g/cm sec
<* = void fraction of the soil (without oil or moisture)
3 = oil fraction
8 = water fraction
T = tortuosity = 3 for <*' >0.05
oc'=
-------
As an example:
For « = 0.25
. And 8 = 0.1 (10% moisture in the soil)
Or 3 optimum = -—*- = Ty-j = 0.075 = 7.5% oil by volume
It should be noted that the optimal solution is independent
of the AZ = f(z' ) assumption.
This solution also shows that the oxygen mass transfer (and
thus the possibility of aerobic oxidation) goes to zero when
3 + 3 = oc or when all the voids in the soil are filled with either
oil or water.
The foregoing analysis suggests that, as a general rule of
thumb, oil should be applied and mixed with soil so that the oil
concentration is in the range of 5 to 10 percent by volume. This
soil loading would yield optimal degradation rates.
The Shell study also found that the addition of nitrogen
and phosphate accelerated oil degradation rates. An oil degrada-
tion rate of 1.2 percent of the oil in the soil was obtained with
fertilizer addition while similar plots without fertilizer
degraded only 0.6 percent of the oil monthly (32). Weekly
applications on test plots in combination with agricultural lime
and fertilizer were shown to maintain pH and to supply sufficient
nutrients for microbial growth (45). Furthermore, the Shell
study indicated that irrigation with refinery wastewater efflu-
ents high in nitrate during extremely dry weather also aided
microbial growth (32). Probably both the added moisture and
nitrogen were beneficial.
Other research has shown that oil degradation by land
cultivation can be aided by dehydrating the oil if too much
water is in the soil-debris mixture. Artificial drainage has
been reported beneficial in some studies (20).
An undocumented land cultivation operation in southern
California routinely handles waste oils. Materials deposited
at the site consist primarily of spent drilling muds, oil field
wastes, and some waste petroleum products. The oily materials
are mixed with indigenous sandy soil primarily by the action of
dozer tracks. A disc is used occasionally. The oily character-
istics of the waste are lost within one year.
37
-------
Overall, observations at existing land cultivation opera-
tions show that oil refinery wastes and other oily materials can
degrade within a period of several months in warm climates using
closely controlled land cultivation methods. Similar decomposi-
tion rates could be expected for land cultivated oil spill debris
as long as proper procedures are employed and various materials
in spill debris don't hinder oxygen transfer to oil.
Soil characteristics at a land cultivation site are reported
to change with time (9). In one instance, alkaline bentonite-
like clay which had previously dried to a very hard cake-like
material during dry periods changed to a soft loamy-like soil
after land cultivation (9). This change was presumably due to
increased organic and moisture content from the oil.
Detailed observations show that the oily sludge material
does not completely degrade or disappear (28). A small fraction
of the oil still remains combined with or interspersed between
individual soil particles. Also, oil-conditioned soil appears
to have a higher moisture content than the native soil. This is
the result of a breakdown of the soil structure and dispersion
of soil particles which result in a reduced percolation rate.
Increased moisture retention capabilities have been noticed in
several studies along with a notable waxy appearance of the soil
(10).
There have been several reports and observations of luxuri-
ant vegetation growth at land cultivation sites. In one
instance, grasses were seeded naturally and grew to a height of
0.6 m (2 ft) in the area where oil was spread. This was far
taller than any other vegetation in the area (28). Wild sun-
flower plants established thick stands on 1andspreading plots at
Little Mountain, Utah (see case study reports, Part 2). In this
case, the vegetation was evidently enhanced because of added
urea and phosphate fertilizers, but oil in the soil apparently
did not impede growth of this plant variety.
The incidence of precipitation may have little effect on
land cultivation once the oily material is deposited and mixed.
For example, results of a 2.5 cm (1 in) rainfall were observed
approximately one week after application of oily sludge to a
land cultivation operation. The oily sludge was not transported
by runoff to the low-lying parts of the field, but appeared to
be held in place by the soil. In those places where the water
had puddled there were only slight traces of visible oil on
the surface cf the water (28).
Lagoon ing
In lagooning, oil spill debris is placed in a large shallow
pit to degrade and/or promote evaporation of the volatile
38
-------
materials. Usually, no effort is made to mix or otherwise
aerate the debris mass; the greater portion remains anaerobic.
No instances of oil spill debris disposal by lagooning have
been reported, although the method has often been used for spent
drilling muds and other oil field wastes. In general, the method
would require the dedication of a plot of land for an indefinite
period. Lagooning is more ameanable for debris containing no
large or bulky items. However, land cultivation would be appli-
cable for such debris, and the long-term maintenance of a lagoon
would be unnecessary.
Both artificial membrane and soi'i liners may help to prevent
outward migration of waste materials from disposal sites. Such
liners may also be useful at lagoon sites for oil spill debris
disposal, although the utility of man-made membrane liners over
extended periods is questionable (27).
Landfilling with Solid Waste
Disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes by
sanitary landfill techniques is widely practiced in the U.S.
Because many areas of the country operate sanitary landfills,
they have often received oil spill debris. It is expected that
sanitary landfilling will continue to be a major disposal method
for debris.
It is important to note that all solid waste land disposal
sites operated by municipalities or private companies are not
necessarily sanitary landfills, nor are they properly sited and
operated. Strict sets of criteria have been developed by EPA
(Thermal Processing and Land Disposal of Solid Waste, Guidelines,
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 158, Aug. 14, 1974), various
state agencies, and engineering associations (such as the
American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Practice No. 39)
(52), to control sanitary landfill development. Several impor-
tant criteria must be met, including:
• Site location - the site should present no threat to
ground or surface waters;
• Cover material - the wastes must be covered by a minimum
of 15 cm (6 in) of suitable soil at the end of each day;
• Monitoring - where contamination from gas or leachate
is possible, an appropriate monitoring program must be
enacted;
• Development plan - an engineered plan including consider-
ation of surface drainage, waste filling schemes, soil
cover excavation areas, and access road construction,
should be prepared for each site.
39
-------
In many states, oil is considered a hazardous material, and
therefore it must be deposited in a specially located and/or
operated sanitary landfill. In such areas, it may also be
necessary to dispose of oil spill debris in a special hazardous
waste sanitary landfill. However, in the past, oil spill cleanup
debris collected under emergency conditions has been deposited
in conventional sanitary landfills, even in states where strict
enforcement of waste disposal controls is in effect. Debris
relatively free of liquid oil and water should not in itself
cause leachate problems at a conventional landfill, assuming the
volume of debris is small compared with the waste volume in
place. Thus, the option of sanitary landfill disposal of debris
is usually available to all.
It should be noted, however, that approval of local pollu-
tion control agencies may be relatively easy to obtain in
comparison with public support. In at least one instance, oil
spill debris was stockpiled for several months because local
citizens were opposed to disposal of the material at nearby
sanitary landfills.
Assuming that approval to deliver oil spill debris to a
sanitary landfill is secured, no special problems should be
encountered in its disposal. Oil spill debris delivered to a
solid waste sanitary landfill for disposal is generally handled
similarly to all other solid waste materials. The delivery
vehicle is directed to a dumping location, and the landfill
equipment spreads the deposited debris into the waste mass.
Lifts of from 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft) are appropriate. Mixing
with refuse will provide opportunities for oil and any water
present to be absorbed and thus impede outward migration. As
with all sanitary landfills, the oil spill debris must be covered
daily to prevent infiltration of precipitation and exposure of
debris to site users. Also, some spill debris may contain
organic material such as seaweed which is attractive to flies
and rodents. Daily covering will discourage the attraction of
these pests.
A properly situated and operated sanitary landfill can
adequately protect underlying and surface waters from oil spill
debris contamination. However, not all sanitary landfills or
waste disposal sites are properly located with respect to water
resources. In at least one instance, oil spill debris was
washed from a landfill back to sea by flood waters, simply
because the disposal site was located in a known flood plain.
Also, waste oil lagoons have been flooded during a major storm,
causing an oil spill concurrently with flood damage (54).
Operational procedures may also be faulty. Such problems are
often encountered at older landfills which were initiated prior
to current improvements in technology and promulgation of
stronger state and federal standards. In those states that
classify oil as a hazardous material, it may be that oil spill
40
-------
debris must be deposited in specially designated landfills which
afford natural protection to waters. Furthermore, the disposal
site operator often is required to bury the debris as soon as
practical after it is received. Site selection and operation
procedures described in the manual (Volume I) are intended to
guide selection of proper landfills as the final depository for
oil spill debris.
Deposition of oil spill debris with refuse in a sanitary
landfill is a commonly practiced disposal method. However, no
data has been obtained on the degradation rates of oil spill
debris or the entrained oil sequestered in landfills. From
numerous studies of sanitary landfills, it is known that anaero-
bic conditions prevail in the landfill environment and that
essentially all waste decomposition is anaerobic. Thus, oil is
expected to be one of the last materials to decompose, if indeed
it ever does. Estimates of the time for total decomposition
range from 5 to 100 years or more, although the latter is
probably a more realistic estimate in an anaerobic environment
(45).
Landfilling Without Refuse (or Burial)
Landfilling or burying oil spill debris in a separate area
is another commonly practiced disposal method, particularly when
conventional sanitary landfills are relatively inaccessible to
the oil spill site or if landfill operators are unwilling or
unable to accept the debris. Debris may be buried either below
grade in excavated trenches or abandoned quarries or above-grade
over properly prepared subsoils with appropriate barriers or
berms placed around the disposal site perimeter.
In the past, sites with underlying impervious soils were
selected as a fail-safe guarantee that oily material would not
leach from the disposal area. In the absence of naturally
occurring areas with such conditions, imported clay barriers
have been placed to seal the disposal areas.
In selecting a secure site for burial without refuse, a
set of minimum site selection criteria should be observed:
\
t The site should be as far as possible from surface water
intakes and active faults. One study has suggested the
following criteria (36):
- 610 m (2,000 ft) to any well;
8.1 km (5 mi) to municipal wells or static water
intakes;
1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of a river intake;
41
-------
1.6 km (1 mi) from an active fault.
0 The site should not be selected if it occurs in the water
table or is readily susceptible to washouts from floods
(51).
t Distances from the bottom of the pit to the known ground-
water should be maximized to take advantage of the soil
attenuation capacity.
• The disposal pit should be lined with a tight clay such
as bentonite. Permeabilities of 10"8 cm/sec or less
are desirable. The pit floor should be graded so that
any liquid that seeps from the debris will collect at
a pump sump.
• If liquid effluent is expected, leachate drainage,
collection, and storage facilities should also be con-
structed. Leachate from the collection facility should
be transported to an acceptable treatment plant. Figure
7 illustrates the specifications for one oil spill
debris disposal burial site developed by EPA personnel
in New England (30).
• Trenches or channels should be installed upstream from
the pits to divert any overland water from the area.
• Oil spill debris should be placed in the pit and covered
with intermediate layers of dirt if necessary to facili-
tate equipment operation.
• When the disposal operation is complete, a final layer
of cover dirt from 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft) deep should
be placed. If the debris contains biodegradable solids
such as vegetation, the final cover should be mounded to
compensate for eventual settlement of debris upon
anaerobic decomposition (51).
• It may be advantageous to place a perforated plastic
pipe along the top of the buried waste (possibly in a
gravel layer) with one end bent vertically through the
cover material to vent the accumulated gas. Venting by
means of vertical sand seams has also been proposed.
• Monitoring wells and/or other facilities have been
installed at only a few landfill sites to date. All
future sites should provide a means to monitor the
environmental conditions in and around the debris.
As with landfilling with refuse, burial of oil spill debris
without refuse creates an anaerobic environment which is non-
conducive for oil degradation. Visual observation of oil spill
42
-------
111 -I
CO
z
o o:
l-H UJ
I- I-
u u.
UJ <
CO ~
I
CO Q
CO UJ
O H
tr u
tr
o (-
w CO
i- z
< o
z o
UJ
I Q
o z
CO <
UJ
o:
D
15
43
-------
debris buried in the Santa Barbara and San Francisco, California,
areas indicates little if any degradation after 3 to 5 years.
Comparison Between Methods
The on-scene coordinator at an oil spill cleanup may or may
not have various options open for disposal of the oil spill
cleanup debris. If he is free to chose the type of disposal he
deems appropriate, a comparison between the basic methods is
useful.
Table 3 summarizes factors related to the disposal methods.
(Lagooning is not considered because of its limited applica-
bility). Most information is from personal interviews and
experience; little if any of the data is published in the
1iterature.
Estimated Disposal Costs
The cost of each debris disposal method is highly dependent
on site-specific conditions such as the debris volume and compo-
sition, needs for access road construction, types of equipment
used, and prevalent labor wage rates. Of course, land costs
can vary significantly.
The estimated range of unit costs to dispose of oil spill
debris by the three methods is shown on Table 3. These costs do
not include expenditures for land purchase or lease or access
road construction. Also, the costs to transport oil spill
debris from the spill location to the disposal site are not
reflected. In general, land cultivation costs are reportedly
higher than the other methods because more equipment and
personnel time are required. Landfill ing with refuse is likely
to be the least costly debris disposal method since the waste
material is incorporated into an ongoing burial site; the
equipment and personnel costs are shared by other wastes
deposited at the site.
Approximate unit costs of operating the type of equipment
likely to be used at a disposal operation are summarized on
Table 4. Also shown are other unit costs for other aspects of
debris disposal operations. These data may be useful in esti-
mating disposal costs for a given volume of oil spill debris by
a particular disposal method.
The following hypothetical example illustrates the use of
these data in estimating oil spill debris disposal costs:
An oil spill has been cleaned up resulting in an estimated
800 m"3 (1,040 cu yd) of stockpiled debris. The debris contains
about 15 kiloliters (4,000 gal) of crude oil and appears suitable
for land cultivation at a pre-selected 2 ha (5 ac) site 13 km
44
-------
CO
1— t
££
ca
LU
Q
i
i
i— <
0.
1
I — I
O
o:
o
Lu
to
Q
o
h-
LU
^"
1
^
to
o
Q.
to
1 — 1
Q
Q
^£
J
1 i
o
-^
o
to
(—1
o:
•=c
D-
s:
0
o
"
CO
LU
CO
C
LU
to
s_
o
•p
o
re
u_
0)
c
•4-J
re
cu
Q.
O
>^
4->
*r-
f—
•r—
JO
X
CU
r—
U.
CO
-o
cu
cu
^^
4^
c
cu
E
Q.
•P—
3
C7"
LU
-O
O
_g
-P
cu
s:
>^
O
s-
cu
0.
00
IO1
o
-M
^"
*e-
4-
4-
O
C
S-
4-
• i—
CO
T3
re
N
re
, —
re
E
.=
E
i
O
4->
CU
JO
re
4->
r*>
re
-o
re
1
^_
o
o
re
i.
4->
1
-^J
C
re
— '
4J
U 4-
3 T—
01 *"
•r— CO CO
T3 C T3
3 o re
i— 0 O
U i-
C O
•r- -P CO
4-> -P CU
O CO O
COO
— u re
•" C
S- O
CU -r-
4-> 4J
re co
S 3
c E
3 O
O 0
s-
O) CO
3
O O
.*. 4-> CU
-O C
cu s- re
r— CU 4->
'o c o
s- re o-
4-> -O CO
c
o o o
u c c
, ,
to
r—
O •!-
CO C -^
re co
cu co
S- CU r-
re s- re
•r- -i—
>, 3 0
c o- cu
re cu Q.
E s_ co
1
rt
2
" 0
S- i_
cu s-
r— re
•— -c 2
•r- o
4«) ^ r—
O O Q.
4-> CO
0 -r- i-
i. T5 O
1
C
0
•r—
-j— >
•r*
4-)
^~
^
O
s-^*
>)
fC
• *
t/)
E
cu
^—
J3
O
S-
O-
-o
re
o
$-
CO
CO
O)
o
o
re
1
>>
s- ••-
o $-
4- re
s_
L-l- tj
3 Q.
S
T3 CU
CU 4->
"P ^>
r^ •
cu c.*-^
-Q O to
>ir— re
re re cu
E co >,
o
"^3 f~^ CO
C CO 1
re -r- CM
r— "O^
I
T3
o-
^
CU
>^
re
E
O
o
co'
l/y
o
-4-J
>^
O 0
00
• S-
o cu
•(/> D_
0 4-
•r- O
4->
re 4J
o re
o cu
r- S-
-C
i— 4->
r-^
•r- CU
4- 3 •«
-O T3 C
CCO
re 3 T-
r— 4->
CU 3
S- CO i—
CU 3 •—
O- re o
O 1 +->
i— CO CO
cu cu o
> E E
•r- 3
4-> r— CO
re o -r-
r— > S-
CU JO
S- r— CU
r— -a
s- re
0 E 4-
4- co O
1
4->
C 4->
cu re
E
O. CU ••>
•r* r~ ^~
3 JO i—
o~ re -r-
cu •— 4-
cu re c
co > re
3 re i—
O5 CU
c to
•r- 3
r~ 4—
i— CU
•r- S-
4-
-o -c
C 4J
re -r-
_J 2
4J -a
c c
a> re E
^*^ CD
S- r- S-
O -i- 4-
CO O
S-
CO 4- CU
re o 4->
re
-P 2 s
0 O
re r— "o
4- CU
C 4->
re cu re
U T3 C
cu ••-
CU Q- E
to E re
3 -i- 4->
cu o o
S- 4-> 0
1
• n
4-> CO
C Q.I—
re cu r—
0 0 •!-
0 4-
to re "a
i— C
i— >> re
•r— r— i —
4- -r-
T3 T3 >>
c re c
re cu re
r- S- E
1
^ S-
u cu
« 01
i. S-
re 4-> re
t~—
^>^i?
i— CU i-
r — MO
re -r-
S- CO J-
ai cu
C VO M
CU 1 O
O1Q -O
I/I
3
o
cu
c
re
4_J
C
o
O-
co
4-
O
>> - *
4-> C
•r- O
^— -r—
•t- 4->
JO CO
• " if 3
CU to JO
4-> CO E
•r- O O
co a. u
1
1
to
cu
o
cu
CD C
• « c c
CU -r- 3
P— r^
JO -r- >}
re o-r—
•r- o re
re o 3
> 4-> CO
re co 3
1
•r—
•o
cu cu
T3 4->
CO
E re
S— S
cu
4-> O
1 4->
0>
C "O
O C
i— re
r—
CO
O O r—
3 re
c c co
•r- O O
4-> -i- Q.
