OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CE3\tiff\20013L97.tif): Unspecified error

-------
                SUPERFUND TREATABILITT CLEARINGHOUSE  ABSTRACT


 Treatment Process:       Biological  -  Aerobic  and  Anaerobic

 Media:                   Soil/Generic

 Document  Reference:      NUS Corporation.   "Leetown Pesticide  Site
                         Treatability  Study."   Four progress reports  in
                         internal  memorandum form. 62 pp.  (total).  Written
                         under  EPA Contract.   July 1986  -  January 1987.

 Document  Type:           Contractor/Vendor  Treatability  Study

 Contact:                 William Hagel
                         Regional  Project Manager
                         U.S. EPA  -  Region  III
                         841 Chestnut  Street
                         Philadelphia,  PA   19107
                         215-597-9800

 Site Name:               Leetown Pesticide  Site, Leetown,  WV (NPL)

 Location  of Test:        NUS, Pittsburgh, PA

 BACKGROUND;  This document  is  composed of a  series  of  progress reports
 pertaining to a  bench-scale treatability study which utilized biodegrada-
 tion to remediate pesticide contaminated soils (DDT  and DDE) at the  Leetown
 Pesticide NPL site.  Treatment consisted of aerobic,  anaerobic and fungal
 processes to biodegrade  the DDT and DDE.
 OPERATIONAL INFORMATION;  Nutrients such as manure,  sewage sludge and wood
 chips were added to  the  soils  to  promote the growth  of  microbes capable of
 degrading the pesticides. More than 400 biodegradation  cells were used over
 4  test periods.  Efforts  to control temperature,  pH  and moisture content
 yere attempted during  the study.  One  report states  that  DDT degradation
 appears to take place  at  35 under anaerobic conditions and that DDE
 degradation takes place  in  acidic media.   The microbes  used in the test
 were not specified but are  indigenous  to the site.   Baseline DDT and DDE
 levels were approximately 7,000 ug of  DDT  per Kg  soil and 1000 ug of DDE
 per Kg of soil.
    An extraction procedure with hexane done on the  soil  to analyze  for DDT
 was criticized for being a  quick and dirty extraction with no cleanup of
 the extract.  Other  concerns reported  were strongly  sorbed compounds may
 not be detected, interference from naturally occurring  organic matter could
 skew the results and lack of standard  analytical  protocols could introduce
 extraneous variables into the data.   Specific information pertaining to the
 quantity or type of  contaminated soils was not included in the report.
 PERFORMANCE;  In December of 1986 an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the
 results was conducted  to determine if  there is any statistically signifi-
 cant difference between the various samples collected from each of the
different treatment  cells and to determine if there  is a significant
difference in DDT and DDE concentrations from one cell  treatment to  the
next.   The ANOVA indicated  there is no significant difference between the
3/89-21                                              Document Number:  EZUU

   NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.

-------
 various cell configurations.   Hence the average concentration calculated
 for each cell configuration is representative of the population mean.   A
 review of the sampling data reported in the December 30th progress report
 suggests that anaerobic vessels operating under incubated conditions
 represented the best method of degrading DDT in the soils.   The authors
 report that the indigenous microbial populations can be used to degrade DDT
 at  the Leetown Pesticide Site.  A preliminary estimate of the time for this
 process to reduce DDT plus DDE to desired action levels of 300 ug/kg of
 total DDT and metabolites was 8 months.   Both DDT and DDE are degraded
 under anaerobic conditions,  and anaerobic vessels operating under incubated
 conditions represent the best method of degrading DDT.   Further work was
 recommended on the toxicity and environmental mobility of the metabolites
 present from the recommended  composting scheme as well as controlled bench
 and pilot testing.
      No QA/QC procedures were reported;  however,  quality control issues
 were discussed and this work was done under an EPA contract.

 CONTAMINANTS;

 Analytical data is provided  in the treatability study report.   The
 breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability  Group

WOl-Halogenated
     Nonpolar Aromatic
     Compounds
CAS Number
50-29-3
                                72-55-9
Contaminant

l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis
 (4-chlorophenyl)ethane
 (4,4-DDT)
l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis
 (4-chlorophenyl)e thene
 (4,4-DDE)
3/89-21                                              Document Number:  EZUU

   NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.

-------
                                               INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO:       FILE                         DATE:     JULY 9,  1986

FROM:    *HKRT J.  HUBBARDX$^      COPIES:   D.  BRENNEMAN
                            /                   D.  MACINTYRE
                            /                     H.  ROFFMAN
                                                 J.  GEORGE

SUBJECT:  LEETOHN PESTICIDE  SITE TREATABILITY STUDY • PROGRESS REPORT
          EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT  NUMBER 65-3152
          NUS PROJECT NUMBER S794.14
A  brief  synopsis of  the  status of the  Leetown Pesticide Site Treatablllty
Study follows:

  t  One hundred and thirty (130) reaction vessels (blodegradatlon cells) were
     generated  from June 25 through June 28, 1986.

  t  Twenty cells were deleted from the original scope of work as a  result of
     the offensive nature  of the matrix  (I.e.,  odlferous aerobic sewage  sludge
     cells were eschewed).

  t  Generation of all other  cells proceeded  without difficulty with the
     following  exception:  gypsum  was  found to   be an   Inappropriate
     acidification  substance.   On  reexamlnation 1s  Is recognized  that this
     salt (calcium sulfate) Is  generated from  both a strong base and  a  strong
     add.   Hence,  the pH  of the soil matrix achieved through  addition of this
     substance  was 1n the  neutral  range  (pH » 6.5).  Aluminum sulfate  was sub-
     stituted  as an  ac1d1f1er.   Aluminum Ions successfully compete with
     hydronium  Ions for available exchange sites.  Soil  reaction of  pH *  4.5
     was easily achieved through addition  of aluminum  sulfate.

  0  The heat  Input to  the Incubation  vessel  was gradually adjusted until  a
     constant temperature  of 94 °F was achieved.  The aerobic  reaction vessels
     experienced loss  of soil moisture over the first four or  five days  of  the
     study.  This required addition of  additional  deionized water.   This
     moisture  loss  has  been mitigated through capping.   Mason jar  Hds have
     been placed  loosely  over  the vessels.   The lids are removed  once dally
     (during daily inspection)  to Introduce new  air to the vessels.

  •  No loss of  soil  moisture  1s evident In the ambient  (bench top) vessels.
     The pre-humidified air supplied to  the enclosures 1s working as  planned.

  •  To date,  no  evidence of gas generation  1s  evident in any of the flooded
     (anaerobic) vessels.

-------
  t  Evidence of  growth of Microorganisms  Is evident In a number of the
     aerobic cells,  however.   Mycelium  are apparent  1n a number of the pH *
     4.5 cells (I.e.,  the  fungal cells).  A  crusty  substance similar to a
     lichen 1n appearance  has been noted In several of the pH *  7.0 cells.
     Although no evidence of  degradation  will  be available until  the first
     samples are analyzed In late July,  the growth of the different organisms
     under the different conditions appears promising.

   •The results  for  the  Initial  (t *  0)  samples are  attached.   Note the
     consistency 1n  the results between  replicates for each sample batch. This
     Is considered  an Indication that  the mixing process  was  thorough and
     adequate to assure  statistically useful results.

A lab logbook 1s being kept that contains more detailed Information regarding
the study.  I  have learned that our laboratory has  an NRC license, thus we
should  have  no  difficulty  1n  obtaining the  radlolabeled pesticides for the
carbon  14 study. As Indicated  1n the work plan,  this phase  of the  study will
not be  undertaken until the results at the  end  of  the first 30-day period
(approximately July 30)  have been obtained.  This should give us some  Insight
as to which combination of variables warrants more explicit  study.

-------
       NUS
       CORPORATION                                               C-34-8-6-182
 J&RK WEST TWO

 TTSBUFIGH, PENNSYLVANIA 1 SE75-1 O71
C.4ia)7BB-1O8O

     August 14, 1986
     NUS Project No.  S794.14


     Ms. Laura Booranzian
     Regional Site Project  Officer
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
     Region III
     841 Chestnut Street
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107

     Subject:  Leetown Pesticide Site, WV
               EPA Work Assignment No. 95-3L52.1
               Treatabilty  Study Status Meeting -
               August 13, 1986

     Dear Laura:

     This correspondence includes  a  brief summary of the points raised during our
     meeting on August 13,  1986, regarding  the ongoing treatability study of
     microbial degradation  of pesticides in the Leetown Site soils.   This  meeting
     was attended by  the following:

          Ms. Laura Boornazian      EPA Region  III Regional Site Project Officer
          Dr. Richard Brunker       EPA Region  III Toxicologist
          Mr. Robert  Hubbard        NUS Chemical Engineer, Technical Project Lead
          Mr. John George           NUS Project Manager

     Dr.  Brunker  generally approved  of  the  experimental  set-up  in  the  NUS
     Laboratory Services (LSD) facility,  and of the manner in which Mr. Hubbard had
     documented the  study thus  far.   One area  of concern  appeared to  be the
     assurance that  soil  reaction  (pH)  in the test cells was  being adequately
     maintained.   NUS should verify that the buffers  used  remain effective in
     maintaining the desired  pH over  the course  of  the study  by periodic pH
     measurements.   In addition,  NUS  should validate  the procedure used to
     determine soil pH;  in  particular, NUS should investigate  whether the quantity
     of soil used in  making up the slurry for  pH testing has any bearing on the pH
     measured.  Cells should also be configured and exposed to sunlight to test the
     utility of photolytic  degradation of the pesticides  as a  treatment technology.
     This will be done by placing soil in aluminum  roasting pans, covered  with a
     celophane wrap and exposing them to sunlight with  frequent mixing of the
     soils.

     Administratively, we agreed that NUS would  continue the  present  study,  with
     sample collection from the cells at the end of August and  during  mid-
     September, in  anticipation  of possible  termination  or  interruption  of the
     study with the close of the REM/FIT Contract on  September  30.  The EPA trailer
     which houses the GC used in analyzing  the samples will be returned to the EPA
    A Halliburton Company

-------
                                                                C-34-8-6-182
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Region III
August 14, 1986 - Page Two
 in  mid-September.  An  adequate  allowance  will  be made  in  scheduling  sample
 collection in September to ensure that these  samples  can  be analyzed  via  the
 EPA  lab.  NUS is investigating the possible use  of a  similar GC  owned by  NUS
 and  presently onsite  in  Michigan.  Under REM  III,  use of this equipment
 requires negotiation  of a  rental  rate with EBASCO and  the EPA.

 Although preliminary  quantitative results were incomplete from the analysis of
 the first set of soil samples  (t = 30 days), there appears to be some evidence
 of decay in the  initial  pesticide  concentrations  in  some of the cells.   Final
 preliminary quantitative results should be available by today.  However,
 adequate data are not expected to enable NUS to establish a time rate of decay
 of the pesticides in  order to determine whether  the treatability study can be
 terminated with  sample  collection  in  mid-September.  The  likelihood  is  that
 at least some facet of the study will need to be continued beyond the end of
 the present  REM/FIT Contract.   It will be necessary for  us to discuss  the
 mechanism  for transition  of  this work  into  REM  III  under  EBASCO  as  soon as
 possible to avoid interruption of the work.   I realize,  however,  that  no firm
 commitments  can  be  made by  the Agency   until  the  issue of Superfund
 reauthorization  is  resolved.

 We  committed  to submittal   of a report of the initial  and  t = 30 days
 analytical  results within  approximately two weeks.

 The remainder of our meeting was devoted to  a discussion of the  experimental
 protocols  for the radio-isotope  study.   Dr.   Brunker indicated that  the
 protocols  presented by Mr.  Hubbard, based  on  a search of the literature,
 appeared to be appropriate to the study.  The  issue of what material to use to
 trap the C0£  off-gas  (e.g.,  potassium  hydroxide,  phenylethyl amine)  should be
 resolved by  contacting  applications personnel at  New  England Nuclear.   NUS
 should  be  aware  that  the  C02  trapping   material  may  react  with  the
 scintillation cocktail to produce "chemoluminesence" which may result in
 aberrant (high)  scintillation counts.   The occurrence  of this phenomenon  will
 be evaluated  initially  by  conducting  "aged" counts on a  single sample to  see
 if counts drop off after time, indicative of  the  phenomenon.

