EPA/540/2-89/022
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Smith,, D.L. and I.H. Sabberwal. "On-site Remediation of Gasoline-Contaminated Soil."
15 pp. Technical paper presented at the International Congress on Hazardous Materials
Management, Chattanooga, TN, June 8-12,1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse -EWFZ
PHASE DO HOT REMOVE FROM LIBRARY
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Physical/Chemical - Reduction/Oxidation
Soil/Generic
Smith,, D.L. and I.H. Sabberwal. "On-site
Remediation of Gasoline-Contaminated Soil." 15 pp.
Technical paper presented at the International
Congress on Hazardous Materials Management,
Chattanooga, TN, June 8-12, 1987.
Conference Paper
Ronald E. Lewis
Associate Waste Management Engineer
State of California Dept. of Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
714-744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-3670
Soil Treatment Project, Southern California
(Non-NPL)
Los Angeles, CA
BACKGROUND; This treatability study reports on the results of tests aimed
at treating gasoline contaminated soils at seven different sites using
hydrogen peroxide to oxidize gasoline constitutents to C0» and H20 in the
presence of a proprietary synthetic polysilicate catalyst.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The author reviews the magnitude of the contarni-
nation problems associated with leaking underground storage tanks with
emphasis on problems in California. The use of hydrogen peroxide to
oxidize hydrocarbons is then discussed along with its attributes (no
hazardous residue formation) and its drawbacks (slow reaction time oxidiz-
ing saturated hydrocarbons). A table showing the ability of H-O™ to react
with various classes of compounds is included in the document along with a
table showing the various types of organic constitutents present in gaso-
line. The authors discuss the mechanism whereby a patented synthetic
polysilicate named "Landtreat" is used to enhance the H-O™ oxidation of
soils contaminated with gasoline. Basically the polysilicate acts as a
catalyst to enhance the oxidation of the organic species. Through a high-
temperature, high-vacuum process, Frankel defects are created in the matrix
of the polysilicate. These defects become active sites which increase the
absorptive capacity of the "Landtreat". UV light also enhances the
reaction rate. Furthermore, the active sites on the "Landtreat" react with
cations, specifically heavy metals, converting them to metal silicates
which pass the EP toxicity test.
The soil to be treated is excavated, mixed with "Landtreat" and sprayed
with a solution of H-O- in water. The soil is mixed with a backhoe, front-
loader or similar eartfi mover to ensure adequate contact. QA/QC and Health
3/89-25 Document Number: EWFZ
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
and Safety procedures are discussed in the document. Cost for treating the
soil ranges from $70-$130 per cubic yard.
PERFORMANCE! The information presented in the report are from actual soil
treatment projects performed in southern California. In general, between
300 and 1500 cubic yards of soil were treated. Dry sandy and sandy clay
soils were reported. Project completion time took from 3 to 7 days work on
site excluding excavation, lab analysis, and backfilling. Average treat-
ment efficiencies for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) ranged from 96% to
in excess of 99% depending on the site characteristics. The results of a
seven day test at one site and the amount of total petroleum hydrocarbons
removed is shown in Table 1. The results indicate that the oxidation of
hydrocarbon contaminated soils by Ho^2 *n t*ie presence of a synthetic
catalyst is a technically viable soil remediation method.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
The
Treatability Group
VOl-Halogenated Nonpolar
Aromatic Compounds
W04-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds
W07-Simple Nonpolar
Aromatics and
Heterocyclic
Wll-Volatile Metals
V13-0ther Organics
CAS Number
108-90-7
106-93-4
71-43-2
108-88-3
95-47-6
100-41-4
108-38-3
7439-92-1
TOT-PETROL
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Benzene
Toluene
O&P-Xylene
Ethylbenzene
M-Xylene
Lead
Total Petroleum Hydro-
carbons
3/89-25 Document Number: EWFZ
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
TABLE 1
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS AT SITE 6
BEFORE AND AFfER TREATMENT
Untreated Soil (ppm) Treated Soil* (ppm)
6,700 6.9
4,300 <2.0
1,803 15.8
8,884 15.2
1,663 <2
40,302 6
71.7 4
* There is no direct correlation between treated and untreated soil for the
results shown above. Untreated soil samples were taken at various depths
during excavation and the treated samples were taken from various parts
of the treatment pile subsequent to mixing and treatment.
