United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-92/182
October 1992
Contaminants and
Remedial Options at
Wood Preserving Sites
-------
EPA/600/R-92/182
October 1992
CONTAMINANTS AND REMEDIAL OPTIONS
AT WOOD PRESERVING SITES
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc.
Edison, New Jersey 08837
i
Contract No. 68-C9-0033
Work Assignment 2-R013
Mary K. Stinson
Technical Support Branch
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
Edison, New Jersey 08837
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45219
r^yC; Pnnled on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The Information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under contract 68-C9-0033 to Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. It has
been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices
frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if Improperly dealt with, can threaten
both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by
Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance
between human activities and the ability of natural resources to support and nurture life. These laws direct
the EPA to perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for
solutions
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing
research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering
basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This
publication Is one of the products of that research and provides a vital communication link between the
researcher and the user community.
This document will provide information specific to wood preserving sites to assist federal and state
remedial project managers, potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and remedial contractors In identifying
remedial options, planning, treatment systems, and implementing remedies at sites contaminated by wood
preserving operations. It is intended to facilitate remedy selection and so accelerate cleanup at these sites.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This document provides information that facilitates characterization of the site and selection of
treatment technologies at wood preserving sites, to meet the regulations' acceptable cleanup levels. It does
not provide risk-assessment information or policy guidance related to determination of cleanup levels. This
document will assist federal, state, or private site removal and remedial managers operating under
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), or state regulations.
The wood preserving industry treats wood in pressurized cylinders, with one of the following types
of preservatives:
• Pentachlorophenol in petroleum or other solvents
• Creosote
• Water or ammonia solutions of copper, chromium, arsenic, and zinc
• Fire retardants
Older wood preserver sites contain widespread soil, sediment, and sludge contamination generated
by processes, practices, equipment leaks, storage, arid waste treatment. Often, these primary sources lead
to secondary contamination of underlying soil, which leads to groundwater pollution. Groundwater
contamination is particularly difficult to remediate because wood preservative components form nonaqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs), some of which are lighter than water and float on the groundwater surface; others
are denser and settle.
The remedial manager faces the challenge of selecting remedial options that meet established
cleanup levels. Two general options exist: destruction or immobilization. Separation/concentration
technologies prepare wood preserving matrices for either destruction or immobilization. No single
technology can remediate an entire wood preserving site. The remedial manager must combine
pretreatment and posttreatment components to achieve the best performance by the principal technology.
This document Is designed for use with other remedial guidance documents issued for RCRA,
CERCLA, and/or state mandated cleanups to accelerate the remediation of wood preserving sites. The
contaminant characterization section will assist the remedial manager to identify the areas of a site most
likely to be heavily contaminated with toxic and mobile compounds. The section on remedial options
stresses the arrangement of treatment trains to achieve performance levels. It also introduces the concept
of high-energy destruction techniques to reach stringent contaminant residual levels versus lower energy
techniques for less rigorous performance requirements. The technology performance data provided can
then assist the remedial manager to narrow options to those most likely to succeed in achieving site-specific
cleanup goals. The descriptions of remedial options cover innovative and emerging technologies, as well
as proven treatments. However, the section on water-treatment options provides only an overview on these
techniques because they have already been thoroughly examined in other documents.
Finally, ihis remedial aid provides a comprehensive bibliography, organized by the relevance to each
section, to complement the information offered in these pages.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Pace
Notice li
Foreword Hi
Abstract Iv
Figure* vii
Tables viii
Abbreviations xi
Acronyms xii
Acknowledgments xili
Section 1 Introduction 1-1
Purpose 1-1
Organization 1-1
Remedial options 1-2
Treatment trains 1-3
Performance levels 1-3
Stages of technology development 1-3
Complementary bibliography 1-3
Essential references 1-3
Section 2 Contaminants at Wood Preserving Sites 2-1
Historical uses of wood preservatives 2-1
Wood preserving chemicals and wastes 2-1
Organic wood preservatives 2-1
Inorganic wood preservatives 2-4
Wood preserving processes 2-4
Pressure treating processes 2-4
Nonpressure treating processes 2-6
Sources of contamination at wood preserving sites 2-8
Wastewater 2-8
Sludges and residuals 2-8
Contaminant behavior, fate, and transport 2-9
Predicting contaminant behavior 2-9
References 2-16
Section 3 Remedial Options 3-1
Cleanup goals and selection of options 3-1
Immobilization technologies 3-3
Containment 3-3
Stabilization/solidification 3-6
Vitrification 3-12
Destruction technologies 3-13
Thermal destruction 3-13
Chemical destruction 3-20
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Paae
Biological destruction . 3-24
Separation/Concentration technologies 3-31
Separation/Concentration for treatment of excavated soil 3-31
Description of In situ technologies 3-43
Water treatment technologies 3-50
Destruction technologies 3-50
Separation/Concentration technologies 3-53
References 3-59
Section 4 Bibliography 4-1
Appendix
-------
FIGURES
Number P«oe
2-1 Wood preservative pressure-treating facility 2-7
2-2 Sources of wood preserving contamination 2-10
2-3 Contaminant transport and fate mechanisms 2-11
3-1 Conceptual presentation of remedial options for soil and sediment at
wood treating sites 3-2
3-2 Schematic for an incineration treatment train 3-16
3-3 Effect of site size on incineration costs 3-19
3-4 Schematic for a chemical destruction process 3-22
3-5 Slurry-phase bioremediation 3-26
3-6 Solid-phase bioremediation 3-28
3-7 In situ bioremediation 3-28
3-8 Aqueous soil washing 3-34
3-9 Solvent extraction process 3-38
3-10 Thermal desorption treatment 3-41
3-11 Soil flushing 3-46
3-12 In situ soil vapor extraction 3-49
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Cross-Reference of Contaminant Designations 1-2
2-1 Production of Treated Wood in the United States, 1988 2-2
2-2 Composition of Commercial Grade and Purified Grade Pentachlorophenol 2-3
2-3 Chlorodioxin Isomer Distributions in Commercial Grade PCP and
PCP-Na Samples 2-3
2-4 Major Chemical Components of Creosote Produced in the United States 2-5
2-5 Arsenic Compound Properties 2-6
3-1 Soil Action Levels versus Risk (Carcinogenic PAHs) at Superfund
Wood Treating Sites 3-3
3-2 Capping Costs 3-5
3-3 Vertical Barrier Costs 3-5
3-4 Stabilization/Solidification Treatment Trains for Wood Preserving Sites 3-6
3-5 Stab'lization/Solidification Metal Treatability Test Results 3-8
3-6 EP Toxicity Test Results for Raw and Treated CCA Waste Leachate 3-9
3-7 Wood Treating Site Stabilization/Solidification Treatability Test Results 3-10
3-8 Factors Affecting Stabilization/Solidification Treatment 3-11
3-9 Vitrification Results 3-12
3-10 Typical Treatment Combinations for Destruction Options 3-14
3-11 Applicability of Destruction Options to Contaminant Classifications 3-15
3-12 Incineration Treatability Test Results 3-17
3-13 Factors Affecting Incineration Performance 3-18
viii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number * P?q?
3-14 Factors Affecting Pyrolysis Performance 3-20
3-15 Deutsche Babcock Pyrolytic Rotary Kiln Performance 3-21
3-16 Dechlorination Treatability Test Performance 3-23
3-17 Factors Affecting Dechlorination Performance 3-24
3-18 Biotreatability Test Performance 3-29
3-19 Factors Affecting Biological Treatment 3-32
3-20 Typical Treatment Combinations for Separation/
Concentration Options 3-33
3-21 Applicability of Separation/Concentration Options 3-35
3-22 Soil Washing Treatability Tests 3-36
3-23 Factors Affecting Soil Washing Performance 3-37
3-24 Solvent Extraction Treatability Tests 3-39
3-25 Factors Affecting Solvent Extraction Performance 3-39
3-26 Thermal Desorption Treatability Tests 3-40
3-27 ReTec Performance on Creosote-Contaminated Clay 3-42
3-28 Factors Affecting Thermal Desorption 3-43
3-29 Factors Affecting Steam Extraction 3-44
3-30 In Situ Soil Flushing Treatability Tests 3-45
3-31 Factors Affecting In Situ Soil Flushing 3-47
3-32 Applicability of Water Treatment Options to Contaminant
Groups 3-51
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
3-33 Typical Treatment Combinations for Water 3-55
3-34 Water Treatment Costs 3-56
3-35 Data Requirements for Water-Treatment Technology Options 3-57
x
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
A1
aluminum
As
arsenic
BaP
benzo(a)pyrene
Ca
calcium
CCA
chromated copper arsenate
Cd
cadmium
C02
carbon dioxide
Cr
chromium
Cu
copper
FCAP
fluor chrome arsenate phenol
Fe
iron
gm
gram
GAC
granular activated carbon
h2
hydrogen
h,o2
hydrogen peroxide
Kg
kilogram
L
liter
mg
milligram
ml
mililiter
Mn
manganese
mm
millimeter
Na
sodium
NOm
nitrogen oxides
Pb
lead
PCB
pdychlorinated biphenyt
PCP
pentachlorophenol
psi
pounds per square inch
PH
a measure of acidity or alkalinity of a solution
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
SO,
sulfur oxides
TCDD
dioxin (tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
UV
ultraviolet
yd3
cubic yard
Zn
zinc
xi
-------
ACRONYMS
APC
air pollution control
APEG
alkali polyethylene glycol
ATTIC
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
BDAT
Ijest demonstrated available technology
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFB
circulating fluldized bed
COE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPAH
carcinogenic PAH
DNAPL
dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DOE
Department of Energy
DOI
Department of Interior
ERT
Emergency Response Team
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FS
feasibility study
FR
Federal Register
FWEI
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc.