 We then discussed the amount  of the  isotope  to  use.    NUS  will  be obtaining
 uniformly ring-labeled DDT and  DDE.   Approximately one  micro-Curie  of  each
 will be obtained.   When ready for use,  the radio-isotopes will be  mixed  with
distilled water  and diluted to a concentration sufficient to produce about 100
 counts  per  minute (cpm)  in  the C02  collected.  The  actual  amount  of  the
 isotope/distilled water  mixture  to  be added  to the  soil samples  will be
dependent upon the  concentration  of the  mixture,  the  assumed decay rate  (and
 thus the labeled C02  generation rate)  of the pesticides,  and the interval  over
which the C02 trap  will  remain in contact with the atmosphere in the reaction
vessel  between  scintillation  counts.    Mr. Hubbard  will make the necessary
calculations  after he has  had  an opportunity to  review  the  initial analytical
 results relative to the decay  rate of the pesticides,  and will submit them to
Dr.  Brunker for  review.
                              IMUS CORPORATION

-------
                                                                 C-34-8-6-182
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Region III
August 14, 1986 - Page Three
The estimated duration of the radio-isotope study  will be about  30 days.
Counts will  be  made daily for the first week,  and the interval between  CO?
sample coll lections will be adjusted thereafter based  on the data obtained.  A
minimum  of  two  replicates  of each  treatment cell  will  be configured.
Initiation of the  study  is  anticipated  by  the week of August 25.  With this
late date for initiation of the work, it is recognized that there is some risk
that the study may have to be aborted without final completion near the close
of the REM/FIT contract on September 30.

I understand  from our conversation  that  EPA Region  III is  interested in having
NUS continue  on this project in a design and  construction  capacity.   This  was
originally suggested in  the  context  of  the EPA "Contractor Continuity" Pilot
Program.    In terms of  additional  work beyond  the bench  scale treatability
study, we discussed the  need  to engage in  pilot-scale  studies of  the  most
promising treatments,  possibly in conjunction with further-refined bench scale
microbial  degradation  studies.   It is possible that  the  pilot-scale studies
could be  initiated  this  winter.   It  will  be important in scheduling of such
studies,   however,  for  us to  be aware  of  the  Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)  commitments  for the Leetown Site regarding design
and construction.

Finally,   I would  like  to take this opportunity to  thank  you  and  Dr.  Brunker
for taking the time to overview the treatability study set-up and  to provide
suggestions on the study.
Very truly yours,                       Approved for submission by:
John George                            David E. Maclntyre
Project Manager                        Regional Manager of Projects

JAG/jag

cc:  Ed Shoener,  EPA Region  III
     Richard Brunker,  EPA  Region  III
     Lisa Woodson,  EPA Headquarters

-------
 IMUS
 CXDRPORATON
                                               INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
                                                        C-34-8-6-384
TO:

FROM:
FILE

ROBERT J.  HUBBARD/f^'
MTE:     AUGUST 29. 1986

COPIES:   D. BRENNEMAN
          0. SENOVICH
          D. NACIirTYRE
          H. HOFFMAN
          J. GEORGE
SUBJECT:
LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY - PROGRESS REPORT 12
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 65-3L52
NUS PROJECT NUMBER S794.14
Reaction vessels were configured from June 25 through June  28,  1986  to  study
the blodegradatlon of DDT  and DDE by  Indigenous  soil microorganisms.   The
Influence of pH,  soil moisture, temperature, and various soil amendments on
the activity of  such  organisms  was considered  In devising the  experimental
design.   Additional  details are  Included  1n  the file  memo dated  July 9,  1986
(C-34-7-6-113).

A sample was collected from each  reaction vessel  during the week of July 28,
1986.   Samples were extracted  and  analyzed by Debra M.  Schelb, using the gas
chromatograph 1n the mobile laboratory.   Holding time requirements  for
pesticide/FCB analysis  (as specified under the EPA's Contract Laboratory
Program) were satisfied.

Baseline (t«0)  concentrations  were determined  at the time the cells were
generated.   The analytical  results of the baseline  analyses,  as well as the
results of  the  first   sampling  round   (t*30  days) are  Included In the
attachments.

Table 1  summarizes  average values of the "degradation ratio" for  all of the
cell  configurations  (5  Individual  cells   comprise each  configuration).    The
degradation ratio  was devised  to facilitate a  statistical analysis and  1s
simply the concentration  of  DDT and DDE at time t«30 days divided by the
concentration of the respective  analyte at time  t*0.   Note that some of these
values exceed unity.   This  1s  considered  evidence of  the  heterogeneous  nature
of the pesticide contamination.  However,  Increases 1n DDE concentrations were
noted in a number of the  anaerobic cells,  and  this 1s not believed  to  be
result of matrix  effects (as discussed further below).

The results were  subjected to a statistical  treatment (Analysis of  Variance)
to  confirm or  negate the  null  hypothesis (I.e.,  to determine  1f variance  in
sample  means  was caused by random fluctuations attributable  to  sampling and
analysis).  The  results of  the F-test indicated  that  variance  1n  sample  means
is significant 1n all of the sets  at a minimum level  of  significance of 0.05.
Variance is  significant  in a  number of  the  cells at much  lower probability
levels  (i.e., as  low as 0.005).   The statistical treatment 1s outlined  in
detail  in the  attached sample calculation package.   Table  2 summarizes
experimental  F values  and  literature   F  values  for  each of the sample
populations considered.

-------
Although 1t  1s  apparent that non-homogeneity of  contamination  1n  the soil
•atrlx may have had some effect on the results,  several trends are evident In
the analytical data that provide Information regarding the applicability of
various treatment techniques  at  the  Leetown Site.   Several  of the treatment
cells displayed  favorable results for the degradation of both DDT  and DDE. The
composition of these cells will be used as  a basis  for  configuration of cells
for additional  study  using  radio-labeled  pesticides  (I.e.,  ring-labeled DDT
and DDE).

Results at 30 days should be  considered an Initial  Indication  of  the success,
or lack thereof,  1n achieving degradation.   At this phase of the study only a
qualitative  Indication  of promising degradation  avenues  Is necessary.
Quantitative results  will  be  provided  by the  carbon  14  study  through
scintillation counts (1f complete mineralization occurs) or through thin layer
chromatography (If complete breakdown to carbon dioxide and water 1s not
observed).

Figure  1 displays a schematic  representation of the experimental design.
Three main branches of  the experiment are shown:  a fungal  degradation  branch;
an  aerobic  bacterial  degradation  branch;  and  an anaerobic bacterial
degradation branch.   The analytical  results for each  of  these 1s discussed
briefly below.

Fungal Branch (pH«4.5)

  Several of  the  cell  configurations for this branch gave  favorable  results
  for the degradation  of both DDT  and DDE.  It was observed that  the best
  results occurred 1n  the cells containing only the natural  soil.  A possible
  hypothesis 1s that the presence  of alternate food sources  (such  as the
  organic material In manure) Inhibits the  action of the low pH-favoring soil
  microorganisms on the pesticide compounds.  It appears  that  Increasing the
  temperature of  the  vessels  Is  detrimental  to the  performance  of the
  organisms in these cells.

Aerobic Bacterial  Branch (pH»7)

  Favorable results  were also observed In several of these cells.   In contrast
  to the fungal  cells,  microorganisms operating under these conditions  aopear
  to  perform better  1n the  presence of  alternate  food sources.   It 1s
  speculated that population growth 1s more pronounced  for organisms 1n these
  cells, and that they compete for any available organic  molecules,  including
  the pesticides.   It should be noted that most of the literature reports that
  aerobic  bacteria are Incapable of degrading DDT.   However, It should be
  recognized that these  species reside in an area  with high background  levels
  of  these organochlorlne  pesticides.  They  are expected  to  be  at least
  tolerant of these chemicals and  have  hopefully  developed the capacity to
  enzymatically degrade them.

  Some  indication  that degradation  1s favorable  at  higher temperatures is
  offered by the results.  However,  this  evidence is not considered conclusive
  at  this  time.   Difficulties  were  experienced  in  maintaining  the soil
  moisture of the  Incubated  vessels,  and  deIonized water  was added  to  the
  cells  on several occasions.  Because of the  problems  with desslcatlon,
  results  may  be  less conclusive than  those  operating  under  ambient

-------
  conditions.   The ambient cells  have  not  required  the  addition  of moisture
  during the period  of  study.

Anaerobic Cells

  Degradation  of DDT was evident In  several of these cells and appears to
  occur  more rapidly at elevated temperatures.   This 1s  consistent with
  observations  1n the lab.  The  Incubated anaerobic cells were generating  gas
  at a much  earlier date than  the cells at room temperature (most  of  the
  ambient cells are  still not evolving gas).  DDE  concentrations Increased 1n a
  number of these cells  (when contrasted with the baseline concentrations  for
  the amended soil matrix).   This was also observed for  DDT 1n  a  number of
  the cells.   For this reason  It was considered likely that the  baseline
  concentrations were somewhat  lower  than  the  true  values  and  therefore  the
  results from the thirty day samples  were also contrasted  with the baseline
  concentrations for the natural soil.   Although DDE  concentrations were
  generally lower when  contrasted 1n this manner, they still did not Indicate
  that any significant degradation has transpired.  Overall, these results  are
  consistent with other studies that have  shown DDE  to  be a predominant
  degradation product of DDT  under anaerobic conditions.

Summary

Based on  the Initial results  of the degradation study,  the anaerobic branch
appears unsuitable for  degrading both  DDT and DDE.   Some promise Is evident
for various aerobic  configurations.  The aerobic branches will be Included 1n
the radio-labeled pesticide study.  Pending  the concurrence  of USEPA Region
III, the following cells will be configured for the second phase of  the study:
low pH  cells (I.e., pH approximately 4.5)  without soil  amendments and neutral
pH cells (both amended  and  unamended cells).
 occ:  Laura Boornazian  (EPA Region III)
       Richard Brunker  (EPA Region III)

-------
TABLE 1
Page 1
LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY
DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)*
STUDY
Fungal Cells (pH=4.5)
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T=35°C
Manure (5J by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (5X by weight)
T=35°C
Manure (10X by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (10X by weight)
T=35°C
Manure & Wood Chips (51 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure ft Hood Chips (5X by weight)
T=35°C
Manure & Hood Chips (101 by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure & Wood Chips (10* by weight)
DDT
0.23
0.25
0.48
0.35
0.66
1.31
0.38
0.47
0.54
1.06
DDE
0.10
1.67
0.17
0.35
0.19
1.36
0.11
0.18
0.34
1.23
T=35°C

-------
                                   Table 1
                                    Page 2

                          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, HV
                   MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                            DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)

                       Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH-7)**

Cell Matrix                          DDT                          DDE

Soil                                 0.71                         0.31
Room Temperature

Soil                                 0.198                        0.70
T«35°C

Manure (5X by weight)                2.06                         0.98
Room Temperature
Manure (5X by weight)                0.33                         1.62
T«35°C

Manure (10* by weight)               2.69                         0.97
Room Temperature

Manure (10* by weight)               0.31                         1.52
T«35°C

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              1.06                         1.74
(5X by weight)
Room Temperature

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.28                         1.59
(5X by weight)
T=35°C

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              1.16                         1.43
(lOt by weight)
Room Temperature

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.65                         2.69
(101 by weight)
T=35°C

-------
                                   Table 1
                                    Page 3

                          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
                   MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                            DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)

                      Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH«7)***

Cell Matrix                          DDT                          DDE

Soil                                 0.71                         0.31
Room Temperature

Soil                                 0.198                        0.70
T=35°C

Manure (52 by weight)                0.53                         0.3
Room Temperature

Manure (5X by weight)                0.084                        0.49
T=35°C

Manure (10% by weight)               0.43                         0.32
Room Temperature

Manure (10% by weight)               0.052                        0.51
T*35°C

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.22                         0.36
(52 by weight)
Room Temperature

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.059                        0.33
(51 by weight)
T=35°C

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.25                         0.53
(10% by weight)
Room Temperature

Anaerobic Sewage Sludge              0.14                         1.00
(10% by weight)
T=35°C

-------
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T=35°C
Manure (5X by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (5X by weight)
T«35°C
Manure (10* by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (101 by weight)
T*35°C
                Table 1
                 Page 4
       LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
         DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
          Aerobic Cells (pH«7)**
                  DDT
                  0.159
                  0.352
                  0.135
                  0.679
                  0.341
                  0.115
DDE
0.999

0.751

0.073

0.391

0.153^

0.10
Notes:
*    - DR=(CODT 9 t * 30 days)/(CDDT 3 t * 0)
**   - Results based on baseline  concentration of amended soil
***  - Results based on baseline  concentration of unamended soil

-------
                                   TABLE 2

                          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, HV
                   MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                   EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS LITERATURE F VALUES
POPULATION               EXPERIMENTAL F              LITERATURE F
Fungal Cells
Anaerobic Cellsj
(Amended Cone)
Anaerobic Cells?
(Unamended Cone)
Aerobic Cells
All Cells
(Using 1)
All Cells
(Using 2)
DDT
2.5
7.9
6.5
1.0
5.9
2.9
DDE
3.9
2.8
2.2
8.9
5.0
3.8
O.OS
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.62
1.70
1.70
0.01
2.89
2.89
2.89
3.90
2.12
2.12
0.00!
3.22
3.22
3.22
4.49
2.29
2.29

-------

-------
PJUS
CXDRPORATOTSI
                                              INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
                                                                C-34-9-6-43
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:
FILE
          HUBBARD
LEETONN PESTICIDE S
TREATABILITY STUDY
PROGRESS REPORT 13
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO
NUS PROJECT NO. 794.14
                                     65-3L52
DATE:     SEPTEMBER 29, 1986

COPIES:   D. BRENNEMAN
          D. SENOVICH
          D. NACINTYRE
          H. ROFFMAN
          J. GEORGE
A third round of samples were collected from the Leetown treatablHty study
reaction vessels from September 5,  1986 through September 18, 1986.   During
the  analysis  of these  samples,  problems were  encountered  because  of
degradation  of  the chromatographlc  column.    The  column  was replaced
approximately halfway through the sampling and analysis program (September 12,
1986).   This event  extended the period of  time necessary to complete the
analytical  work.  No  adverse effects on  the analytical results  are  anticipated
because of  this problem.