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more
information.
3/89-25 Document Number: EWFZ
NOTE: Quality assurance of data nay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
rf-7-?7
QN-SITE REMEDIATION OF GASOLINE-CONTAMINATED SOIL O ^TS I - ffT-
Douglas L. Smith, Technical Services, . '
and I.H. Sabherwal, Ph.D., President
Ensotech, Inc.
11300 Hartland St. i
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(818) 760-8622
i. INTRODUCTION
Gasoline leaking from service station tanks
threatens groundwater supplies in many areas of the
nation. California and other states have underground
storage tank monitoring programs, with mandatory
replacement of leaking tanks. The scope of the problem
nationwide is still unknown. However, discussions with the
California Water Quality Control Board indicate that an
unlined gasoline tank underground for five years has a 50%
probability of leaking. The probability of leakage
approximates 100".' after a decade of service. A WQCB
official estimated that there are about 500 sites in Los
Angeles and Ventura counties where groundwater nas bc-:t.>n
affected. Another 1500 sites have significant tank leaks
which have not affected ground water.
The WQCB has found that inventory reconciliation by
its^-.'f is insufficient to detect many leaks. Product • ' •
dcl.ivc-ry records and dipstick measurements are generally
ETui- in h'jndfid-jra i Ion increments. Fifty or sixty gallons
•-'I" gasoline can be lost without showing up on daily
inventories. At this rate of loss, 2,1,900 gallons of
gasoline would enter the soil in a year from a single
tank. Even in smaller stations using weekly inventories,
fifteen gallons could be lest per day without
discrepancies occurtng. This is equivalent to spilling
5,475 gallons of gasoline per tank per year. A typical
gas station has three or four underground tanks.
Substantial quantities of soil can be contaminated if the
leakage is allowed to continue for years. At one site
a gasoline station was demolished in the early sixties.
(See Site A in site Histories, below). The storage tanks
were removed, a.id t.he tank cavity backfilled. The tank-
removal report, noted a pronounced gasoline odor at the
bottom of the cavity, a depth of fifteen feet. .No -action
was taken. In 1986, over twenty years later, while digging
the foundation for a multistory office building on the
site, the old tank cavity was reopened. The gasoline odor
was still prevalent, and construction was halted. The
area had to be excavated to a depth of thirty-two feet
before background Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon CTPK) levels
were reached. Eleven hundred cubic yards of soil had to
be treated and backfilled before construction could
resune.
I
To be published in the proceedings of the International Congress on Hazardous
Materials Management, Chattanooga, Tennessee, June 8-12, 1987
-------
II. PAST USES OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Hydrogen peroxide has long been known -to oxidize many
classes of noxious organic compounds. These compounds are
shown in Table I.
Hydrogen peroxide has several advantages over other
oxidants: it is readily available, inexpensive, and its
liquid state makes it easy to use in field conditions.
Peroxide cleaves aromatic ring structures, and oxidizes
the resulting straight- or branched- chain alkenes.
Oxidation proceeds through a series of progressively
shorter hydrocarbon chains, eventually resulting in carbon
dioxde and water. Peroxide's primary advantage, however,
is that it leaves no hazardous residue itself. This
compares favorably with oxidants such as chlorine, which
can be acutely toxic. Chlorination can also produce toxic
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Unreacted peroxide spontaneously
decomposes to water and oxygen. The released oxygen
enriches the soil, promoting aerobic bacterial activity.
Aerobic bacteria destroys sulfides and other noxious odor-
producing chemicals. Oxygen also inhibits anaerobic
bacteria, which produce sulfides, and filamentous
, bacteria, which produce other foul-smelling byproducts.