HSCD
Hazardous Sites Control Division
ISV
In situ vitrification
LNAPL
light non-aqueous phase liquid
NAPL
nonaqueous phase liquid
NPL
National Priority List
OERR
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OTI
Office of Technology Innovation
PAH
|>o!ycycllc aromatic hydrocarbon
PNA
l>oiynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (see PAH)
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Rl
remedial investigation
ROD
record of decision
RO
reverse osmosis
RREL
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SITE
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
S/S
stabilization/solidification
SVE
soil vapor extraction
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TEO
total extractable organics
TPAH
total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC
volatile organic compound
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This reference Is the product of a cooperative effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. (FWEI) prepared the text under EPA Contract 68-
C9-0033. The EPA Work Assignment Manager was Mary K. Stinson of the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), Technical Assistance Section. Gerard Sudell served as the FWEI Project Leader and
primary author; Ari Setvakumar and George Wolf, as co-authors.
The authors express their appreciation to the following authors who contributed portions of major
sections: John Matthews of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma
(Contaminants at Wood Preserving Sites); Robert Landreth, Patricia Erickson, and Carlton Wiles of RREL
(Remedial Options).
Special recognition is paid to Frank Freestone of RREL for his ongoing support, suggestions, and
technical insight.
The following EPA reviewers each contributed to the depth of this report through comments based
on their considerable expertise:
Michael Arnette, Region 4
Lisa Askarl, RCRA Corrective Action
Program, Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
Patrick Augustin, RREL
Edwin Barth, RREL
John Brugger, RREL
Paul De Percin, RREL
Chi-Yuan Fan, RREL
Linda Fiedler, Office of Technology
Innovation (OTI)
Felix Flechas, Region 8
Sherry Fuerst, Region 6
Susan Griffin, Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
James Heidman, RREL
Shane Hitchcock, Region 4
Alan Humphrey, Emergency
Response Team (ERT)
Cynthia Kaleri, Region 6
Richard Koustas. RREL
Joseph Lafornara, ERT
Shahid Mahmud, Hazardous
Site Control Division (OERR)
Mary Masters, formerly of Region 9
Mark Meckes, RREL
Andrew PalestinI, Region 3
Donald Oberacker, RREL
Charles Rogers, RREL
Michael Roulier, RREL
Michael Royer, RREL
Kenneth Wilkowski, RREL
The authors express their appreciation to Marilyn Avery and Francine Everson for editing, Michelle
DeFort for word processing, and Pacita Tibay for graphics.
xiii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This reference document assists site removal and remedial managers In selecting treatment
technologies at wood preserving sites. This information should prove useful to all remedial managers
whether their efforts fall under federal, state, or private authority, and whether they are applying standards
from RCRA, CERCLA, and/or state programs.
A recent listing of the wood treating industry indicated that nearly 1,400 wood preserving sites exist
in the United States, of which more than 700 are inactive [1], Fifty-six wood preserving sites appear on the
National Priorities List; hundreds more may also have been abandoned. Table 1-1 lists the contaminants
commonly found at these sites. It cross-references the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA)
best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) contaminant designations (e.g., W02, W03, etc.) with the
RCRA classifications (e.g., halogenated phenols, creosols, ethers, and thiols), as well as terms commonly
used in EPA Engineering Bulletins and other technical sources (e.g., halogenated semivolatiles).
The text emphasizes the identification of sources, both primary, such as a surface spill, and secondary,
such as a subsurface migration from the primary source. "Source" in this sense can mean the following:
• Process or equipment generating the contamination,
• Contaminated soil, sludge, or sediment that could migrate, or
• Migrated surface/subsurface/groundwater contamination.
This approach allows the remedial manager to target remediation in terms of contaminated zones.
For example, the remedial manager may consider the relative practicality of remediating a highly-
contaminated surface zone versus a deeper, less contaminated zone. The manager may achieve a
significant contaminant reduction at a lower cost by first remediating a more accessible zone versus another.
This strategy should first mitigate the most toxic/mobile materials, and later deal with the less toxic/mobile
ones.
ORGANIZATION
This reference document identifies the sources and types of contaminants at wood preserving sites,
characterizes them, and evaluates the impact of media characteristics on technology selection and cost
(Section 2).
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. CROSS-REFERENCE OF CONTAMINANT DESIGNATIONS
BOAT
class
Class
description
Alternate
description
Specific contaminants
found at wood
preserving sites |
W02'''
DioxIns/furans/PCBs and their
prooursors
Dioxin |
Obenzoluran
Furan ||
W03
Halogenated phenols, creosols, ethers
and thiols
Halogenated semivolatiles
Pentachlorophenol E
Tetrachlorophenol j
W07
Heterocyclics and simple non-
ha'ogenated aromatics
Non-halogenated volatiles
Benzeno 1
Toluene !
Ethylbenzene 1
Xylene |
W08
Polynuclear aromatics
Non-halogeriated
semivolatiles (PAHs)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Chrysene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Fluoreno
Anthracene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Benzo(b)fIuoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
W09
Otiior polar organic compounds
Non-halogenated
semivolatiles
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzoic acid
Di-n-octyt phthalate
N-mtrosodiphenyt amine
W10
Nonvolatile metals
(compounds of)
Chromium
Copper
W11
Volatile metals
(compounds of)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
''' *W* codas obta'ned from Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil, EPA/540/2-89/053 [2].
Remedial Potions
Section 3 divides treatment into four principal groups:
• Immobilization Technologies contain contaminants either through construction of physical
barriers to minimize migration, through occurrence of chemical reaction, or by physical/chemical
means.
1-2
-------
• Destruction Technologies employ thermal, chemical, or biological mechanisms to alter toxicity.
• Separation/Concentration Technologies use physical or chemical processes to separate
contaminants from the associated media without altering the contaminant's toxicity.
• Water Treatment Technologies treat process residuals from the technology groups, surface water,
and groundwater.
Treatment Trains
Generally no single technology can remediate an entire wood preserving site. Remediation of these
sites often requires a combination of control and treatment options to achieve sufficient toxicity reduction
and contaminant immobilization. This treatment train concept combines incremental or sequential control
technologies to achieve site-specific objectives and acceptable residual contaminant levels.
The technical data and technology-specific considerations addressed in Sections 2 and 3 will aid
decision-makers in selecting alternatives that will maximize the benefits of the treatment train approach at
a particular site.
Performance Levels
The remedial options addressed in Section 3 focus on those technologies that are applicable to
contaminants at wood preserving sites. Typical performance levels are given for these technologies. The
performance levels can be used to match the technologies to the required site cleanup levels. Many factors
can influence the cleanup level for a specific site: the toxicity of contaminants, future use of the site,
location, and hydrogeology. Several criteria, such as feasibility, ease of implementation, and cost also
influence the remedial choice.
Stages of Technology Development
The treatment options covered in this reference represent different stages of technological
development: proven, innovative, and emerging. Some, such as incineration and biological treatment, have
proven successful at the commercial scale and may not require treatability tests. Others, such as thermal
desorption, require site-specific treatability tests to ensure they can meet established cleanup levels The
descriptions provided in Section 3 (Remedial Options) will familiarize the manager with newer technologies.
Section 3 also offers performance data and treatability study results for contaminants found at wood
preserving sites or for analogous compounds (where available).
Complementary Bibliography
To aid the remedial manager who wishes to delve more deeply into specific topics, the comprehensive
bibliography at the end of this document has been organized to correspond with specific categories in
Sections 2 and 3.
ESSENTIAL REFERENCES
This document assumes that the remedial manager is familiar with appropriate policy issues (RCRA,
CERCLA, and state), risk assessment, and the determination of cleanup levels. Familiarity is assumed, as
appropriate, with the references listed below.
1-3
-------
Policy
Corrective Action for Solid Waste
Management Units at Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities; Proposed Rule.
55 FR 145, July 27, 1990 [3].
New Rule for Wood Preserving Wastes [4]
Wood Preserving: Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Wastes; Final
Rule. 55 FR 50450, December 6, 1990 [5]
Technical
Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA [6]
Guidance for Conducting Treatability
Studies Under CERCLA [7]
USEPA Guide for Conducting Treatability
Studies Under CERCLA: Aerobic
Blodegradation Remedy Screening Guide
(EPA/540/2-91/13a) [8]
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of
Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soils [9]
Summary of Treatment Technology
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil [2]
Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges [10]
RCRA Facility Investigations (RFI)
Guidance, Volumes 1-4 [11]
This is the proposed Subpart S rule
which defines requirements for conducting
remedial investigations and selecting and
implementing remedies at RCRA facilities.
Fact Sheet
This rule finalizes portions of a proposed
regulation published by EPA on December 30,
1988 (53 FR 53282). The finalized listings include
wastewaters, process drippage, and spent
preservatives from wood preserving processes at
facilities that have used chlorophenolic
formulations, and inorganic preservatives
containing arsenic or chromium.
This document provides the user with an overall
understanding of the remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) process.
This booklet (currently being revised) describes
the necessary steps in conducting treatability
studies that determine a technology's
effectiveness in remediating a CERCLA site.