C 4-> CO
o re -r-
o u -o
,
•
>>
s_
re
CO
o
4-> CO
CO
O 4-> CU
o co O'— -
0 0 >,
LO 4J o re c
•
O — - C O 4-
4-J -r-3-1-
>^ "O i-
O O 3 4-> •>
un i— CO T3
• s- o c re
r— CU C O O
•fcO- Q.-1- O S-
_
CU O 1- r— 0
•o o o re 3
re i — 4- to to
1- O O
0) C 4-> O- S-
tu re cu to o
•0 -C S- -r- 4-
C 4J CU T3
3 jz -a
CU CU CU •
C S- «4-> 4-> CU
•r- o ~o co re OT
re E c re o re
E re s ••- co
cu s- •— -o 3
S- O S- CU
4- 4- O X> E
r- 04-1-
r— CU CU CU
.p- 4J . «> 4-> -o J2 4->
2 -r- CO O CU 1
CO S- i — CO i — CD
r— re Q. 3 r— C
•r- 4-> CU C •!- O
o re >•> re 3 •£. r—
1 1
>^ >^
re re
E •« E
O) S- T3 T3
c re re 01
•r- CO O S-
•— tO S- -r-
•r- CU 3
o. o co o~
^L CU CO CU
0 C CU S-
O 0
4-> CU O CU
co jo re JD
1 1
-o >, -
cu re >,
M E S-
•i— s- re
co O CU co
O CO
CO S- - J= OJ
1 O S- -^ O
Q 4-> CU CJ CU
o o> re c:
i re s- jo
i- re cu
r— 4-> i— r- JO
1—
fO
•r—
^_
3
CO
45
-------
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS FOR OIL SPILL
DEBRIS DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Item
1. Access road construction (if needed)
2. Site preparation (clearing, scarifying,
grading, where necessary)
3
3. Drainage channels
4. Application of fertilizer, other soil
amendments (for landspreading only,
if necessary)
5. Excavation and covering of trenches
(for burial without refuse)
6. Mixing debris with soil (initial and.
periodic mixing of debris with soil)
5
7. Monitoring well installation
8. Seeding surface of disposal area
(landspreading or burial site) with
grass
9. Site geophysical and engineering
studies
10. Transportation of debris to site
Unit Cost1 ($/unit)
4.50 to 5.00 per ft
600 to 700 per ac
0.50 per ft
180 to 200 per ac per
application
1.00 to 1.30 per cy
80 to 100 per ac per
mixing period
180 to 250 or more per
well
180 per ac
10 to 12% of site
development costs
0.05 to 0.07 per cy
per mi
All costs in 1976 dollars.
p
20 ft wide, gravel road.
Dirt trench.
4
Assumes a D-7 size track dozer pulling a rototiller covering 5 ac per day.
5
Depends on many variables, including soil type, depth to groundwater (if
any), and drill rig used.
Assumes dump truck or tractor-trailor rig.
46
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Item Unit Cost ($/unit)
11. Sanitary facilities, water and
communications (at remote landspreading
and burial sites) 50 to 100 per day
12. Contingencies @ 1535 of 12 to 15% of site
development costs
13. Disposal gate charge at sanitary
landfill7 0.80 to 4.00 per cy
14. Laboratory Analysis
oil content 25-50 per sample
organic acid 10-20
pH 5-7
Charge varies significantly depending on geographical area.
47
-------
(8 mi) from the stockpile area. A 244 m (800 ft) gravel access
road is needed to facilitate debris delivery from the main road
to the spreading area. The soil is sufficiently fertile to
obviate the need for amendments.
Estimated cost to transport and landspread this debris at
this site are $10,300, as shown on Table 5. In this hypothetical
case, disposal of the debris at a suitable sanitary landfill
within 160 km (100 mi) of the stockpile area would be more
economical. However, a suitable site may not be available and
land cultivation may be desirable since the oil is degraded.
48
-------
TABLE 5. EXAMPLE COST ESTIMATE FOR HYPOTHETICAL
OIL SPILL DEBRIS LAND CULTIVATION OPERATION
Item
Access road
Si te preparati on
Drainage
Landspreading
Geophysical and
engineering studi
Misc. facilities
Disposal operation
conti ngencies
Subtotal, Disposal
Units
800 ft
5 ac
170 ft
5 ac
es $7,600
Operations
Unit Cost, $
4.80
650
0.50
90
10%
Extensi on
$3,840
3,250
90
450
760
150
1 ,280
$ 9,820
Transportation of
debris from point
of collecti on to
disposal site 1,000 cy $0.06 per 480
cy per mi
Total Cost to Transport and
Dispose of Debris $10,300
49
-------
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, M. Biochemical Ecology of Soil Microorganisms.
Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 18:217-252, 1964.
2. Assimilation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Sulfate Reducing
Bacteria. Journal of Bacteriology, 47:447-445, 1950.
3. Bacteria which Use Methane as a Carbonaceous Energy Source.
Zenti Bakt Parastenk (German), pp. 513-517. 1906.
4. Bacteriology of the Decomposition of Cyclical Compounds in
the Reduction of Sulfates. Mikrobiologiya (Finnish),
3:360-369, 1958.
5. Becher, P. Emulsions Theory and Practice. Reinhold, New
York, 1965.
6. Bird, B. R., W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot. Transport
Phenomena. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1960.
7. Brunner, D. R. and D. J. Keller. Sanitary Landfill Design
and Operation. Report SW-65ts, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
8. Bushnell, L. E. and H. F. Haas. The Utilization of Certain
Hydrocarbons by Microorganisms. Journal of Bacteriology,
41:653-673, 1941.
9. Carl ton, H. e_t aj_. Support Systems to Deliver and Maintain
Oil Recovery Systems and Dispose of Recovered Oil. CG-D-
56-74, U.S. Coast Guard, January 1974. NTIS AD-778-941.
10. Carr, R. H. Vegetative Growth in Soils Containing Crude
Petroleum. Soil Science, 8:67-68, 1919.
11. Chakrabarty, A. M. Which Way Genetic Engineering.
Industrial Research, January, 1976. p. 47.
12. Composting of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. Report No.
SW-451 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. , 1971. pp. 70-74.
50
-------
13. Control of Oil and Other Hazardous Material: Training
Manual, EPA-430/1-74-005, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., June, 1974. pp. 15-3/15-4.
14. Cook, F. D. and D. W. S. Westlake. Biodegradabi1ity of
Northern Crude Oil. Arctic Land Utilization Research
Program, Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Government of Canada, February 29, 1976.
15. Crank, J. The Mathematics of Diffusion. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1956.
16. Davis, J. B. The Migration of Petroleum Products in Soil
and Groundwater: Principles and Countermeasures. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., December 1972. p. 7.
17. Davis, J. B. Petroleum Microbiology. Elsevier Publishing
Co., Amsterdam, 1967. p. 604.
18. Der, J. J. Oil Contaminated Beach Cleanup. Civil
Engineering Lab., Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, California, 1967.
19. Dobson, A. L. and H. A. Wilson. Respiration Studies on
Soil Treated with Some Hydrocarbons. Proceedings of the
Soil Science Society of America, 28:536-539, 1964.
20. Dotson, G. K. , ej^ a_l_. Land Spreading: A Conserving and
Non-Polluting Method of Disposing of Oily Wastes. Presented
at the 5th International Water Pollution Research Conference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, July 26-August 1,
1970.
21. Dracos, T. Experimental Investigations on the Migration of
Oil Products in Unconfined Aquifers (in French). VAWE
(Zurich, Switzerland), December, 1969. p. 48.
22. Frick, T. Petroleum Production Handbook. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1962.
23. Grove, G. W. Use Gravity Belt Filtration for Sludge
Disposal. Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1975, pp. 82-84.
24. Guard, H. E. and A. Cobet. Fate of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in Beach Sand. U.S. Naval Bio-medical Lab, Oakland,
California. Government Reports Announcements, 73(11):87,
1972.
25. Guire, P. E., J. D. Friede, and R. K. Gholson. Production
and Characterization of Emulsifying Factors from Hydro-
carbonoclastic Yeast and Bacteria. The Microbial Degrada-
tion of Oil Pollutants. Georgia State University, Atlanta.
1972.
51
-------
26. Harris, J. 0. Industrial Engineering. Chemistry, 58:65-69,
1966.
27. Haxo, H. E. Jr. Evaluation of Selected Liners when Exposed
to Hazardous Wastes. In: Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, Residual Management by Land Disposal,
Metracon, Inc. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. p. 102.
28. Jacobs Engineering Co. and SCS Engineers. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Petroleum Refining.
EPA-68-01-2288, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
29. Jobson, A., ejt a_l_. Effect of Amendments on Microbial
Utilization of Oil Applied to Soil. Applied Microbiology,
27(1 ):166-171 , January 1974.
30. Jones, R. G. Disposal of Oil-Soaked Debris. In: Proceedings
of the Conference on the Prevention and Control of Oil
Pollution, American Petroleum Institute, Environmental
Protection Agency, and U.S. Coast Guard, San Francisco,
California, March 25-27, 1975. p. 231.
31. Jost, W. Diffusion in Solids, Liquids, Gases. Academic
Press, Inc., New York, 1960.
32. Kincannon, B. C. Oily Waste Disposal by Soil Cultivation
Process. EPA R2-72-110, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1972.
33. Klug, M. J. and A. J. Markovetz. Thermophilic Bacterium
Isolated in N-Tetradecane. Nature (London), 215:1082-1083,
1967.
34. Lahermo, P. On the Behavior of Oil Products in Surficial
Deposits and Groundwater. Geological Survey of Finland,
23(8):105-110, 1971.
35. Leverett, M. C. and W. B. Lewis. Capillary Behavior in
Porous Solids. Trans. AIME, 142(107), 1941.
36. Lindsey, A. W. Ultimate Disposal of Spilled Hazardous
Materials. Chemical Engineering, 82(23):107, October 27,
1975.
37. Lindstedt-Siva, K. J. Oil in the Oceans. Engineer,
November 1975. p. 7.
38. Mechanisms of Fluid Displacement in Sands. Trans. AIME,
146, 1942.
52
-------
39. Muskat, M. and M. W. Meres. The Flow of Heterogeneous
Fluids through Porous Media. Physics, 7, 1936.
40. Odu, C. T. I. Microbiology of Soils Contaminated with
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Petroleum Institute of London,
58(562), 1972.
41. Origin of Petroleum. Bulletin of the American Association
Of Petroleum Geologists, 4_3_: 925-943. September 1960.
42. Perry, J. H. Chemical Engineers' Handbook. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1963.
43. Pierce, R. H., Jr., A. M. Cundell, and R. W. Trafler.
Persistence and Biodegradation of Spilled Residual Fuel
Oil on an Estuarine Beach. Applied Microbiology, 29(5):
646-651, May 1975.
44. Pirson, S. J. Oil Reservoir Engineering. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1958. pp. 69-73.
45. Plice, M. J. Some Effects of Crude Petroleum on Soil
Fertility. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of
America, ]_3:413-416, 1948.
46. Poliakoff, M. B. Oil Dispersing Chemicals. Contract No.
14-12-549, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C., May 1969.
47. Pollution Control Aspects of the Bay Marchand Fire. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, March 1972. pp. 241-249.
48. Pritchard, P. H. and L. J. Stair. Microbial Degradation of
Oil and Hydrocarbons in Continuous Cultures. Brockport,
New York, 1972.
49. Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. Assimila-
tion of Oil by Soil Bacteria. Refinery Solid Waste
Disposal. In: Proceedings, 40th Midyear Meeting, API
Refining, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
May 14, 1975. p. 2.
50. Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. Cleanup
of Oil in Soil by Biodegradation. API Project OS 21.3,
21.4, American Petroleum Institute, March 26, 1975. 100 p.
51. Saint, P. K. , ejt aj_. Effect of Landfill Disposal of
Chemical Wastes on Groundwater Quality. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America,
Minneapolis, November 14, 1972.
53
-------
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Sanitary Landfill, Manual of Practice No. 39.
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1976.
American
Schatzberg, P. and K. V. Nagy. Sorbents for Oil Spill
Removal. In: Proceedings of API/FW-PCA Joint Conference
on the Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, American
Petroleum Institute, New York, 1969.
Schuylkill Oil Spill II, June-October 1972, Pottstown,
Pennsylvania Area: On-Scene Coordinator's Report. EPA OHM
74-03-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. , March 1974. 87 p.
Schwendinger, R. B.
Oil. Journal of the
April 1968.
Reclamation of Soil Contaminated with
Institute of Petroleum, 54:182-197,
SCS Engineers. Study of Sewage Treatment Solids Disposal
by Subsurface Land Application. EPA 68-01-3108, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976.
Sharpley, J. M. Elementary Petroleum Microbiology.
Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, 1966.
Smith, J. E. Torrey Canyon: Pollution and Marine Life.
Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association of the
United Kingdom, 1968. pp. 6-2, 6-3.
Stone, R. J., M. R. Fenske, and A. G. C. White. Micro-
organisms Attacking Petroleum and Petroleum Fractions.
Journal of Bacteriology, 39:91-92, 1940.
Van derLinden, A. C. and G. J. C. Thiisse. Mechanisms of
Microbial Oxydations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Advances
in Enzymol., 27:469-546, 1965.
Van Wylen, G. J. Thermodynamics. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1965. pp. 444-446.
Waksman, S. A. and R. L. Sturkey.
Microbe. Yearbook of Agriculture,
Office, Washington, D.C., 1931.
The Soil and the
U.S. Government Printing
Walker, J. P., H. F. Austin, and R. R. Colwell. Utilization
of Mixed Hydrocarbon Substrate by Petroleum Degrading Micro-
organisms. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology,
21:27-29, 1975. NTIS/AD A016 324/6WP. p. 39.
54
-------
64. Weaver, D. E. The Diffusivity and Solubility of Nitrogen
in Molybdenum and the Trapping of Nitrogen by Carbon in
Molybdenum. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Contract No.
W-7405-Eng-48, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore,
California, October 25, 1972.
65. Westlake, D. W. S., ^t aJL Biodegradabi1ity and Crude Oil
Composition. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 20:915-928
1974.
66. Wyllie, M. R. J. Relative Permeability. Reservoir
Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1938. pp. 25-1 to
25-13.
67. Zobell , C. E. Action of Microorganisms on Hydrocarbons.
Bacteriological Review, 10:1-49, 1946.
55
-------
PART 2
CASE STUDIES OF OIL SPILL
DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITES
OVERVIEW
Four case study sites were investigated to provide further
information on the acceptability of and potential problems
associated with oily waste disposal on land. The purpose of
each case study was to document the history of oily waste
disposal and to report on observed environmental impacts at
each site. Field investigations involved placement of wells
through the oil spill debris and around the periphery of each
site.
The case study sites were selected on the basis of informa-
tion provided by various federal, state, and local officials
responsible for past oil spill cleanup efforts and private
contractors who have been involved in oil spill cleanup and
disposal activities. Relatively few debris disposal sites were
located during this project, attesting to the past problems of
site location and procurements. Many instances of debris open
burning were reported, for example. Those sanitary landfills
that have received oil spill debris in the past were not suited
for this study because the precise area of debris deposition
within the landfill boundaries could not be accurately located.
Table 6, Summary of Case Study Site Information, shows that
the four case study sites represent diverse geographical,
climatological, and disposal operation characteristics. Table 7
summarizes the conclusions drawn from the field monitoring and
laboratory analyses of soil, debris, and groundwater samples.
It should be noted that the field and analytical work in all
cases provides only a preliminary indication of environmental
conditions. More extensive studies would be required to fully
document the environmental effects, if any, of oily waste
disposal at these sites.
Furthermore, evaluation of conditions at one site in light
of the soils and other physical data obtained during well
installation and from sample analyses suggest that the wells may
not be suitably located to detect lateral oil migration through
soil if it were occurring. Table 8 indicates the expected
extent of oil migration through soils in comparison with the
56
-------
CU
•O
O
•>
to
H -O
O -i-
O r—
S_ O
re
cu
• s_ o
c: re c
o cu cu
•p c-o
tO --- -I—
c >
re . o
$- to S-
O HH O-
rx, 10
• •
o o
o co
re c
o re
i— tO
si- I—
s-
3
CQ
•o i-
E >>>
>> S- -O E
i— -n o E re
•*~ c cu
•r~
oo
r— re
re •<->
o to
re
. o
o o
oo co
• •
C\J O
If) CM
CO
re
1— in •!-
s-
3
CQ
-o
cu
« CO
•o ?
E <0
re cu
to co
>, cu
•r- O
O CO
CU
o re
-P -E
to
E
re E
o cu
-a «
E LT>
re •
oo CM
CO
oo
>-
Q
Z3
I—
oo
UJ
oo
cC
O
U-
o
>-
3
•P
oo
cu
10
re
o
CQ
c cu
•i- T3
re en
-P o
c
3 S-
o re
2: cu
-p re
o •—
r— LT)
c
o
+J
re
T3 -P
3
O
cu ~o
•P T-
to i—
re o
S to
•a cu
•r- r—
3 -P
CT-P
•o
E
re
to
re
E E
re re
o o
s-
(D
•P
re
2
oo
LU
_l
CQ
i— re
re -P
c_> to
re
• o
o o
oo-—
c
o
re
to
•a
3 to
E-r-
s-
to "3"
oo •—
ID CT>
i— Uf)
-a
C
re
c cu
•r- -a
•— cu
s_
o
E
CU
-p
re
o
o
re
to
x
o
s_
a.
Q.
oo o
CQ re
cu
-p
re
E
•r-
r—
O
-p
D.
Q.
^~
re
3 E E
E 0-r-
E
<
r11™
re
3
E
E
re
•
0)
>
<
•
Q.O U-
E O O
cu
-p
<+-
o
•a
o
JE
•P
CU
2:
cu
-p
CO
re
•5-
>>
^~
•r—
O
r—
re
to
o
a.
to
.,_
•a
>>
.,_
o
H-
O
CU
a.
>>
i-
•
•D
-
O
CU
s_
cu
•p
to
re
S
•p
re
cu
a.
>>
•P
r— CU
•I- -P
O •!-
oo to
-a
E
^^
—3
o
i_
CD
o
-p
-E
-P
<-
CO
Q.-P
CU
Q
re
S
57
-------
X
—1 LU
< h-
Z. OO
LU
s: >-
Z. Q
O =)
i— t OO
•Z LU
LU 00
^^
Lu 0
o
X
>- o
CU ff.
«t LU
3»*
§ fc
oo
oo
• o
I—
LU 1—4
i (~*\
CQ z:
< 0
h- 0
CU
•r-
oo
^
-o
3
-P
oo
cu
to
03
CJ
•o
c
(O
r—
to
I-H
cu
"O
o
jr
a:
|
Q
03
•r—
C.
i-
O
4-
•r—
r—
03
O
•
O
z:
i
o
-c
03
-P
""^
|
03
03
•^
C
s_
o
4-
•i —
^—
03
O
•
O
oo
1
•=£
E
cu
1 — 1
•o
f"
3
O
s-
CD
1
O)
>
o
JO
4->
r— CU
r— 0)
•r- CU
4- >
i —
03
to
0 >,
O-i—
00 •!-
•i- TJ
O 03
CU
S-
•
-0 -P
c o
03 C
^~*
CU
CD 4-)
C T-
•i- 00
«
c
o
•i- C
•P 0
03
•P >>
CU r-
C7>r—
CU 03
> -l-
0
j= cu
to Q.
3 00
_l CU
-o
•r- O
3 2:
CT
•^
r4- •
C
•a cu
cu cu
•a -c
•r- tO
>
O r—
1- T-
a. o
CU J=
§-p
•i— •
oo 3:
to
cu
CJ
c
-o
cu •
T3 00
O r-
S- •—
LU O3
3
1
. CU
a. -a
O -r-
-P 00
•
cu
r—
J3
03
C
1.
CU
o
00
•t—
T3
03
-a cu
cu s-
•P 3
03
CU -C
S- CD
•P -i-
JZ
to
O -P
r— «r-
Q. 3.
•
C
O
•^
-l_)
03
+J
CU
0)
CU
>
•
to
cu
•p
03
J=
Q.
V)
O
_g*
0.
T3
C
03
CU
n~*
JO
03
CU
O
•r«
4_>
O
c
cu
c
o
z
cu
r—
JO
03
CU
CJ
•r—
•4-^
o
£1
CU
g—
o
z:
cu
r—
JO
03
CU
U
•r—
^J
O
c
cu
c
o
"Z-
s-
o
-o
o
r^
•r—
o
4.)