Table 1 summarizes the analytical results for all samples collected  to  date.
Included on the table are baseline  results,  results  for the second sampling
round at t  » 30 days, and results for the third  round at t » 60 days.

During  the  most  recent  round,  results  for  some of the cells Indicated that
matrix  effects are  more severe than  anticipated.   The concentrations 1n
several  samples collected during the third  sampling round  were  noted  to be
much  higher  than  those determined  during  the second  sampling round.
Difficulties  were especially pronounced  In the cells  containing 101 manure by
weight  (particularly  those operating at  the  higher temperatures).   The
problems with  these cells  are  clearly attributable  to matrix  Interference
effects.

Table 2 presents a  summary of the "degradation ratio" for both the t  « 30 day
samples and  the t •  60 day  samples.  The degradation  ratios  are simply the
concentrations  at t  « 30  days and t * 60  days divided by the baseline (t * 0)
concentration.    Several points  are evident  from  the degradation ratios
presented 1n the table.   It  1s  apparent that the most  promising results were
obtained from the cells containing no amendments whatsoever.   As discussed 1n
Progress Report  12,  this Is considered  evidence  that the best  degradation
rates are  achieved  If alternate carbon sources are not available to the
microorganisms.   In  addition, 1t 1s also  apparent that the cells  operating at
ambient  conditions  also provide  more  favorable  results.   Difficulties
encountered In maintaining  the  moisture  levels In the Incubated cells (T *
35°C) were  not  encountered 1n the cells  operating at  room  temperature.   It 1s
felt that more meaningful results will  be generated  with  the  cells operating
under  ambient  conditions.   Since  temperatures similar  to those 1n the
Incubated cells (I.e., T  - 35°C)  will  be difficult to achieve In the field, 1t
1s also felt  that the ambient cells will provide results more  consistent with
the ultimate field  application of the process.

-------
                                                                  C-34-9-6-43
MEMO TO: FILE
SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 - PAGE TWO
Based on the results achieved to date, the general  conclusion has been reached
that the unamended samples  (I.e., natural soil samples) operating at room
temperature display the  most promise.   Based  on  these  Initial findings,  a
decision has been made to  focus  the  remaining  study on certain cells  rather
than on the entire group.   During the fourth  sampling round,  samples will be
collected from only the unamended  (or natural  soil) cells.  With the exception
of the  anaerobic cells, only  cells operating at room temperature will be
sampled.  Thus a total of  4  sets  of cells will be  sampled.   Because  of  the
desire to obtain more precise and  representative  results, 5  samples will be
collected  from  each  of  the Individual reaction vessels  (5 vessels  per
treatment configuration).   Thus a total of 100  samples will be collected
during the  fourth  round.    Similar samples will be  collected  during the  5th
sampling round If funds are available at  that time.

Contrast  of the results obtained during the 4th and  5th  sampling  rounds
originally proposed for October  and November  should provide final, conclusive
evidence that substantial degradation has occurred  1n the selected  cells.

Prior to expiration of the REM/FIT contract,  the  materials for the  **C study
were obtained.  Labelled pesticides  and  blometrlc  flasks were  received  from
Pathfinder Laboratories,  Inc. and  Bellco Glass  Company, respectively.   This
phase of the study will be Implemented as soon as adequate funds are  available
to carry the 1sotop1c  study to completion.
RJH/rjh

Att.

-------
              i

              c
GO
ff.
(SI


o
<
C£
UJ

o
Q
                                                               80

                                                               «

                                                     »    •    *

                                                    •*»  •*»   V
     o    o
o   •»    *
t   a    •
•*>   V   4»

-------
o

o
oo

O
O
o
o
o
Ci
z
el

-------

-------
     
-------
     o

     o
     a
     o


    k°

    r<

CO   t—
     Q
     a
                      I «

-------
•V   •*»   •**

-------
00
u
o
LU
Q
O
O
                                    9
                                    7
                                    •t

-------
UJ
GO
o
o

UJ
Q
a

o
a
a

-------
o
o
           1*

           I

-------
LU

-------
                                   TABLE 2
                                   Page  1

                          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
                   MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                           DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)*
                            Fungal Cells (pH*4.5)
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature
Soil
T=35°C
Manure (5* by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (5* by weight)
T=35°C
Manure (10* by weight)
Room Temperature
Manure (10* by weight)
T-35°C
Manure & Wood Chips
DDT
t=|g
0.23
0.25
0.48
0.35
0.66
1.31
0.38
t=60
7
0.27
0.32
2.12
0.871
5.71
0.28
DDE
0.10
1.67
0.17
0.35
0.19
1.36
0.11
t«60
§J&
0.77
0.36
4.50
0.93
7.87
0.27
(5* by weight)
Room Temperature

Manure & Wood Chips
(5* by weight)
T=35°C

Manure & Wood Chips
(10* by weight)
Room Temperature
0.47    0.71
0.54    0.60
0.18    0.66
0.34    0.60
Manure & Wood Chips
(10* by weight)
T=35°C
1.06    U
1.23    U

-------
                                          Table 2
                                          Page  2

                                 LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
                          MICROS I AL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                                   DEGRADATION RATIO (OR)

                              Anaerobic Cells (Flooded, pH=7)


       Cell Matrix                  DDT                          DDE
                                            t=60                 t«50    t=60

       Soil                         0.71    0.11                 0.31    0.18
       Room Temperature

       Soil                         0.20    0.08                 0.70    0.28
       T=35°C

       Manure (52 by weight)        2.06    0.34                 0.98    1.25
       Room Temperature

       Manure (5* by weight)        0.33    0.24                 1.62    1.81
       T=35°C

       Manure (10* by weight)       2.69    2.48                 0.97    0.93
       Room Temperature

       Manure (10t by weight)       0.31    0.26                 1.52    1.13
A    T=35°C

       Anaerobic Sewage Sludge      1.06    0.54                 1.74    0.55
       (55 by weight)
       Room Temperature

       Anaerobic Sewage Sludge      0.28    0.28                 1.59    1.65
       (5% by weight)
       T*35°C

       Anaerobic Sewage Sludge      1.16    0.40                 1.43    0.95
       (10X by weight)
       Room Temperature

       Anaerobic Sewage Sludge      0.65    0.27                 2.69    1.56
       (10* by weight)
       T=35°C

-------
                                   Table 2
                                   Page  3

                          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WV
                   MICROBIAL DEGRADATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                            DEGRADATION RATIO (DR)
Cell Matrix
Soil
Room Temperature

Soil
T=35°C

Manure (5% by weight)
Room Temperature

Manure (5X by weight)
T=35°C

Manure (10X by weight)
Room Temperature

Manure (10% by weight)
T=35°C
Aerobic Cells (pH=7)

DDT
t=30    t=60


0.16    0.20


0.35    0.41


        0.75


        1.20


        2.28


        5.81
                                                          DDE
                                                          t=
                                                          0.06


                                                          0.75
                                                          l.Z-9
t»60


0.25


1.15


0.36


2.06


1.16


7.06
Notes:

*    - DR=(CDDT & t • 30 days or t = 60 days)/(CDDT § t * 0)

U   - results unavailable.  Sample extracts Inadvertently destroyed.

-------
•
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                 REGION III
                         CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
                             839 BESTGATE ROAD
                          ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
                                                                                 301-224-2740
                                                                                 FTS-922-3752
    DATE   '  November 26» 1986

    SUBJECT:  Leetown Pesticide Treatability Study Data
    FROM


    TO


   THRU
Diana Pickens (3ES23)
Chemist
Laura Boornazian (3HW21)
Site Response Section
Patricia J. Krantz
Chief, Quality Assurance Section
             As per your request, I have reviewed the data presented for t=0
             to t=60 day from the Leetown Treatability Study.  The information
             you sent plus verbal input from John Austin is the basis for
             this response.

             The sample analysis done by NUS is a quick and dirty extraction
             with hexane.  No cleanup of the extract is done.  The identifi-
             cation of the pesticides is based on a one column confirmation.
             Although cost effective, the risks of relying on this data are:

             1.  Strongly sorbed compounds may not be detected.  DDT and
                 metabolites are likely to fall into this category.  The reported
                 results may be low estimates of the actual concentration present,

             ?..  Lack of extract cleanup allows interferences from naturally
                 occurring organic matter to interfere with both identification
                 and quantitation of the target compounds.

             3.  Lack of standardized analytical protocol used in the mobile lab
                 may introduce extraneous variability into the data set.

             The analyses which will be performed by CRL as a lab split may
             provide some information to support the original feasibility design.
             CRL will utilize an exhaustive soxhlet extraction protocol and any
             necessary cleanups.  The reported values will contain an estimate of
             even highly-sorbed constituents without counting extraneous organic
             matter as DDT or metabolites.  If necessary, confirmation of the
             presence of interferences after routine cleanups may be obtained
             using an ion chromatograph at CRL.  Since the data from the NUS-CRL
             lab split will be obtained through entirely different protocols,
             their results may not agree.  Keep in mind that the data will be
             useful  to determine which modifications (if any), are appropriate
             for future analytical work for this study.

-------
In addition to analytical comments, I offer the following feedback.
It is very difficult to see trends in the data using a  table  of
"degredation ratios".  Page 4-9 discusses use of ANOVA.  I strongly
recommend presenting the data using ANOVA.  It is entirely possible
(and likely) that the values which appear to be "creating" DDT and/or
DDE are actually values containing false positives due  to the organic
matter in the samples.  I do not agree with the proposal  to ignore
these study cells based on the information presented.

I recommend two action items to help define the quality of data  in
the presented tables:

1.  Description of actual methodology and routine QC performed in
    the mobile lab; and
2.  ANOVA results in tabular form.

These two pieces in addition to the results of the lab  split  will be
very beneficial in overall interpretation of the treatability data.
It may be appropriate to request ESO assistance in interpretation
once all  the additional information is combined.

cc:   John Austin (3ES21)
     Rosemary Kayser
     Deb Scheib , NUS Pittsburgh

DPrwbg

-------
       NUS
       CORPORATION
 =ARK WEST TWO
 CLIFF MINE ROAD
 EITTSBURBH, PENNSYLVANIA 15275-1071
^wi2)7ae-ioao
                                                 December 10, 1986
                                                 NUSP/86-0293
                                                 NA
     Ms. Laura Boornazian (3HW21)
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Region III
     841 Chestnut Street
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107

     Subject:   REM III PROGRAM - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
               SUMMARY OF REVISIONS  TO MICROBIAL INVESTIGATION
               TREATABILITY STUDY  FROM FINAL WORK PLAN (JUNE 1986)

     Dear Laura:

     Enclosed  please find copies  of the three  Leetown Pesticide Site Treatability
     Study progress reports submitted  to date.  These enclosures outline,  in
     detail, the work accomplished with the exception of  the  most recent round of
     sampling and analysis. The  attached progress  reports present information
     relative  to the following sampling rounds:

       •  Progress Report No. 1   - One hundred  and thirty  (130)  reaction vessels
          were generated  from June 25 through 29,  1986.   Baseline (t=0) samples
          were collected and analyzed.

       •  Progress Report  No.  2  -  One hundred and  thirty  (130)  reaction vessels
          were sampled and DDT/DDE analysis was performed during the week of July
          28,  1986.

       •  Progress Report  No.  3  -  One hundred and  thirty  (130)  reaction vessels
          were sampled and DDT/DDE analysis was performed during the  period  of
          September 5 through September 18,  1986.