This document describes the necessary steps in
conducting treatability studies specifically for
aerobic biodegradation remedy screening.
This handbook provides state-of-the-art
information on in situ technologies for use on
contaminated soils.
This report presents information on a number of
treatment options that apply to excavated so8s,
and explains the BDAT contaminant
classifications.
This guide contains information on technologies
which may be suitable for the management of soil
and sludge containing CERCLA waste.
These documents recommend procedures for
conducting an investigation, and for gathering and
interpreting the data from the investigation.
1-4
-------
In addition, EPA has also published engineering bulletins on topics that discuss single technologies,
including the following:
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment
Chemical Oxidation Treatment
Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
In Situ Soy Vapor Extraction Treatment
In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment
Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment
SoD Washing Treatment
Solvent Extraction Treatment
Slurry Biodegradation
Thermal Desorptlon Treatment
Much information is being collected on data bases for quick retrieval. Many of these can be found
in the following documents:
The Federal Data Base Finder [12]
A comprehensive listing of federal data bases and
data files.
Technical Support Services for
Superiund Site Remediation [ 13]
Technical support services available to field staff.
Bibliography of Federal Reports
and Publications Describing Alternative
and Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation [14]
Bibliography of Articles from
On-Line Databases Describing
Alternative and Innovative Technologies
for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation [15]
References for documents and reports from
USEPA, U.S. Army COE, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air
Force, DOE, and DOI.
Information for EPA remedial managers and
contractors who are evaluating cleanup
remedies.
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) [16]
A compendium of information from many
available data bases. Data relevant to the use of
treatment technologies in Superfund actions are
collected and stored in ATTIC.
REFERENCES
1. AEG Information Services. Guide to the Wood Treating Industry. AEG Company, Murrysville, PA.
March 1990.
2. USEPA. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil. EPA/540/2-89/053.
1989.
3. Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities:
Proposed Rule. 55 FR 30798. July 27, 1990.
1-5
-------
4. New Rule for Wood Preserving Wastes (Fact Sheet). EPA/530-SW-91-012. December 1990.
5. Wood Preserving; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes; Final Rule. 55 FR 50450. December
6, 1990.
6. USEPA. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
EPA/540/2-89/004. 1989.
7. USEPA. Guidance for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA - Interim Final. EPA/540/2-
89/058. 1939.
8. USEPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening Guide. EPA/540/2-91 /13a. 1991.
9. Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soils.
10. USEPA. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-
88/004. 1938.
11. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance (Volumes 1-4). EPA 530/SW-89-031. May 1989.
12. Information USA, The Federal Data base Finder - A Directory of Free and Fee-Based Data Bases and
Files Available from the Federal Government, 3rd edition. Kensington, MD. 1990.
13. USEPA. Technical Support Services for Superfund Site Remediation. Second Edition. EPA/540/8-
90/011. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington. DC. 1990.
14. USEPA. Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications Describing Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation. EPA/540/8-91 /007. Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH. 1991.
15. USEPA. Bibliography of Articles from Commercial Online Databases Describing Alternative and
Innovative Technologies for Correction Action and Site Remediation. Information Management
Services Division, Washington, DC. 1991.
16. ATTIC Online System - Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center, computerized data base
and electronic bulletin board on treatment of contaminated materials. Information: J. Perdek, EPA,
(908) 321-4380; Modem Access: (301) 670-3808.
1-6
-------
SECTION 2
CONTAMINANTS AT WOOD PRESERVING SITES
HISTORICAL USES OF WOOD PRESERVATIVES
Wood preserving In the United States Is over a 100-year-old industry. The Industry usually treats wood
In cylinders, under pressure, with one of the following types of preservatives:
• Pentachloropheno) (penta, PCP) in petroleum or other solvents
• Creosote
• Water solutions of copper, chromium, arsenic and zinc
• Copper and zinc aqueous solutions in ammonia
• Fire retardants (combinations of phosphates, borates, boric acid, and/or zinc compounds)
Older processes used oil-based preservatives. However, the wood treating industry has gradually
turned to water-soluble preservatives. Facilities using water-soluble preservatives tend to be more modern
and practice better process control. Water-soluble processes produce little or no wastewater, except for
small amounts of metal-containing sludges. Oil-based processes produce sludge wastes and significant
quantities of process wastewater. The waste sludge has generally been landfilled.
Table 2-1 shows the 1988 production of treated wood in the United States and the relative volume of
each preservative type used.
WOOD PRESERVING CHEMICALS AND WASTES
Organic Wood Preservatives
The United States wood preserving industry uses two major organic preservatives: PCP and creosote.
Pentachlorophenol-
Technlcal grade PCP, used to treat wood, contains the following:
• PCP 85% to 90%
• 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (4% to 8%)
• higher chiorophenols (2% to 6%)
• dioxins and furans (0.1%)
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. PRODUCTION OF TREATED WOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, 1988*
Volume of wood treated (1,000 cu ft)
Product*
Creosote
solutions"
Pentachloro-
phenol
Waterborne
preservatives*
Fire
retardants
Crosstles
56,990
780
—
_
Switch and bridge ties
6,315
—
—
_
Poles
14,675
41,778
14,738
—
Ootsarms
122
1,229
122
—
Piling
3,734
108
5,859
_
Fence posts
1,242
1,356
9.805
—
Lumber
3,113
1,251
350,220
5.283
Timbers
2,850
1,283
40.884
—
Plywood
—
17
8,732
3,956
Other products
1,441
68
20,206
991
TotaJ products
1988
90,482
47,870
450.566
10,230
Total products
1987*
97,822
48.557
418.984
10,618
* Estimate fcasod on reported production of 476 treating plants plus estimated production of
100 nonreportlng plants. 1987 production data added for comparison.
b Creosote, creosote-coal tar, and creosote-petroleum.
c CCA. ASCA, ACC, and CZC.
d Wood Preservation Statistics, 1987.
Sourco: Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers Association, 1990 {1 J.
Additional contaminants form in technical-grade PCP during its manufacture. These side reactions add
traces of trichlorophenol, chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, chlorinated dibenzofurans, chlorophenoxy phenols,
chlorodiphenyl ethers, and/or chlorohydroxydiphenyl ethers. Chlorodibenzodloxins and furans are the by-
products of greatest concern. Analyses of PCP have revealed that the principal chlorodibenzodloxin and
chlorodibenzofuran contaminants contain six to eight chlorines.
Analyses of PCP produced in the United States [2] have not found the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Nevertheless, at high temperature PCP treatment of wood may produce
traces of TCDD. This can affect cleanup decisions.
Table 2-2 shows the composition of a commercial PCP and a purified PCP. Table 2-3 is a
representative distribution of dioxin isomers (3).
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2. COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIAL
GRADE AND PURIFIED GRADE PENTACHLOROPHENOL*
Component
Analytical results
Commercial
(Dowiclde 7)
Purified
(Dowicide EC-7)
Pentachlorophenol
88.4%
89.8%
Tetrachlorophenol
4.4%
10.1%
Trichlorophenol
0.1%
0.1%
Chlorinated phenoxyphenol
6.2%
...
Octachlorodioxin
2,500 ppm
15.0 ppm
Heptachlorodioxin
125 ppm
6.5 ppm
Hexachlorodioxin
4 ppm
1.0 ppm
Octachlorodibenzofuran
80 ppm
1.0 ppm
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
80 ppm
1.8 ppm
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
30 ppm
1.0 ppm
" USEPA. 1978 (3]
TABLE 2-3. CHLORODIOXIN ISOMER DISTRIBUTIONS IN COMMERCIAL GRADE
PCP AND PCP-Na SAMPLES*
PCPb
PCP-Na"
Chlorodioxin
(ppm)
(ppm)
1,2,3,6,7,9-CljD
1
0.5
1,2,3.6,8.9-060
3
1.6
1,2,3,6,7,8-ClgD
5
1.2
1,2,3,7,8,9-CleD
0
0.1
1,2,3.4,6,7.9-CI?D
63
16.0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-CIjD
171
22.0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-CI9D
250
110.0
* Buf. 1875, 1976, 1S.8J.
" OovrfocX 7 (comm«rclal PCP).
c Sodium MB o( PCP.
2-3
-------
Creosote-
Creosote Is the other principal organic wood preservative used in the United States. It Is an oily,
translucent, brown to black liquid with a sharp smoky or tarry odor and a sharp, burning taste. It is applied
either at full strength or diluted with petroleum oil or coal tar. Creosote, practically insoluble, is denser than
water. This very complex mixture of organic compounds, produced from the high temperature carbonization
of bituminous coal, contains approximately 85% polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 10% phenolic
compounds, and 5% nitrogen-, sulfur- or oxygen-containing heterocycles [4], Although the chemical
composition of this material varies according to the production process, creosote can contain several
thousand compounds, of which most are present in very small amounts. Table 2-4 lists the major
components of creosote produced in the United States.
Inorganic Wood Preservatives
Metal Compounds-
Among Inorganic arsenical wood preservatives, three are commonly used: chromated copper arsenate
(CCA), ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA), and ammoniacal copper-zinc-arsenate (ACZA). These mixtures
derive, in part, from ammonium arsenic pentoxide, sodium arsenate, or sodium pyroarsenate.
Some physical properties of arsenic compounds are shown in Table 2-5.