Peroxide treatment by itself has several crippling
disadvantages. Under normal conditions, hydrogen peroxide
reacts very slowly with saturated alkanes, and the
reactions do not go to completion. Saturated alkanes make
» up nearly two-thirds of a typical unleaded gasoline (see
Table II). Direct peroxide addition to soil gives an
uncontrolled, highly exothermic reaction. The heat
. evolved volatizes most of the gasoline before it can be
destroyed. The heat also drives off the intermediate
decomposition products, which are more volatile due to
their lower molecular weight. The intermediate breakdown
products, especially mercaptans, can be more noxious than
the original compounds. Both these factors constitute an
air pollution problem which precludes peroxide treatment
in the open air. Additionally, the heat of reaction
facilitates hydrogen peroxide's autocatalytic
decomposition to water and oxygen. Adding additional
peroxide to compensate for decomposition losses gives a
hotter reaction and faster peroxide loss.
-------
TABLE I
WASTE CHEMICAL CLASSES ABILITY
TO REACT 'WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Chemical Compound Yes No Unknown
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (1) x x
Alkyl Halides x
Ethers x
Halogenated Ethers and Epoxides x
Alcohols (2) x
Glycols, Expoxides x
Aldehydes, Ketones (3) x
Carboxylic Acids x
Amides x
Esters x
Nitriles • x
Amines x
Azo Compounds, Hydrazine Derivatives x
Nitrosamines x
Thiols (3) x
Sulfides, Disufides (3) x
Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides x
Benzene and Substituted Benzene (2) x
Halogenated Aromatic Compounds . x
Nitrophenolic Compounds x
Fused Polycyclic Hydrocarbons x
Fused Non-Alterant Folycyclic Hydrocarbon x
Heterocyclic Nitrogen Compounds x
Heterocyclic Oxygen Compounds x
Heterocyclic Sulfur Compounds • " x
Organophosphorus Compounds x
(1) Saturated alkanes unreactive; unsaturated compounds
form epoxides and poly-hydroxy compounds.
(2) Requires catalyst
(3) May require catalyst
SOURCE: Remedial Action of Waste Disposal Sites. (Revised)
EPA/625/6-85/006, USEPA Office of Research and
Development, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnation, OH, October, 1985,
p 9-55.
-------
TABLE II
LIQUID GASOLINE COMPONENTS IN UNLEADED GASOLINE
COMPOUNDS
1. Butane
2. Butane, 2-raethyl
3. Pentane
4. 2-Pentene (trans)
5. 2-Butene, 2-methyl
6. Butene, 2, 3-dinethyl
7. Pentane, 2-methyl
8. Pentane, 3-methyl
9. Hexane
10. Cyclopentane , methyl
11. Pentane, 2, 2-dimethyl
12. Benzene
13. Hexane, 2-methyl
14. Cyclopentane, 1, 1-dimethyl
15. Hexane, 3-methyl
16. Pentane, 2, 2, 4-trimethyl
17. Heptane
18. Toluene
19. Benzene, ethyl
20. Xylene, para and met a
21. Xylene, ortho
22. Toluene, para and meta ethyl
23. Benzene, 1, 3, 5-trimethyl
24. Benzene, 1, 2, 4-trimethyl
Total branched-chain alkanes: 61.1%
Total branched-chain alkenes: 6.5%
Total substituted aromatics: 32.4%
VOLUME PERCENT
3.85
9.26
3.42
1.02
1.76
1.34
3.70
2.31
2.37
1.88
1.13
1.57
2.20
1.61
1.80
4.00
1.45
7.20
1.18
3.50
1.62
2.00
1.25
2.36
TOTAL 63.78%
-
As analyzed by capillary gas chromatography. The
remaining 36.22% consists of 116 minor components, each
less than 1.00 % by volume. The same 2:1 approximate
ratio of branched-chain aliphatic to substituted aromatic
compounds is retained among the minor constituents. The
gasoline used for this analysis was a typical unleaded
gasoline. Percentages may vary depending on the
crude source, blending composition and gasoline grade.
-------
III. THE LANDTREAT PROCESS
LANDTREAT is a patented synthetic polysilicate. (U.
S. Patent Nos. 4,440,867 and 4,530,765.) It is used in a
finely divided, high-surface-area powder. The silicate
matrix has been expanded by a high-temperature, high-
vacuum process, creating Frankel defects. These defects
become active sites where hydrogen peroxide and gasoline
components can be adsorbed. The active sites facilitate
peroxide decomposition to singlet oxygen, a highly
reactive species. Singlet oxygen attacks saturated
alkanes as well as unsaturated and aromatic species.