     During the most recent  (fourth) sampling round,  only four  sets of five cells
     were sampled, as per our discussion. Five samples were obtained from each of
     the following sets of cells  (5  cells  per set):

       •  Natural soil,  pB=7.0, room temperature, aerobic conditions.
       •  Natural soil,  pH=4.5, room temperature, aerobic conditions.
       •  Natural soil,  pR=7.0, room temperature, anaerobic conditions.
       •  Natural soil,  pH=7.0, T=35°C, anaerobic conditions.

     Analysis  of these samples  has  been  completed.   Once the data  have been
     compiled,  an evaluation will be  performed, including a  complete analysis of
     variance  (ANOVA), and  a progress report will be  submitted.
   1 A Halliburton Company

-------
                                           December 10,  1986
                                           NUSP/86-0293


Ms.  Laura  Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2


Twelve (12) samples were shipped to the EPA Central Regional  Laboratory  (CKL)
in Annapolis on December 9,  1986  for confirmatory analysis.   Ten samples were
submitted for pesticide analysis only.  Two samples were submitted for full
Superfund Hazardous Substances List analysis as per your request.

One  hundred samples were  collected and  analyzed during the most  recent
sampling round,  so that 12% of the samples were submitted for  confirmation.  A
copy of the NUS field screening extraction and analytical protocol was  sent to
the EPA CRL with the samples.  I  have enclosed two copies of  the protocol for
your information.

As per your  request I have reviewed the Scope of  Work  outlined  in the Work
Plan for the Leetown Pesticide  Site Treatability Study. In  addition  to the
fourth sampling round, which was not  included in the original scope of work,
the following deviations are noted:

  •  The original period of performance  was to have  been from  late June
     through mid-September,  constrained by the close of the  contract period on
     September 30, 1986.  Sampling was originally to have been done at  periods
     of approximately 30 days,  with three rounds completed by mid-September.
     With the  concurrence  of Mr.  Ed Schoener of  your office we  agreed to
     update the progress of the work with  technical memoranda following the
     conclusion of analysis and  quantitation  of the results of  each  of the
     sampling tasks.  The artificial constraint of the end of the REM/FIT
     contract was removed with the understanding that the work would  proceed
     beyond September, under the present REM III contract.

  •  Two  sets of cells consisting of an aerobic sludge/soil mixture were not
     configured  at the outset of the study.  A suitable aerobic sludge could
     not  be obtained.  Two sludges were obtained from local sewage treatment
     plants but both were essentially aqueous.  An  attempt to filter solids
     from these  aqueous  solutions  was unsuccessful. Based on  the fact that
     there  is no evidence indicating that aerobic microorganisms are  capable
     of degrading  4,4'-DDE and because  a  suitable  sludge  could  not be
     obtained, a decision was made to delete these cells from the study.

  •  As per the request of Dr.  Richard  Brunker of your office, cells were
     configured  for a photolytic  degradation study.  These cells consisted of
     ultraviolet-transmissive plastic containers.  These cells were placed in

-------
                                          December 10,  1986
                                          NUSP/86-0293
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
     an area where they would receive as much sunlight as possible (i.e., on a
     roof area with a southern exposure).  Unfortunately, these cells were
     destroyed during a wind storm several  months ago. Only baseline samples
     had been collected from these cells prior to the storm.

Please  contact Mr.  John George or myself if you  have any  comments  or
questions.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                         ^£&MM*
                                          Robert J. Hubbard

RJH/cts
Enclosures
cc:  L.  J. Apoldo  (Ebasco) w/encl.
File:  Leetown 106-3L52
       Daily
                             NUS CORPORATION

-------
                                                               C-34-12-6-387


TO:           FILE                                DATE:      DECEMBER 30, 1986
 FROM:         ROBERT J.  HUBBARDy^W-           COPIES:   A.  BOMBERGER
                                  7  r                     D.  BRENNEHAK
 SUBJECT:      LEETONN PESTICIDE  SITE                        D.  MACINTYRE
              TREATABILITY STUDY                           H.  ROFFMAN
              PROGRESS REPORT *4                           J.  GEORGE
              EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT  NO.  106-3L52
              NUS PROJECT NO.  372Y.01

 A  fourth round  of samples  was obtained  from the  Leetown Pesticide Site
 Treatability Study cells during the  period  ranging from  November 25 through
 December 2,  1986.   Samples were analyzed using gas chromatography equipment
 housed in a mobile laboratory rented  from the NUS office in Lansing, Michigan
 during the  period  from  December  2 through December 8,  1986.   Samples were
 refrigerated during the  period between sampling and analysis.

 As  outlined  in Progress Report No.  3  (dated  September 29,  1986;  NUS
 Correspondence No.  C-34-9-6-43), four sets  of  five  cells  each  were selected
 for sampling and analysis  during  the  fourth sampling  round.  The decision to
 sample only four of  the thirteen  total  cell configurations was based  on the
 fact that the selected  cells  had  exhibited  the most promising  results  during
 the second and third  sampling rounds.  Some deviation to the original scope of
 work was made in this respect.  As outlined in  the original work plan,   it was
 intended that all cells be  sampled  three times during the  course  of the
 Treatability Study.   In view  of the promising results obtained  for the
 selected cells and as a  result of the desire to collect numerous samples for
 statistical  analysis,  100 samples  were obtained, rather than 130.   In the past
 only one sample had  been obtained  from  each of the five separate  cells
 constituting each cell configuration.  During the most  recent sampling  round,
 a total of five  samples were  collected from each of the selected cells.  Thus,
 25 samples of each of the selected cell  configurations were obtained.   Split
 samples were collected from some cells and  submitted to the EPA laboratory in
Annapolis for confirmation analysis.  The  quantity  of soil  remaining  in the
 cells sampled during  the fourth round may  introduce  some limitations  on the
 amount of sampling that can be conducted  in the future.

The cell  configurations  selected for sampling and analysis  were  as  follows:

   Cell Configuration  Matrix         j>H    Temperature   Oxygen  Conditions

   NS-7-R-AN          Natural  Soil   7.0   20°C          Anaerobic
   NS-7-I-AN          Natural  Soil   7.0   35°C          Anaerobic
   NS-4-R-A            Natural  Soil   4.5   20°C          Aerobic
   NS-7-R-A            Natural  Soil   7.0   20°C          Aerobic

The analytical  results for each  of  the 25 samples from  each of  the  above cell
configurations are included in  the  attached statistical  summaries.  The
results  were  subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)  to determine if 1)
there is any statistically significant difference between  the various samples

-------
                                                               C- 34-12-6- 387


NEMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE  TWO

collected  from  each of  the  individual treatment cells  comprising  each  cell
configuration (i.e., does  the  overall average for these  samples provide  a
representative  population  mean), and 2) is there a significant difference  in
DDT and  DDE  concentrations from  one cell  configuration (i.e.,  treatment)  to
the next.  To meet these objectives,  ANOVA was first performed using the  5
sets of  5  sample results for each  individual treatment  cell.   Matrices  with
dimensions of 5  x 5 were generated.   The results of the statistical  analysis
conducted  in this  manner are  presented on  pages 3 through 8  of the  attached
computer  printouts.  A  summary  of the  statistical  analysis  for  this
application is  provided in Table 1.  An example of  one of the statistical
printouts  has been  included with the  attachment, with  hand-written  notes  to
clarify the information presented.

The results obtained from  the aforementioned  statistical  analyses  were  then
employed  to contrast  the  variations   between  the  individual  cell
configurations.  The average values calculated from the five samples  from  each
individual cell in  a  given  configuration were entered  as  representative
concentrations for that cell.   A  matrix of  dimensions 4x5 was generated and
subjected to ANOVA, as  shown  on pages  1 and  2 of the attached printouts.  The
results of the statistical  comparison  for the various cell configurations are
provided in Table 2.

It should be noted that during previous sampling rounds  it had become evident
that matrix effects (i.e., heterogeneity  in  the  sample cells)  had resulted  in
highly  variable results  between  each of the  5  cells comprising  each
configuration.   In view of this difficulty,  Ms. Laura Boornazian, the EPA
Regional  Project Manager (RPM) at EPA Region III,  suggested that a  different
sampling approach  be used during the  fourth sampling round.   Ms.  Boornazian
suggested that approximately  one third of the  remaining soil  in each cell  be
removed  and thoroughly  mixed prior to analysis.   This recommendation was
implemented, and the results  obtained  for samples obtained in this manner are
more consistent from  one  cell to the next. It is apparent that replicate
samples taken from the  same cell  result in a more accurate  average value for a
given  cell.  No   statistical statement can be made regarding  the accuracy  of
results obtained during the second and third sampling rounds because only one
sample was obtained from each  cell.   The results of the most recent sampling
round and  the Implications  of these results  are discussed in more detail
below.

Table  1  summarizes the statistical results for  each of  the four  cell
configurations  sampled and  analyzed during the  fourth round.    The  average
concentrations,   standard  deviations from the  average  concentration,  average
degradation ratio  (I.e.,  the  average of  the concentrations  from the  fourth
round  divided by the baseline  soil concentration),  the  standard deviation  of
the degradation  ratios  from their population mean,  and the F ratio calculated
using  ANOVA are  presented in the table. Literature values of F values are  also
Included  on the  table for comparative  purposes.

-------
                                                                C-34-12-6-387
fCMO TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE THREE
As  can  be  seen  from the tabulated  values,  virtually all of the F values fall
below the  literature value provided for the 0.01  level  of  significance.  This
indicates  that  the  results  for the five sets of  five  samples for each cell
configuration do not differ  significantly from one set to the  next.  Hence the
average concentration calculated for each cell configuration is representative
of  the  population  mean.   Virtually  the  only cell  in which  a significant
difference in the variance between cells versus the variance within cells was
noted was  in  the DDE results for cell configuration NS-7-R-A.   This indicates
that  there is  a  significant  difference  (at  the 0.001 level) between the
average concentrations for each set of  5  samples.   It  is  apparent  that some
variance was  introduced during generation  of  these cells.

As  shown on  Table  2 there is a statistically significant difference between
the various cell  configurations.   The  F Ratios calculated using the  average
values for all 25 cells in each configuration are in excess of 10.0 for both
DDT and DDE.   This implies that there  is only a 0.1% probability that the null
hypothesis (i.e.,  the  various cell configurations are  from  populations with
the same mean) is true for the different cell configurations.

The statistical  results appear  consistent with the expected results.  The fact
that  the  individual results for  a given  cell  configuration  were generally
consistent validates  the sample  collection  and analytical  protocols.  In
addition,  it was anticipated that  significant differences between various cell
configurations would  be obtained.   Once again, this is evident  from the
statistical analysis.

It  is apparent from review of  the  fourth round concentrations  and degradation
ratios that certain cell  configurations display  more promising results than
others.

    a DDT  degradation appears  to  be  most  prounounced  under  anaerobic
      conditions at 35°C.

    • DDE  degradation appears to be most pronounced under aerobic  conditions,
      at room temperature, 1n  the  acidic  cells.

These results  are  generally consistent  with the  anticipated results.  The
degradation of DDT under anaerobic  conditions is documented in the  literature,
whereas the acidic  cells  were  included  in the  study in an attempt to  induce
fungal degradation of the  DDE.

Table 3 presents a summary of  degradation rate constants calculated  using the
baseline soil concentrations.  Two values are presented, one based  on the
assumption that  degradation  obeys zeroth  order kinetics   (i.e.,  a   linear
relationship),  and one based on the  assumption that degradation obeys first
order kinetics  (I.e.,  a logarithmic relationship).   The Intermediate  results
for these  cells  (I.e.,   those  obtained  during the second  and  third sampling
rounds) have  not  been Included 1n the  calculation of these  rate constants
because  of  their  questionable  accuracy,  as  previously  discussed.  The
expressions used to  determine the  rate constants are as follows:

-------
                                                               C-34-12-6-387


 NEMO TO: FILE
 DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE FOUR

   Oth Order Kinetics:     k  « (CQ - C4)/t    (linear)

   1st Order Kinetics:     k  = 1n(C0/C4)/t    (logarithmic)

 The Oth  order rate constant is derived  based on the assumption that  the
 degradation of DDT and DDE are independent of both the  substrate (contaminant)
 concentration and the  concentration of the enzymes  (a function  of  the
 microbial  population).   The  1st order rate constant is derived based on  the
 assumption that the  degradation rate  is contingent only upon  the
 concentrations of DDT and DDE.  Although it is likely that the rate  constant
 depends  on both  the substrate and enzyme concentrations  (e.g.,  Michaelis-
 Menton  kinetics),  no  basis   for identifying the  enzyme or quantifying  their
 concentrations is available.