Other Inorganic Preservatives-
Other inorganic or inorganic/organic formulations include Tanalith (a mixture of sodium fluoride,
sodium dlchromate, arsenate and dinitrophenol); FCAP (fluor chrome arsenate phenol); Minalith (a generic
name for mixtures of diammonium phosphate, ammonium sulfate, sodium tetraborate, and boric acid); and
Pyresote (a mixture of zinc chloride, sodium dichromate, ammonium sulfate, and boric acid). Minalith and
Pyresote are fire retardants. Processes using these preservatives have not been widely used but
contaminants frcm these processes may be found at some sites.
WOOD PRESERVING PROCESSES
Open-air drying is commonly used to prepare large stock such as cross ties and poles for treatment
with organic preservatives, and to prepare any wood for treatment with Inorganic preservatives. Kiln drying
Is used only for organic preservative treatments of lumber or large stock. Steam, combined with either an
oH preservative or a hydrocarbon vapor, can season wood artificially in the cylinder. This method exposes
the wood to live steam up to 245°F; a vacuum then removes water from the wood. Boulton drying, used
for cross ties or western woods, employs preservative solution as a heat transfer medium, with temperatures
up to 220°F and a vacuum of 14 to 24 inches of mercury, over a period of 20 to 60 hours to reduce wood
moisture. The internal structure of trees from the western United States makes penetration of the
preservative more difficult, requiring the different treatment procedure. Vapor drying, no longer used,
exposed wood stock to hot vapors of organic solvents, such as xylene.
Pressure Treating Processes
Pressure treating processes (Figure 2-1) apply either air pressure or a vacuum to the wood before
treating it with a preservative. Inorganic treatment processes use full-cell or modified full-cell processes.
The modified full-cell process maintains pressure with added heat for an extended period after the initial
pressure treatment. In the full-cell process, an initial vacuum removes air from the wood cells to permit
maximum retention of the preservative. Empty cell processes maintain air at atmospheric pressure (Lowry
Process) or at pressures of 15-75 psi (Rueping Process). This procedure allows air to remain in the wood
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-4
MAJOR CHEMICAL COMPONENTS
OF
CREOSOTE PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES'
Compound or component
Percentage
Naphthalene
3.0
Methyl naphthalene
2,1
Diphenyl dimethylnaphthalene
...
Biphenyl
0.8
Acenaphthene
9.0
Dimethylnaphthalene
2,0
Diphenyloxide
...
Dibeazofuran
5.0
Fluorene-related compounds
10.0
Methyl fluorenes
3.0
Phenanthrene
21.0
Anthracene
2.0
Carbazole
2.0
Methylphenanthrene
3.0
Methyl anthracenes
4,0
Fluoranthene
10.0
Pyrene
8.5
Benzofluorene
2.0
Chrysene
3.0
* Lorenz arid Gjovik. 1972 [7],
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-5, ARSENIC COMPOUND PROPERTIES
Compound
Molecular
wt.
Density
Comment
Ammonium arsenite
125
1.3
Colorless, hygroscopic rhombic prisms, very
soluble in cold water, decompose in hot
water.
Sodium arsenate
185.9
1.9
Grey-white powder, very soluble in water,
slightly soluble in ethanol, effloresces in
warm air.
Sodium pyroatsenate
353.8
2.2
White crystals, decompose at 1,000°C, very
soluble in water.
cells, reducing preservative usage since the preservative will riot fill a cell already filled with air. Organic
treatments use empty cell processes, except for marine pilings which are first treated with inorganics, and
then with creosote.
Oil-Based Treatments -
The oil-based wood-treating cycle begins with placement of either seasoned or green wood into a
pressure cylinder. Most of the industry uses large cylinders (4 to 8 ft diameter, 40 to 150 ft long). Wood
stock, loaded on special rail cars, moves into the treatment cylinder.
A pump feeds the oil-based preservative, heated to decrease its viscosity, into the cylinder until it
covers the wood. The process applies hydrostatic or pneumatic pressures of 50 to 200 psi to the wood and
preservative In the vessel and maintains them until the desired amount of preservative permeates the wood.
When the vessel has slowly been returned to atmospheric pressure, a pump sends the excess preservative
to a storage tank for reuse. A vacuum process, or steam and vacuum combined, can remove excess
preservative from the surface layers of the wood. Some of the treating solution In the wood begins to flow
out as the Internal and external pressures equalize. The vessel captures some of this solution, but, in the
past, treated wood often lay In an open area for several days, allowing preservative to drip. Current
operations use lined and covered drip pads to collect the excess preservative.
Water-Based Treatments-
Air drying prepares wood for water-based treatments. Pressure treatment using water-based
preservatives differs from oil-based processes: the preserving fluid is unheated and either empty-cell or
modified empty-cell processes are used. The inorganic preservative solutions react with the wood to form
a complex mixture of relatively Insoluble precipitates. The water carrier evaporates after treatment, allowing
the treated wood to be painted or stained.
Nonpressure Treating Processes
Nonpressuie processes include thermal, diffusion, cold soak, vacuum, brush, dip, and spray methods.
2-6
-------
.VENT
VENT VENT
I"
£' * FRESHLY WATtO
WOOO STORAGE
Figure 2-1. Wood preservative pressure-treating facility [8J.
2-7
-------
Thermal process Wood is immersed in hot PCF or creosote
preservative for several hours, followed by
further soaking at ambient temperature.
Cold soaking Wood is immersed in a PCP solution.
Diffusion Waterborne salts, such as copper sulfate and
zinc chloride, are applied to unseasoned wood.
Brush, dip and spray Pentachlorophenol or copper naphthe-
nate treatments are applied to wood
surfaces.
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION AT WOOD PRESERVING SITES
Wastewater
Wastewater from wood preserving facilities falls into two classes: process wastewater and surface
runoff water.
Process wastewater Includes wastewater from conditioning (retort condensate), kiln drying, treated
wood washing, accumulations in doors or retort sumps, preservative formulation recovery, and rinsing of
drums, storage tanks, and equipment.
Surface runoff water flows from process areas, drip pads, and treated wood storage areas.
Sludges and Residuals
Wastewater treatment processes, which generate sludges or residuals, include the following:
• OH/water separation • Land spreading
• Filtration • Thermal evaporation
• BiologlCcI treatment • Wastewater injection into boilers
• Spray Irrigation • Wastewater containment in tanks and impoundments
OH/water separators recover reusable preservative and reduce the concentration of oil and grease in
wastewater before further treatment or discharge. Pentachlorophenol treatment solutions rise to the top;
creosote solutions sink. Sludges consisting of oii-water emulsions that do not separate polymerized oil, soil,
and wood debris will accumulate at the bottom of the separator. Sometimes the addition of flocculants,
dissolved air flotation, or filtration can remove the emulsified oils and particulates from wastewater.
Biological organisms can also treat wastewater. A mixture of biomass with some nonviable organisms
as well as other solids from the blotreatment accumulate as a sludge, which must be removed. Biological
treatment ponds and lagoons sometimes do not have wasting mechanisms to remove sludge; it simply
accumulates at the bottom.
Wastewaters are sometimes sprayed on open fields, and sludge spread on land treatment areas.
Spray Irrigation fields and land treatment areas are sometimes combined as one unit.
Heating wastewater from wood preserving sites in pan evaporators, tanks, or ponds can evaporate
the water, building up sludge residues in the bottom of the evaporation devices and must be removed
2-8
-------
periodically. When wastewater Is injected into Industrial boilers, the resulting ash can contain elevated levels
of wood preservative constituents.
Sludges containing sawdust, wood chips, sand, soil, stones, tar, and emulsified or polymerized oils
accumulate in the bottom of wood treatment cylinders and tanks. Similar materials accumulate in holding,
work, storage, or mixing tanks.
Drlppage, spillage, accumulations of debris in sumps, and residues from treatment processes that
employ filtration can generate solid wastes. Historically, these solid wastes were dumped in unlined, earthen
pits. These pits have become major sources of groundwater contamination, since the wastes migrate
through the soil Into aquifers.
After wood is treated, some unabsorbed preservative adheres to the wood surface. Excess
preservative from pressure-treated wood will exude slowly, dripping from the wood. Rain can carry off
preservative from treated wood. Large volumes of soil in storage areas have been contaminated by
drippage from treated wood.
Figure 2-2 shows common sources of PCP wood preserving contamination.
CONTAMINANT BEHAVIOR, FATE, AND TRANSPORT
Predicting Contaminant Behavior
Predicting contaminant fate requires the organization of complex site characterization data for each
chemical of concern. This data will assist the remedial manager in determining where a specific waste
compound is located, where it Is going, how fast it is moving, and what types of transformation or
degradation are occurring. It facilitates prioritizing remedial decisions by basing them on the contaminant's
toxicity and rate of transport from a site, its persistence, and its migration pathways. The manager can then
tailor the treatment evaluation and selection to the contaminant toxicity and mobility.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the behavior, fate, and transport mechanisms for contaminants at a specific site:
• Migration upward (volatilization);
• Migration downward (leaching);
• Migration laterally (aqueous plume and pure product);
• Degradation; and
• Residence on site as persistent chemicals.
Pentachlorophenol-
Pentachlorophenol does not decompose when heated to its boiling point for extended periods of time.