C7
C7)
*r~
r—
oo
to
s_
o
o
"X3
O)
•p
o
cu
-p
cu
•o
cu
c
o
z.
-a
cu
4J
CJ
CU
cu
•a
cu
c
o
"O
cu
-p
o
cu
cu
-a
cu
f
o
c o
•r- CM
^ — ^ "O
•o c E
CU E 03 O3
•P CU
o r-~ cu s-
CU -P -P
-P 00 T- 00
cu cu to c
"O ^™ 3
0- S 0 •
r— E o -a cu
•r- 03 r— 4->
O 00 CU -P -r-
f~) (^. oO
• « r~- 1
00 -r- - — . O 4-
CU O -P O 4-
>- 00 4- r— O
1
C 00
o i— •!-
•r- ••- TJ C^-
-P O 03
O3 00 E CU
S- O S-
CDJZ S- 03
E 3 r-
0 >, 03
r— i- 03 00
•i- -C 3 O
O -P 03 Q_
CU
O
1 3
CU O
•o oo
r»
•r- •
o -o
cu
CU -P
E 0
0 CU
oo -P
4-
4-
0 CU
U
C i-
•r- 3
O
"O 00
cu
4J .«
CJ •—
CU i—
•P CU
cu ^
-o
cu
I— -p
O to
s_
cu
-p
03
•o •
c -o
3 CU
O -P
S- U
CT CU
-P
O CU
•z. -a
i
C S-
o cu
c -a
£Z
C 3
•r—
S-
"O CU
CU -P
-P 03
o S
cu
-P CU
CU i—
-a jo
03
r— -P
•r- O
O O-
c:
o
S- '!-
CU -P
-P 03
03 E
3 •<-
"0 E
C 03
3 -P
O C
S- O
CJ3 CJ
•
CU
-p
•r~
C
•r-
4-
cu
T3
4->
O
E
^^
P^
CU
•P •
•i- CU
c: -P
•r- «r-
4- to
ai
"O i —
O3
•P 00
O O
C 0-
oo
00 -r-
•<- -a
4-3 r"
O 03
C 00
O
to Q-
•r- trt
CU "O
0
S- >>
3 ^~
O CU
00 4->
•i —
• f> E •
CU -r- CU
4-> 4- 4->
•r- CU -r-
00 TJ 00
£=
O
£
O3
-a
03
CD •
CU T3
"O CU
O O
Z. C
•
cu
4->
o
^
o
4->
lO
"O
O3
S-
C31
CU
T3
O
^>
00
CU O
-a 4->
03
i- CO
en
cu c
•a -r-
i— 4J 00
o '2 >,
£1
c~
4->
•i —
OO
CU •
-o s-
03 >,
O^ r~~*
cu
•0 4J
3
r- O
•r- JO
O 03
4-
O
C"
o
• i—
-P
03
-o
03
C-
CDr—
CU -r-
Q 0
58
-------
Z
o
t— i LU
(— 00
fV* ^_j
CD
SI -
U- 1— Q
0 1-1 Z3
oo i—
Z 1 OO
O U_
oo u_
t-H O
o;
^£ T"
Q. h-
^— | .
0 3
O
00
LU
• 0
00 Z
^£
LU 1—
— 1 CO
CQ i-.
CD -r-
•o 01
(U 1
Q) <4-
O to O
s- re
4- 5 o E
4-J
Q) >> "
U i— -M r—
C T- -I- I—
re o wi o
-M OS
to 4- Q.
•t- O QJ
Q T3
to
r™™* *r~"
re -o
u
•r- E
•fJ O
Q) *r™
S- ••-> E
o re
O) i-
x: en
*~ ^
(/)
0) S-
U r- >,
C -i- 1
•r- O -»->
OO -r-
4-> 00
(U 00 O
E i- D.
•i- -r- O)
1— M- -0
^
>^
-M
•^
(/)
o
s-
o
D_
>,
+J
•r-
r—
•p.
_Q
fO
(U
^
(U
a.
c
o
re
o
•t—
"+-
01
to
re
^—
°
O)
co
-o
O)
0
^~ re i f> tfi
CM r— i—
Q.
O)
C
o
Z
ID i — CTi CM
CO i— •*
CO
A
*3-
CM CM LO CM
CM
If) O O ID
^* ^~ co co
CO CO CM
1 1 1
o o o
^O r— r— • r™"
r-~
XX X
o
CM CO tD
• • •
"* "~ '"
>, -o
re c
i— re
o to
>•> >,
-o E -o E e
c re c re re
re o re o o
01 i — 01 i — i —
-------
actual distance of off-site soil sampling at each of the four
case study sites. The maximum distance of migration is a
function of various factors, including:
• Time since the debris has been deposited on land;
t The type of oil in the debris;
• The degree of oil emulsification with water;
t The porosity and permeability of the soils;
• The annual average temperature and precipitation; and
• The depth and velocity of groundwater.
The minimum expected distance of oil flow through soils can be
approximated by the following equation:
D = V x T (Eq. 17)
where D = distance
T = time
V = Ks where
V = rate of water moving through a unit cross section
area
K = coefficient of permeability
s = gradient in direction of flow
Had all available data concerning each case study site been
available prior to planning and placement of monitoring wells,
several wells may have been located closer to the debris disposal
area. For example, Well D at Site C appears to be too far off-
site to have intercepted any oil migrating through the soil,
since theoretically, oil cannot migrate to the location of Well D
within the time period available. (The source of oil detected
in Well D could not be determined from data obtained during these
studies.) On the other hand, Well D at Site A is well within
the expected range of oil migration, if any migration
occurred.
Evaluation of the four operations studied here suggest that
proper site selection is the most important decision facing
persons responsible for oil spill clean-up debris disposal.
Land cultivation at Site A does degrade the oil but because of
porous subsoils, some undegraded oil does apparently migrate to
underlying groundwater and laterally away from the disposal area.
No such migration was apparent at Site B.
60
-------
Proper engineering design can possibly substitute for lack
of ideal soil and geohydrological conditions, as evidenced by
the apparently acceptable burial site at Site D. Encapsulation
of the debris mass in fine-grained soils allowed use of a portion
of an abandoned sand and gravel pit for disposal.
Both the land cultivation and burial techniques appear
acceptable for disposing of oil spill debris, judging from these
case studies. Suitably flat and tillable land must be readily
available to implement land cultivation and the debris cannot
contain large rocks or other rigid items.
The history of each case study site and field monitoring
activities are discussed in the following four sections. Note
that the case studies are referred to as Sites A, B, C, and D.
Specific locations of the two privately owned and operated
disposal sites (Sites A and C) are omitted. Also presented are
data from sample analyses and preliminary conclusions drawn from
the data. Recommendations for further monitoring and sample
analysis are provided where appropriate. References to data
sources are listed at the end of each case study section.
61
-------
SECTION 1 - CASE STUDY SITE A, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Background
Oily wastes from nearby oil drilling and storage activities,
including some oil spill debris, have been disposed of for many
years using land cultivation techniques at an oil sump in Ventura
County, California. A sampling program was instituted at this
site in conjunction with the project to obtain oil degradation
and migration data regarding an operational land cultivation
facility. Although most of the oily material processed at Site A
has not been debris from spills, information regarding the land
cultivation methodologies and the operation's environmental
impacts are considered applicable to similar disposal procedures
applicable for oil spill debris.
Site A is located approximately 113 km (70 mi) northwest of
Los Angeles on the coast of southern California. The Ventura
County coastal area is indicated on Figure 8. The oily waste
disposal site is situated on beach sands approximately 365 m
(1200 ft) from the Pacific Ocean. The site is roughly rectangu-
lar; present land cultivation activities are confined to a 12 ha
(30 ac) parcel on the western portion, as indicated on Figure 9.
A dirt road serves the site and provides access for vacuum trucks
which deliver most of the waste to the site. A 1.82 m (6 ft)
earthen berm has been maintained on the west and southern extremi-
ties to contain the liquid oily wastes on site.
Topographically, the site is located at the mouth of a wide
alluvial plain which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The plain
is characterized by a relatively level relief. Site A itself
exhibits a gradual western sloping relief of approximately 1.5
to 3 m (5 to 10 ft) due primarily to on-site grading.
Prior to its use as a land cultivation operation in 1954,
the site consisted of Pleistocene dune sands which are still
visible to the west. Since 1954, the land has been utilized
for land cultivation of oily wastes. Surrounding land use has
been primarily agricultural but is now being developed for
residential purposes.
Climate
Climatological data for the area is summarized on Table 9
(1). As shown, annual precipitation averages about 37 cm (15
in). Temperature varies from lows of 6 C (42 F) to highs of
23 C (73 F) (2). West and northwesterly prevailing winds are
frequent.
62
-------
GENERAL LOCATION
OF SITE A
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 MI
0 16 32 KM
^^^^^^^ PACIFIC OCEAN
FIGURE a. LOCATION OF CASE STUDY SITE A.
63
-------
SAND
DUNES
TRAILER
PARK
BERM
FENCE
CROSS-SECTION
ACCESS ROAD
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 9. SITE MAP - CASE STUDY SITE A.
-------
c
o
re
s-
o
Q.
re
o
i—i
CD
O
—i -
Q
O h-
CO
rv ii i
r>>oOLr>r^i
i — ooio
CM CM CS1 r— i—
CVJi —
001 — LDCVJOO
• • • • • •
O O '— CvJ 00 <£>
oo
OO CJl CM i— i— r—
• • O * • O
CO CM CM >— O O
r- «3- i— CM
• • • •
O O r— CO
(O
re
-a
re
-i->
o^ re
i— -O
o
10
LO
C-Q
O) >>
CT>Q.4->>0
co
a-i
c
O
Q.
T3
O)
in
re
CQ
CT>
C.
o
CL
3
"D
(U
to
re
CQ
65
-------
Geology and Soils
Information on the site's soils, geology, and hydrology was
obtained from available published reports and from observations
during well borings on March 19, 1976, performed as part of this
project.
The land cultivation operation lies in an area defined by
the United States Geological Survey as inactive dune sands which
parallel the ocean for several miles north and south of the site
(3). These fine sands extend inland approximately 914 m (3000
ft) where they form a contact with fine-grained, relatively
impermeable, alluvium sediments of Pleistocene Age (see Figure
10). The dune sands are relatively uniform in size, thus,
enhancing the opportunity for adsorption of percolating waste
oils and subsurface aeration. Sand depths are from approximately
4.5 to 9.1 m (15 to 30 ft) in this area. A typical soil profile
to a depth of 9.0 m (30 ft) is shown on Figure 11. The first
4.6 m (15 ft) is derived from sieve analyses. Figure 12 shows
the well logs for all wells drilled at Site A.
Below the permeable dune sands are several centimeters of
unconsolidated cobble-sized gravels which were encountered in
three of the well hole corings at the site. An impermeable layer
of elastics 45-60 m (150-200 ft) thick underlies these gravels
and provides an effective aquiclude for any further vertical
infiltration of waters.
Groundwater
Subsurface hydrology at the site is composed of 1) shallow
perched water at about 9.1 m (30 ft) deep, and 2) the deeper
Oxnard aquifer at about 60 m (200 ft). The Oxnard aquifer is a
water supply for the area; the shallower aquifer is not. Since
there is no hydraulic continuity between the deeper Oxnard
aquifer and the shallower perched water, any infiltration of
oily wastes could affect only the perched water. Characteristics
of the perched groundwater system are addressed below.
The perched water table is defined vertically by the imper-
meable sediments and horizontally by the ocean and inland
sediments. Since there is little or no contributing recharge
from the inland sediments, precipitation and runoff are the only
recharge sources of this perched water. Seasonal fluctuations
are radical, ranging from several meters above the aquiclude to
total saturation of the sands during periods of intense precipi-
tation. Movement of this perched water is assumed to be seaward
where discharge occurs. Figure 13 illustrates the estimated
groundwater elevations and direction of movement based upon
static water levels on March 19, 1976. The seawater tidal range
in the area is .9 m to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) and probably affects
the movement of this water; the degree is unknown. Conductivity
66
-------
CVi
<
UJ
u
o
o
I-
UJ
t-
UJ
en
2
O
U
UJ
Cfl
I
cn
CO
o
K
o
UJ
cc
U.
67
-------
F
1 -
2 "
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9
10 "
11 -
12 ~
13 -
14"
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
21-
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
DEPTH
T. N
1 .
2 .
3 .
4 -
5 -
6_,
7 -
1
COLUMN
/:••• •:•.•"•:.•:.•.•.•.•••
• ••••,*.•••• «••••••
,v.v: ••:•:•:••:'•'::::•
^«^££i^
'••//:V;>--:':v/-:>v///
[.••.•••:.•.'•'.•.••••. •••••'•'
• ...•'. '••.•.'•
•'•' •' •.'•'.'•'.'•'•'•'•.'••.'• : •;.';
'.••'.'•: .'.•.-.' ; .'/: •'.'; :•'.•.'. '
'''**•'.•'.''••.'.''.'•.'.'•''.'.'•
U-t^l fc' ' ' ^Jer^-^-- . • ''
-'V Ou ° c a" o^
a O~ 3 " " " "
0 U 1} ° ffC} " U O O v.
•
^ ///'
CLASSIFICATION
LOAMY SAND
(Note: All soil
classifications
are based on ASTM
43-2.1)
GRAVEL
CLAY
FIGURE 11.
TYPICAL SOIL PROFILE
CASE STUDY SITE A.
68
-------
DEPTH
FT M
0-r 0V
10
20
- 3.0
i- 6.0
30-L 9.0JL
WELLS
B C
.EGEND
FENCE
BERM
WELLS A-D
SURFACE SAMPLING
CROSS-SECTION
ACTIVE AREA
ACCESS ROAD
SAND
COARSE GRAVEL
CLAY
SOIL SAMPLES
WATER LEVEL
OIL/ SAND
Jf - /
NOT TO SCALE
'///,
FIGURE 12. WELL LOGS - CASE STUDY SITE A.
69
-------
SAND
DUNES
WELLS
STREAM LINES
WATER CONTOURS
EXTROPOLATED
CONTOURS
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 13.
GROUNDWATER CONTOURS - CASE STUDY SITE A.
70
-------
readings of this water show a IDS value of 25,000 ppm attesting
to probable salt water intrusion when hydraulic gradients permit.
Surface Water
The site surface hydrology consists of limited runoff in a
westerly direction during periods of intense precipitation.
High permeability of the sandy surface soils and relatively flat
topography suggest that minimal runoff occurs from the site.
Oily Wastes Received
Since 1959, Site A has received various types of oily
wastes from the 15 oil companies active in the area. Drilling
muds have constituted the largest portion. Oil content in the
drilling muds was historically about 10 percent. Recently, the
oil content has decreased to about 5 to 7 percent. Most of the
oils within these mixtures have been crudes, although specific
origins and oil types are nearly impossible to define qualita-
tively.
Most of the oily wastes presently received at the site are
drilling muds and oil and water mixtures derived from oil
storage tank bottoms. Some oil spill debris from the Santa
Barbara oil spill of 1969 was also accepted at the site, although
the specific quantities or locations of deposition are unknown.
Records of waste type and volume received have been main-
tained as required by the State of California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles. According to these records,
daily amounts received have ranged from 2.3 to 168 m^ (15 to
1,059 bbls) of oily waste per day. Recently, land cultivated
quantities have been approximately 3,200 m (20,000 bbls) of
oily waste per month.
Operating History and Disposal Procedures
In 1954, 12 ha (30 ac) of beach land were leased to a
private contractor for use as an oily waste disposal site. This
original plot was utilized as an oil sump where oily wastes were
lagooned until 1959. After that, land cultivation operations
began, and the material was mixed with indigenous sands. In
1959, another 14 ha (35 ac) directly west of the original
property was leased. Various sections of this land have been
used for land cultivation since this time. The original con-
tractor is still active at the site.
Land Cultivation Procedures ,
The procedures used at Site A have evolved by trial-and-
error over its 22-yr operating history. Site maintenance plays
an important role in the land cultivation operation. All active
71
-------
areas of the site are maintained level so that ponding and runoff
are minimized. The access road used by waste delivery trucks is
graded and maintained in good condition. Slopes from this road
to the active area are maintained at about 10 percent minimum,
so that the oily wastes can flow by gravity from the trucks onto
the level active area (see Figure 14).
After deposition in the working area, a track dozer mixes
the oily waste with sand and previously deposited oil waste to
promote aeration and contact with oi1-consuming bacteria.
Figure 15 shows the track dozer used and a recently mixed plot.
The dozer operator mixes the oily material with the sandy soil
by the combined action of pushing with the blade and churning up
the soil with the track. Several passes over the plot are
usually sufficient for thorough mixing. A disc harrow is used
less than five percent of the time. Under prevailing conditions,
the blade provides sufficient mixing. Mixing continues under
most weather conditions. Only in periods of heavy rain is the
mixing halted.
The dozer operator constitutes the only full-time employee
at the site. Traffic control is unnecessary since vacuum trucks
arrive infrequently throughout the day.
Monitoring the operation for environmental safety is
accomplished by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles. This agency also maintains monthly records
of the volume and origin of the deposited wastes. Review of
this agency's field notes and discussions with field investiga-
tors indicate only a few minor difficulties have been noted
during the 22 years of operation.
Several informal discussions with the site operator indi-
cated that he was confident of the effectiveness of this system
of oily waste disposal. The loose sand which previously occupied
the site has been transformed into a dark, silty-sand soil.
This is due in part to the large volume of waste muds brought
into the site from drilling operations. The soil is noticeably
more consolidated and seems to support plant life where dozer
activity does not interfere. Surficial soil in areas where land
cultivation has not occurred in several years appeared unoiled
and had no hydrocarbon odor.
No overall cost information is available. The operator did
indicate that discing of the soil/oil mixture is more costly
than normal dozer operations due to increased equipment wear.
The oil-sand mixture presents significant opportunities for
abrasion of all moving parts since the oily sand tends to stick
and act as a grinding compound.
72
-------
FIGURE 14. OILY WASTES DEPOSITED AT SITE A.
FIGURE is. MIXING OF OILY WASTES AND SANDS,
CASE STUDY SITE A.
73
-------
Case Study Monitoring
A monitoring program was devised for the Oxnard site to
attain two basic objectives:
• Determine the environmental impacts of oily waste
disposal by land cultivation in coastal California's
climate; and
• Determine the degree to which oil is decomposed by the
land cultivation activities.
Four wells were drilled at the site at the locations and to
the depths noted on Figure 12.
• One well (Well A) within the active area;
e One well (Well B) in a recently active, but now idle
area; and
• Two wells (Wells C and D) off-site and downgradient from
the other we!1s.
The wells were placed to ensure that any downward percola-
tion of oily material would be detected by sampling the under-
lying soils and groundwater. Well B was placed in an area that
had not been mixed for approximately three years.
All wells were drilled with a 15 cm (6 in) auger to the
depths shown in Figure 12. They were then cased with PVC pipe
and capped. The bottom 0.9 m (3 ft) of casing was grooved to
allow groundwater to pass into the casing for water sampling.
Water levels in each well remained relatively constant through-
out the day of installation. Water samples were taken from each
well for analysis of several parameters, as described in the
following section.
During well drilling, soil samples were taken at several
intervals, as shown on Figure 12 following procedures outlined
in Appendix A to this Volume II.
Soil materials encountered during drilling were uniform,
indicating the relative homogeneity of the subsurface regimen.