 Inspection of  the  rate  constants  (for  a  given analyte) presented  in  Table  3
 indicates that they are  remarkably similar from one cell  configuration to  the
 next.  Thus, it appears that  there  may be some  phenomenon causing depletion of
 the contaminant concentrations other than  microbial degradation.   Of  all  the
 potential  explanations  for such  a  phenomenon,  evaporative  losses  are
 considered the most plausible.  Although the  vapor pressures of  DDT  and  DDE
 are low, there can  be  no doubt that  some  losses  because  of evaporation have
 occurred.   Note,  however, that evaporation should  be  greater  in  those  cells
 that are  open to the atmosphere than in those that are sealed (i.e.,  the
 anaerobic vessels).   The analytical  results  do not indicate that  there is  a
 substantial difference between the anaerobic  cells versus the aerobic cells.
 Thus,  while  evaporative losses are considered possible,  there  is  not
 overwhelming evidence of this in the  analytical results.

 As a  result of the review of  the most recent  round of sampling data it is felt
 that the anaerobic  vessels operating  under  incubated conditions represents  the
 best method of degrading DDT.  The DDT and  DDE  in  these cells are less subject
 to evaporation, yet there has apparently been  substantial  degradation  of both
 contaminants.   Although the degradation of  DDE  in  these  cells 1s not as
 pronounced  as  in  the other cells,  1t  is apparent that  some degradation of  DDE
 has occurred.   Although the Initial literature review Indicated that
 degradation of DDE does not   occur under anaerobic conditions,  it  is  apparent
 that degradation of DDE by  microorganisms indigenous to the contaminated
 Leetown soil  may be induced.

The treatablHty  study  thus far  has  Indicated  that   both DDT  and  DDE
degradation may  be effected  under  anaerobic   conditions.   Robinson  property
pesticide  action  levels  (I.e., accepted pesticide  residuals  1n  soil  following
treatment)  have been established 1n the Record  of  Decision  (ROD) and are  noted
below:

   •  Former Pesticide Pile Area  - Total DDT and metabolites = 300 ug/kg.
   •  Former Pesticide Mixing Area -  Total  DDT  and metabolites * 1200 ug/kg.

-------
                                                               C-34-12-6-387
NEW TO: FILE
DECEMBER 30, 1986 - PAGE FIVE

Establishment  of anaerobic,  adlabatic  treatment cells  may be the  most
effective means  of reaching  the  desired action  levels  for DDT  and its
metabolites.  At  the present time,  the  best  degradation of  both analytes has
occurred in the incubated, anaerobic vessel.   The  average  total concentration
of  DDT  and  DDE  remaining  in  the  incubated,   anaerobic  vessel  after
approximately 160 days  is about 820 ug/kg,  based on  NUS-analytical  results.
Hopefully the results for the most recent  round of sampling  will be confirmed
in  split  samples  submitted to the  EPA Annapolis  laboratory.  These  results
have not been received  to date.

If  the  1st  order  rate  constants  presented 1n  table  3  apply to the microbial
degradation of DDT and DDE, and  if it is  assumed that the composited soil from
the pesticide pile  area at Leetown will  be  roughly similar to the  baseline
concentrations of  the soil composited  from the  Robinson property (i.e.,
approximately 7000 ug/kg  DDT and  1000 ug/kg  DDE) the length of time  required
to  reach  the desired action levels may  be  estimated  using the  following
expression:

 DDT(t) + DDE(t) • Action Level «

 7000 ug/kg exp(-1.5xlO"2t)  + 1000 ug/kg exp(-8.8x!0'3t)  *  300  ug/kg

This expression  does not  lend itself to a  closed-form solution for time (t),
but trial  and error can  be used to determine that approximately 8 months
(i.e.,  between 240 and 245 days) will be required to reach the desired action
level.   The  assumption  of  a baseline  concentration  of  approximately  8,000
ug/kg may be lower than  the  actual concentration since  the  analytical  protocol
4s  biased towards achieving better results at low  concentrations.   Previous
analytical  results for  split samples submitted to the Annapolis lab  indicate
that the  NUS  field screening protocols may  underestimate  concentrations  if
analytes are present at  high levels.  Thus, the operating period required  to
achieve the specified action levels may be greater than that derived above.

At this point, EPA Region  III will be consulted regarding the applicability  of
the adlabatic,  anaerobic treatment configuration, for  pilot scale study.
Additional  study  of this  cell  configuration,  Including  further sampling and
analysis of the  cells and commencement of  the carbon-14 study (using  at  least
this configuration) may be  warranted.  Additional sampling  of  the  incubated,
anaerobic  cells will  confirm or  negate  the  results of  the fourth  sampling
round.  Adequate  material (soil) remains for one full  laboratory  analysis.    If
several months are allowed to pass before  additional  samples are collected,  it
may be possible  to demonstrate that the desired action  level  has been  achieved
or  1s  being approached.   In addition,  some study of the toxicity of the
metabolites present in  the  Incubated, anaerobic vessel 1s probably warranted
(I.e.,   an  Ames  toxicity  test) to demonstrate that  the  metabolites  are  less
toxic  than the parent compounds.   It may be possible to Identify some of the
metabolites through Thin Layer Chromotography (TLC) or  Gas  Chromotogrpahy/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS).

-------
                                                              C-34-12-6-387
MEMO TO:  FILE
DECEMBER  30, 1986 - PAGE SIX

At this point  in the treatability study it is felt that the primary  issue
relative  to the efficacy of the microbial degradation scheme is the toxicity
and environmental  mobility  of the metabolites present in the  incubated,
anaerobic  vessels.   Before any additional study of degradation  (e.g.,  the
carbon-14  study) is undertaken,  some effort  should be made to ensure that the
treatment scheme results in generation  of non-toxic (or less  toxic, immobile)
species of chlorinated hydrocarbons.   If  it  can be demonstrated that  the
metabolites are not  hazardous,  further study of the degradation rates at  the
bench scale will provide the  information necessary to devise the pilot  scale
study.

-------
                                   TABLE  1
                ANOVA BETWEEN CELLS WITHIN EACH CONFIGURATION
                              TREATABILITY STUDY
                            LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE
                            FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND
CELL
DDT:
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
DDE;
NS-7-R-AN
NS-7-I-AN
NS-7-R-A
NS-4-R-A
AVERAGE
CONCEN.

2600
630
2200
2100

84
190
91
71
STANDARD
DEVIATION

1100
660
750
920

37
100
47
29
AVERAGE
DEGRAD.

0.38
0.092
0.33
0.31

0.11
0.24
0.12
0.092
STANDARD
DEVIATION

0.16
0.097
0.11
0.13

0.048
0.13
0.061
0.037
F RATIO

3.6
1.7
2.4
1.9

0.19
0.65
11
0.59
                                   F  VALUES
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
0.100
0.050
0.025
0.010
0.005
0.001
F VALUE
2.25
2.87
3.29
4.43
5.17
7.10
NOTES:

1.  All  concentrations  presented  1n  ug/kg  (parts per billion).
2.  Average degradation based  on average of  25  samples divided  by baseline
    soil concentrations (DDT •  6822  ug/kg;  DDE  =  772  ug/kg).
3.  Standard deviation determined using average concentatlons  for all 25
    cells.
4.  F Values presented are for (k-1) « (5-1) * 4 vertical degrees of freedom,
    and  k(n-l)  » 5(5-1) =  20 horizontal degrees of freedom.
5.  Source  of F values  - Standard Mathematical Tables, 22nd Ed., CRC Press,
    Boca Raton, Florida, 1974.

-------
                                  TABLE 2
                      ANOVA BETWEEN CELL CONFIGURATIONS
                              TREATABILITY STUDY
                            LEETOHN PESTICIDE SITE
                            FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND
                   AVERAGE
                   CONCEN.

                   1900

                   110
STANDARD
DEVIATION

560

29
AVERAGE
DEGRAD.

0.28

0.14
STANDARD
DEVIATION

0.082

0.038
F RATIO

12

17
                                   F VALUES
NOTES:
                     LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

                     0.005
                     0.001
                   FTOUE

                   6.30
                   9.00
1.  All concentrations presented 1n ug/kg (parts per billion).
2.  Average degradation based on average of  100  sample concentrations divided
    by baseline soil concentrations (DDT = 6822  ug/kg;   DDE  = 772  ug/kg).
3.  Standard deviation derived  as  square root of  average of  variances  for 4
    different  cell  configurations  (25  samples  per  cell  configuration).  See
    attached printouts for statistical summaries.
4.  F Values presented are for (k-1) = (4-1)  * 3 vertical degrees of freedom,
    and k(n-l) * 4(5-1) * 16 horizontal  degrees of freedom.
5.  Source of F values - Standard Mathematical Tables, 22nd Ed., CRC Press,
    Boca Raton, Florida, 1974.

-------
ANALYTE

DDT:
CELL

NS-7-R-AN

NS-7-I-AN

NS-7-R-A

NS-4-R-A
           TABLE 3
   DEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS
       TREATABILITY STUDY
     LEETOHN PESTICIDE  SITE
     FOURTH SAMPLING ROUND

______	k (Rate Constant)	
 OTH ORDER (ug/kg/day)1ST ORDER  (dayli)

 26                       6.0 x  1(T3

 39                       1.5 x  10"2

 29                       7.0 x  10"3

 30                       7.4 x  10'3
DDE:
NS-7-R-AN

NS-7-I-AN

NS-7-R-A

NS-4-R-A
 4.3

 3.6

 4.3

 4.4
1.4 X 10'2

8.8 x 10'3

1.5 x 10'2

8.8 x 10"2
NOTES:

1.  Rate constants derived using t = 160 days.
2.  Results presented to two significant figures.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS:

1.  Oth order kinetics, DDT, NS-7-R-AN:

    k = (6,822 ug/kg - 2,603 ug/kg)/160 days « 26 ug/kg/day

2.  1st order kinetics, DDT, NS-7-R-AN:

    k * 1n((6,822 ug/kg)/(2,603 ug/kg))/160 days * 6.0 x 10"3 days"1

-------
17
14
,N  FE57I ..". IDE  EUt T

                                                                            ETUE'i
1 ™ y_ t^}^^^^
L.C.UL. :
f^\\ u~
- VJ*C 1 1 I MW *
Sample K|o.- — V?
3
4
r
cu, A;ERA?F
2 7 13
1 'Vi.i
1350
13 J 5
1 7 r. 7
3 .. .-0
2330
1 t 7 1.;
1730
424-.)
1.7S.'-'
^r,-,jl /
SE"-"^ -R-AtTD

345
5125 341*
< 9^^, 7<")2(
4745 24 7 1
7405 27T,
7 1 5
> 3, jo
' 2730
7405 7525 2I-.-0
3o4: 295V !£«,=.
                          BO 3178C'7.5
              6riA i  SO  AVb 353847. 5
              O.'Er-vALL  AV'G    2607. o
              - r ,->••' -» cri  i  ^ i c;-•-^ =• =•   «^
              -— x ^—• t i n ^_ ^ •_  .1  ^_ ^ ' —_ _• —' v.' •   X
              5I'5r-'iA2 37 2 333-73o65 ^3
              = TriN.._-.  Qr
                                73
                      .'.'-,P, i f-iTJi.. ;i  3P'R c.H _' r'—7IiJ~ —  L cc. T LI«*"'I ~cc:  i^it-:
                                                                                 *—— i^
                                                        75124 = 0  . 4 - - : 5 7 ^ ^7^75 77>
                 5IGf-',Al 5C  .OO.±.S2E"
             -II-MAl  5C1  Av'o  . 01S3-+o7
              •—• v C ~' f-i L. t.  A v w.1  • . • w A O -T ' C
              EI5r'A2  50  1  . .:-57.~.537
              EIG-'-ir,:.  Sw  2  .72=2745
              5 I i:-r-".«2  EC'  3  . Ooc^'4 17
                 RATIO:
IMTH6
                                                                               .  IS
  MOT€
                                                       RATIO   CO*,
                                                       . \f    f *• M«»» _

-------
                                                                            1/10
J
'
k4
I
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
1*'
j'
14
15
If.
17
18
19
2O
i1
riN'-i_ * r> I ~j
OC'NCEN"
N-
K =


."!-
,iTI




--.Mr,
uNJ. -




TV.
L E
5
4

1
L .-•! :-
li 7:. Iwi'v



1
b.




-7
/
i -,
r- ,
r



o
.•i.hL-.t -
: oTIL'H'L SI
CHEMICAL:
CELL:
1 2
3 2 1 Of.
2 2780 2972






COL

SI
SIBMnl



AVETRA6
"^
4
f.
F
bMA 1 Su1
SO AV
OVERALL AV
r^
C3
S
c

IGMA? SO
6
G
1
IGMA2 SO 2
IGM

A2 SO

3

3
'"i
^.
i
260
64
9
5
7 202 O
9 1 754
869 1631
••:.