Pure PCP is chemically rather inert [9], The chlorinated ring structure tends to Increase stability, but the
polar hydroxy! group facilitates biological degradation [10). Pentachlorophenol does not exhibit the easy
oxidative coupling or electrophilic substitution common to most phenols. All monovalent alkali metal salts
of PCP are very soluble in water. However, the protonated (phenolic) form is much less soluble (about 8
mg In 100 ml of water) -- a degree of solubility that is still environmentally important. Therefore, transport
of PCP in water relates to the pH of the environment. PCP can also volatilize from soils [11). It is denser
than water, but the commonly used solution contains PCP and petroleum solvents In a mixture less dense
than water. Therefore, technical grade PCP floats on top of groundwater as a light nonaqueous phase liquid
(LNAPL).
2-9
-------
PCP Solids
(Blocks or Bags)
Cam ®f OH
(Bulk)
oil spills, drips
J-
Recovered
Oi Solution
(Tankage)
1
rooovorod oil
QilAvator
Separator
Filter
01 used)
T
Condenser
T
Wastewater
treatment
Evaporation
oil drips I ¦
<| * I Sumps |-
Chemical Delivery
(Pallets-
Rail/Truck)
(Bulk
tanker*)
Chemical Storage & Mixing
(Tankago/Oil)
rlnnMjo
=3
Solution Storage
(Tankage)
Pressure Treatment
(Retort Cylinder)
Dry-treated
Wood Storage
(Ground)
Froshty-treated
Wood Storage
Drip pads
(If used)
Ground
precipitation: oil spills, drips
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL
RELEASES
• DRIPS, SPILLS to ground
• AEROSOLS, VAPORS to air
• SPILLS to ground
• AEROSOLS, VAPORS to air
SLUDGES to disposal
• AEROSOLS. VAPORS to air
• CONDENSER COOLING WATER
to sewer
• TREATED EFFLUENT.....IO sewer
• SLUDGES
• SPENT CARBON to regeneration
• VAPORS to air
• CONCENTRATED LIQUID to reuso
• SLUDGES to disposal
• DRIPS to ground
• TRACKING to ground
• DUST.....to air
• DRIPS to ground
• DUST.. ..to air
Source: Robert S. Korr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ads, Oklahoma
Figure 2-2. Sources of wood preserving contamination,
2-10
-------
SXpl ¦ w. ufacraocy
ONAPi. » Dm Non Aqueous Phtm Ujud «* (*"">•
Figure 2-3. Contaminant transport and fate mechanisms.
2-11
-------
Biological »ffects--Biodeoradation of PCP in soils has been the subject of extensive study. Kaufman
[12] performed a thorough review of the parameters affecting PCP degradation In soil. Most data indicate
that microbial activity plays an important part in its degradation. Biodegradation of PCP In soils has been
documented under anaerobic as well as aerobic conditions.
Several types of bacteria and fungi can degrade PCP in pure and mixed cultures. These include
strains of Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Arthrobacter, Mycobacterium, Rhodococcus, Aspergillus,
Trlchoderma, and Phanerochaete. Kirsch and Etzel [13] derived a microbial population capable of rapid
PCP degradation from a soil sample obtained at a wood products factory. When fully acclimated, the
organisms were used to degrade materials containing 100 mg/L of PCP. They degraded 68% of the PCP
within 24 hours.
Aerobic decomposition of PCP occurs mainly through sequential dechlorination to a variety of partially
dechlorinated products, such as 2,3,5,6-tetrachtorophenol [12.14], An oxidation step then forms substituted
hydroqulnones or catechols, such as 2,3,4,5-tetrachIoro-catechol. These products undergo ring cleavage,
ultimately forming carbon dioxide (C02) and inorganic chloride ions.
Degradation of PCP also occurs under anaerobic conditions. Reductive dechlorination forms (tetra-,
tri-, and di*)chlorophenol intermediates [15,16] which may accumulate. However, complete anaerobic
degradation of PCP to CH4 has been reported [15]; and Bryant et al. [17] demonstrated complete anaerobic
dechlorination of PCP to phenol.
Although biological transformations do not always reduce or eliminate toxicity, biological treatment has
successfully reduced the toxicity of PCP in soils and leachates [18],
Factors affecting PCP degradation in soi!s--The presence of readily degradable carbon sources
Increases the rate of PCP degradation; the soH pH modifies the availability and toxicity of the PCP.
However, PCP degradation may be inhibited when soils are also contaminated with creosote or CCA
mixtures. The number of species and population levels of bacteria and fungi capable of degrading PCP may
be limited. In most cases of rapid PCP degradation by microorganisms, the inoculum came from areas
where PCP had been used for a long time.
Sometimes augmenting the existing population may enhance degradation. Edgehill and Finn [19]
found that an Arthrobacter sp, added at the rate of a million cells per gram of soil (dry weight) greatly
reduced the half-life of PCP in laboratory and field tests. Middledorp et al. [20] reported long term
enhancement of PCP degradation in peat and sandy soils inoculated with Rhodococcus chlorophenolicus
at 10* to 10* cells/gm of soil. However, the use of microbial inocula should be approached with caution.
Introduced organisms may fail to survive due to a variety of reasons. Including predation [21,22,23]
Inhibition by other so3 microbes [24,25], or starvation due to competition for essential nutrients by
Indigenous soil microbes. Few unequivocal, well-documented reports support the benefits of using such
Inocula. Full-scale bioaugmentation has not yet been successfully demonstrated.
Sorption/lmmobillzation-Soil adsorption plays an active role in the transport of PC P. PCP adheres
strongly to soils; the extent of sorption depends on organic content, pH, and the type of soil involved. The
adsorption of PCP Is comparable to other strongly sorbing contaminants such as PCBs, pyrene, and
chlordane.
Choi and Aomine [26,27,28] studied the interaction of PCP and soil in detail. Adsorption and/or
precipitation of PCP occurred to some extent in all soils tested. Soils containing humic material adsorb
more PCP than soils from which organic matter was removed with hydrogen peroxide [27]. Later
2-12
-------
investigations indicated that low concentrations of PCP are mostly adsorbed by humus. At higher PCP
concentrations, adsorption by nonhumus soil fractions increases (28). Different adsorption mechanisms
dominate at different pH values. For example, PCP is an acid, which forms a salt at a higher pH. In the salt
form, PCP is more soluble in water but also more polar.
Organic content of soils affects adsorption of PCP at all pH values. Schellenberg et al. [29] reported
increased sorption of chlorophenols with increasing organic carbon content. Beilin et al. [30] increased
sorption of PCP by raising the organic carbon content of soil through the addition of sewage sludge. In
contrast, PCP may migrate in soils when partitioned in oil phases [31 ]. Since technical grade PCP solutions
for treating wood consist of PCP dissolved in hydrocarbon solvents, PCP contamination will usually be
associated with oily phases. However, the partitioning between soil, aqueous, and oily phases is a complex
process, and difficult to predict.
Persiatence-The persistence of PCP in soil depends on a number of environmental factors. Young
and Carroll [32] and Kuwatsuka and Igarashi [33] found higher PCP degradation rates under flooded
conditions than under unsaturated conditions. PCP breaks down more slowly in heavy clay than in sandy
or sandy clay soils [34], Adsorption to clays may decrease availability of PCP for degradation, and slow
diffusion in clays may decrease reaction rates. An extensive study of soil variables by Kuwatsuka and
Igarashi [33] indicated that the PCP degradation rate correlated with the clay mineral composition, free iron
content, phosphate adsorption coefficients and cation exchange capacity of the soil. The most significant
effect correlated with organic matter.
Creosote-
Biolooical effects-PAHs represent major components of creosote, supplemented by trace amounts
of phenols and azaarenes. Mueller et al. [4] estimated that PAHs comprise about 85% of the creosote
components. A wide range of soil organisms, including bacteria, fungi, cyanobacteria (blue-green algae),
and eukaryotic algae, have the enzymatic capacity to oxidize PAHs. Tausson [35] first demonstrated that
several PAHs, including naphthalene, anthracene, and phenanthrene, can serve as substrates for soil
organisms by which they are completely metabolized. Prokaryotic organisms, bacteria, and cyanobacteria
use different biodegradation pathways than the eukaryotes, fungi, and algae, but all Involve molecular
oxygen. Biochemical pathways for the degradation of a number of PAHs by soil microorganisms have been
proposed by Fernley and Evans [36], and Evans et al. [37], Gibson and Subramanian [38] and Cernlglia
and Heitkamp [39] present more recent reviews of the microbial metabolism of PAHs. PAHs with more than
four rings do not provide a sole carbon source, but have been metabolized in combination with other
organic compounds. This process employs the concurrent metabolism of two materials: a compound that
a microorganism can only use as a supplementary source of energy and a carbon source capable of
sustaining growth [4].
The phenols in creosote are generally more readily degraded than PAHs or PCP. The effect of phenols
on soil microorganisms depends on the contaminant's concentration [40]. At low phenol concentrations
(0.01 to 0,1 percent of soil weight), microbial numbers Increase. Higher dose levels (additional 0.1 to 1.0
percent of soil weight) Increasingly inhibit them At these levels, a partial sterilization depresses microbial
numbers, but does not destroy them. After a period of time, the microbes adapt (or phenol is lost through
sorption or volatilization) and the population resurges.
Factors affecting degradation rates-Generallv. degradation rates for PAH compounds decrease as
the molecular weight increases. The process progresses faster in soil than water and, optimally, in an
acclimated bacteria population [41]. This may reflect the higher microbial populations in soils rather than
in water and increased metabolic activity towards specific contaminants within acclimated populations.
2-13
-------
Readily mobilized compounds such as naphthalene, phenanthrene, and anthracene, are slightly water-
soluble. Persistent PAH's, such as chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene, present even lower water solubilities.