All samples of soil were packed in ice and returned to the
laboratory for analysis. Once per week for the following five
weeks, a sample of soil/oil mixture was taken for analysis from
or just below the surface. The sampling point was approximately
4.5 m (15 ft) south of Well A.
74
-------
Analytical Results
Tables 10 and 11 present the results of the various analyses
performed on oily soil and groundwater samples obtained from Site
A. Data on Table 10 pertains to samples taken on March 19, 1976.
Table 11 presents data on subsequent surface soil/oil samples.
The laboratory analytical techniques used to determine this data
are described in Appendix B. Note that all samples were not
necessarily analyzed for all parameters.
Data Evaluation--
Review of the analytical results in Tables 10 and 11 indi-
cate that oil may be migrating from the upper layers of the land
cultivation area to the perched water below. However, the data
is not extensive enough to prove that the land cultivation site
itself is the only source of detached oil. Nor can the areal
limits of oil migration be defined.
The concentrations of oil in soil samples taken from all
four wells range from less than 0.1 mg per g (at different depths
in Wells A, B, and C) to 34.2 mg per g at 1.5 m (5 ft) deep in
Well A. Although there are many anomalies, the overall trend
shows the oil content of soil samples decreasing with depth in
each well. Yet the oil content of soil samples as deep as 9.4
m (31 ft) were relatively high: 0.26 mg per g (or 260 ppm).
All water samples contained relatively high oil contents:
from 7.16 mg/£ at Well D to 36.8 mg/£ in Well A. This suggests
that oily material is reaching the perched groundwater, although
the oil source may or may not be from the land cultivation site.
Analyses of upstream groundwater were not available for compari-
son, however. (Seawater intrusion likely affects the perched
water further inland than the site, so background water may also
contain oil from the site.) The relative proportion of
paraffinic, aromatic, and polar oil fractions for oil taken from
water samples are close to those fractions of soil samples.
Oil may have entered the groundwater by downward migration
through the sand, or it could have been leached from the upper
soil profile during periods of high seawater intrusion, when the
groundwater elevations are near the surface. Also, oil explora-
tion and storage in the vicinity could contribute some of the
oil detected in the groundwater sampled.
Analyses of the samples of land cultivated oily waste and
soil mixtures obtained at one-week intervals for five weeks show
a slight trend toward reducing oil content with time (Table 11).
The sampling period was not of sufficient duration to show the
definite long-term effects of oil degradation, however. Also,
it is difficult to obtain consistent representative samples
from a land cultivation site since the soil/oil mixture is
75
-------
oo
UJ
OO
fit
1
LLJ
O-
00
UJ Q - 08
o
^
CD
r— -I- O1
4-> (0 S-
O C7)4->
1— S- -r-
o z
U
•r—
c -o
« T-
cr> o
s- <
o
JC i—
QL 0 E
<1J tO
> c
H-
a
i— 'c
3 4->
!£
)
> s«
4-
(U
- "a.
) E
to
oo
I
I. O
: Z
r-OOCOCMCO^l-CM O OOintOCOO CMCOOO
ootor— i — ooo i i cy>^j-cM^j-o«d- 001 —
OincMOOOOO Or— Or— OO OOO
in in t^oocoincr>coco CM co to co CM r— i— toini—
CM r— CO CM «d-
oinooinoocM i 10 ooominincM moto
ocTitoocMinom i 10 OCOCMCOCOCM r^ocM
cr»coco^a-oincr>cM r— minocoi— CM cocncM
tO r— CO CO CM CO CO CMCOCOCMCO ^J-^f-
OCMO«d-CMOOOO 1 lt~- OOOtOOlOO O^fr^.
co«*cocMinr— «i-o O coin. — coco, — incMO
co o^ p"- cy» in CT» in r— i i cr* oo cr* ^ in to o cr» i^ o
in'd-incoi — "Bf t»- i i m^i-cM«*r— i — co
O CT> i— CM CM «* CO «S-CMOOtOi— ~^-cYo*i-in COP>.CM
co m r^ i— i— CM co
m o o o o o o o i i o o ^i* o CM o o o o cr>
r^» rx, CM to CF* to to CM i i r^» co co oo co co rs* CM to to
m«3-cr> oo r— in co CM «d-
CM
tOi — coi^i — to i — «d-cocn*3- cMcn
i~cMcoocMcr>i i i i mtotototoi r^coi
<— r— r— CM r— r— i— r- i— r—
co in CM to o r— r— ooo cois--oino>>cr> co«d-co
O) i— i— CM CO r— O) r- r— r— r- i—
0 0
<4- <4-
i-o>mtooocy>«*co s-«d-o Or— o in r~. r-* OCM«SI-
coOi— co«*tocr>co COCMCO i— CM co «* in CM i— *i- CM
i. i. i. i.
ooooooora ooia oooooto o o to
000000000000003 OOOO3 OOOOOOOOOO3 OOOO3
i— CMco«*mtor-«co i— CM co r— CM co *3- in to r— CM co
< CQ O O
76
-------
C
O
o
S-
O)
4-}
O)
re
S-
re
Q.
-p
c
0)
S-
O)
Q.
*
C/)
c
o
•I—
•M
O
re
t.
1
o
re
'o
a_
u
•r—
•M
re
E
O
S-
•=c
c
re CD
4-> U U ^->.
o re o en
h- i- S- E
•»-> -a
x >,
Ol
f ,
4-> ^[ Q
Q. 0 E
oj re
Q OO
-M
(4-
E
CD
Q.4- Q.
>> 0 E
00
O>
•— 'o. ">CMCvir-.o
CMO cncriin
IOCM icncviun
cr»Oi—
CM
CM CM r— CM CM CM CM i— CM
r>~ i oo o »d-
CM oo CM i—
^± oo LO
i— oo r—
CO
CM
oo
en
CMOi—WDOOE COi—
oo
OO O OO O CO
ID
oo
CM O
oo
E r- r-
• •
*3- O O
•
oo
CM
i r-. o co
oo
cr>
en
CM r- E
O f^ CM
00
r— r- O r- r-- OO E
I i— OO O OO CD CD
CD
CT>
OO
OO
CM CM
O CD
in
oo
Lf>
CO CM E
I r-^ CD CO
in
en
U3 CO E
O i— CM
un .
r--.
C\J
oo tn CM <£> o i— i
i— i— CM OO i
coo oor^oincncn oo«^-co
0)
o
re
cu
o
^-TI+j ^Z.^^I^I^+j ^liT^j
ooooooore oore ooooore oore
OOOOOOOOOOOO002 00003 00000000002 00002
i— CMOO i— CMOO«3-UOIO i— CMOO
77
-------
1 1 1
1
D_
^
<;
OO
1
1— t
0 -
O Q
-
C£ __l
•=c
•z.
r-^ "*•
1
LU
_J
03
CD
E
re
S-
re
a.
•4->
c
cu
0
t.
cu
Q-
•>
c
o
.,_
•4->
u
re
s.
Lu
-
0
1
S-
re
o
a.
o
•r—
4->
ro
E
O
S-
<:
c
f-
M-
re
s-
re
Q.
A
t->
E
CU
4J
c cn
o —
-J en
E
,_
O
QJ 05
ID C7>
re E
4->
o «
re c
S- 0
+-> JD
X S-
LU re
0
— o
re s-
•M -a
0 >>
h- 3=
01
4- C
O ••-
CU Q.
-»-> E
re re
Q oo
en en to co i—
r-^ CM r^~ ' — i —
LO IQ LO (£> U3
CM LO CO r~ CM
• • • • •
CM cn o <— •—
r— r- i — i —
r->. LO LO co vo
• • • • •
cn r~-. i — ID r-^
CM CM F) CM CM
oo r^. CM co vo
• o o • •
CM O I"-- <£> *—
CO CO CM CM CO
i — O "*" O LO
• o • * •
cn CM '~ cn ^J"
CO •* CO CM CO
VO <^> VD
r^. 10 r>» r^ 10
-»^ r-^ -^. -^. r->
cn \ cn i— ^^
i — rv i — CM LO
-~«. "• — "~^ "*». "• —
co ^j-
-------
usually not homogeneous. Errors in later sampling may be reduced
by using cone and quartering techniques developed in the mineral
mining industry to obtain samples for assays.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Studies--
Evidence suggests that oil may be escaping the site through
the porous sandy soils. Most of the oil received apparently
remains at or near the land surface where it apparently degrades
within one year, according to the site operator.
Useful data on oil degradation rates could be obtained by
continued sampling of the soil/oil mixture at a designated
location at the site. Cone and quartering techniques should be
employed to obtain statistically representative samples over a
period of 8 months to one year.
Drilling of at least one other well off-site to the east
of the site could help define the extent of lateral migration
due to seawater intrusion. Also, the quality of the perched
groundwater away from the site should be determined by drilling
a well further inland away from the site's possible area of
influence.
79
-------
REFERENCES
1. Climates of the States. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1974. p. 573.
2. Climatological Data. California Annual Summary, 78(13).
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Rational Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Data Service, 1974.
3. Sea-Water Intrusion in California, Geologic Map of
California. Dept. of Water Resources, No. 66, Division
of Mines and Geology, 1969.
80
-------
SECTION 2 - CASE STUDY SITE B, LITTLE MOUNTAIN, UTAH
Background
In 1972, leakage in the dike of a waste oil lagoon near
Little Mountain, Utah, resulted in the out-flow of oily waste
and contaminated water onto a neighboring state bird refuge.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the site
an imminent and substantial hazard in October, 1973, after the
landowner failed to take the necessary actions to control the
oily waste leak.
EPA contractors began cleanup operations at the site in May,
1974. The upper layer liquid phase was collected by tank truck
and disposed of by landspreading at a site on Hill Air Force
Base property located near the leaking sump. Sludges at the
sump were mixed with local fine-grained soil and covered with a
soil cap.
The land cultivation disposal operation is the subject of the
case study. Both cleanup operations are fully described in the
On-Scene Coordinators report, presently in preparation by EPA
Region VIII representatives in Denver, Colorado.
Site B was selected to represent an oil spill debris disposal
land cultivation operation in a cold, dry climate. Also, much of
the disposal operations were closely supervised by EPA personnel
and the site has been periodically monitored by an EPA contrac-
tor, Dr. John Skujins, Professor of Biology, Utah State Univer-
sity, Logan, Utah. The monitoring program implemented during
this case study was thus developed to complement available
analytical data (1, 2).
Little Mountain, Utah, is located approximately 65 km (40 mi)
northwest of Salt Lake City and several miles due west of Ogden,
as shown on Figure 16. Case study Site B lies within 1.6 km
(1 mi) of the eastern shore of the Great Salt Lake, as shown on
the aerial photograph, Figure 17. A dirt road to a Hill Air
Force Base facility north of the site provides access. Remnants
of access roads constructed during oily waste disposal operations
are still visible (Figure 17). Figure 18 shows a plan view of
the various plots that received oily waste during land cultiva-
tion.
Topographically, the site lies near the toe of a small
mountain. Relief is characterized by numerous shale out-
croppings. The surface slopes at less than 5 percent on site
(Figure 19).
Land in the area of Site B is mostly vacant. Some structures
are present to serve the Air Force, and a Great Salt Lake Company
81
-------
UTAH
0 20 40 MI
0 32 64 KM
FIGURE ie. LOCATION OF CASE STUDY SITE B -
LITTLE MOUNTAIN, UTAH.
82
-------
I 111
CD <
Q.
Ill
I- IL
- O
(f)
0.
> a
Q h-
D
I- 10
CO Q
UJ <
(/) 3
< O
U h-
UL I
O H
CC
O O
I- Z
O ~
X
CL in
< -H
o: •
ui o
< CVJ
m ce
D UJ
O CD
i-i O
_l I-
CQ U
o o
HI
o:
83
-------
(8)1
N
LEGEND
PLOTS
WELLS'1-5
SAMPLING POINT
(NOT TO SCALE)
A-T
FIGURE is. SITE MAP - CASE STUDY SITE B.
84
-------
FIGURE 19.
LAND CULTIVATED
OIL APPLICATION
85
SURFACE TWO YEARS AFTER
- CASE STUDY SITE B.
-------
mineral recovery plant is located nearby. A railroad borders the
land disposal area on the south.
Natural vegetation in the area is sparse, consisting of
cheat grass and wild sunflowers. This site was classified as
unfit even for range pasture, although private lands to the east
of the site are used for sheep and cattle pasture and some
agriculture.
Climate
Pertinent climatological data for the Little Mountain area
is summarized on Table 12. Winds vary in direction but are
usually light to moderate, ranging normally below 32 kph (20
mph). Recorded temperatures vary from lows of -3°C (26 F) to
24°C (75 F). Annual precipitation averages 43.3 cm (17.1 in)
(1).
Geology and Soils
Available data indicate that the soils encountered during
drilling were representative of the Barton rocky loam series. A
composite soil profile based upon sieve analysis of samples
taken from test borings on April 20, 1976, is illustrated in
Figure 20. This soil apparently ranges in depth from several
feet in the northern extremity to approximately 3.0 m (10 ft) in
the southern portion of the site. Underlying this loam was a
very cobbly and stony layer of approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) deep
derived from massive tillite to the east. Approximately 50 to
80 percent of the soil mass consisted of cobbles and stones.
Beneath the cobbly substrate is a dark brown shale shown on
Figure 21. Numerous shale outcrops are visible on-site. While
the shale was near surface in several areas of the site, drilling
locations were selected to avoid such areas. This dense shale
exhibited a nearly vertical dip in the on-site outcrops (2).
Groundwater
Available information and well observations on April 20,
1976, indicate that no shallow groundwater system exists below
the site. This is due to several factors including the dense
underlying shale, high sorptive soil capacities, and the rela-
tively arid climate. The small amount of precipitation which
does occur is readily absorbed by the dry soil. The high
absorption property of the dry soils also minimizes any subsur-
face movement. It is expected that surface runoff is minimal as
well.
No water was encountered in any of the observation wells on
April 20, 1976. Ponded water was observed at an abandoned quarry
on the eastern boundary of the site. The elevation of the water
86
-------
Q
O
i—i
CD
O
|— CQ
s: LU
cj oo
Li_ >-
O Q
•=C
s:
to
C/l
=t
C/O
CM
ca
«c
0
•1 —
ra
i-
o
ex
ro
LU
c
O
"I™" T^
I \ s~~*
IQ r—
CL C
•r- C
O (O
Q.
>,
r— *
_c CD
-M S-
C 3
o -t->
s_
O) CU
CD Q-
ns E
i~ CU
CU H-
***
E
0
c
E
O
••-
o
0
Lo_
O
c
o
s:
cr>
CNJ
o
CVJ C\J CM f—
' • CM O1 00 O
W3 00 00 VD
CM
i- r— i— r— CM
• r— O O O r— r—
r— I— 1 — CMCM" — 1 —
o
(O
to
-a
O
VO
CTi
ro
IO
LO
r-.
en
c c
o o
Q. Q.
3 3
CJCl
<->••- cu >» • +•>
S- S- >> C r- CT
> O
ro
3
C
(/)
fO
CO
-a
cu
(O
CO
87
-------
DEPTH
FT. V
1 -
2 .
3 -
4 .
5 -
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
14 .
15
16 .
1-
2-
3-
4-
COLUMN
CLASSIFICATION
LOAM
SANDY LOAM
LOAM
SILT LOAM
FIGURE 20.
SOIL PROFILE BASED UPON SIEVE ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY SITE B.
88
-------
Q
Z
Ul
LU
-• o
Ul
<
I
lit
u
I/)
o
h-
K-
C
•z.
o
CM
—t-
o
m
o
in
-t—
o
N
O
CO
CD
UJ
I-
t-i
to
>-
Q
UJ
V)
<
o
z
o
(-1
1-
u
UJ
(ft
I
V)
(0
o
a
o
CVJ
UJ
ro
•o
CM
00 r-,
^ CJ
CM CM
89
-------
surface in the quarry is approximately 15 to 18 m (50 to 60 ft)
lower than the Site B surface.
Surface Water
No permanent surface water is present at the site. Drainage
channels and other surface manifestations of waters are also
absent.
Oil Spill Debris Disposal
For many years, waste crankcase oil, acid sludge, spent
filter cake, and train engine journal box oil were deposited in
the privately owned and operated Little Mountain waste oil sump.
In 1972, the sump was filled to capacity and closed. The opera-
tors took no further actions after site closure to remove
accumulated oil or auto bodies from an adjoining scrap yard that
had become mixed with the oily waste. Sump dikes were not
reinforced.
Subsequently, an overflow and seepage break in the dike
occurred on the southwest corner causing the entrapped water and
oil/water emulsion to flow out of the sump onto neighboring
state bird refuge land. Due to these conditions, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency declared the site an imminent
and substantial hazard in October, 1973. After landowners and
site operators failed to take necessary corrective action,
personnel from the Oil and Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning
and Response Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, EPA
Region VIII, began planning cleanup and sump closure procedures
in February, 1974.
In March, 1974, approval was obtained to use special federal
funds set aside for emergency spill cleanup activities to finance
this cleanup effort. EPA contractors thereafter began executing
oil cleanup and disposal operations. Dr. John Skujins was
retained by EPA to assist in the development of cleanup and
disposal plans.
Three basic types of oily waste material were present, and
each required disposal:
• Waste acid sludge from an Ogden oil re-refinery;
• Acid water and oil emulsion;
• Acid water with minor oil contamination.
EPA's disposal plan called for removal of the liquid
fraction to nearby land on Hill Air Force Base property, 3.2 km
(2 mi) west of the sump. There the contaminated water and oil
emulsion was land cultivated to facilitate aerobic decomposition
90
-------
of the oil fraction. (A small amount of acid sludge was also
removed for cultivation. However, most of the sludge was handled
at the sump site itself. The sludge was mixed with silty soil
imported from a nearby borrow pit after the liquid fraction was
removed by tank truck.)
While the primary purpose of this operation was to effec-
tively dispose of the liquid oily waste, Dr. George Rice of EPA
and Dr. Skujins took the opportunity to devise a concurrent
limited land cultivation research program. The site was sub-
divided into 21 plots (including one control plot), and varying
concentrations of oily waste and fertilizer were applied to each
plot. Figure 18 shows the location of each plot.
Prior to cultivation, the treatment plots were prepared by
scarifying, removing the rocks, discing, and tilling. Lime and
fertilizers (urea and phosphates) were applied to the native
soils to neutralize the acidic emulsion and to provide nutrients
for bacteriological decomposition; (Values of pH for the
untreated emulsion ranged from 1.0 to 2.0.) The soil and
admixtures were then tilled to a depth of approximately 21 cm
(5 in). The liquid material was spread by tractors on the
scarified plots and mixed with the soil by discing to assure
adequate aeration and soil-oil mixture.
Most of the cultivated materials consisted of oil and water
emulsions amounting to approximately 4,500 m3 (1.2 million gal).
Of that, a total of 2,800 m3 (750,000 gal) were emulsion that
was deposited on 14 separate plots designated A through N
(Figure 18). The other waste was acid water only slightly
contaminated with oil which was spread on plots 0 through R.
Oil stained soil and sludge amounting to approximately 481 m3
(630 cu yd) was deposited in plot T. Table 13 indicates the
application rates for oily waste and additives for each plot (3).