623085.
31 1984.
1 886
•
9
6 209*. 4
8 27&6O5.3
~r
/
5

U- iKtuT .-,}:: I
L>DT
ALL
3
28f.7
1606
2441
20 1 8
2170
221B.B
218112.7



L I F / f.

CELLS
4
1074
111
58 1-
536
838
629
13O132


225OO19.
.1 7 8:.) 2
37?'.)i.-

901'
3

-'

•





24
F R«TIO:
12. (>1992
*.£.•
     •   n    ! !    p.   i  i   L    ! i    L>    ', I    E    ! i    F    !
    ANALYSIS  DF VARjuNCE SPREADSHEET
           ,rioN RATIOS - LEEiOWN  PESTICIDE  SITE TREATAEILI
4
5

1
9
1 ',')
11
1^-
1 -
14
15
lt>
r/
IB
r?
20
^. i —
N= 5
f - 4

1
2
-*t
4
5

COL AVERAGE
5IGMA1 SC-
SI 6M A 1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SIGMA2 SQ 1
SIGMA2 SQ 2
SIGMA2 SQ 3



1
. 2584286
.4075051
. 5345940
.4337435
. 2739606

.361*47*
.0133833
. OO6703o
.2765978
. 04834*2
.3825316
.O8O5771

CHEMICAL:
CELL:
—i
. 308560 IT.
. 43*50494
. 2=?61OO9
.2571094
. 239u"/94

. 30 <: 2999
. 0059434






i
f.
-
.4187921
. 23571..30
. 357 SI 3O
. 2955077
. 31BO885

. 325241=?
. O046866






>L>J
^LL CELLS
4
. 1574318
. 0162709
. O85S9SO
. 0735693
. 1228379

. 0922017
. 0027962






            F  RATIO:
             12.0199;
26
27

-------
                                 C     .....     E      .    F     ;                  2/10
     i».i4r-iL i *: i •-"•  -_i   v'<->;• :•—,*•._•:.  sr r\c.r-jj -( *_••
     L ONCElM FSK, r Kit;..-. -  L EE Tl.'WU  F-c- ; i J  . i 1-L  r. ] 1 c  i
4 N-
|b K --
t- "~
7
8
c/
K-
1 1
A A.
r,
4

1
•—l
__i
4
t
LHEf'i I t_ ML : I)L'L
CELL: ALL CELLS
1234
77 72 15fc 133
84 71 cO 205
7t. £>t.' 110 189
90 87 G5 235
93. t- <±.f-' e_l 178. 4
IH            COL. AVERnGE     84. 1_          /I       9i.'.e    188. OB
]_.               SIGMA i  SQ    60.272      103.5    1846.7  i404.032
] c.          Slf-^lr-il  SC1 AVG   853.
17            uVtRALL AVG     1O8.5
IS            SI&MA2  SC1 1 bc4c..901
19            SIGMA2  SQ 2 5&861.25
10   '         £.JSM-i2  SC 3 14411.50
' ~i ^                                  	         __    ^   ^	   __    	      	
*_i   	     —
              F  RAT I LI:     lo.
     ANnL-i'SIb  uF  VARIANCE  SK-Hi-
     r/E£6RHiiA T I uN  RMTID^ -  LEcfuWN PESriClL'E  31TE TREATAEiILI
                                        LhLMICAL:            DDE
                                        CELL:                 ALL  CELLS
                                       1234
                           1  . i'c/v7409  . i">932t-42  . 204c>e>32  . 1 7*27 9b
                           2  .1088083  .0919639  . 0". 772O2  . 2o554nO
10                         3  . 09&4450  .07/720^'  . 1424&7O  .2448187
11                         4  .11&58O3  .112&943  .03419O9  .3044041
1.'                         5  .1212431'  . 0»4i969  . o79ui55  .2310881
1 _•         r
14            COL AVERnGE  . K~>89C.37  .091908^  .117olt6  . 243c>269
15               5IGMA1  SQ  .OOO1O11  .0'.'01737  . Oi.'3>.'9&6  .0023558
1 c.         SIbhA 1 SC' AVG?  . OO1 4323
1"            OVERALL AVG  .14O5440
IS            SIGMA2 SQ 1  .0145086.
19            SIGMA2 SO 2  .0987ft31
20            SIGMA2 SQ 3  .0241810
•-•I	   _
4^1                                                — —.—___^——„__—_____—______
              F  RATIO:      16.88269

-------
                                                                3/10

j

\l
c-
w.'
7
&
9
10
J 1
12
1 -*
i _•
14
15
It.
IT
IS
19
>-
t '
M . . /•
1-1 ,'.,-.:. "i 3 I :.- U' Veil- j r<
' C'Nv.cf«|r\'-iri._irj;. -
Ni =
f -








COL AVERAC-i
S1GMA1 S
SIGMA1 SO AV
OVERALL AV
SIGMA2 SO
SIGMA 2 SO
SIGMM2 SG'

,
i •
L
c-,
ir"
vJ

1
2
:.
4
C


F
0
G
G
1
^_
-•

(.. , . I
: L GPREAJ ;: ,E.V:T
EF.TcWN FESTI:.. IDE SI
CHEMICAL :
CELL:
1 2
2045 3330
'-icr 1 ir- f-. QO.-,
i-.jl>-' ji.yB--'
1090 lt.7t.)
1350 1730
1BJ5 424..)


i 7f.3 1 78o
317807.5 1169050
853847.5
2603. to
249235:..
338 93-065
3] ir.444

fc . . F- ; ; &

It TREAT AM L I 1 t STUDt
DDT
NS-: -R-AN
3 4
5125 34 1O
1955 3020
4345 24 VO
3405 2370
3405 3t:.25


3o4/ 2959
141292O 273330 109











tr
^J
30 'JO
715
800
2330
2500


18c-9
1 OSO






r RATIO:     3.648/12
* o
i
1
4
tr
^
1
C.
1 ~>
1 I
12
_
14
13
it
1 "
IS
19
20
21

i ci I > F' . I
nfsi-iL f 5 I S OP VARIANT
DEC-.F-ADATMI, RATIOS
N-
; = 5

i
2
;"•_
4
5
Cut. AVERAGE
SIGMA1 SO
SI-3MA1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SI3MA2 SO 1
SI&MA2 SL! 2
SIGMA 2 SO 3







i i I D i '• t. II F i ! 6 i
,E SPREADSHEET
- LEFT OWN PESTICIDE SITE TRt ATABI t.IT Y' STUD 7
CHEMICAL:
CEt-L :
1
. 2997o55
. 3o86602
. lf.97772
. 1 9 73692
. 2o60510
.258428*
. 0068287
. 01834e>7
.3816476
. 0535533
.7282745
.Ooo9417


2
. 4331 2t6
. 42 2163o
. 1 44796; I-
. 2o09206
.o2l51Eo
. 4'!'"' 5051
.0251 194







DDT
N5-7-Fv-ANi
-_
. 751246O
.2S65729
. o3c-91OO
.4991205
. 4991205
.534594O
. 0303595







4
. 4998534
. 442&B54
. 3fc.2Ot-39
. 3474055
. 51o71O6
. 4337438
.OO59S16







t.822
5
. 4397537
. 1048030
. 1 172677
.3415421
.3664614
. 2739666
.0234441







F RATIO:     3.648712

-------
                                                                                                  4/10
           r-i     ,  ,     r            '.      .      i_'     , ,     c     i  ,     r      . ,     l_-
 A     M ' ^ n'_ T r* i c:-  i~'"  v ' -- -  L r -t! •« •. :r. ct> r ' ^ E. t u r o c t^ !
      CONCENTRi-«"i I (ji>ic  -  i EE-l'wTj  F £ ~. . 1 L 1 Dt  SITE TKEATHt IL I T i  S'lUDi

 4             N=             5             CHEMICAL.:             DDE
 3             !• =             5             CELL:                  NS-7-R-AN

 7                                         12345
 8                            1           60         85         80          65          9S
 9                            2         120        100         45          65          3u
 1O                          3         110         £>'->        10O          9^_.          4tf'
 1 1                          4          50         65         85         140         205
 12                          5          4b        110         70          85          '--.>
 1 ^"   __________ i -.-. __ __ .__ ^ ^ •. _ _, -r 	 — -Hi- — —- — -n- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ^ —• — —- —- ~— — — — — -— — — — — — — i	 -  __ —	-
 14            COL  AVERAGE:           ".'"/          84       '  7o          9x>        93. e>
 15               SIGPiAi  bO       1245     4o7.5     417.5         950     4712.3
 16          SIGMA1  Si'  AVI-.   1558.4,t.
 17            OVERALL  AVG      84.12
 la            SlbMAl1  SO  1    241.  OSS
 19            SIGM-;   SU  J  35330.S/
               SlbNA^  SO  3    3ol.3t.
               F  R^TIG:
      i     f-i     ! '     I*     ii     i      . !     i1     ii     E     I !     F     ! I     b
1     i-< N n._ i 'D I -.  i_jF  V ni\ I HT>i'..E 6F'Rt_t-iLc'lTt.t.T
            iDATlCN  RATIOS  - LEETOWN PESTICIDE  SITE  TREATABILIT r'  STUD't
4             fJ=             5             CnEMICnL:             DDE                 7~2
5             r -             5             CELL. :                  N5-7-R-AU

                                          ]            2           3            4           5
8                            3  .07772O2 . Ilul03o  .103626.9  .0841969 . l^c.9430
                             2  .1554404 .1295337  .0582902  .0841^69 .033S&01
1O                          3  .1424570 .07771V2  .1295337  .123O57O .O55290I
11                           4  . Gto4766& .03^19,-,?  .1101036  .1313472 . 2&55440
II                           5  .0582902 .14^4870  . 09O6736  .110103-- . llt>5503
1 •_•        ~  "       ~"       -^--«.^^—.—__.«..-_ _ _ « _ ^    _ __  ___  ™_	«_	_ — _	__ — _„,	^.	_^
14            COL  AVERAGE  ,Ov^74o^ . i v£Sud3  .0984456  .1165303 .121243:'.
15               SIGMA1 S&  .OO2O59.. . OO'I7o44  .0007005  .0015940 .007
It.         3'GMAl  SO  AVQi  .([)O2'e. 14"
17            OVERALL.  «V3  .1O89.-..37
18            S JiMA!' Si.1  1  . 0004045
19            5I&MA2 SQ  2  .O593655
20            SIC-MA2 SO  3  . OOO5057
*~l 1    __ 	   _         _•-_!_   —
&. 1    — —  — — — —	— 	 —-_———. — — 	 _._ 	 _____ 	 _____________________________________________
               F  RATIO:       . I9337o4
^o
27

-------
                                                                                 5/10
                   fc.    . ;    c.    :  ,    ;.     ; ;    L    . ;    f     : ;
    r-.r,!„,.., 7,1 C  0?: VARIANCE. SPREADSHEET
          i.."! Rh-,7 lul-S  -  LEETQWN  RE 5 r 1 L 11>E. SITE  TREr-tTAML IT ^  bT'JI'.
N= 5
I = 5

i
j_
._.
4
5
CHE rl I
CELL:
1
1 735
2495
1 940
"045
2T50
33 1 0
DDT
NS-4-R-A
3 4 5
32T.5 141O 1435
85 25c;.5 37oO
19e%O 965 9T'.'
2155 945 1030
2045 2So5 9f"
J ..
14          COL  AVERAGE      2105      2972      2O20      1754      Io7l
15             SIOjhAi  30  250137.5 337'382.5    832475    814055  1454355
1 o        SlG>tr'lMl  S.O AVG    737791
17          OVERnl.L AVG    2O96.4
            SIOMM2 3C1 1  llOf.421.
            ?IGMA2 SO ~  21974465
            S20rfA2 SO 3  1383027.
                  1C'.:     1 . b/4551
                   i:    ; ,     L     : ;    D    i i    E    ; ;    r    i ;
                  ',(4f;lHNr£  SPREADSHEET
                  RATIOS -  LEETOWN  pESTinr»E  SITE  TF-EMTAEHL ITI  S

                        5           CHfcrllOiL:           DDT
                        5           CELL:               N5-4-R-K
                        1 . 2L'43242  . 31'">O264  .4771329 . 2Ot>6843  .210346V
                        2 .3657285  . 5335o"'9  . 1O04104 . 3759394  .5511530
                        3 .2858399  . 44635OO  .2873058 .1443556  ,1421S~0
                        4 .2330695  .403107&  .3156398 .1335224  .1509=21
                        5 .40384O5  .4851950  . 2:>'9 ,"t,55 . 4i -•9t4L  . 14O7212
14           r-.CH  AVERAGE . 3O85t>O5  .4356494  . 29610O9 . 2571 C 9 4  .2390794
15             SIGhAl  SQ .0053753  . OO72494  .0178374 .0174916  .0312605
1 *        SI GM A 1 50  A Vl~ . 0 1 58529
1 7           OVERALL  AVG . 3072999
18           SIGMA2 SO 1 .0237737
19           SIGMrtZ- SO 2 .4721662
2u           SIGMA2 BO 3 .0297171
24           F  RATIO:     1.874551
27