LANDTREAT resorbs the intermediate decomposition products.
These partially broken down species are attacked again,
and the process continues until essentially complete
decomposition to carbon dioxide and water is achieved.
Reaction rates are further enhanced by the ultraviolet
light in sunlight.
The general reaction sequence can be written as
follows:
RCHaCHa + LANDTREAT > RCHaCHa (adsorbed)
Ha02 + LANDTREAT > E202 (adsorbed)
HaOa (adsorbed) > HaO (desorbed) + :0 (desorbed)
CATALYST
2:0 -i- CHsCHaR (adsorbed) > Ha 0 + HCO-CHaR (adsorbed)
:0 + HCO-CH2R (adsorbed) > HOOCCHaR (adsorbed)
«
2:0 + HOOCCHiR (adsorbed) > HaO (desorbed)
+ COz.(desorbed)
+ HCO-R (adsorbed)
R is alkyl, branched or straight-chained. The process is
also being applied to other fuels, including kerosine and
diesel; and to a variety of industrial solvents, including
ketones, aldehydes, and alcohols.
The stoichiometry and kinetics of the reaction
sequence are still under investigation. Field experience
indicates that TPH reductions of up to 90% can be obtained
within hours of peroxide addition in threefold excess of
assumed stoichiometric amounts.
As a side reaction, the active sites on the LANDTREAT
also react with cations, specifically heavy metals. The
metals are converted into metal silicates. The silicates
pass the USEPA's E.P. Toxicity test, as well as
California's CAM test, a similar but more stringent
procedure. Metal contamination from leaded gasoline,
waste motor oil, cr other sources is therefore treated at
the same time.
-------
Ensotech has developed a different fixation process
where extensive heavy metal contamination exists at
elevated levels. An extended discussion* of this process
is outside the scope of the present paper, however.
IV. TREATMENT PROTOCOL
The treatment protocol is quite simple. The Site
Supervisor surveys the area and marks off the treatment
area, decontamination area, and treated and untreated soil
storage areas. These areas are then roped off and
placarded appropriately. Appropriate precautions are
taken in the treatment area to protect the paving, if any,
and the underlying soil. An earthern berm is created
around the treatment area to prevent runoff. The minimum
berm height is six inches, with proportionate thickness.
The decontamination area is located with the berm. The
only decontamination residues are unreacted peroxide and
water, which are allowed to mix into the treated soil.
Splash barriers and windbreaks are erected to guard
against windborne aerosol formation if site conditions
dictate.
The soil may have been stockpiled in advance, or may
be excavated at the time of treatment. The soil is
treated sectionally. 'Each section is spread over the
treatment area to form a layer of uniform thickness. Layer
thickness is not critical. LANDTREAT is mixed into the
soil. The soil is manipulated with a backhoe, frontloader,
or s.imilar type of earthmover.
The soil-LANDTREAT mixture is sprayed with a solution
of hydrogen peroxide in water. Peroxide is diluted in a
premix tank on board the spray unit. The unit is entirely
self-contained on a small trailer which includes the
premix tank, gasoline-powered compressor, and 100' to 300'
of hose. The unit is operated from the spray gun via an
electric control circuit.
Quality control during the treatment is maintained by
on-site testing. Successive peroxide applications
continue until, on-site results are satisfactory. On-site
testing consists of exposing standardized soil samples to
a TLV sniffer or photoionization detector. Calibration
curves have been developed using soil samples spiked with
predetermined levels of gasoline. Different curves are
required for different soil types, but all show gopd
reproductibility when sniffer readings are made according
to the standard handling procedure. The sniffer is also
used to monitor ambient air quality around the treatment
site.
V. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
-------
Site safety procedures are in accordance with normal
industry practice for peroxide use. All personnel handling
the peroxide solution are equipped with Level II
protection: protective rubber clothing, including gloves
and boots, as well as a face shield and respiratory
protection. Lesser levels of protection are sufficient
for supervisory personnel or bystanders not in the
treatment area.