Dr. Skujins was retained by EPA to monitor the cultivated
plots for 18 months. Dr. Skujins sampled surface soil and oil
emulsion mixtures at various times during and after the land
cultivation activities, as follows:
June 6, 1974;
August 2, 1974;
November 7, 1974;
March 10, 1975;
April 22, 1975;
May 20, 1975;
June 27, 1975;
July 16, 1975;
September 12, 1975;
April 20, 1976.
91
-------
oo
I— =t
Q =D
LU
Q «
Q Z
LU CQ
I—
«=C LU
oo
^J-CQCOCO*d-«3-«d-COCO
CM
• CM CM CM i—
oooooooooooooo
LOLOLOLOOLOLOOOLOLOLOOLO
CMCMCMCMLOt^CMLOLOr-^r^l-^LOCM
CU
CUO OOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOOI I I
Ero OOOCOCOOOCOCOOOOOI
cocncncncniococncncncncococo
CO
J3
•*—f
*
co
3 r^cooi—r—cncncocococOLOLOLOo i oo
o
O O) CMi— Csli— i— *d-«d-«3-«d-«3-«=*-OOOOOOr— O
ro 3 i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— LO
O) ^ q-
co ro
ro CD
O
C
o
O -I— or^oooor^r^-cncncncnLOLOLOcQ
CO
cocn^j-ooooLOLOoooooooocncncncn
3 r— r— r— CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMi— i— i—•
LU
co or^-^-oocor^i— cocoocM'^-^i-'^t-ocn o
cu cncnor-^cncocnocncMOcnoococMcn
i_
O COOCOOOOOi— Or- r~OOO«=tO
oo
^a-
o
CL.
eC CQ O Q
LL. CD rc
*
*
•<->-(->
Q- C£ CO C
» " 3 O
o cy Q o
CU
Q.
E
co
ro
I/)
CU
O
00
CO
ro
C
o
•>-> 3
CO
3
o
-o
CU
CO
o
co Q.
X
O CU
r- CU
O 3 E
CO CT O
ro i-
t-
co
C -O
CU O CU
3 r- Q.
CTi— Q.
ro ro -r-
CD i-
M- +->
O O co
O
T3 O r-
ro «T-
O 1^ O
i— CO
o '• -a
3 cu cu
i- E £=
ro +J T- T-
^: i— ro
CD O CO CO
-^ ro -O I
CU C i—
CM 3 -r-
•— O O O
X> O O
II CU LO
T3 CO
I T3
u -a
ro ro
JO co
r— ro
O "3
•a o
C S-
ra 4->
C
fC O
-C O
Q.
CO
CO S-
• o
r~- 4-
II O)
^
f_>
ro
r— 14-
ro O
CD
rO O
i- -r-
CU 3
-P O
(O
E O
•r^ 00
X "vO
° >1
D-r—
Q. CU
ro
• •!—
C X
o o .
o s- e
CD Q- O
rO Q--4->
•— ra -P
O
CU co -Q
.. 01
O) C
-P O
O
2= *
(O O
g -P O
O C CD
S- O tO
*
*
-------
Table 14 shows the extensive list of parameters analyzed by
Dr. Skujins. Results of the 1974 and 1975 analyses are reported
in annual reports to EPA (2, 3).
In April, 1975, the fertilized plots were cultivated for
the second time. Also, more fertilizer was added to previously
fertilized plots. Subsequently, evaluation of the monitoring
results showed that no environmental problems have occurred.
Furthermore, the oil content in the plots has steadily decreased.
Consequently, the land cultivation disposal operations were
declared complete in October, 1975. The area was tilled and
seeded, and temporary access roads were removed.
EPA plans to continue periodic monitoring at Site B to
ensure that environmental conditions remain acceptable. In
addition, the State of Utah Health Department has monitored the
ponded water for certain constituents since 1andspreading
activities began. No significant change in water quality has
been reported.
Case Study Monitoring
A limited monitoring program was devised for the Little
Mountain case study site aimed toward developing data not yet
obtained during previous work.
The monitoring program proposed will entail the taking of
various soil, soil/oil, and water samples and subsequent
analyses thereof. Specifically, the monitoring undertaken during
this case study provides information about the extent of oil
migration into the soil (below about 12 cm), if any. To a
limited degree, some results of this work can be compared with
corresponding data developed by Dr. Skujins to check analytical
consi stency.
A total of five wells were drilled and cased on April 20,
1976, at Site B. The location and depths of these wells
(designated Wells 1 through 5) are shown on Figure 22.
Well placement was selected so that plots representing
various combinations of nutrient and oil emulsion concentrations
were covered. Table 15 indicates the rationale for well loca-
tion selection. Well locations were discussed with Dr. Skujins
to ensure information complementary to his prior and planned
work would be obtained. Dr. Skujins was present during well
drilling and soil sampling.
All wells were drilled with a 12 cm (5 in) truck-mounted
auger, cased with 10 cm (4 in) PVC pipe and capped. The bottom
0.9 m (3 ft) of each pipe was grooved to facilitate infiltration
of any subsurface water into the well. As noted previously,
however, no subsurface water was found.
93
-------
TABLE 14. PARAMETERS ANALYZED BY DR. J. SKUJINS DURING
MONITORING AT CASE STUDY SITE B
Soil Features
Texture
% Saturation
% Water content
. at -1/3 atm.
. at -15 atm.
Oil content
(ml/gm soil)
Soil respiration
(/u moles C02/g/
min)
Microbial composi-
tion
(* by type)
Parameters
Reported as %
Kjeld. N
Organic C
P (total)
Lime
Al
Gypsum
Parameters
Reported as
Watersol
meq/lOOg
Cl"
HC03-
Na
K
Ca
Mg
Parameters
Reported in ppm
N03"B
Fe
Zn
As
Se
Hg
Co
Pb
Cd
Cu
Mn
Ba
Ni
V
Be
B
P (available)
Calculated
Values, in
Exch. meq/lOOg
Na
K
Ca
Mg
Parameters
Reported as
meq/lOOg
Cation exchange
cap. (CEC)
Na ^
K L fNH_OA PYtrar
Miscellaneous
Parameters
pH
EC
(mmhos/Cm)
Biological activity
(mg formazan per
100 ml filtrate)
Aerobic bacteria
(N/g dry soil)
Anaerobic bacteria
Proteolytic
organisms
Carbohydrate
utilizers
Li poly tic organisms
Hydrocarbon
utilizers
Fungi
Streptomycetes
•t.ahlp^
Mg
I
94
-------
[
F
0_
1 O .
20.
>EPTh
T »
- 6-
H
A
1
V/WL-
yyi
%%
m
&y*
.if*
nr
2
&
i?;
^>
w •
WEL1
3
_S
.4
$;
1
?
|=
5
;!^::i
: :
:':t :•'
:^|:
LEGEND
PLOTS A-T
WELLS 1-5 ®
ACCESS ROAD ~
T P MD n D A D v
ROAD
LOAM :-::-::
SAND LOAM jj^l
SILT LOAM Hl|:f
SOIL SAMPLES®
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 22. WELL LOGS - CASE STUDY SITE B.
95
-------
TABLE 15. RATIONALE FOR TEST WELL LOCATIONS,
CASE STUDY SITE B
Wei
1 No.
Plot
1 Co
No
Rela
of
ntrol ;
. of A
ti ve
Urea
NA
Amount
Added
Relat
Emu
i
1
ve Amount
si on Added
NA
of
2 F
3 G
4 C
5 N
Highest
Lowest
Lowest
Lowest
Highest
Highest
Lowest
Low
Soil samples were obtained at several intervals, as shown
in Figure 22. The soil samples were relatively uniform between
wells indicating a consistent subsurface regimen within the
study area.
Data Evaluation--
Results of analyses performed on the soil samples taken
from Site B are presented on Table 16. Also shown are the
concentrations of selected parameters found in the quarry water.
All analyses were performed on samples taken April 20, 1976.
The analyses suggest that little if any vertical infiltra-
tion of the oil into the soil has occured. Relatively high oil
content values are shown for all surface samples at Wells 2, 3,
4, and 5. Yet the oil content of soils 0.6 to 1.0 m below the
surface are lower by a factor of 10 or more. At depths greater
than 1.5 m, oil content of the soil is
the surface at the same well location.
field observations; no visible oil was
12 cm during drilling.
100 times less than at
These results confirm
detected at depths below
The relative concentrations of paraffinic, aromatic, and
polar oil fractions further suggests that no surface oil has
migrated downward. Surface samples show a distinctly different
combination of fractions than do subsurface soil samples. Also,
note that the oil detected in both the off-site control soil
sample and in the quarry water contains more than 80 percent
polar hydrocarbons while the applied oil apparently is in the
range of 59 to 71 percent polar fraction.
Aerobic microbial activity in the surface samples is at
least three times greater than subsurface samples for any given
96
-------
CO
LU
co
Z
UJ
_J
1 1 1 *
Q H- Z
Z i— i >— i
< co «=c
—1 >- Z
t-i Q ro
o => o
co t— s:
CO
U- UJ
O UJ _l
co i—
CO ct I—
1— O i-i
_1 —I
co
LU
C£
to
LU
CQ
T3
•+-> i—
t/> O
ro SI
O)
>- oC
1 U
-Q
O
LJL
0.
o
D_
c
(_> CJ
i— M- en
(O E O
4-> ro i-
O CT>4->
1— $- ••-
O Z
O
•r~*
C TD
ro •!-
0> U
s- <:
o
OJ
S- -M
3 C
•r- C
O)
.C i—
4-> 4- Q.
Q. 0 E
O) ro
Q CO
CU
Q.4-
1 —
OJ
i— Q.
O) ro
3 CO
to
0
0
O
c
3
O
O
OJ
ro
Q.
O.
2
J
4-
E
d)
Q.
E
ro
CO
O
OJ«v)-tOtOi — LOi — OJ COCO
i— f-vOOO LOOO CO«*OOJ COOi—
V i— VJ V
«3- LOOI — i — oji — i — i — «d-i — i — oji — i —
OJ CO i— V V V V r— V V V
O OOtOO «d-OJLO OOLOO OOO
co oenLOco oojco -si-ococo ooi->~
tooo^i"r— r~»c\i cno ^tocncvj
co to r^ oj en
OJ tOCOf-.tO ^i-OOO "!d-^-tO^- COOO
i — i^ ^~ LO en r— i — . *sj~ r1^ co co en to co oj
CO OJ r— OJOJOJ CO t— OJ r— r— OJ r—
i— OJ
en tocnr-co ot-^r--. LOI — coto tooo^-
to r--i — -d-oj O'si-r^. ojr~-*i-co ocoo
OJ OJCOCOCO COCOCO CO^fCO^f- COOJCO
i — LOCOi — co i — r-»i — LOI — Lor-~ «d-oco
en «3-cOi — co oji — co cncoojcn r-»oco
co oco«3-^j- LO^I-CO OJLOOJ^J- IOCOLO
LO coojto«3- i — oo"* ojcococo r^-Lot^
OJ CD P~» r— LO r— i — Cn =fOJi— ^"tOOJ^t LOCOr—
en r-^.tocOi— ojr^to ojcoocn co •— en
r^ en r^. to co r— ^- i — r— ^a- ^- co *3* ^ LO
p— r— 1 —
oj^d-to «=fcn coLO^a- coco
O) O) O) O) r— O)
u o o o o
ro rO ro ro ro
4-4- 4-4- 4-
i- s-toojco i_oji^« s-cnLocNj s-o«*
3 ^ . - • 3-. 3... 3-.
tO 1/lOr— i — tOi — OJ tOOr— ^f- tOr— OJ
•r- T- •!— -i—
O O O O
O OOOO OOO OOOO OOO
co cocococo cococo cocococo i/icoco
O
(O S-
3 M-
97
-------
*••— N
-o
o>
Z3
c
+J
E
o
u
p— -
LU
_l
CO
1—
cu
cu
to
10
Q.
•*->
cu
u
i.
cu
Q
'
l/l
E
O
•r—
O
S_
u_
r—
O
fO
"o
D_
U
• r^
4->
fO
O
S-
c
E
fT3
S-
re)
Q-
4J
c
cu
E CD
O "*••>*
o en
E
5
CU E
r— O
-Q -O
r— «3 i-
ro 4-> ft) O>
+-> o u -•-,
O (O O Cn
1- i- S- E
X >>
i-u or
O <4-
cu
r" j —
4-> CX
Q. E
cu to
0 co E
CU
r- Q. «
•— E 0
cu 03 z:
!3 co
^!
CO
CO
^
CO
CO
LO
CO
^)-
CD
vo
CO
Lf*>
CNj
CTt CO CO
o
1 —
en
o
o
£
o
cu
u
to
<4-
s_
3
OO
=3;
,-_
UD
OO
O
OJ
O
^
CU
u
to
(f«
s_
oo
cC
CM
o
OO
VD
CO
o
LO
CM
•-
CM
U3
O
03
CO CO
i — CM
LO LO
^J" CO
LO co
OJ LO
co «=i-
^)- ^~
CO «!*•
i— CTl
O O
co *a-
O CM
^-vo
oj co
* •
0 Q
O"> ^- CO CO OJ
CO CT) CTi CTi CO
^O VO LO *O LO
vo
i — r^ CM «d- o
LO CT)
cr> co o r-- 10
to LO ^J- co
en o o co r—
*— CXJ
O CO VO O LO
co «d- o en "J-
IO O O IO i —
CM CO
cu *tf- en cu oo
0 0
to to
i[ l[
S- oj i — i- en
3 • . 3 .
CO r— CM OO O
eC CQ 0 LO
r^"» i OJ ^^ *«J
LO co to oj cn
o co r-- o CM
» CM
i— cvi «d- -a- o
o o LO o o
2^ S^S
CD O LO O O
LO ^1- (U CO CO
i— O
to
q-
LO OJ S- O •«*•
r— *f CO r— OJ
CJ Q <=C CQ CJ
LT>
LO
en
co
CM
^
CM
r~~
^^^
C7)
E
cn
o
cn
i— •
o>
LO
en'
cu
f> ^_
Er
>-
CO 3
err
cu E
+•* o
fO S_
3 M-
98
-------
well. Low moisture content in the subsoil is at least partly
the cause of reduced biological activity at these depths. The
fact that aerobic bacteria at the surface at Well 1 (control) is
about 0.5 of that at the surface at any other well indicates
that the oi1-degrading bacteria have established themselves in
the oiled plots.
Note that the nitrogen and phosphate concentrations are very
high for all soil samples, although only Wells 2, 3, 4, and 5
were placed on plots that received area and phosphate applica-
tion.
Sodium and chloride concentrations show no definite pattern
in the oil plots. The high chloride concentration in the quarry
pond is likely due to the proximity of salt licks. The reason
for the very high sodium value for Well 1A in comparison with
all others is not known.
As expected, lead concentrations at the surface in the oil
plots are high due to the lead content of the applied emulsion.
Background lead is essentially of the same concentration as in
subsurface soil samples in the plots.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Studies--
Overall, it appears that the oily waste land cultivation
disposal project at Site B is not causing environmental problems.
The oil concentration is decreasing, according to Dr. Skujins1
data, and oil is not migrating away from the immediate region of
deposition. Plant uptake of heavy metals has not yet been
checked.
This successful operation can be attributable to the
careful planning and operation of the land cultivation activity
and fortunate availability of a well-suited site. The high
sorptive capacity of the tilled soils coupled with the low
precipitation and high annual evaporation rates combine to allow
microbiological degradation of the oil while impeding its out-
ward migration. Also, volatilization of the lighter oil
fractions may help reduce oil concentrations, especially during
the summer when evaporation rates are high.
No additional drilling is necessary. It would be beneficial
to check each well already drilled for water periodically during and
after the wet season. If water is detected, samples should be
taken and analyzed for oil content.
99
-------
REFERENCES
1. Climatological Data. Utah Annual Summary, 77(13), U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Environmental Data Service, 1975.
2. Soil Survey Davis-Weber Area, Utah. United States Dept. of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1968. pp.
76-77.
3. Skujins, J. Technical Monitoring of the Oil Disposal Site,
Ogden Bay Waste Oil Lagoon Incident. Little Mountain,
Utah, Annual Report, 1974. Submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado, January
3, 1975.
4. Skujins, J. Technical Monitoring of the Oil Disposal Site,
Ogden Bay Waste Oil Lagoon Incident. Little Mountain, Utah,
Annual Report, 1975. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado, October 15,
1975.
100
-------
SECTION 3 - CASE STUDY SITE C, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Background
Oil spill debris collected during a beach cleanup on the
coast of California north of San Francisco was disposed of in
specially excavated trenches in February, 1971. Conditions
at Site C are considered representative of typical oil spill
debris disposal by burial. A limited monitoring program, in-
cluding analysis of soil, ail spill debris, and groundwater
samples was undertaken to determine the environmental compati-
bility of this particular disposal method at this location.
The oil spill debris burial trenches are on private prop-
erty and occupy approximately 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) of land. Access
to the trenches from the paved county road is by dirt road.
Several structures are clustered about 1.5 km (0.9 mi) to the
north of the trenches.
Figure 23 shows a plan view of the disposal site. A total
of seven trenches or silos designated by numbers 1 through 7
were excavated. Silos 1 through 6 were completely backfilled
with oil spill debris; silo 7 is only partially full.
Site C's topography is defined as a marine terrace area
with gently sloping hills rising to the east. Slopes average
5 percent grade. The site contains several canyons between the
hills which provide drainage. Six of the disposal silos were
excavated into one of these hills on a west-facing slope;
these are referred to as the "south silos" on Figure 24. The
seventh, partially filled silo (referred to as the "north silo")
is on a south-facing slope on the opposite side of the canyon.
Surrounding land is used primarily for agriculture and
pasture. Cattle graze at the site and are often seen on and
around the debris disposal area itself.
Climate
Climatological data for the Site C area is summarized on
Table 17. Prevailing winds are typically easterly throughout
the year. Temperatures range from -1° C (30° F) to 35° C (94°F).
Mean annual temperature is 13.5° C (56° F).
Geology and Soi1s
Available records show that Site C lies on a coastal terrace
of middle Miocene marine deposits. The soils are part of the
Rohnerville series which consist of moderately well-drained
loams. The uppermost 0.3 m (1 ft) consists of a silty loam
underlaid by about 1 m (3 ft) of yellowish sandy clay loam with
101
-------
DIRT ACCESS RETAD
TRENCHES
SPRINGS
LEGEND
DRAINAGE CHANNEL!
0 1.1 2.2 MI
l'. 8 3.6 KM
FIGURE 23. GENERAL AREA MAP- CASE STUDY SITE C,
102
-------
DIRT ACCESS ROAD TO TRENCHES
NORTH SILO
'& 30'-35'
SOUTH SILOS
SPOSAL TRENCHES
MONITORING WELL
SOIL CORING LOCATIONS
INFILTRATION GALLERY
AND FRENCH DRAIN
NOT TO SCALE
PACI
OCEAN
FIGURE 24.
SITE MAP - CASE STUDY SITE C.
103
-------
CD
O
O O
_l 00
O
U_ Q
O ID
I—
>- 00
=3; LU
5100
s: <
ID O
oo
CQ
(O
i.
o
Q.
fO
Q. C.
•r- C.
O
-M S-
(U 0)
CT Q.
S- O)
0)1-
E
u
E
u
o
o
c
0
2:
10
r— r— r— i— CM CM r—
O
i — COLO' —
VO
"— 00
'OOOOCVJLOO C\J
r— LO
O O C\J 00 O CM
i f a . . o «
o
10
o
0
(C
3
C
C
(O
rt3
•a
O (O
i
i— LO
oo t-~
cri 01
o o
a. Q.