-------
                                                                                        6/10
      ANA,.. Y SIS OF-  V-.R It-it-i^E  S
      CONCENTRATIONS  -  LEZETQWN PESTICIDE  SITE  TREnTAf. IL I 7
             N=           5           CHEMICAL:            DDE
 5           K=           5           CELL:                 U5-4-R-A
 C.'         ——    ——        —	        -     -      — —    — — —	—	
                                      32345
 S                         1        50        70        4O        45         55
 9                         2        75        85        4O       12O         55
 10                        3        95        6O        3O        55         40
 11                        4        75        70        9,j        60         65
 J?                        5        e>5        70       1GO       155        110
 H "^   __ __ ___ ___ ___ _ _p—	 _ __ ___ _ ___ __ - — _rL _ __ __ __ __ ,_	 	 _—, __	_ „ _ __ _ _. __ _-- __ 	 _ _ ^_ ._ __ _. __ __ 	__. _. 	 ___	|-_ ___ __	 __ ___ __
 14            C'OL AVERAGE:        72        71        6O        67         cl_'.
 15              SIGMi-il i>0       27O        3O      3050
 lo         SIGMAl  SL~ AVR       S&4
 17            OVERALL AVL-        7]
 IB            SIRMA2 50  1       4]4
 19            SIGMA2 SO  2     25205











      ;     A    ,  !    L-:     I ;    C    i !     ;,-     ; ,    t     I !    F     ; I     G     i
 i    ANALYSIS; OF  VARIANCE  SPREADS!-iEtn"
      DEGRADATION  RATIIOS - LEETOWtJ PESilCIDE  SITE  TREATMBILI T'r  STUL'1!

 4           N=           5           CHEMICAL:           DDE               7^-2
^          \ --           5           CEui.. :                NS-4-R-A
^^r	                             "	
 7                                    1          2          3          4           5
 ?-.                         1 . Uc?4", <±.o8  . i»9il>o736  .0518135  . 05o2'VCjI   . o? 12435
 :-                         2 .0971503  .I]ol036  .0515135  .15544* .4   .0712435
 ] 0                        ";. . 12305" <'  . 077", l.11,2  . 038St-01  . 07 1243T-   . '.'51 £• 1 35
 lj                        4 ,i»97i503  .0906730  . Ilo5303  . U7772<"'2   . O34i9o9

 1 .   ~                                 '
 1 <•>            COL AVERnGE . O932o4I  . 0-?19f.Bv  . O7772O2  .112c-943   . Oa419t)9
 ] 5              SIGMA1  SO . OOO4530  . Oi"'1342  . 001 761S  . OO33717   . OO1 1955
 lo         5IGMA1  SO AVG .OO14833
 17            OVERALL AVG .0919659
 IS            SIGMAl SO  1 .OOO694e
 19            SIGMA2 SQ  2 .0422914
 20            SIGMA2 SO  3 . OOO8t-83
 '"• 1     __«_._        __
 ^_1   ——     — — — — —- — — — — —• —  — — —- — — —- — — —  — •—. ^ — _______ _ _________________ __^__^__«_
               F RATIO:
. 585407:

-------
                                                                                          7.. 10
1 -,.«.-. i - O 1 .• < J 1
W N-
r ^
0
T
s
V
10
1 -I
12
1 _• " ~"

c-
5

1
.
-r
4
f.

*f- F E !•" i'- Il'E SITE. ThE~Tc,L.I u. T "i -. 5~l~
CUE MI C AL : HI'T
CELL: N5-7-R-A
1234
3:05 140i.> 3485 2940
2710 13-95 157O 2450
30t>5 1545 ] 905 1 09O
22to5 1845 2920 2~55
3040 1855 2325 825

•


cr
wJ
1505
1645
2265
— ~-* c: c*
iOfeo

It            COL  H'v'ELRHi^E      2&S~      160S       2441       2>.»15       . 17...
J~               SlbtlnJ  SG 142462.5     52445  594692.5  9-77337.5     53450-.'

17            G/EFALL  AVG    22 j 5.3
16    '        SIT.MH2  5D  1 5".*2450.S
13            S13nA2  SO  2 246i53c.7
21-'            SlC'l^ifM  Si"1  3 10905c'4.
              F  F.'.
                             -. . --00 T._i '
           i     ; '     E.    i ;     .1    • i     L     ; ;    L     ; ;     F     ; .     f
           E. I r.  3F VAF I Hfji_E  SF ^Ei-"DEiHEE"."'
                                     DwN  r- EE"i ] r I L'E £'ITE  TFi'E1
                                       CHEMICAL:            DDT              6622
                                       CEuL :                 NS-7-R-A
                                      1234          3
                           1  . 4evo03c. .2052184  .5108477  . 43095S7 . 22Oo0^6
                           2  .3972442 . 2044S55  .2301378  .3591322 . 24113it
\ <:•                         3  . 44925 i 7 . 22*4732  . 2 7 9243t>  . 1 59777 2 . 3320 1 4 1
li                         4  . 332O141 .2704435  . 428O27-0  .4052381 . 43 J 7913
12                         5  . 445cl"'l .2719144  . 34O8O91  .120^323 . 30439r.9

14            Co,  AVERAGE  .4187^11 . 2357O8i.'  .357313'J  .295^07" .3150555
j r"3               b T Gf'iA 1 5C;  . 003>-"'o 1 5 . OO 1 1 2c. 9  . 0 1 2'77S2  . 02 1 0005 .Oil 49 i 3
j i.         ?JC.Mi-il SL1 AV5  . OiI'9S9i""
17            Cv'EFALL AVG  .3252419
j^            SI3MA2  SO  1  . 01874&4
39            :-IuMH2  SD  2  .5239114
2>"'            SlL-iMn2  SC1  3  .0234330
24            F RATIO:      2.368959
27

-------
                                                                                                  8/10
          i •      ; ;      f      .        I      , .      E              '•
        'v (-iR i nU." E  SF F-
,,wi-u. T c. i    Lit    v Hh i nu.  t.  br-F-!-: t-il'.r.i-lc.,.  '
 i~i''-k~, £•'• I 11 'N-  —  L &.E7 C'.wN r E :iT I •_  j I 'L  5 1 ft   1 KB M 1  (-•*-• I L. 11 .   Z> : L •' i
*'

£'
S
(-,
J ' '
1 1
12
_•
14
15
1 £•
17
15
19
»"':
1
%
•*- '—
I
.,
-
4
CT
I.-1
ft
P
£•
1  E L-' F-> A I"' H T ION R M 1 IDS
PJ- 5
r = 5

1
Jl.
~*f
4
er
COL AVERAGE
5IGMA1 SO
SIGMA1 SO AVG
OVERALL AVG
SJbMrt2 SO 1
SIGMA.1 SO 2
SI&MA2 SO 3

CHEMILH.: DDE:
CELL: N3-7-R-A
1234
215 £?O 15u SO
85 50 125 40
ISO 70 B5 of.
170 75 95 95
140 45 95 4'..
158 oO 11O c,5
2382 .5 1 1>2 . 5 725 53 7 . 5
815
90. S
T ~^ r^ / o
/ _. O C.1 • O
^q 1 ". -i — | —,
9233. 5

1 1 . 32945

L' i . E ; , E ; ; f: ; ,
h SPREADSnEET
- LEETOWU PESriCIDE SITE TREATAtlLIT
CHEr-IICAL: DDE
CELL: NS-7-R-A
1234
.2764974 . 07~~202 . 19430O5 . 1 07olc.9
. 1 1 0 1 036 . 06476&S . 1 o 1 9 1 7 1 . 05 1 S 3 35
. 233 1 6O6 . 090o73o . 1 i 0 1 03
. 1 i "j i 03o
i" . "~ "~ '1 ^i "i
, 0004435






F  RATIO:        11.32945

-------
                                                                                             9/10
          i-i          i     ' i                 ^     i •     £     i i     F    i  .
     i-:f •>«!.. ; Zi I --•  '_•'   > t-> l\ 1 1-1' •• •!. LI  -• I"1 ;- r- . 1-  -t-T I
     J.:.'-' :E^TF^-.TK"r^  -  LEFILtWlJ  FZEIiCII'i.  SITE  7REATALILIT>  ETLID .

             rj=            5            I'HEr-UCAL:             DDT
5            f  ^            5            CELL:                  NS-7-I-AN
O    ~         ""             "~     """    "~   "    — — - -  —         —     —    -_        _
-                                      12745
5                          1        -T.o •:>        175        385        885       1465
~                          2           O        107        990        760       1015
10                         7       2715        155         75        250        4 SO
11                         4       1I55-...        loO       1015        645        440
11                         5        145           0        4.=-5        540        "0

14             COL AVERAGE       1O74        111         5Bc        57t>        S7t
15               5EGMA1  SO  1561247.     4317.5    lc5S55  61617.5  17S772.5
It          blSMttl  SD  AVb     7^4277
17             OVERALL  Av'G        -b2'-?
IS             EI6MA2 ED  1     57052b
1-             SIGMA1  SO  2   1^78205
               51&MA2 SD  7     c50^.60
^_ J
              F  PATIO:      1.o50276
          i-i    i !     i'     i i     L     i .     E'    i      t     11    r     i i     L?    i
i     Ar.HL.TE.1".  OF  vAr'-iHiJuE  3FREAD5.-i£ET
2    JiE-.>.RMD«Tiu.N  F--M~IDS  -  LEfcTOWN  FE'LTIEJL'E  SITE  TREATnLILI T>  STUD 7

4            f-i-            5            C-HEili C_i-it_:             DDT               6622
             f=            5            CEu.!. :                 NS-7-I-AN

                                        1           Z            7           4          5
o                          1  . i.)517~"..>J  . OifV-Sciv  . 05o4.'5i  .12^7274 . I 14~4o4
~                          2           O  .0^57^14  .1451167 .05277O4 . 1437Ei33
I1-                         3  . 37'"7477  . t'.-2172'Ot.  . ul OeJ;CJ3S .<")3t.o4c.l  . 0~03oOo
.5                         4  .373^^07  .0274575  .I43"'a77 .0^45471  . 0044^72
i -                         5  . 021 2548           0  . i .'c-S i c i 8 . 07^ 1557 . i 15801 5

l-'i            L.UL- AVEFAGc  .15"'431&  .I"'i62"0^  . OS58?Sc. .0765697 .122o77r'
15               ~-1 &MA 1  SO.  . 03354o5  . Oi.'0\.'t»23  .0035677 .0013240 .O03S313
It-          3IC--MA1  Sf-  AV6  .0084716
1"'            • j V E P A L L  A V 6  . O 9 2 2 01 ~
IS            SIGI-iA.1 S& 1  .O11184t-
1?            SIGMA2 SO 2  .0425053
20            SIGMA? SO 3  .0139808
24            F  RATIO:      1.650278
TiC-

26   	

-------
                                                  .- IT E  ' r. L" >-,7 AF: I L. I T ,  ST L.I
4
r -
t'
S
r--
10
1 1
12
1 _•
14
1 ~-
lo
•; —
18
I'-.
-'••'
— •*
- —
- ,cr
. - C '

i
~-
4
r~
-J
C •

£-
j ..
A i
It
i _•
I-'
- C
j. C •
i
lo
i ^
— i
A. i
IM = 5 L nt r, 1C ML:
J = E CELL:
1 2
1 75 175
2 50 420
;• 7 O 7 O
4 Io5 2X'O
5 3<>5 lt.-0
COL AVERAGE 133 205
STGMA1 SO 11207.5 1 oB1:..-,
5IGMA1 SO AVG lo"32.0o
OVERALL AVG 188.08
SIGMA2 SO 1 56 lo. 126
=,ItiMA2 30 2 1~6S70.4
SIGMA2 SO 3 7020. lo

r RATIO- o-.4 !--.£.



M.^.."-.L t £. I = Of VAF-. IANCE S^'RcInDSHEF. T
r'EoKi-i'.'T I r,fj RATIOS - i_EETOW.'4 FEE/I' I C I DE
N- 5 CHE"MICAi_:
f =-- 5 CELL:
i 2
1 . •.'•9' ] b>.'3 . 22od.S39
2 . 06 47c»o8 . 5 5-4'J 4 1 5
3 . O9,.-.=. 3o . 0^"6"36
4 .213730.5 . 2'59f)t7<4.
5 . 3 9 5 0 "^ 7 ~ . *.'•.' "^ 2 5 T. 9
COL AVERAGE . 17227So . 2r.5^44,'
SIGMA1 SO . Oie«050 .028272.0
SIGMAl SO AVG .01 80.: 73
OVERALL AVG . 243o2o°
SI&MA2 SO 1 .OO94233.
3I3MA2 SQ 2 .2967704
EIGMA2 SD :• .0117791

DDE
N 5-7- I -AN
345
125 25O 5o
215 135 132
220 20u lt> 5
230 2c>0 95
155 330 400
189 235 l-'S.A
7 142.5 Ci2":7':r. IBiS1^, ".