A portable eyewash kit, a first aid kit, and a fire
extinguisher are kept on-hand in a site safety cart. A
water hose from the nearest city water connection is kept
near the treatment area at all times to serve as an
emergency safety shower, if needed. The hose is also used
to decontaminate all protective clothing at the end of the
day, using the predesignated decontamination area.
Personal tools (shovels, etc.) are decontaminated at
the end of each working day, and removed from the jobsite.
Major treatment equipment is left in the treatment area
overnight until the project is completed, and is then
decontaminated at the end of the job.
VI. SITE CLOSURE AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Closure requirements are minimal. Once laboratory
analysis confirms complete treatment (usually defined as
TPH < 100 mg/kg and total Benzene-Toluene-Xylene-Ethyl
Benzene (BTXE) < 10 mg/kg), the soil can be backfilled on-
site, sent to a Class III (sanitary) landfill, or used as
clean fill for landscaping. The gas station resumes
operation.
Final samples are generally spli-t with the lead
regulatory agency for independent verification. Analyses
commonly performed include USEPA methods 7420 (lead), 8010
(Ethylene Dibromide [EDB], an antiknock additive commonly
found in unleaded gasoline), 8015 (TPH), and 8020 (BTXE).
Some agencies also require method 9040, pH. To date, no
treated soil has been rejected by a regulatory agency or
by a sanitary landfill. Groundwater monitoring wells are
not generally required unless groundwater contamination
already exists. A separate groundwater treatment system
may be required in some cases. Even without treatment,
groundwater quality will gradually improve with time after
the contamination source is removed.
Permitting requirements vary with the lead agency,
which in turn varies with the geographical area and the
presence or potential of groundwater contamination. In
general a variance must be obtained to perform on-site
treatment at each specific site. At this writing, the
process has been used under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Health Services, the Los Angeles
County Department of tfealth Services, the Los Angeles City
-------
Department of Public Works, the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the Orange County Health Care
Agency, and the Riverside County Health Department.
Because the process is virtually emission-free, no
air pollution permits are required. In the case of an
operating gas station, ambient gasoline vapors at the pump
islands are orders of magnitude higher than at the
periphery of the treatment area.
VI. SITE HISTORIES
The data presented below comes from actual soil
treatment projects performed in Southern California. In
general, between 300 to 1500 cubic yards of soil were
treated at each site. Treatment costs ranged from $70.00
to $130.00 per cubic yard. This compares favorably with
the total disposal cost at a Class I dumpsite. Transport
and disposal of the untreated soil would cost
approximately $250.00 to $330.00 per cubic yard. Treatment
cost is site-specific, varying with the volume of soil,
extent of contamination, and other factors.
Each project took approximately three to seven days
of work on-site. This does not include permitting,
excavation, backf il 1 itig, or the laboratory analyses
required to certify complete treatment.
Note on sample reporting: the site characterizations
from, which these data were derived were performed under
varying circumstances in conjunction with any of several
different agencies. Sample location and numbering schemes
therefore vary from site to site as do the quantity and
type analyses performed. In some cases, specific
analytical data gathered by other firms was not approved
for publication, so general TPH and BTXE ranges have been
given instead.
-------
SITE A
Gas station abandoned and tanks removed in early
1960's. Original depth of tank cavity: 15'. Depth
excavated to reach background: 32'. Depth to groundwater:
200'+. Dry sandy clay soil. Approximately 1100 cubic
yards treated in four working days. Treated soil was
backfilled.
UNTREATED SOIL AS EXCAVATED
Sample Depth/loc Pb TPH EDB
V-399-1 30 ft 9.3 20 NA
V-399-2 22 ft 9.3 196 NA
V-399-3 18 ft 20.00 425 NA
V-399-4 15 ft 20.00 798 0.17
V-399-5 untreated 9.3 211 NA
excavated soil
V-399-6 Background 20.00 35 <0.1
soil
TREATED SOIL AS BACKFILLED
Sample Depth/loc Pb TPH EDB
V-465-1 24-32 ft 9.3 31 <0.1
V-465-2 16-23 ft 9.3 25 <0.1
V-465-3 9-22 ft 15.00 45 <0.1
V-465-4 0-8 ft 15.00 43 <0.1
Note: The following abreviations are us'ed throughout the
site histories:
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
B = Benzene
T = Toluene
m-X = meta-Xylene
o&p-X = ortho- and para-Xylene
EB = Ethylbenzene
CB = Chlorobenzene
EDB = Ethylene Dibromide
Pb = Lead
NA = Not Analyzed
All results are reported in milligrams per kilogram
of soil unless otherwise noted. T
-------
SITE B
Gas station demolished and tanks removed. Treatment
performed immediately after demolition. Depth of
excavation: 12-14'. Groundwater perched and variable,
with highest recorded level at 15'. Monitoring well
installed during site characterization found no perch
water contamination. Monitoring well removed upon
conclusion of treatment. Moist, fine silty clay and sand.