3 3
"O T3
Ol O)
fO f^
oa oo
* +
104
-------
moderate to slow permeability (4 x 10"4 to 1.3 x 10'3 cm/sec).
Drillings during installation of monitoring wells on March 24,
1976, and subsequent soil analysis confirmed this characteri-
zation. A profile of the uppermost 4 m (13.1 ft) of soil is
shown on Figure 25, based on sieve analyses performed on soil
samples taken from Site C.
Monterey shale underlies the surface soils to an undeter-
mined depth. This Miocene shale formation is very fissile and
fractured as noted in nearby outcrops. Figure 26 shows a cross-
section at Site C through one of the debris disposal silos.
Groundwater
° Characteristics of the subsurface hydrology of the site can
be described on the basis of well observations on March 24 and
May 15, 1976, and available background data for the area.
There is apparently no defined groundwater system in the vicin-
ity of the site. The nearest producing groundwater wells are
located approximately 3.1 km (2 mi) northeast of the site.
There, three wells draw 0.95 to 1.9 I/sec (2 to 4 cfs) from a
blue sand at about 61 m (200 ft). A well approximately 1.61 km
(1 mi) to the northeast was drilled to a depth of 762 m
(2500 ft) without encountering sufficient water for pumping.
A nearby city (4 km east of the site) derives its municipal
water supply from local dammed surface waters.
On March 24, 1976, water was observed in the previously in-
stalled on-site well (called Well E in this report) and in the
recently installed Well B. Figure 23 shows the well locations.
Water was observed in Wells B and E again on May 15, and also in
Well D. The lack of water in Well C on both occasions could
result from several subsurface conditions. Determination of
these conditions was beyond the scope of this project. In ad-
dition, several springs downgrade from Wells B and D in the in-
terfluve west of Well D were noted during May. These springs
were active although no rain had fallen in the area for approx-
imately 6 weeks. The small amount of water observed emanating
from the springs discharged into the ocean.
Water observed in Wells B and D is probably the result of
water movement through a fracture system within the upper layers
of the fissile shale. Water elevation measurements in Wells B,
D, and E based on relative elevations of the well casings deter-
mined in the field, and the presence of springs to the west and
at a lower elevation than the wells suggest that under normal
hydrological conditions groundwater moves from east to west
(see Figure 31). The origin or areal extent of this groundwater
was not determinable within the scope of this project.
Surface Water
No permanent surface water is present at the site. As
105
-------
DEPTH
FT. M
COLUMN
1 -.
2 ..
3 ..
5
6 ..
7
8
9
10 ._
11 -.
12 ..
13 --
2-,-
3..
4-L
CLASSIFICATION
SILT LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SHALE
FIGURE 25. SOIL PROFILE BASED UPON SIEVE ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY SITE C.
WELL D
SILTY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SHALE
LEGEND
: OILY DEBRIS 3&SS&
*m&W* WATER r i i , i i
• . 0 1 5 0 ' 3 O O '
FIGURE 26.
CROSS-SECTION Aj - A2
CASE STUDY SITE C.
106
-------
noted, several natural channels drain the site. These channels
empty both surface runoff and groundwater discharged from the
fractured shale into the ocean on the west.
Oil Spill Debris Disposal
Debris deposited at this site reportedly consisted of the
following materials:
• Bunker fuel oil (9.3 API Gravity, viscosity 165 to 175
ssu @ 122°F);
• Oil-coated beach sand;
• Oily straw; and
• Seaweed.
Corings into the debris mass at Well B on March 24, 1976,
intersected mostly oil-coated beach sand. Small amounts of
straw and seaweed were also observed.
A total of about 3,060 m3 (4,000 cu yd) of oil spill debris
was deposited in the seven trenches at the site.
Debris Disposal Activities
An accident at sea caused 3 to 5 m3 (about one thousand gal)
of bunker fuel oil to spill into the Pacific Ocean. Much of
this oil, along with some seaweed, washed up on beaches north
of San Francisco. Cleanup efforts entailed removal of oil-
coated beach sand and stockpiling at a beach parking lot while
options for debris disposal were investigated.
The nearest sanitary landfills were situated about 30 to
35 km (19 to 22 mi) from the stockpile sites. Access to these
established sites was via secondary highways that were not well-
suited for the heavy truck traffic that would be necessary to
remove accumulated debris. Accordingly, a more local disposal
area was sought.
Review of available geologic and soils information and land
ownership records resulted in selection of Site C. Permission
to use the site for debris disposal was secured, and disposal
activities commenced about one week after cleanup operations
began.
At the disposal site, seven silos were excavated into the
hillsides, using scrapers and track dozers. Figure 27 shows
an aerial view of the site during silo construction and dis-
posal pperations. Ripper attachments were used to remove the
shale material from below depths greater than 1.5 to 2.3 m
107
-------
FIGURE 27.
AERIAL VIEW OF DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
AT CASE STUDY SITE C, 1971.
FIGURE 28. PARTIALLY COMPLETED SILO BEING FILLED - SITE C.
108
-------
(5 to 7.5 ft). Silos were excavated to about 3.7 to 5.5 m
(12 to 18 ft) deep. The silos vary somewhat in size; the range
of typical dimensions and spacings between silos is indicated
on Figure 24. A photo taken during construction is shown in
Figure 28. Figures 29 and 30 illustrate typical trench cross-
sections before and after filling with debris.
After completion of the first silo and during excavation of
the others, debris began to be hauled from the stockpile near
the cleanup site to the disposal silos. Double-axle dump trucks
and tractor-trailer rigs were used for debris transportation.
Oil spill debris was deposited directly into the silo mouth
from the dirt access road.
The silos were filled with alternate layers of debris and
previously-excavated soil, as depicted in Figure 29. The inter-
mediate soil cover was used to provide a firmer footing for
debris delivery trucks when discharging their loads into the
silos. A final soil cap, 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) thick was
placed on the top of each completed silo to impede infiltration
of precipitation. Approximately two-thirds of the volume of
each silo is filled with debris. The remaining volume is oc-
cupied by intermediate and final soil cover.
All oil spill debris was buried within approximately one
month. The land surface was graded to conform as closely as
possible to surrounding undisturbed contours. Grass seed was
applied, but insufficient moisture prevented germination. A
runoff diversion channel was cut into the natural ground upgrade
from each of the silos. Another channel was cut next to the
road at the toe of each silo.
Routine Monitoring and Corrective Actions
Periodic examination of the site, after completion of dis-
posal operations, indicated some ponded water in the drainage
trench at the toe of several silos. An oily sheen was noted
on this water. Also, some oil was observed in patches, oozing
through the cover soil.
Thus, as a precaution, a gravel-fi11ed trench was installed
in late 1971 on the southwest end of the south silos and at the
base of Silos 1, 2, and 3 to intercept any groundwater that
may have contacted the oil spill debris. A steel-cased well
(Well E) was placed southwest of the six south silos in the
French drain (see Figure 24). As of May 1976, no visible
migration of oil has been observed, following these corrective
actions.
109
-------
RUNOFF DIVERSION TRENCH
DRAINAGE TRENCH
ACCESS ROAD
TRENCH DEPTH
12*-18'
(NO SCALE)
FRENCH DRAIN (INSTALLED AFTER FILLING
AT THE TOE OF SILOS 1, 2, AND 3)
FIGURE 29. CROSS-SECTION OF TYPICAL DEBRIS
DISPOSAL SILO BEFORE FILLING - SITE C.
1* ! INTERMEDIATE SOIL COVER-,
FINAL SOIL COVER 3*-4' DEEP ^ 3 •_
^
DRAINAGE TRENCH """ " __~-__-~_~~___-<
ACCESS ROAD
(NO SCALE)
FRENCH DRAIN
FIGURE 30.
CROSS-SECTION OF TYPICAL DEBRIS
DISPOSAL SILO AFTER FILLING - SITE C,
110
-------
Case Study Monitoring
A limited monitoring program was devised for case study
Site C to determine the following basic information:
• Environmental effects of burying oil spill debris; and
• Apparent degradation rates of oil spill debris under low-
oxygen, high-humidity conditions.
A total of nine corings were drilled at the site on March
24. Four of these corings were cased and are designated as
Wells A, B, C, and D. Their locations and depths are shown on
Figure 31. Well E was already placed at the time of case
study moni tori ng .
The well locations were selected to provide information on
any oil migration patterns and to obtain samples of oil spill
debris from a sequestered burial area. The rationale for place-
ment of each well is as follows:
• Well A - Situated between two silos, soil and water sam-
ples from this well would indicate if any lateral migra-
tion of oil through the soil has occurred.
• Well B - Oil spill debris samples from various levels
within the disposal silo would show the extent to which
oil migrates downward within the debris mass, if it
mi grates at all.
• Well C - Background soil and water characteristics would
be obtained from this well, located upstream from the
area of debris disposal.
• Well D - Samples from this apparent downstream well
would indicate the extent to which oil migrates down-
gradient away from debris disposal area.
All wells were drilled with a 20 cm (8 in) auger and cased
with 12 cm (5 in) PVC pipe. The bottom 0.9 m (3 ft) of each
pipe was grooved to facilitate water infiltration into the well.
Soil samples and oil spill debris were obtained at several
intervals during the well drilling, as shown on Figure 31. Soil
samples obtained during the drilling exhibited isotropic con-
ditions between wells, indicating a consistent subsurface regi-
men within the study area.
Water samples were taken from Wells B and E on the day of
drilling (March 24); no water was detected in Wells A, C, or D.
On subsequent wel1-sampling on May 15, water was found in
Wells B, D, and E. The water level in Well B (in the silo) was
111
-------
RELATIVE ELEVATION OF WELLS FROM GROUND SURFACE AT C
C
10
20
3°L— 9L_
FEET METERS
B
LEGEND
SILTY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SHALE
OILY DEBRIS
SOIL SAMPLES
WATER LEVEL (5-15-76)
.NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 31
WELL LOGS- CASE STUDY SITE C,
112
-------
approximately 0.75 m (2.5 ft) higher than the depth measured in
March. Well C was still dry.
Analytical Results
Tables 18 and 19 show results of the various analyses per-
formed on soil, oil spill debris, and groundwater samples ob-
tained from case study Site C. Plots of the hexane extractable
(paraffin) fraction of each sample analyzed for oil content were
also obtained and reviewed. Reported oil concentrations include
both dissolved and free oil.
Data Evaluation
Evaluation of the analytical results on Tables 18 and 19, in
relation to the sample locations and probable groundwater flow is
discussed below.
There is apparently no downward migration of oil from the
upper layers of the oil spill debris to the lower layers, since
no pattern of increased oil content with depth is observed for
in silo samples.
Water sampled from Well B (in Silo 5) in March contained
107.5 mg/1 oil. No water was observed in any other of the newly
installed wells (A, C, and D) at that time. In May, water
samples were obtained from Wells B and D. Well D is located
approximately 9 m (30 ft) from Well B. Water levels had in-
creased by about 0.7 m (2.2 ft) in both Wells B and D since
March, even though no precipitation had fallen during the
interim.
As shown on Table 18, the May water sample from Well B
contained 499 mg/£ of oil and the Well D water sample contained
18 mg/£ oil. Table 19 shows that water from Well D had an oil
content of 16.2 mg/£. The paraffin, aromatic, and polar frac-
tions of the oil from each well were similar, suggesting that oil
in Well D water could be from the silos. However, oil from soil
at the surface of Wells B and C was somewhat similar to the oil
found in water samples from Wells B and D, indicating that the
oil detected in Well D water is from background sources, not
from the buried debris.
Overall, the monitoring results provide no conclusive
evidence that groundwater flowing through the spill debris has
leached oil or carried any oil downstream. It is not possible
to determine if any of the oil detected in Well D was the result
of lateral oil migration because:
(1) Well water contamination may have resulted from drill-
ing or sampling, or from tampering by unauthorized
visitors to the site.
113
-------
CO
UJ
CO
*^
-
_1 0
_J _l =>
O 3 CO
CO
UJ
U_ CO
o <:
o
CO
_J
CO
UJ
*v*
CO
r—
UJ
|
s
H=
73
•P i—
(/) O
fmf ^c
0>
>- oB
Anaerobic
Aerobic
cU
i ,
.O.
0.
«d-
O
D_
C
u a;
1— -r- O>
to c o
•P (O i-
o cn-p
1— V. T-
o z:
o
•p-
C 73
tO T-
cn u
s- <
o
CU
i- -p
3 C
1 % ft 1
to -P
•r- C
O O
s: o
fll
.C i—
•P «*- a.
CLO B
>
_o
&«
4->
M-
CU
r—
a.
E
«
CO
•
-i
CO
i cn
o
i
r—
CM
1 *!-
ir>
CM
co
1 -
r«.
i cn
«d-
r-.
i in
co
O
5
i^.
o
CO
si
o
to
CH
S- 0
CO r—
T3
(O
to
i— >»
CO O
r— CM
lf>
<—
O
CM
O
O
cn
CO
o
r—
co
CO
**•
cn
CO
CM
0
co
co
o
if>
ir>
*~
-o
(O
to
>>
o
co
0
l>>
o
-
0
cn
in
r^
cn
cn
CM
CO
CM
00
co
*t
in
o
CM
**
r-.
CM
CM
I^H
CM
CM
•o
IO
to
>>
o
*f
m
CM
r—
CM
O
O
CO
in
r-«.
oo
co
r—
CM
cn
CM
r»>
cn
LO
«3-
0
CO
cn
cn
o
0
co
T3
to
to
>>
O
Lf>
CO
O
0
m
o
d
o
CM
o
§
r^.
CO
r^
CO
fs.
^t
CM
CM
O
CO
r_
CO
CM
r~-
co
73
fO
to
>,
o
LO
CM
O
O
tfr
CO
o
co
LO
o
CM
CO
r—
r~~
0
in
r-~
in
00
r^
CM
in
CM
00
cn
LO
co
«d-
73
»
O
t*«.
o
i cn
o
1 CO
•
o
co
1 CM
CO
cn
0
1 «*
•
o
co
i *d-
•
O
o
1 r—
0
1 CM
Z
LO «d-
co co
•* «t-
A
2
to
•p
to
s_
>>73 O)
i— C -P
O co 3
*
r-. co
*d-
r~
00
•
0
0
00
00
CO
o
•
o
CO
CO
*
o
LO
CM
LO
CM
CM
l>»
CO
i.
>
i
c
CU
^t
10
•p
*
•o
0)
^
s_
to
ft
irt
r^.
a^
**
**•
CM
JC
o
i.
s
73
(U
•P
U
0)
»—
O
u
00
cu
a.
E
to
00
r—
5
114
-------
cu
CO
fC
(O
O.
s_
(0
i— 00 CO CO O CO
^D ^O ^^ 00 ^^ ^^ i^ 00 *-C* ^O ^O
D.
O)
O
i-
O) O
UDOO«3-COOCMi— ID .— VO
^0 c ^^ ^yt ^^ 00 ^^ ^O ^^ ^^ 00 *5f
C O r— r— i— i— CVJ
O S-
•r—
•M
O
(O
C
*" oo ir>
• •
CO *tJ ^- r— O VO CTV LO i^ r**» r— VO
j_ p-,— ,— ,— ,— ,— ^-,— cvj
C7)
CD). - . -
O ^ C\J CT> O CO i—
oo) Lor>«
COi— OOOLOOC3
i— r-. 00
O CTt
o
cu
jQ
i— ITJ
•o •»->
4J U
o to
I— S-
4->
X
(/)
El
o
JD
to o>
o ^^
O D>
S- E
-a
^
cu
.C r—
-M Q.
cm- E
cu o to
Q CO
-o
0)
c
o
o
CO
QQ
(U
'o.
ITS
co
a>
?ii
^(^
vooo^fcominoo
COCMOOC3LOOO
r- o>
• •
,>>>,>,>>>, >,T3 CU 0)
•r-i— r— r- i— r— i— i— C+J-t->
o T- •!- -r- -r- -I— -i- -I—
•a
OJ
to
cu
I/)
£
O
X
a;
10
CM
o
•o
cu
o
0)
o
U
(/)
cu
"a.
03
w
115
-------
oo
UJ
oo
>-
_i
<
<
UJ
_l
-
Q Q
_1 Z3
l-H •.(—
O O OO
IS)
(A UJ
U. _J 00
o _ i
LU
_l
CO
£
-O
+J I—
10 o
re 2:
CU
>- o3
Anaerobic
o
•f—
jQ
O
03 C O
+-> na i-
O C7>+->
1— S- ••-
o z:
o
C T3
(O -i-
CT) U
S- <
0
in
O
O
O
•(->
C
3
O
0
(0
Q.
I.
Q.
O)
S- -M ^->
3 C S
4J Ol
to +J >,
•i- C J3
O O
s: o 3^
cu
^1 I—
•»-> M- Q.
DL O E
O) (O
Q OO
4->
M-
E
O)
> 0 E
1— (0
OO
CU
?li
Q) «C
3 00
00
1 en
• •
i— to
co i—
o
i— O)
o
(0
M-
3
co oo
O O
oo oo
C_> Q
V
UD
O
O
LO
CT>
CM
O
LO
O
CD
CO
0
V
LO
r^
LO
V
<
•z.
LO
LO
s_
cu
+J
(TJ
*
CM
r—
V
V
O
V
CM
^O
LO
CM
CD
OO
O
CD
<£>
LO
O
r~~
CM
CM
«=c
CM
^O
•
CO
S-
O)
-(->
ITS
LU
•
10
1^
cr»
n
LO
^~
>>
(O
C
cu
_*:
(O
4->
*
T3
0)
^
S-
*a
cu
to
o
-C
-p
4->
Q.
CU
O
X
cu
ft
U3
r~
01
f\
«*
CM
^=
O
ra
•a
cu
•»j
o
cu
r—
r—
O
O
m
cu
'o.
(O
10
<
*
116
-------
cu
3
E
C
o
u
UJ
ca
i-
CU £=
i— O
r— (0 S-
ra +-> (d en
+J O O \
o nj o en
i— s- s- E
4J "O
X. >>
UJ 31
CU
C"" f— »
4J o
cm- E
01 o to
O CO
^
E
01
cu i—
cm- o
>>0 E
h- fO
CO
cu
""**v ^™ •
i— Q. O
"cu as
3: co
CO
•
vo
LO
•
fs^
^o
LO
r—.
1—
CO
d
en
co
CD
o
t~~
o
.
CO
i~
•r-
0
00
1—
o
Lf>
•
CO
o^
•
en
CM
LO
•
10
CM
CM
r—
•
O
(v^
CM
C3
CU
U
(4_
S-
3
co
^_,
•r—
0
CO
1—
Q
VO
•
CM
VO
CTi
•
CO
CO
•
CO
x^_
en
Q
CM
id
r~*
r—
C7>
£
0
*
CO
in
m
•
r—
s-
cu
4_)
(0
3C
*
CM
CO
•
f**n
CT>
CM
•
0
CO
^^
f '•'
^D
•
o
CM
^~
co
E
CO
r—
CM
CM
r~
10
•
co
^
cu
(Q
3
n™"
UJ
cu
CU
Jui
i.
CU
to
o
u
X
-------
(2) No background water sample was available to provide
base data from which to evaluate the sampling and
analytical procedures. (Well C was dry during both
March and May, and no nearby water supply wells were
available.)