Pyrene and fltioranthene are exceptions because these compounds are more soluble than anthracene but
are not appreciably metabolized by soil microorganisms [42], Other factors affect PAH persistence:
Insufficient bacterial membrane permeability, lack of enzyme specificity, and insufficient aerobic conditions
[40]. , '
Biodegradation in soil-Sims and Overcash [43], Edwards [44], and Cerniglia [45] have studied the
fate of PAH compounds In terrestrial systems, including degradation.
Bulman et al. [46] performed two sets of studies to assess PAH decline in soil. The first set found,
during an Initial period of 200 days or less, that naphthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene, pyrene, and
fluoranthene disappeared rapidly from soil, with a loss of 94% to 98%. Within the Initial 200 days, the
remaining PAH (2% to 6%) declined at a much reduced rate. The second study indicated that some of the
anthracene was mineralized, based on radio-labeled experiments. However, binding to soil solids and
volatilization were the principal attenuation mechanisms. Adsorption to solids was sufficiently tight to prevent
extraction with normal analytical procedures, and presumably to render the anthracene unavailable to
microbial populations.
Sims et al. [47] further evaluated the degradation of PAHs in soils. Sims measured volatilization from
soils and corrected degradation rates for volatilization. He measured significant volatilization for naphthalene
and 1-methyl naphthalene, and observed extensive and rapid biodegradation for 2-ring and 3-ring PAHs.
PAHs with 4, 5, and 6 rings were somewhat recalcitrant. The persistence of a PAH compound increased
as molecular weight and ring number increased. In soil, the higher molecular weight compounds exhibited
more resistance to biodegradation as pure compounds than when combined in complex wastes. This may
be due to cometabolic processes, where other components of the waste mixture act either as Inducers of
necessary enzyme systems or as primary carbon substrates.
McGinnls et al. recently completed laboratory and field studies on the degradation of wood preserving
wastes at several sites. They concluded that PAHs from creosote are readily degradable in soil systems and
that lower molecular weight PAHs are transformed much more quickly than higher molecular weight PAHs,
findings consistent with the bulk of the literature [48]. The less degradable. higher molecular weight
compounds have been classified as carcinogenic PAHs (CPAHs). Therefore, the least degradable fraction
of PAH contaminants in soils is generally subject to the lowest cleanup standards. This presents some
difficulty In achieving cleanup goals with bioremediation systems.
Sorption/Immobilization-Solubility and sorption to soil affect the mobility of creosote components.
Phenols and lower molecular weight PAH components are more water soluble than higher molecular weight
PAHs. Recent studies Indicate that PAHs may undergo significant interactions with soil organic matter [49].
Toxicity reduction-Intermediate PAH degradation products (metabolites) in soil treatment systems
may also display toxicity. Complete mineralization of PAHs is slow; intermediates may remain for substantial
periods of time. For example, Mueller et al. [50,51,52] reported only slight decreases In toxicity and
teratogenicity of groundwater that was contaminated with creosote and pentachlorophenol after it had
received 14 days of biological treatment. PCP and high molecular weight PAHs were still present in the
treated groundwater. The degradation kinetics of PCP and PAHs, may explain these findings.
Cerniglia and Gibson [53] reported that the metabolites formed during the degradation of BaP by a
fungus were very similar to those formed during BaP metabolism in mammals. Such metabolites are
probably responsible for the carcinogenicity of BaP. However, Shabad et al. [54] reported that extracts of
a medium containing BaP were less carcinogenic to mice (Mus spp.) after microbial degradation than before
2-14
-------
degradation. Aprill et al. (55] found no Ames test mutagenicity in soil that incorporated wood treating
wastes alter 1 year of treatment, but some Microtox toxicity was found in water soluble fractions and
leachate samples. These reports indicate that toxicity reduction should be monitored during remediation.
Metals-
Water-soluble inorganic wood preservatives contain either chromated copper arsenate (CCA),
fluor-chrome-arsenate phenol (FCAP), chromated zinc chloride, acid copper chromate, ammoniacal copper
arsenate (ACA), or ammoniacal copper-zinc-arsenate (ACZA). CCA -- made from the oxides of chromium,
copper, and arsenic -- is the most widely used inorganic wood preservative. Coal, the raw material for the
manufacture of creosote, contains trace levels of various toxic metals including chromium, copper, lead, and
zinc. Depending on its source, the petroleum used as a carrier for PCP can display a significant
concentration of toxic metals. Uncontrolled waste sites may contain a combination of all wood preservative
types.
Metals, unlike the hazardous organic constituents of wood preserving waste, cannot be degraded or
readily detoxified. The presence of metals among wood preserving wastes can pose a long-term
environmental hazard. Immobilization of metals by adsorption and precipitation can impede their migration
to groundwater. The fate of the metal depends on Its physical and chemical properties, the associated
waste matrix, and the soil. Significant downward transportation of metals from the soil surface occurs only
when the metal retention capacity of the soil is overloaded. As the concentration of metals exceeds the
ability of the soil to retain them, the metals will travel downward with the leaching waters. The extent of
vertical contamination intimately relates to the soil solution and surface chemistry. Unfortunately, little
Information is available on the specific interactions between metals, the matrix of wood preserving wastes,
and soil.
Copper- Soil retains copper (Cu) through exchange and specific adsorption. Cu adsorbs to most soil
constituents more strongly than any other toxic metal, except lead (Pb). Cu, however, has a high affinity
for soluble organic ligands; the formation of these complexes may greatly Increase its mobility In sol
Zlnc--Clav carbonates, or hydrous oxides readily adsorb zinc (Zn). Hickey and Kittrick [56], Kuo et
al. [57], and Tessier et al. [58] found that the greatest percent of total Zn in polluted soil and sediment was
associated with Iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) oxides. Precipitation removes Zn from soil because the Zn
compounds are highly soluble. As with all cationic metals, Zn adsorption increases with pH. Zn hydrolyzes
at a pH >7.7, These hydrolyzed species strongly adsorb to soil surfaces. Zn forms complexes with
inorganic and organic ligands which will affect its adsorption reactions with the soil surface.
Arsenic-Arsenic (As) exists In the soil environment as arsenate, As(V), or as arsenite, As(lll). Both
are toxic. However, arsenite is the more toxic form; arsenate is the most common form. Arsenical wood
preservatives use arsenate oxide, As(V).
The behavior of arsenate in soil seems analogous to that of phosphate, because of their chemical
similarity. Like phosphate, arsenate is fixed to soil and thus Is relatively immobile. Iron (Fe), aluminum (Al),
and calcium (Ca) influence this fixation by forming Insoluble precipitates with arsenate. Woolson et al. [59]
stated that arsenate may be leached from soil if the levels of reactive Fe, Al, and Ca in soil are low. The
presence of Fe in soil is most effective in controlling arsenate's mobility. Arsenite compounds are 4 to 10
times more soluble than arsenate compounds.
The adsorption of arsenite is also strongly pH dependent. Griffin and Shimp [60] found Increased
adsorption of As(lll) by two clays over the pH range of 3 to 9. Pierce and Moore [61 ] found the maximum
2-15
-------
adsorption of As(lll) by iron oxide occurred at pH 7. Elkhatib et al. (1984b) found adsorption of As(lll) to
be rapid and Irreversible on ten soils. They determined, in this study and another [63], that Fe oxide, redox,
and pH were the most important properties in controlling arsenite adsorption by these soils.
Under anaerobic conditions, arsenate may be reduced to arsenite. Arsenite Is more subject to
leaching because of Its higher solubility.
Chromium-Chromium (Cr) can exist in soil in three forms: two trlvalent forms, the Cr° cation and
the CrO' anion, and the hexavalent forms, (Cr207)'2 and (CrO«)'2. Hexavalent chromium Is the major
chromium species used in industry; wood preservatives commonly contain chromic acid, a Cr(V1) oxide.
The two forms of hexavalent chromium are pH dependent; hexavalent chromium as a chromate ion (CrO/2)
predominates between pH 6 and higher; dichromate ions (Cr207'*) predominate between pH 2 to 6. The
dlchromate Ions present a greater health hazard than chromate ions, and both Cr(VI) ions are more toxic
than Cr(lll) ions.
Because of its anionic nature, Cr(VI) associates only with soO surfaces at positively charged exchange
sites, the number of which decrease with increasing soil pH. Iron and aluminum oxide surfaces adsorb the
chromate Ion at an acidic or neutral pH [64,65,66]. Stollenwerk and Grove [67] concluded that groundwater
alluvium adsorbed Cr(VI) due to the Iron oxides and hydroxides that coat the alluvial particles. The
adsorbed Cr(VI) was, however, easily desorbed with the input of uncontaminated groundwater, indicating
nonspecific adsorption of Cr(VI). No precipitates of any hexavalent compounds of chromium were observed
In a pH range of 1 to 9 [60]. Thus Cr(VI) Is highly mobile in soils.
In a study of the relative mobilities of 11 different trace metals for a wide range of soils, Korte et al.
[68] found that clay soil containing free Iron and manganese oxides significantly retarded Cr(VI) migration.
Hexavalent chromium was the only highly mobile metal in alkaline soils. The parameters that correlated with
Cr(VI) Immobilization in the soils were free iron oxides, total manganese, and soO pH. Neither soil
properties, cation exchange capacity, surface area, nor percent clay influence Cr(VI) mobility.