E i . F ! , G 1

: SITE TREAT ABILITY STUF. i
DDE 771;
N5-7-I-AN
3 4 3
. 1 =. i917] .3235341 . i./i.47t,t,S
.2734974 .17487^5 .2337513
. 2o4':?".''4 I . 2590o74 • 1 1 373'.!'.-.
„ 29~?^r:"75 . 3367&7t . i 23Or57O
. 200~772 . 4274tll .5181347
. -44E-1S7 .3044041 .2310381
. OJ35^4r! .0083309 .O303131






24            F  RATIO:      . o5412'98

-------
           '**
                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                            REGION III
                                    CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
                                        839 BESTGATE ROAD
                                     ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
                                                                      301-224-2740
                                                                      FTS-922-3752
DATE
January 15,  1987
SUBJECT:  Pesticide  Analysis - Leetown, W.  Va.
          Superfund-Remedial, (12/11/86 -  1/9/87), 861211-01
FROM
TO
                                                     - 12
Chemist

John Austin
Acting Chief,  Annapolis Laboratory
          Samples were soxhlet extracted and  analyzed for pesticides,

          Sample Description;
Lab No.
861211-01











OA
-0?
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
-OR
-09
-10
-11
-12
Check:
Description
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,
Leetown,

W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.

Va. NS-4-R-A-2
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
NS-7-R-A-1
NS-7-I-AN-4
NS-4-R-A-5
NS-7-I-AN-1
NS-7-I-AN-5
NS-7-R-A-2
NS-7-R-A-4
NS-7-I-AN-2
NS-4-R-A-4
NS-4-R-A-1
NS-7-R-A-3

            Breakdown  DDT <10%
            Breakdown  Endrin <20%

          SRKrad

          cc:  Peggy Zawodnyf^
               OCO

-------
                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                            REGION III
     %   1tOs                        CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
                                         839 BESTGATE ROAD                           301-224-2740
                                     ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401                        FTS-922-3752
DATE    :  January  16,  1987

SUBJECT:  Pesticide  Report for Leetown,  WV.
FROM   :  John Austin   (3ES21)
          Acting  Chief,  Annapol/s Laboratory
TO      :  Laura Boornazian  (3HW21)


          Enclosed  is  the pesticide  report  for Leetown, WV.   If you have any questions,
          you can contact Rosemary Kayser directly.

          JArjr

          Enclosure
             a/s

-------









^
^
o
+J
re
t_
o
X)
re
_j
re
O

CTl
Ol
o:
r—
L.
lW
^
~
(^H
C
o

CD
oj

4fe
c
a
CT

C
O i—
•r- IB

<-> "D
O) O>
o E
re 3
+J <«_
C L.
a; 01
C 3
O OO

•1- 1
c •
LU re
•
00 •

^^
~" A
c
o

Ol
Ol

Oi*
•i


o
Ol
o
^
CL
in
0
~
cvi

VC
00


^.
o

1— «
CVJ
r— 1

CO


co
o
1
1— 1
1— 1
cvj
VC
cc

cv
o
1
1— 1
cv

vc
00



Ol — <
•f-> C
re i
O i-l
t- t-H
— cv

3 VC
C CC

C
1
1— 1
t— t
CVJ
t— 1
VC
cc











JJ
Ol
XI
3


01

cl
re
00


CX
Q.








i
a.








CX
a





ex
a








E
CX
a






E
CX

























•—1
oo vc r^- cvj «-H
r^ «-i co 1-1 cvi
I-H
VC
CO


o
I-l
1
CT^ CZ C ^^ ^*
c cv en c cvi
CV t->
vc
cc


&
c
1
<•"! CO CO 1**. 1"H
• • • • 1— «
VO .-i ^-i o CV
vc
cc

cc
e
C C CV «ef i-i
• • • • r*
«— i CV CTv C CV
CV t-i

cc



^»
o
<• VC ^ «* ^
• • • • i^
•— i i— ( i— ( C CV
CV t-H
vc
cc

cf
1
O cv vc ^- fi
• • • • 1—4
*—i*—
««• CV CO rH
»"-l


Ol
1— >H
Q. Ol t-
oo en 01
ir i^. r>> «s- +-> t. c
• « • • C Ol O
<— < cv cv c o; > o>
co C7>< ae
re
Ol »t
Of




IT. cc cr •«!• c E
• • • • fCJ Q
•-< I-H CV C i— CX
CO CC



CVI
r- 1
1
OC ^J- «!• 1^ -HE
• • • • •— i CX
CC •— I CV C CV CX
r— 1
vo
CO



oc a- co
(- III
01 ^- in cr
co x in in cv
re £ iii
03 CV CVJ C
z r^ r«. in


L'
5
Oi E
LU 4-> O LU \— C. 3
C O) O C O C Z
«-" E o e o cz
O re - - - - Oi
^M ^ <^ ^- ^^ ^J- ^—
oo a. »» ^- «• <-i E
LU re
a. oo





CO

O
cv


OJ
O)
re
a.















o c •— i cv cr co
c cr\ cr. oo oc cr.
t-^








c: c c c c: c

z z z z z z






II »*~ VC OC *!• 1
1 • • • • 1
i e «-< <— i c i
cv





cvj oo cr co co
(- i i i i i
o< o <• in CPI <*•
co xi o in in cv *3-

o
c
L.
L. O Ol
Ol i— C
LU 4-> C LU t— O JC O
O O) C O O Q C O Z
i— i E *r-oooore
o re t_ - - - - 4-> M
•••* ^ ^i ^^ ^^ ^f* ^^ ***
^_ |Q pM 
-------
       PESTICIDE/PCBS PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUND DETECTION LIMITS
   Parameter



Aldrin



Alpha BHC



Alpha Endosulfan



Beta BHC



Beta Endosulfan



Chlordane



4,4'DDD



4,4'DDE



4,4'DDT



i,4'oon



Delta BHC



Dieldrin



Endosulfan Sulfate



Endrin



Endrin Aldehyde



Gamma BHC (Lindane)



Heptachlor



Heptachlor Epoxide



Toxaphene



PCB 1016



PCB 1221



PCB 1232



PCB 1242



PCB 1248



PCB 1254



PCB 1260
Cas
Number
309-00-2
319-84-6
959-98-8
319-85-7
33213-65-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3

319-86-8
60-57-1
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
58-89-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
8001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5

Soil /Sediment
mg/kg
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.4
0.12
0.06
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.3
0.09
0.23
0.02
0.02
0.04
4.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.5
Page 3 of 3

-------
%
  i
4
            E

            I
            UJ
            E
              M
        i&ii


               M
                   •
                       I
                      V
                       I
                      N
                       N
                        i


                                      a
                                       N
                                    N
                                        V
                                        I
                                           g
                                               00
                                                fc
                                                I
                                                00
                                                    s
                                                    \J
 I
^
i
 I
s
                                                      CM
                                                      -
                                                               UJ
                                                                 NXg
                                                                   o
                                                                   (0
                                                                            CN4
                                                                             <> l
                                                                        Nl
                                                                      2
-------
   IMUS
                                                  Park West Two
                                                  Cliff Mine Road
                                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15275
CXDRPORATON                                     412-788-1080

                               January 22, 1987
                               NUSP/87-0035
                               NA
Ms. Laura Boornazian
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
814 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107

Subject:  REM III PROGRAM - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
          LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE, WEST VIRGINIA
          EVALUATION OF PRESENT STATUS

Dear Laura:

As  we  had discussed on January  20,  I believe that a meeting
between the EPA, Ebasco Services, and NUS Corporation is required
in the near future to formally evaluate the results of the bench
scale microbial  degradation treatability study  and  to establish
direction to proceed with the studies.   We  would prefer  to
schedule such a  meeting in  early February,  if  possible.

As a result  of  the work done since last June,  and particularly
based  on the results  from the  fourth round of  sampling  in
December  1986,   NUS  feels that the  indigenous  microbial
population can  be utilized in  reducing DDT  concentrations  in
Leetown soils.   While  we originally based  our evaluation  of the
health  threats  associated with  these  contaminated soils  on
inhalation of fugitive  dusts by  farmers  plowing the soil,  we
believe that a toxicity test (e.g.,  Ames Toxicity Test) and full,
replicate Hazardous Substances  List (HSL)  scans should be  run on
the soils from the anaerobic,  incubated cells at this point.  If
the soils prove  to be non-toxic,  and  no HSL parameters are found
that could give  rise to  excess health  risk, then  we can utilize
the DDT  risk-based action levels established in the Remedial
Investigation Risk Assessment as the criterion for evaluating the
success of the microbial degradation.

As you will  recall,  we did note in our  phone conversation that
the formerly incubated cells have been held at room temperature
since mid-December due to a malfunction of the incubator.   While
this development may affect the  reaction  rate  in these cells, the
DDT action levels had been  achieved through mid-December, and the
fact that the cells are not presently being incubated should not
adversely influence  their amenability  to   further chemical
analysis.

We do not believe that the  treated soils will prove to be toxic,
and, indeed,  may not have tested so prior to treatment.  We also
do not believe that HSL scans of the treated soils will evidence
                            A Halliburton Company

-------
                                  January  22, 1987
                                  NUSP/87-0035
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Region  III
Page 2
any metabolites of DDT  that would pose a greater health risk than
that present due  to the  pesticides.  To support this,  no  peaks
were evident on the chromatograms between DDT  and DDE, indicating
few, if  any,  metabolites present  in the  samples with similar
molecular weights to  DDT  and/or DDE.

At the Region's  request,  we  had  considered the possibility of
conducting  a  study  using radio-labeled  (C-14)  pesticides  to
assist in determining the  degree to which the DDT present  in the
original  soil  is completely mineralized to  carbon  dioxide and
water.   However, the  bench  scale study  has demonstrated the
ability of the microbes to reduce  pesticide levels in the soils,
and if the treated soils  do not evidence any toxicity we believe
that the C-14  study at  this point would  be  somewhat academic.

The basic premise for  the study is that labeled CCU  off-gas can
be trapped on  an adsorbent medium replaced at  periodic intervals.
By  counting  the  activity  of  the  adsorbent   material,
quantification of the  mineralization  can be achieved.  We are
aware of several difficulties with conducting  this study that may
affect  the results.   In particular,  the  study  may not  be
sensitive to evaporative   losses of labeled pesticides  from the
soil,  resulting in their contaminating the  adsorbent material and
artificially  elevating activity.   It would  not be  possible to
quantify  the  degradation via mass balance,  since we  would be
adding  a  known  quantity of  labeled pesticide  to  an already
contaminated  medium,  i.e.,  the Leetown soils.  Use of Leetown
soils may be crucial to  the  success  of the degradation,  since
indigenous microbes appear to be successful in degrading the DDT.
A calculated quantity of labeled pesticide material must be added
to the  soil to ensure that  enough  mineralization occurs  to
produce measurable activity  levels.   This  additional  pesticide
contamination  may have  an  adverse impact on the  microbes.

We would  like the opportunity  to discuss the  utility of the C-14
Study in the light of the  most recent  bench scale results.   If we
elect to proceed with  the toxicity tests and  HSL scans, and the
results are as expected,  we feel that immediate plans should be
made to establish  a  more  controlled  bench scale study,  in
parallel with  a pilot scale test of the technology at the Leetown
Site.   Such  a  meeting is  not  presently  within our scope of  work.
An amendment  to our  Work Assignment,  which would  provide the

-------
                                  January 22,  1987
                                  NUSP/87-0035
Ms. Laura Boornazian
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Region III
Page 3
funds  to develop  a Work  Plan to  pursue the  C-14 Study,  is
currently pending Ebasco authorization.   As we  had  suggested
during our phone conversation,  a portion of these funds would be
better used at this time to  conduct a project meeting prior to
further  work.   You had indicated that you would  consider this
approach, and  advise Ebasco accordingly.   We will await your
direction before  proceeding.


                                  Very truly yours,
                                  John A.  George
                                  Project  Manager
JAG/jag

cc:  E. Shoener  (EPA Region III)
     R. Evans  (Ebasco)
     W. Mendez  (Ebasco)
     Pile:   Leetown 106-3L52
            Daily
                        NUS CORPORATION

-------