(3) No duplicate measurements were made. The scope of
this project permitted only a limited number of soil
and water samples to be obtained and analyzed.
Phosphate and organic nitrogen concentrations in the surface
sample at Well D are relatively high. This is likely due to
runoff of fertilizer formerly applied on the silos to encourage
revegetation. Also, the cattle manure could be a source of
nitrogen.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Studies--
There are no conclusive results to indicate that ground-
water flowing through the oil spill debris disposal silos has
leached oil and carried it downstream. It is possible that
groundwater flowing through the oil spill debris silos has
leached oil and carried it downstream, but the evidence is not
conclusive. Periodic sampling of water in the existing wells
could provide additional information, especially during and
after the winter rainy season. Also, installation of other
wells upstream from the silos and drilled to groundwater will
enable determination of background water quality data for
comparison.
118
-------
REFERENCES
1. Climates of the States. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1973. p. 572.
2. Climatological Data. California Annual Summary, 78(13),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environ-
mental Data Service, 1974.
3. General Soils Map of Marin County. U.S. Dept. of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service, p. 73.
4. Geologic Map of California, San Francisco Sheet. State
of California Dept. of Natural REsources , 1967.
119
-------
SECTION 4 - CASE STUDY SITE D, CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND
Background
Grounding of the M/T Pennant in Narragansett Bay in 1973
resulted in spillage of approximately 3,500 m3 (100,000 gal) of
#6 fuel oil. The oil washed up on recreational beaches in the
area and was collected and stockpiled along with oi1-contaminated
solid debris and sand.
Location of a debris disposal site was delayed- for almost one
year due to public opposition to receipt of the material and the
unwillingness of sanitary landfill operators outside the immedi-
ate area to accept the debris. Ultimately, an agreement was
reached between the Rhode Island Department of Transportation,
the U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA to bury the oil spill debris at a
state-owned spent sand quarry, used for department business,
known as the Howard complex near Cranston, Rhode Island.
This site was selected for case study as representative of
oil spill debris disposal by burial in a cool, humid climate
where site preparation was required.
The city of Cranston is located approximately 8.2 km (5 mi)
south of Providence, and 4.1 km (2.5 mi) west of Narragansett
Bay. As noted on Figure 32, the site is about 0.9 km (0.5 mi)
east of Cranston proper and lies in the southern portion of a
20.2 ha (50 ac) excavated sand pit. The oil spill debris
disposal area encompasses a rectangular portion of the pit of
approximately 0.4 ha (1 ac). Access from the highway is via a
dirt road from the north part of the site. Figure 33 is a
photograph taken from about Well 7 looking north northeast on
April 21, 1976.
The topography of the Cranston site is typical of a coastal
plain environment. Relief is gentle with nearby terraces
forming the only immediate relief. The oil spill debris
disposal area lies within an abandoned sand quarry that has
been excavated to an essentially level floor. The floor is
approximately 6 m (20 ft) below the surrounding relief, as
indicated on Figure 34.
The Rho'de Island Department of Transportation acquired the
spent sand quarry for use as an equipment and material storage
area. The site is located in the midst of an urban area.
Interstate 95 is within 1 km (0.6 mi) to the east and Pawtuxet
River is 152 m (500 ft) away, also to the east. Adjacent land
is used for a state prison to the south, a major hospital to the
west, and light industrial facilities to the north.
120
-------
N
DISPOSAL
SITE
4 MI
ii
1.6 3^ 4.8 6.AKM
FIGURE 32. LOCATION OF CASE STUDY SITE D -
CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND.
FIGURE 33.
VIEW OF DISPOSAL SITE SURFACE
SITE D (APRIL 2L, 1976).
121
-------
WELL 11
- 3000' NW
LEGEND
EPA WELLS 1-11
SCS WELLS A-D
TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS
LIMITS OF BURIAL
1
A
40' 80
FIGURE 34.
SITE MAP AND GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT.
CASE STUDY SITE D.
122
-------
C1imate
Climatological data for the area are summarized on Table 20.
Temperatures in the area vary from lows of -2 C (28°F) to highs
of 20°C (71°F). Annual precipitation is 100.7 cm (39.63 in) (1).
Geology and Soils
Geological and soil conditions at the Cranston site are
typical of the Piedmont Plateau Province of fine coastal sedi-
ments (2). Figure 35 shows the estimated subsurface conditions
on a cross-section of this site. Hydraulic conductivity tests
of soil samples from the site show rapid permeability. A soil
profile developed from representative sieving tests is shown on
Figure 36. Homogeneity of this typical profile probably extends
to a depth of at least 4.5 m (15 ft), based upon coring data
obtained during this sampling program and previous EPA borings.
Below the unconsol idated soils lies a layer of compacted
till. This till presumably rests upon a bedrock of dark shale.
Groundwater
Characterization of the subsurface hydrology at Site D is
based on sampling information from April 21, 1976, and on
available literature data for the area. Groundwater elevations
in on-site wells indicate that shallow groundwater exists in the
area of the site at depths ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 m (10 to 20
ft). The shale bedrock is assumed to form the lower boundary
of this aquifer. Seasonal variations based upon static water
levels in 11 EPA monitoring wells indicate a seasonal fluctuation
in both depth and direction of flow. Seasonal differences
apparently account for a 1.2 m (4 ft) static water level
fluctuation.
Direction of flow is also seasonal alternating between
south and southeast. Groundwater discharge is assumed to occur
at Pawtuxet Creek to the southeast of the site.
Surface Water
No permanent surface water is present at the site. Level
relief and highly permeable soils account for the lack of any
runoff from the site or for the absence of any standing waters.
Debris Disposal Activities
On April 9, 1973, the M/T Pennant ran aground in Narragan-
sett Bay. The incident resulted in an oil spill that contami-
nated recreational beaches in the immediate area with oil and ~
oil-soaked debris. It was estimated that approximately 3,500 m
(100,000 gal) of #6 fuel oil were spilled in the incident.
123
-------
c
o
re
s_
o
CL
re
Q
o
o
o oo
u_ >-
O Q
ZD
>- h-
QL OO
s: oo
oo o
o
CM
CO
o
•r- -X
re i—
-M re
•r- 3
Q. C
•r- C
o re
0}
s-
CL
r— *
-C O)
-M S-
C 3
O 4->
S re
O) O)
CD Q.
re E
i- CO
00
•
o
o
o<£>" —
co
oo
to
CvJCMCMCOCOCOCvJi— I— i
I I + i— i— CM CM i— i
CD
•ti-
r- 01 Q.-M > U
re
3
re
T>
CT» re
i— T3
I
l— LO
co r*^
en
o
Q.
3
TJ
O)
VI
(O
CQ
o
Q.
TJ
CU
re
ca
124
-------
125
-------
DEPTH
FT. M
COLUMN
1 --
2 --
3 ..
4 _.
5 ..
6 -.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 _.
15 ..
1 ..
2 ..
3_.
4 _.
CLASSIFICATION
SANDY LOAM
LOAMY SAND
SANDY LOAM
LOAMY SAND
FIGURE 36.
SOIL PROFILE BASED UPON SIEVE ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY SITE D.
126
-------
An estimated 6,500 m (8,500 cu yd) of oil spill debris were
collected during cleanup and deposited at Site D. The debris
reportedly consisted of the following materials:
• #6 fuel oil ;
t Oil-soaked sand and gravel;
• Seaweed and straw.
Various other items including tires, large timbers, bricks,
oil-soaked barrels, and soiled clothing were also collected.
Corings into the debris mass on April 21, 1976, encountered
examples of these materials within various cell layers.
Collected debris was initially stockpiled on a nearby beach
parking lot while a search for a permanent disposal site was
initiated by officials from EPA's Region I office and the Rhode
Island Department of Health. As the summer approached and demand
for the parking lot increased, the debris was moved in May, 1973,
to another temporary stockpile area at the Howard complex of
Rhode Island's Department of Transportation.
Throughout the summer of 1973, EPA and state officials
continued searching for an ultimate disposal site for the
stockpiled debris. Also, alternative disposal methods were
investigated in more detail by EPA personnel. Methods included
incineration and land disposal. Since no special incinerator
was available, engineers concentrated on designing a land
disposal scheme that afforded maximum environmental protection.
In March, 1974, Rhode Island officials granted permission
to bury the oil spill debris at the stockpile site in Cranston,
according to a special disposal plan devised by EPA's Region I
(3).
The disposal plan, depicted in Figure 37, called for
placement of a layer of locally available silty soils to impede
or prevent outward migration of any water, oil, or oil-water
emulsion. Debris would be deposited in layers with intermediate
cover soil added as shown. A cap of fine-grained soil was
specified for the final cover. In addition, the plans included
a thorough system of groundwater monitoring wells and a five-year
monitoring program to be performed by EPA.
Disposal operations began in the spring of 1974 and con-
tinued through June. Prior to initiating disposal activities,
five monitoring wells were established to determine groundwater
characteristics and background water quality data. These wells
were later determined to be too shallow to intersect groundwater
at all times during the year. The disposal site was first
excavated to a depth of approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) and graded at
127
-------
I
z
Q.
_J
to
O
Q.
CO
Q
tO
CD
LU
Q
Q. •
UJ O
LL til
O I-
a t/)
HI
> Q
D
Z I-
o co
i—i
f— UJ
O CO
UJ <
CO O
ro
UJ
a
128
-------
5 percent to a common point. Earth berms were built up to form
an encapsulating bowl. The excavation floor and berm walls were
lined with 0.6 m (2 ft) of sandy silt, gravel washings obtained
from a local sand and gravel extraction operation.
Oil spill debris was then placed into the prepared disposal
area according to the plan. The intermediate layers of clean
fill were included to improve equipment traction and to provide
an absorbtive media to retard and possibly hold any free oil
that might flow from the debris. Before completing operations,
a monitoring well was placed at the low point as a vent and for
later use in determining the presence of water and/or oil in the
sump. A final 0.6 m (2 ft) layer of sandy silt was added as a
cover cap.
After covering with silty sand, the surface was sown with
grass seed. The grass was planted too late, and relatively
little growth occurred the first year. The following year, a
healthystand of grasses was established (see Figure 34).
As noted previously, the original five wells placed by EPA
were not deep enough to permit groundwater sampling. Conse-
quently, five new wells (numbered 7 through 11) were installed
to 0.0 ft mean sea level. The locations of these wells are
noted on Figure 34.
Personnel from EPA's Region I offices have monitored the
Site D periodically since completion of filling in 1974. Ground-
water elevation measurements are taken at Wells 7 through 11.
Also, samples of groundwater have been analyzed for total organic
carbon (TOC) and phenols several times per year. Analyses to
date indicate no groundwater contamination from the landfilling
operation has reached the berm walls.
Case Study Monitoring
A limited program to complement existing EPA monitoring at
the Cranston site was implemented during this study. The basic
purposes of the case study monitoring were to determine the
extent to which oily material has migrated from the disposal
site and to observe the condition of oil spill debris after
confinement to an anaerobic environment for several years in a
humid climate.
Four wells were drilled at Site D on April 21 as part of
this program. All four wells were cased and designated as A
through D. Their location and depths are shown on Figure 38.
Wells A, B, and C were placed in the disposal area to obtain
samples of oil spill debris and soil liner material. Also,
these wells were checked for the presence of water. Well D was
drilled to obtain background soil samples. Figure 38 shows the
boring logs for these wells.
129
-------
DEPTH
10
34
20
WELLS
B C
LEGEND
WELLS A-D »A
SAND :•:;:!::•:•:;:::•:
OILY DEBRIS
SOIL SAMPLES
LIMITS OF BURIAL
COVER SOIL
-------
Samples of soil and oil spill debris were obtained from
various depths in Wells A through D, as shown on Figure 38.
At the time of installation of Wells A through D, water
samples were collected from four EPA wells; 4, 9, 10, and 11.
EPA Well 6 and Well A, both located in the debris disposal area,
had approximately 2 to 4 cm (0.8 to 1.6 in) of water, which was
not deep enough to sample. All other wells were dry.
Analytical Results
Tables 21 and 22 summarize the results of the various
analyses performed on soil, oil spill debris, and groundwater
samples obtained from the Cranston case study site.
Data Evaluation--
Review of the sample analyses in relation to the sample
locations and groundwater flow suggests that some oil migration
may be occurring from the site. Soil samples from Well D are
appreciably lower in oil content than all oily samples obtained
from within the disposal area at Well B. However, sample D-3
shows an oil content of the same order of magnitude as all
samples from Well C. No conclusions can be drawn from these
data, but oil may have migrated to the area of Well D from the
burial site several meters away.
There appears to be no downward migration of oil from the
upper to the lower cells. The layering of soil between cells
has apparently helped contain the oil.
It is interesting to note the predominance of aerobic
bacteria in soil and debris samples, including those obtained
from 3.0 to 3.4 m (10 to 11 ft) deep in the debris. This
suggests that oxygen is reaching the depths of the buried debris.
Infiltration of surface waters and/or diffusion through the side
berms may be the source of this oxygen. (On the other hand, it
may be that aerobic bacteria had sufficient time to establish
themselves at the expense of any anaerobes during the two to
three day delay between sample procurement and delivery to the
laboratory for analysis.)
The concentrations of lead, iron, and chlorides are rela-
tively consistant between soil and debris samples, as noted on
Table 19. High phosphate concentrations in Well C in relation
to all other samples are not readily explainable.
Examination of Table 20 suggests that some groundwater oil
contamination may have occurred. Assuming that samples from Well
11, some 915 m (3,000 ft) upstream from the site, accurately
represent background water quality, all water samples from wells
near the site show increased oil content concentrations over
131
-------
oo
LLJ
00
oo
I— I
CtL
CQ
LlJ
Q
o
oo
o
oo
I—
=>
oo
UJ
a:
CM
CQ
-
o
«^3
CQ I—
00
t\
"O
-P 1—
CO O
10 2:
0)
>- oS
o
_Q
O
S-
Ol
re
c
<
0
•^
.a
o
S-
O)
o
O)
u_
.Q
a.
o
Q.
C
O O)
i — i- en
re c o
-p re t.
O C7>-P
1— S- T-
0 Z
o
c -a
a> o
s- <
o
*^~+
(/)
.
o
o
o
^~\
^>
c
3
O
o
a>
-p
re
^~
Q.
E
Q.
Q.
0)
S- -P -P
3 C 2
-p a>
CO 4-> >,
•r- C J3
O 0
s: o &s
OJ
+j M- "a.
a. o E
Q.M- CX
>^ o E
p~* n3
oo
O)
r- "lO. O
'aJ re
3 oo
i— i— CM
V V i
C\J
if) i —
O O O O O
o o r^ co o
r~^ o co LO o
*\ n ri ^
LO
CM
tn in
•— CTi
COLD
ID sj-
r— un
CO
LO
to co
•— •— ID
V V
VD CTl r— r— i
V V i
O O O Lf) (^ O
O O O OO CM O
o o vo r^
»l *S «S
co co vo
CM
CM CM
O O i—
CM r- i—
CTi CTl
CMCO CTlCMi— Oi— CO CTiCOCO
CMCC<*
O
Lf)
CM CM r— CO
i— **• I— LO O i—
CM CM i— CTi CM CO
CM LO r— CM r— CO
00 CM 00
i co CM
CO CM <*•
en co CTi
l if) i—
i— CM
ir> r-.
^f CO
CO LO
•* CO O
in o CT>
Lf)tf> LOOLO OLDLD
COCM CMLOCM OOCMCM
CO i—
voun criOcM r-^Lno
CDCO r^r^cd cMOi—
r— O
i — LOO
r—
CO»d- 1-CMLO COLOO VOCMLO
. • 3 ........
i— CO CO r— l— Or— CO Or— r—
10
(/)(/)(/)
S- S- •— S- S-
^3 J3 T- .a .a
cu a; o a; ai o o o
Q a Q oo oo oo
r— CM r— CM CO r— CMCO i— CM CO
-------
-Q
CO
3
c
-!->
£
O
O
CM
LU
_l
CD
ct
1—
S-
OJ
4->
O)
LU 3C
M-
O
OJ
.E i —
•*-> n
Q- E
O> ra
M-
C
a
Q
>
1—
QJ
i— a
r— E
a> ro
3 on
i.
|
er
C
•i—
H-
q_
"v^
E
•>
4J
M-
O)
Q-
L E
•> ro
oo
L •
0
•ZL
CM
«=)-
oo
C\J
to
CM
O
*3-
O
CO
<£>
^J-
00
VD
UT)
<^
CO
—
^
i.
J3
CO
Q
ci
CD
CM
in
10
LO
CO
C\J
•^~
o
^i-
CM
O
*J-
VD
CM
,_
CO
CO
S-
jQ
CO
Q
CM
*±
CTi
CM
W3
00
CM
o
M-
S-
00
1 —
o
oo
CO
cn oo
<3- 00
CO CM
O r—
CM r~.
CM CM
CT> O
CM •*
«d- ^f
O O
a> •—
CT> CO
o o
•— «sl-
CM CO
CM r-
^3- in
CM in
•— •—
in
S- S-
J3 J2
a> co
Q Q
CM CO
CM
in
in
•=f
m
CM
CM
r~
o
CM
o
r—
CO
CD
r~~ vo
r— CM
10 co
C5 IT)
CO OO
i — CM
r— CO
in co
CM CO
^- co
CTI m
r- O
oo co
CTi VD
r- O
m CD
in o
r— CO
CO CO
i. S-
-Q jQ
CO CO
Q Q
CM CO
in
*±
co
CM
CM
in
CM
CO
co
o
o
in
o
o
CM
vo
o
o
oo
o
CM CM
CO CTl
CM CO
in CM
O in
0 0
10 m
O in
o o
^J- LO
CM in
•— —
i — i —
•r- -I—
O O
oo oo
CM CO
133
-------
1
u.
°° Q
LU »
"^ rf
^"" 1
^ oo
^ '-1
*^»
< UJ
LU Q
j O
•~ i— "T"
|^ 1— ^~
< O "
a: ^g
{if -oo
M "<->
0 ^ ,
**
=J oo uj
"> ziiu
^ u^oo
^.
o
f\J l~™
l/^
!jj ^
S el-
S •^
r*~
s-
OJ
CO
^
(O
s-
Q.
c
ai
o
S-
e
o
+j
S-
u.
c5
s_
o
a.
u
•r-
•M
fO
0
s-
"^
c
M-
fd
S-
(O
a.
^J
c:
a*
c f"~
O "-^.
o a>
E
•i—
O
to
CO C
i— O
JO -0
i — ro S-
03 4-> ro i—
•4-> O U -^
O rO O CD
1- S- S- E
-!-> -O
X >,
1 1 ) ~t—
Ul— I — i_-
O *
4-> S- OJ
O) U
JT •»-> *
•M ca M-
0.3 S-
ai =3
o oo
i \
>i
^ 0
OJ Z
ID VO CO
CO CO LD **
r- r-« co vo
t— CO CM i—
• • • •
U3 <£> CO O
CM CM i — r-
• • * •
in •&• i — in
i — i — i — CM
VD VO UD V£>
CO CM CM i—
• * • •
^ ^ ;z **
CO O O CO
co co r~~ o
t£> f^ CO LO
1—
i — o in
• • •
CM CM «sl- in
r— ^— r— • ^~
r**^ VD *sj LO
• • • •
co ro «a- »d-
^1"
CT» C
r~ "r™
(/)
A rQ
t— t.)
CM
r— O
t- Q.