Chromium (III) Is the stable form of chromium in soil. Rai et al. [69] reported that Cr(lll) is readily
adsorbed by soil. In a study of the relative mobility of metals in soil at pH 5, Cr(lll) was the least mobile
[60]. Cr(lll) hydroxy compounds precipitate at pH 4.5. and complete precipitation of the hydroxy species
occurs at pH 5.5. In contrast to Cr(VI), Cr(lll) is relatively immobile in soil. Chromium (III) does, however,
form complexes with soluble organic llgands which may increase its mobility [70].
Regardless of pH and redox potential, most Cr(VI) in soil is reduced to Cr(lll). Soil organic matter and
Fe(ll) minerals donate the electrons in this reaction [71,72], The reduction reaction in the presence of
organic matter proceeds at a slow rate under environmental pH and temperatures [71,73,74], but the rate
of reaction Increases with decreasing soil pH [72,75]. Bartlett and James [76], however, demonstrated that
Cr(lll) can be oxidized to Cr(VI) under conditions prevalent in many soils. The presence of oxidized Mn,
which serves as an electron acceptor, is an important factor in this reaction.
REFERENCES
1. Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers Association, 1990. Wood Preservative Statistics, 1987.
2. USDA. The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol, Inorganic Arsenicals,
Creosote. USDA Number 1658-11. Washington, DC, 1980.
3. USEPA. Report of the Ad Hoc Study Group on Pentachlorophenol Contaminants. Environmental
Health Advisory Committee. Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC, 1978.
2-16
-------
4. Mueller, J.G., Chapman, P.J., and Pritchard P.H. Action of a Fluoranthene-Utilizing Community of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Components of Creosote. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
55(12):3085-3090, 1989.
5. Buser, H.R. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, Separation and identification of Isomers by Gas
Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatog. 114:95-108, 1975.
6. Buser, H.R. High Resolution Gas Chromatography of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
Dibenzofurans. Anal. Chem. 48:1553, 1976.
7. Lorenz, L. R. and L R. Gjovik. Analyzing Creosote by Gas Chromatography: Relationship to Creosote
Specifications. Proc. Amer. Wood Pres. Assoc. 68:32-42, 1972.
8. Environment Canada. Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Wood Preservation Facilities:
Recommendation for Design and Operation. Prepared by D.E. Konasewich and F.A. Hennlng. EPS
2/WP/3, 1988.
9. Bevenue, A. and H. Beckman. Pentaehlorophenol: A Discussion of Its Properties and Its Occurrence
as a Residue in Human and Animal Tissues Residue Rev. 19:83-134, 1967.
10. Renberg, L. Ion Exchange Technique for the Determination of Chlorinated Phenols and Phenoxy Acids
in Organic Tissue, Soil, and Water. Anal. Chem. 46(3):459-46l, 1974.
11. Briggs, G.G. The Behavior of the Nitrification Inhibitor "N-Serve" in Broadcast and Incorporated
Application to Soil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 26:1083-1092, 1975
12. Kaufman, D.D. Degradation of Pentaehlorophenol in Soil and by Soil Microorganisms. IN:
Pentaehlorophenol, R. K. Rao, Ed. Plenum Press, New York. 1978. pp. 27-40.
13. Kirsch, E. J. and J. E Etzel. Microbial Decomposition of Pentaehlorophenol. J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed. 45(2):359-364, 1973.
14. Matsunaka, S. and S. Kuwatsuka. Environmental Problems Related to Herbicidal Use in Japan.
Environ. Oual. Safety. 4:149-159, 1975.
15. Mikesell. M.D., and S.A. Boyd. Complete Reductive Dechlorination and Mineralization of
Pentaehlorophenol by Anaerobic Microorganisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 52(4):861 -
865, 1986.
16. Sims, J.L., Suflita, J.M., and Russell, H.H.. 1990. Reductive Dehalogenation: A Subsurface
Bioremediation Process. Remediation, 1 (1) 75-93, Winter 1990/1991.
17. Bryant, P.O., Hale, D.D., and Rogers, J E. Regiospecific Dechlorination of Pentaehlorophenol by
Dichlorophenol-Adapted Microorganisms in Freshwater, Anaerobic Sediment Slurries. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 57(8) 2293-2301, 1991.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability Potential for EPA Listed Hazardous
Wastes in Soils EPA/600/2-89-011. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma, 1989.
2-17
-------
19. Edgehill, R. U. and R. K, Finn. Microbial Treatment of Soil to Remove Pentachlorophenol. Appl. and
Env. Micoblol., Vol. 45, No. 3, 1983. pp. 1122-1125.
20. Middledorp, M. Brlglia, and M. Salkinoja-Salonen. Biodegradation of Pentachlorophenol in
Natural Soli by Inoculated Rhodococcus chlorophenolicus. Microti. Ecol. 20:123-139, 1990,
21. Henls, Y. Survival and Dormancy of Microorganisms. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987. pp 1 to
41.
22. Acea, M.J., and M. Alexander. Growth and Survival of Bacteria Introduced into Carbon-Amended SoR.
Soil. Biol. Biochem. 20(5):703-709, 1988.
23. Caslda, LE., Jr. Protozoan Response to the Addition of Bacterial Predators and Other Bacteria to Soil.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:1857-1859, 1989.
24. Goldstein, R.M., LM. Mallory, and M. Alexander. Reasons for Possible Failure of Inoculation to
Enhance Biodegradation, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50:967-983, 1985.
25. Acea, M.J., Moore, C.R., and M. Alexander. Survival and Growth of Bacteria Introduced into Soil. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 20(4):509-515, 1988.
26. Choi, J. and S. Aomine. Effects of the Soil on the Activity of Pentachlorophenol. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
18(6):255-260, 1972.
27. Choi, J. and S. Aomine. Adsorption of Pentachlorophenol by Soils. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 20(2):135-144,
1974.
28. Choi, J. and S. Aomine. Mechanisms of Pentachlorophenol Adsorption by Soils. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
20(4):371-379, 1974.
29. Schellenberg, K., C. Leuenberger, and R.P. Schwarzenbach. Sorption of Chlorophenots by Natural
Sediments and Aquifer Materials. Environ. Sci. Technology, 18 652-657, 1984.
30. Bellln, C.A., G.A. O'Connor, and Y. Jin. Sorption and Degradation of Pentachlorophenol in Sludge-
Amended Soils. J. Environ. Qua!., 19:603-608, 1990.
31. Jackson, D.R., and D.L Bisson. Mobility of Polychlorinated Aromatic Compounds in Soils
Contaminated with Wood-Preserving Oil. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 40:1129-1133, 1990.
32. Young, H.C. and J.C. Carroll. The Decomposition of Pentachlorophenol When Applied as a Residual
Pre-Emergence Herbicide. Agron. J. 43:504-507, 1951.
33. Kuwatsuka, S. and M. Igarashi. Degradation of Penta in Soils: II. The Relationship Between the
Degradation of Penta and the Properties of Soils, and the Identification of the Degradation Products
of Penta. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 21(4):405-414, 1975.
34. Loutalot, A.J. and R. Ferrer. The Effect of Some Environmental Factors on the Persistence of Sodium
Pentachlorophenate in the Soil. Proc. Am. Assoc. Hortic. Sci. 56:294-298, 1950.
35. Tausson, V.O. Basic Principles of Plant Bioenergetics (collected works). N.A. Maximov, (ed), National
Academy of Sciences, USSR, 1950. p. 73.
2-18
-------
36. Fernley, H.N. and W.C. Evans. Oxidative Metabolism of Polycyclic Hydrocarbons by Soil
Pseudomonads. Nature 182:373-375, 1958.
37. Evans, W.C., H.N. Fernley, and E. Griffiths. Oxidative Metabolism of Phenanthrene and Anthracene
by Soil Pseudomonads. Biochem, J. 95:791-831, 1965.
38. Gibson, D.T., and V. Subramanian. Microbial Degradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons, In: D.T. Gibson
(ed.), Microbial Degradation of Organic Compounds. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1984. p.
181.
39. Cernlglia, C.E., and M.A Heitkamp. Microbial Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
In the Aquatic Environment, In. U. Varanasi (ed.). Metabolism of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in the Aquatic Environment, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, 1989. p. 41-68.
40. Overcash, M R. and D. Pal. Design of Land Treatment Systems for Industrial Wastes - Theory and
Practice, Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Inc., Ann Arbor, Ml. 1979. 684 pp.
41. Herbes, S.E., L.R. Schwall, G.R. Southworth, D.L. Shaeffer, W.H. Griest, and M. P. Masbarinec. Critical
Pathways of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Aquatic Environments, In: H. Witschi (ed) The
Scientific Bases of Toxicity Assessment, Elsevier, Holland, 1980. p. 113.
42. Groenewegen, D. and H. Stolp. Microbial Breakdown of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, In: M.
R. Overcash (ed) Decomposition of Toxic and Nontoxic Organic Compounds in Soils. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Ml, 1981. p. 233.
43. Sims, R. C., and M. R. Overcash. Fate of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds (PNAs) In Soil-Plant
Systems. Residue Rev. 88:1-68, 1983.
44. Edwards, N.T. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Terrestrial Environment -- A Review.
J. Environ. Qua!. 12 247-441. 1983.
45. Cernlglia, C.E., and S.A. Crow. Microbial Transformation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, in:
R.M. Atlas (ed), Petroleum Microbiology, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984. p. 99.