1215 cubic yards of soil excavated and treated in ten
working days. Treated soil was backfilled.
UNTREATED SOIL
Sample Depth/ TPH B T m-X o&p-X EB CB
Loc
W-453 14ft 1010 4.75 33.90 47.90 7.31 2.16 1.94
W-462 14ft 193 1.88 5.44 6.38 9.95 5.01 0.50
W-463 15ft 174 0.73 3.22 6.18 7.42 2.67 0.29
TREATED SOIL
Sample TPH B T, m-X o&p-X EB pH* CB
1 W-491 8.4 0.16 <0.08 "<0.08 <0.08 <0.08 9.0 <0.08
W-492 <2 0.40 <0.'08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 8.4 <0.08
W-493 9.9 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 8.6 0.23
* Of a 10% solution
10
-------
SITE C
Depth of excavation approximately 20'. No groundwater
in vicinity of site. Dry, sandy soil. Nine hundred cubic
yards treated in three working days. Limited space
available, due to large soil stockpiles, so treatment area
located between pump islands. Treated soil was sent to a
Class III landfill.
Before treatment, soil samples showed average TPH 191
to 1,350 mg/kg, with some values as high as 8,900 ng/kg.
The highest total BTXE (Benzene-Toluene-Xylene-
Ethylbenzene) recorded was 782 mg/kg.
TREATED SOIL
Sample TPH B T m-X o&p-X EB EDB Pb
1
2
3
4
5 <2 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <2.5
6 <2 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <2.5
7 <2 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <2.5
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
-------
SITE D
Excavation in excess of thirty feet. Depth to
groundwater: 140*. Soil was sandy, • unconsolidated
alluvium. Treatment proceeded while new tanks were being
installed. Approximately 480 cubic yards treated in four
working days. Treated soil was used for landscaping on-
site.
UNTREATED TANK CAVITY SOIL
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sample
1-A1
2-A2
1 3-D
U-DU
Sample
7
•8
9
SP-1
SP-2
TREATED
Sample
V-950-1
V-950-2
V-950-3
Depth
(ft)
14-G
18-G
14-G
18-G
8-W 1,
12-W
Depth
(ft)
20-G
24-G
10-W
14-W
Depth
(ft)
32-G
25-G
12-W
NA-G
NA-G
SOIL
TPH
<8
<8
<8
TPH
4
10
40
6
820
15
TPH
2,530
1,960
2
880
TPH
4,980
< 10
98
1,390
97
B*
<10
<10
<10
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
B
.01
.01
.01
.01
Pb
0.1
<0. 1
NA
NA
T*
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.04
<0.02
T
7.3
9.6
<0.01
0.02
m-X*
<10
<10
<10
EB
Pb
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.33
0.02
X
920
820
0.01
2.7
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.05
<0.02
EB
57
60
<0.01
0.05
3.0
7.1
25
3.7
45
5.8
Pb
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
1.5
o&p-X* EB* Pb
<20 <10 7.6
<20 <10 <2
<20 <10 <2
* Values given are micrograms per kilogram of soil
12
-------
SITE E
Excavated to 22*. No groundwater
Clayey silt alluvial deposits to 50'. Six
yards treated in three working days. Treated
to Class III landfill.
in vicinity.
hundred cubic
soil was sent
UNTREATED SOIL
Sample
SE
SM
SW
CE
CM
CW
NE
NM
NW
Depth into pile
8"
8"
8"
5'
5'
5'
8"
8"
8"
TPH
76
148
105
1040
1250
980
35
29
48
Composite of nine samples of untreated soil from spoil
pile.