0- 0
CO O
-^ i-
(O H-
(/) cy
(U i-
Q- to
fO CO
10 f
134
-------
background. Also, it appears that the oil detected in Wells 4,
9, and 10 is of a different composition than that found in Well
11, judging from the significant different fractions of paraf-
finic, aromatic, and polar hydrocarbons tested.
It is possible that the oil found in all EPA wells is from
a source other than the debris disposal site. The area is used
for vehicle maintenance; and thus, oil dumping on the porous
soils would not be uncommon. The relative oil fractions for all
well waters (Table 20) are significantly different than those
found in debris samples (Table 19). Also, it appears that the
three wells indicating oil contamination are not directly down-
stream from the disposal site. However, the local groundwater
may change flow direction in response to seasonal changes during
the year, so these wells could be picking up contamination from
the debris area.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Studies--
The data suggests some lateral migration of oil from the
disposal area may have occurred, but given the industrialized
nature of the area, it is likely that the oil detected in off-
site wells is from other sources. Overall, it appears that the
fine-grained soil is adequately containing the debris-entrained
oil .
EPA should continue to monitor the existing wells annually.
Water samples obtained should be analyzed for oil content in
addition to the existing parameters. There appears to be no
need for further studies unless the EPA monitoring program
begins to detect an increased oil content in the underlying
groundwater.
135
-------
REFERENCES
1. Climatological Data. New England Annual Summary, 87(13),
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Data Service, 1975.
2. King, P. B. The Evolution of North America. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1959. p. 43.
3. Jones, R. G. Disposal of Oil-Soaked Debris. March 25-27,
1975. p. 231. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the
Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, American Petroleum
Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Coast
Guard, San Francisco, CA.
136
-------
Appendix A
Appendix B
Table A-l
APPENDICES
Page
Guidelines for Field Sampling -
Procedures for Disposal of Oil Spill
Cleanup Debris 138
Methodology for Analyzing High Molecular
Weight Hydrocarbons 145
Materials Required for Field Sampling.
139
137
-------
APPENDIX A
GUIDELINES FOR FIELD SAMPLING -
"PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF OIL SPILL CLEANUP DEBRIS"
OBJECTIVES OF SAMPLING
Obtain data at case study sites where oil spill debris and
oily wastes have been deposited. Data will be used to verify
the environmental safety of methods to be recommended in a
"how-to" disposal manual.
SAMPLES TO BE OBTAINED
In general, the following types of samples will be taken at
each case study site:
• Oily material, from the surface at landspreading sites
and from underground locations at landfilling sites
• Soil
• Groundwater
Specific locations, depths, and numbers of each type sample
to be taken will be delineated in the monitoring plan for each
case study site. At sites requiring subsurface sampling, a
local driller with sampling capabilities must be retained.
MATERIALS
Table A-l lists the basic materials and equipment necessary
to obtain, preserve, and ship samples. Also, sufficient
materials should be taken to record field sampling activities.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The following instructions are intended to guide field
personnel in obtaining representative, uncontaminated samples
of oily material, soils, and groundwater. However, all condi-
tions cannot be anticipated so field personnel must exercise
judgement in all sampling work.
138
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
TABLE A-l
MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR FIELD SAMPLING
Oil and Soil Samples
1. Small and large plastic bags such as "Whirl-Pac" and
trash bags. (See field monitoring plan for specific
number at each site.) Sufficient bag ties should also
be available.
2. Well log forms
3. Shelby permeability tubes (driller may provide these)
4. Rubber gloves
5. Label tags
6. Waterproof marking pens
7. Knife and trowel for sample trimming
8. Hacksaw
Groundwater Samples
1. Two-liter glass bottles and lids for storing and
shipping samples. These should be cleaned prior to
arrival at case study site.
2. One-half liter sampling bottles
3. Water sampling device
4. Distilled water
Sample Shipment
1. Corrugated boxes with styrofoam liners; sufficient
number to contain all samples to be gathered.
139
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
TABLE A-l (continued)
Sample Shipment (continued)
2. "Blue ice" or equivalent (These should be frozen prior
to use to ensure cold sample temperatures are maintained
during shipment.)
3. Tape, such as fiber packing tape
4. Shipping labels
5. Cord (optional)
Other Materials
1. Camera and color slide film
2. Clipboard and pen to record field notes
3. Map of case study site area
140
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Oily Material and Soil Samples
Samples of the oily material and soils will be taken by
(1) core sampling during drilling, and (2) by obtaining surface
grab samples (applicable at landspreading sites only).
1. Core samples will be taken at various depths (specified
in the monitoring plan) by a core sampler such as a
Shelby corer. As soon as the sample has been removed
from the corer, it must be placed in double plastic
bags to seal the sample. Without prompt sealing of the
sample, the core could dry and affect analytical
results. The site name, depth of sample, and other
pertinent information should be noted on a tag and
included with the sample. For example, the following
information should be included with each soil and oily
material sample:
t Project number
• Date sampled
t Site location
• Sampler's initials
t Depth of sample
t Length of sample core
• Well identification number tied to notation on map
2. A surface grab sample will be taken from each land-
spreading case study site. The sample should be
obtained from a representative section of the area.
Landspreading does not necessarily distribute or mix
oil with soil evenly. Hence, there may be large clumps
of oil in one area and relatively unoiled particles of
soil in another. Try to obtain surface grab samples
from an "average" area, not from one of the extremes.
A topsoil sample not more than 4 in deep should be
taken and placed in a plastic trash bag. This sample
should then be double packed, tied, and labeled
appropriately.
141
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Well Logs
During well drilling, the field engineer should record a
soil boring log. (See attached form, Figure A-l, as an example.)
Each time the soil characteristics change, the depth should be
noted on the log sheet along with color, moisture, texture, and
the appearance of oil, if any.
Rely on the driller to assist in classifying the soils since
he is usually familiar with local geology. Color photographs
of the soil as it has been augered from the well may also be
useful for later reference.
Water samples are to be obtained only when boring to depths
indicated in each monitoring plan intercept groundwater. (It is
thus possible that groundwater samples will not be taken at all
sites. )
Groundwater Samples
Groundwater samples are to be collected using the standard
sampling device. Water collected in the device is emptied into
pre-cleaned 2-liter glass storage and shipping containers.*
The sampling device facilitates sampling in small diameter
wells and must be kept clean at all times. It must not be
allowed to rest on dirt or become contaminated with tap water.
If there is any doubt as to possible contamination, the sampling
device should be thoroughly rinsed with tap water and then
rinsed with distilled water.
Groundwater samples will be obtained by lowering the
sampling device down the well. After the sampling bottle has
reached the bottom of the well and allowed to fill with water, it
is pulled back to the surface and emptied into a 2-liter plastic
container. This procedure is repeated until the 2-liter bottle
is filled. After each well is sampled, it is important that the
1/2-liter sampling bottle be replaced prior to sampling another
well in order to prevent cross contamination. Also, the sampler
should be rinsed with distilled water between samplings.
*Sample storage and shipping bottles are to be prepared as
follows: Rinse bottles thoroughly with hot tap water, allow to
cool, rinse with 1:1 HC1 (reagent grade), cold tap water, and
finally with doubly-distilled de-ionized water. Secure caps
onto bottles to prevent any future contamination and prepare for
shipment to the desired site. Note that no detergents of any
type are to be used because of their phosphorous content.
142
-------
TEST HOLE NO..
DEPTH
(FEET)
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
COMMENT
FIGURE A-I
143
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
All groundwater sample containers should be marked with
waterproof marking pen to show the site name, well location,
depth to groundwater, and date. Other pertinent data should
be recorded in the field notes.
SAMPLE PACKING AND SHIPPING
All samples will be sent to SCS Long Beach as soon as
practical after collection, chilling, and packing for shipment.
Soil and oily material samples should be wrapped in at least two
layers of paper to provide insulation to prevent containers from
rubbing holes in other containers. "Blue ice" or equivalent
should be included along with the groundwater samples to keep
them at about 4°C. Water samples should also be wrapped in
paper to prevent the sample codes from rubbing off.
All sample fractions should be packed in corrugated cartons
lined with styrofoam to provide insulation and rigidity. If
the transport time between the field and the laboratory is
expected to be more than two days, enough blue ice should be
used to keep the samples adequately chilled. Dry ice should not
be used for shipping purposes. The carton(s) should be sealed
with strong tape. Use of cord will facilitate carton handling.
Samples should be shipped via a reliable service. The
mailing address must be clearly marked on each carton. Each
carton should be insured.
144
-------
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HYDROCARBONS
A. EXTRACTION OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES
The recommended minimum sample weight is 100g. This amount
can be increased for sediments found to be very low in
extractable organics. Every fifth sample will be spiked with
a 0.1/ug hydrocarbon standard/g sediment using an appropriate
n-alkane or isoalkane standard and a polycyclic aromatic
standard which falls outside of the spectra of the compounds
being measured. The water is double distilled and percolated
through XAD-2 or Chromosorb-102 resin to remove trace
organics. It should be stored in either glass or teflon
containers. Excess water will be removed under vacuum.
The filtrate is then extracted three (3) times with 25 ml of
n-heptane. N-hexane and n-pentane can be substituted for
n-heptane in all applications. The extracts are then com-
bined and saved for later addition to the sediment extract.
The sediment sample is then vacuum-dried. Remove sample when
dry. Contamination occurs during prolonged pumping on a dry
sample. A complete column gas chromatographic analysis of
the more volatile components of the vacuum pump oil should
be performed to aid in the detection of contamination. This
procedure serves to minimize sample manipulation. The
vacuum-dried sediment is then extracted by the Soxhlet
technique.
1. The Soxhlet Extraction
The vacuum-dried sediment is placed in a Soxhlet thimble,
and extraction is allowed to proceed for 100 hours, or
300 turnovers, with one solvent change after twenty-four
hours. The Soxhlet thimbles are thoroughly extracted
for 72 hours using the toluene and weighed prior to
addition of sample. If possible, glass fiber thimbles
should be used. The solvent system to be used is a
toluene:methanol (3:7) azeotrope. The extracts obtained
from the sediment extraction and water washing are then
combined and reduced in volume using a rotary evaporator.
The dry weight of the extracted sediments is determined
while in the thimble.
145
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
2. Sulfur Determination
The presence of elemental sulfur is determined by dipping
activated copper wire into the extract. If the wire
becomes immediately coated, the presence of sulfur is
indicated. The sulfur should be removed by charging
the extract onto an activated copper column. It is then
eluted with three column volumes of toluene. The solvent
is again reduced in volume with a rotary evaporator. It
is then saponified in accordance with the procedure
described in paragraph D. The sample is transferred to
a tared vial, the remaining solvent removed with pre-
purified No and weighed on an analytical balance sensi-
tive to O.T mg. The sample is then dissolved in a small
volume of n-heptane for column chromatographic analysis.
B. EXTRACTION OF WATER COLUMN SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Filters containing the particulate hydrocarbon samples shall
be thawed, and tar balls and other extraneous material picked
out under a dissecting scope. The filter and sample should
then be dried. The filter and material shall then be
refluxed with 50 ml of n-heptane for one hour. The extract
shall be decanted and replaced with 50 ml of CHClo and
refluxed for an additional hour. The extracts will be
combined and taken to near dryness on a rotary evaporator.
A gentle stream of pre-purified nitrogen will be used to
remove the remainder of the solvent. The weight of lipid
material will be determined by either using an analytical
balance accurate to 0.1 mg or the method described in para-
graph E for weight determination of column chromatographic
fractions.
Following a weight determination, the sample will be
dissolved in n-heptane and fractionated as described in the
column chromatography section.
C. EXTRACTION OF WATER COLUMN FILTRATES
The filtered water sample will be acidified to a pH of 2
with hydrochloric acid and extracted with CHC13. The
extraction efficiency will be demonstrated prior to any
analyses being accomplished and shall be greater than 95 percent
for aliphatic and aromatic compounds. The CHC13 extract
shall then be reduced in volume on a rotary evaporator and
then taken to dryness with a gentle stream of pre-purified
N£- The lipid residue will be weighed and then re-dissolved
in n-heptane for column chromatography.
146
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
D. SAPONIFICATION
All samples requiring saponification will be handled as
described below. Saponification will be carried out by
refluxing the sample with 0.5 N KOH in methanol:water. This
mixture will be refluxed either under pre-purified nitrogen
or with a filter of molecular sieve or silica gel to prevent
contamination from external hydrocarbons in the laboratory.
The saponification reaction shall be continued for at least
four hours.
Upon completion of the saponification, the mixture shall be
diluted with an equal volume of saturated NaCl solution. If
no emulsion exists, the toluene layer should be decanted,
followed by three extractions of the aqueous mixture with
n-heptane. The volume of n-heptane used for each extraction
should be equivalent to the volume of toluene initially used
in the saponification. The toluene and n-heptane fractions
are then combined and reduced in volume with a rotary
evaporator.
If an emulsion exists, the entire mixture should be extracted
three times with the n-heptane. The extracts obtained should
be placed in glass centrifuge tubes with teflon-lined caps
and then spun down so that the phases can be easily separ-
ated. A refrigerated centrifuge may aid separation. The
organic phases will then be combined and back extracted with
an equal volume of saturated sodium chloride solution. The
saturated sodium chloride solution will then be re-extracted
once with n-heptane, and all the organic phases will be
combined. The organic solvents will then be reduced in
volume on a rotary evaporator.
E. COLUMN CHROMATOGRAPHY (L.C.)
All sample types will be chromatographed in the manner
described below. A weight ratio of about one-hundred (100)
parts alumina to one (1) part lip'id sample and two-hundred
(200) parts silica gel to one (1) part lipid sample will be
used. The column should have a length to i.d. ratio of
20:1. Both the silica gel and the neutral alumina will be
Activity I. The columns will be prepared by first suspend-
ing the absorbents in n-heptane and then pouring a slurry
of silica in n-heptane into a standing column of n-heptane
and allowing it to settle. This will be followed by pouring
the alumina slurry into the column. The column should then
be rinsed with two column volumes of n-heptane. At no time
should the column be allowed to run dry. The weighed
extract will then be applied to the column in a small volume
147
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
of n-heptane and the aliphatic fraction eluted with two
column volumes of n-heptane. This will be followed by
elution of aromatics with two column volumes of benzene.
The eluates from the two fractions will then be taken to
near dryness on a rotary evaporator. They will then be
transferred to screw cap vials with either aluminum or
teflon lined caps, and the remainder of the solvent removed
with a light stream of pre-purified nitrogen.
Add a small measured volume of a suitable solvent to the
residue, and, using a one (1) 1 syringe, place a one (1) 1
aliquot on the weighing pan of a microbalance. An alterna-
tive method is the use of tared vials and determination of
weight difference using an analytical balance. After the
solvent evaporates and the balance has come to equilibrium,
usually one to two minutes, the residue can be weighed.
The weight of the total residue can then be determined by
extrapolation. This method helps in avoiding problems
associated with the presence of salts, and sulfur in the
vial which may not have been completely removed. Addition-
ally, an appropriate sample volume for injection into the
gas chromatograph can be determined in this manner. Appro-
priateness of sample volume is a function of gas chromato-
graphic operating conditions and the composition of the
sample itself.
GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC)
Each eluted fraction obtained from the column chromato-
graphic separation will be re-dissolved quantitatively in a
small volume of n-heptane, and aliquots will be withdrawn
and weighed on a microbalance to determine appropriate
volumes for injection on the gas chromatograph. Stainless
steel or glass capillary columns coated with Apiezon L,
OV-101, DEGG, or SE-30 should be used for the analysis.
The columns should be high resolution with at least 50,000
theoretical plates. The gas chromatograph will be capable
of linear temperature programming and will be operated with
a hydrogen flame detector with a sensitivity of at least
5 x lO'll gms/sec for n-decane at a signal of noise ratio
of 5:1. Retention indices will be computed based on known
standards.
The gas chromatographic analysis should allow for isolation
and characterization of the following: normal, branched,
and isoprenoid alkanes from C]^ to at least €32; condensed
and non-condensed cycl oal*kanes (in a cursory way, if
present); and homologous series of alkyl benzenes and
148
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
alkyl-substituted polycyclic aromatics such as chrysene with
retention times up to n-C32-
For the analyses of samples during this current contract,
both a Hewlitt-Packard 5730A and an ANTEK 300 fitted with
50' SCOT OV101 columns were used. Starting temperature was
120°C for 2 minutes followed by temperature programming at
1.6°C/min to 270 C with a final hold for 32 min. Output
from the FID detector was fed into a strip recorder (for
visual observation) and simultaneously onto magnetic tape
through an analog audio-frequency convertor. Playback of
the magnetic tape was accomplished by utilizing a 4-8 fold
increase in speed and output on a recorder through a
computer-integrator.
G. OTHER ANALYTICAL METHODS
Total Solids (Moisture) - evaporation to dryness @ 103-105°C
as per Section 208A, p. 91 in Std. Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, 1975.
Fixed Nitrogen - phosphate (pH7) buffer added and NHj
distilled off to atmosphere. Kjeldahl digestion followed
on residue as per Section 421, p. 437, Std. Methods 14th
Edition, 1975.
Organic Acids - separation through silicic acid column
followed by titration with standard NaOH as per Section 504,
p. 527, Std. Methods 14th Edition, 1975.
Phosphates - colorimetric method using ascorbic acid as per
Section 425F, p. 481, Std. Methods 14th Edition, 1975.
Chlorides - titration with mercuric nitrate as per Section
408B, p. 304, Std. Methods 14th Edition, 1975.
Lead, Nickel, Iron - atomic absorption as per EPA Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974, pages 112,
141, 110.
Mercury - flameless atomic absorption as per EPA Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974, p. 134.
Biological Activity - total aerobes, total anaerobes, and
yeast and molds were done by standard bacteriological tech-
niques, as outlined in Std. Methods 14th Edition, 1975,
pages 904-1004.
149
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i REPORT NO
EPA-600/2-77-153b
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION»NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Oil Spill: Decisions for Debris Disposal
Volume II - Literature Review and Case Study Reports
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'.'. THORlS)
Robert P. Stearns, David E. Ross, Robert Morrison
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90807
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 BB041
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2200
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final June 1975 to Aug. 1976
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
A 15-minute color, 16 mm training film is also available,
16. ABSTRACT
This report was prepared to guide persons responsible for disposing of oil
spill debris in selecting suitable methods and sites, and in carrying out effective,
environmentally safe disposal operations.
Volume I is a procedures manual useful both in office and field. Topics
covered include site selection and preparation, method selection, implementation of
three alternative disposal methods, site monitoring requirements, and correctional
measures for possible environmental problems. All available land disposal methods
(other than systems employing incineration) were investigated prior to selecting
the three recommended alternatives: land cultivation (also called landspreading),
burial, and sanitary landfill ing. An outline for a training course on oil spill
debris disposal is also included.
Volume II presents a bibliography and a summary of the current literature
relating to oily waste decomposition, migration through soils, and interaction
with the environment. Calculations are provided to indicate the theoretical
limitations on degradation. Case studies of two sites where the land cultivation
'disposal method was used to aerobically decompose the oily debris, and at two
other sites where the debris was buried in specially constructed cells, are
described and the effectiveness of each operation is evaluated.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATi Field/Group
Waste disposal
Refuse disposal
Leaching
Anaerobic processes
Biodegradation
Oil spills
Oil disposal
Oil pollution
Oil spill disposal
Oil spill cleanup
Disposal site monitoring
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
165
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
150
irUS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977- 241 037 7'i
------- |