Sample
V-737-1
through
V-737-9
TPH
860
B T
2.1 24
m-X
35
o&p-X
37
TREATED SOIL
f
Sample TPH B* T* m-X* .o&p-X* EDB*
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
* Values given are micrograms per kilogram of soil.
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Pb
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
13
-------
SITE F
No groundwater in vicinity. Very confined site and
thick, intractable clay slowed treatment. 1945 cubic
yards of soil treated in ten working days. Some treated
soil was used for on-site grading and some sent to a Class
III landfill.
UNTREATED SOIL
Sample TPH B
W-380 7.6
W-381 295
W-384 675
W-385 305
W-444 42
W-445 16.8
1 W-446 236
m-X o&p-X
EB
CB
Pb
0.24 0.46 0.53
0.31 5.49 13.5
0.46 23.5 50.4
0.22 4.48 15.0
0.31 1.56 1.04
0.17 0.35 0.15
0.08 10.1 " <0.08
TREATED
Sample
W-421
W-422
W-423
W-424
W-425
W-447
W-448
W-442
W-443
SOIL
TPH
22.0
26.4
20.5
8.5
8.5
3.0
3.2
12.9
9.1
B
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.18
0. 15
<0.08
<0.08
0.25
0.24
T
0.42
0.65
0.72
0.30
0.20
0.08
0.08
2.16
0.62
0
3
0
5
1
0
0
.53
.5
.4
.0
.04
. 15
.08
m-X
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
.97
.00
.62
.40
.45
.08
.08
.04
.31
0.
2.
7.
1.
0.
0.
<0.
17
59
62
17
27
31
08
0
3
18
3
0
<0
2
o&p-X
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
2.
1.
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
37
67
0
0
0
<0
<0
<0
<0
1
0
.60
.21
.3
.03
.57
.08
.52
EB
.25
.30
.59
.08
.08
.08
.08
.68
.27
<0
8
0
1
1
<0
5
<0
<0
<0
<0
.08
.89
.16
.02
.05
.08
.53
CB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.08
.08
.08
.08
<5 0,8g/
<5 £>
<5 1 tftlty
<5 2.4£^
NA 1 ' (a^3
NA \ •1T~t*
NA *'*>1*
-------
SITE G
Extensive gasoline and waste oil contamination. Site
excavated to practical limit of 25'. Groundwater
depth: 32'. Significant groundwater contamination being
treated by other means. Moist, sandy clay to 7', followed
by dense, damp, bedded, well-sorted, uncemented sandstone.
Very confined site required some soil to be backfilled
before the job completion in order to have room to treat
remaining soil. Approximately 726 cubic yards of soil
treated in seven working days. Remainder of treated soil
sent to Class III landfill.
UNTREATED SOIL
The laboratory
are as follows:
Tank Cavity Soils
results, in parts per million (ppm),
Spoils Pile
Sample Depth (ft) TPH
Sample
Tank
TPH
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
G = Gaso
8-W ?.*
35 6,700
15-W 3.6^5 4,300
14-G *•>
14-G *.*,
14-G 3-
14-G 4.<
14-G e
14-G 1
line tank
-*• 1,803
>*" 8,884
«•*• 1,663
•' 40,302
• .00 <1
•8fc 71
area
.0
.7
5 W ?.«/?
6 G 2,13
7 G /,7i.
8 G ?.f*/
n
4
W = Waste oil tank area '
TREATED
Sample
W-596
W-597
W-598
W-599
W-600
W-601
W-602
SOIL
TPH
6.9 .64 0
<2 O."iC<0
15.8 1.2-00
15.2 Ufc 0
<2 o,3oo
6.7 0*50
4.6 0.&U)
B
.22 <0
. 08 <0
.08 <0
.09 <0
.19 <0
32 <0
• N U
.17 <0
T
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
•
mX o&p-X
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
<0.08 <0.08
2,970
135
52
3,500
H/0«/V 1
5 ~^
j. .
u }
** — Ot
ST\. — J
EB
<0.08
<0. 08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08f
<0.08
•°8 •sjsas?*
AGavcy
TEXAS
6, It.
- i z
15
------- |