46. Bulman, T.L , S. Lesage, P. J. A. Fowles, and M.D. Webber. The Persistence of Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Soil. PACE Report No. 85-2, Petroleum Assoc. for Conservation of the Canadian
Environ. Ottawa, Ontario, 1985.
47. USEPA. Treatment Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soils. EPA/600/6-88-001.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, 1988.
48. USEPA. On-Site Treatment of Creosote and Pentachlorophenol Sludges and Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/2-91 /019. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820,1991.
49. Whelan, G., and R.C. Sims. Abiotic Immobilization/Detoxification of Recalcitrant Organics. In:
Proceedings of Superfund '90. 1990.
50. Mueller, J G., S.E. Lantz, B.O. Blattmann, and P.J. Chapman. Bench-Scale Evaluation of Alternative
Biological Treatment Processes for the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol- and Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Solid-Phase Bioremediation. Environ. Scl. Technol., 25(6):1045-1054. 1991.
2-19
-------
51. Mueller, J.G., S.E. Lantz, B.O. Blattmann. and P.J, Chapman. Bench-Scale Evaluation of Alternative
Biological Treatment Processes for the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol-and Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Slurry-Phase Bloremediation. Environ. Scl. Techno!., 25(6): 1055-1061, 1991.
52. Mueller, J.G., D.P. Mtddaugh, S.E. Lantz, and P.J. Chapman. Biodegradation of Creosote and
Pentachlorophenol In Contaminated Groundwater; Chemical and Biological Assessment. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol., 57(5): 1277-1285, 1991.
53. Cernlglla, C.E. and D.T. Gibson. Oxidation of Benzo(a)-pyrene by the FDamentous Fungus
Cunnlnghamella elegans. J. Biol. Chem. 254(23): 12174-12180, 1979.
54. S ha bad, LM., Y.L Cohan, A.P. llnitsky, A.Y. Khesina, N.P. Shcerbak, and G.A. Smimov. The
Carcinogenic Hydrocarbon Benzo(a)pyrene in the Soil. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 47(6):1179-1191, 1971.
55. Aprill, Wayne, Ronald C. Sims, Judith L Sims, and John Matthews. Assessing Detoxification and
Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in Contaminated Soil. Waste Management
and Research, Vol. 8, 1990. p. 45.
56. Hlckey, M.G. and J.A. Kittrick. Chemical partitioning of cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in soils and
sediments containing high levels of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual. 13:372-376, 1984.
57. Kuo, S., P.E. Hellman and A.S. Baker. Distribution and forms of copper, zinc, cadmium, iron, and
manganese In soils near a copper smelter. Soil Scl. 135:101-109, 1983.
58. Tessler, A., P.G.C. Campbell, and M. Bisson. Trace metal speciation in the Vamaoka and St. Francois
Rivers (Quebec). Can. J. Earth Sci. 17:90-105, 1990.
59. Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley and P.C. Kearney. The chemistry and phototoxicity of arsenic in soils. I.
contaminated field soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:938-943, 1971.
60. Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants in municipal landfill leachate by clay minerals.
EPA-6G0/2-78-157, 1978.
61. Pierce, M.L and C.B. Moore. Adsorption of arsenite on amorphous iron hydroxide from dilute
aqueous solution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14:214-216, 1980.
62. Elkhatlb, E.A., O.L Bennett and R.J. Wright. Arsenite sorption and desorption In soils. Soil Scl. Soc.
Am. J. 48:1025-1030, 1984.
63. Elkhatlb, E.A., O.L. Bennett and R.J. Wright. Kinetics of arsenite sorption in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 48:758-762, 1984.
64. Davis, J.A. and J.O. Leckle. Surface Ionization and complexation at the oxide/water Interface. III.
adsorption of anions, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 74:32-43, 1980.
65. Zachara, J.M., D.C. Glrvln, R.L. Schmidt and C.T. Resch. Chromate adsorption on amorphous Iron
oxyhydroxide In presence of major groundwater ions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:589-594, 1987.
66. Ainsworth, C.C., D.C. Girvin. J.M. Zachara and S.C. Smith. Chromate adsorption on goethlte: effects
of aluminum substitution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:411-418. 1989.
2-20
-------
67. Stollerrwerk, k.G. and D.B. Grove. Adsorption and desorption of hexavalent chromium in an alluvial
aquifer near Telluride, CO. J. Environ. Qua!, 14:150-155, 1985.
68. Korte. N.E., J. Skopp, W.H. Fuller, E.E. Niebla and B.A. AJeshil. Trace element movement In soils:
influence of soil physical and chemical properties. Soil Sci. 122:350-359, 1976.
69. Ral, D., B.M. Sass and D.A. Moore. Chromium (ill) hydrolysis constants and solubility of chromium
(III) hydroxide. Inorg. Chem. 26:345-349, 1987.
70. James, B.R. and R.J. Bartlett. Behavior of chromium in soils: V. Fate of organically complexed Cr(ll)
added to soil. J. Environ. Qua!. 12:169-172, 1983.
71. Bartlett, R.J. and J.M. Kimble. Behavior of chromium In soils: II. Hexavalent forms. J. Environ. Qual.
5:383-386, 1976.
72. Bloomfield, C. and G. Pruden. The behavior of Cr(VI) in soli under aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Environ. Pollut. Ser. A. 103-114, 1980.
73. James, B.R. and R.J. Bartlett. Behavior of chromium in soils, VI. Interaction between
oxidation-reduction and organic complexation. J. Environ. Qual. 12:173-176, 1983.
74. James, B.J. and R.J. Bartlett. Behavior of chromium in soils. VII. Adsorption and reduction of
hexavalent forms. J. Environ. Qual. 12:177-181, 1983.
75. Gary, E E., W.H. Allaway and O.E. Olson. Control of chromium concentration in food plants. II.
Chemistry of chromium in soils and its availability to plants. J. Agric Food Chem. 25:305-309, 1977.
76. Bartlett, R.J. and B. James. Behavior of chromium In soils: III. Oxidation. J. Environ. Qual. 8:31-35,
1979.
2-21
-------
SECTION 3
REMEDIAL OPTIONS
CLEANUP GOALS AND SELECTION OF OPTIONS
Table 3-1 relates residential and commercial/Industrial exposures to carcinogenic PAH (CPAH) action
levels at several wood preserving sites. In such cases, the remedial manager must select remedial options
that will meet the established cleanup levels. Only two general options exist: destruction or immobilization.
Separation/concentration technologies prepare wood preserving matrices for either destruction or
immobilization.
If the cleanup goals are based on CPAHs and residential exposures, the selected option, such as
incineration or pyrolysis, will probably require high energy input. If less stringent CPAH levels are
acceptable, a low energy technology such as In situ biodegradation may be more appropriate. Figure 3-1
shows the inverse relationship between action levels and energy use -- as well as the positioning of options.
These qualitative relationships refer to PAH contamination. Figure 3-1 shows acceptable cleanup levels
based on CPAHs but also can be used for cleanup levels of other contaminants. If dioxins are present, only
thermal or dechlorination techniques are capable of remediation. CCA contamination requires stabilization/
solidification (S/S) treatment for metals, In addition to any treatment selected for organlcs. The various
contaminant forms may mandate combinations of technologies.
The appendix tables align CERCLA wood preserving sites with their established ROD cleanup levels
and the treatment combinations selected. Note that a technology chosen as the principal component of
a treatment train in one case, (e.g., incineration followed by S/S), might act as a secondary component
(posttreatment) in a different treatment train (such as solvent extraction followed by Incineration). The
remedial manager must consider each element of the system, from excavation to treatment of residual
streams.
Each option description that follows will present a schematic diagram for an overall treatment process,
from excavation to posttreatment. When evaluating total treatment costs, the remedial manager must
compare all elements of each train, not just the principal components. The treatment costs for well-
developed and field-tested components (such as incineration and bioremediation) can be quite reliable, but
estimates for Innovative and emerging components become increasingly less reliable.
The technology descriptions below deal primarily with soil treatment. The remedial manager can also
expect to find sediment and sludge on site. Natural water bodies such as ponds and streams can become
contaminated first (directly) as holding ponds/lagoons, or secondarily, by migration of wood preserving
compounds. Sludge from lagoon bottoms and processing equipment will require treatment. Sediment
contains a smaller particle size distribution and higher moisture content than soil. Usually, pretreatment
dewatering will render sediment capable of processing as a wet soil. Sludge, in comparison to sediment,
contains highly concentrated contaminants in a rheological matrix. The options for treating sludge are
limited.
3-1
-------
CO
ro
IMMOBILIZATION
DESTRUCTION
CO
_l
Ui
>
UI
-I
-I
<
Z3
Q
W 10
Ui ^
DC X
3*
Eo o
2 s
& It
o
£ 100
o
z
to
3
cc
o
1000
z
QJ
o
(/>
Ui
cc
<_l
o<
trtr
Uih-
i§
oQ
o?
VITRIFICATION (CCA)
SEPARATION/
CONCENTRATION
INCINERATION
PYROIYSIS
HIGH
DEHALOGENATION
(PCP/DIOXIN)
THERMAL
DESORPTION
SOLVENT
EXTRACTION
S/S (CCA)
S/S (CCA/ORGANICS)
EXCAVATION/
BIOTREATMENT
IN SITU BIOTREATMENT
SOIL WASHING
IN SITU STEAM
EXTRACTION
MED
IN SITU SOIL
FLUSHING
T
CAPS/BARRIERS
FREE PRODUCT
RECOVERY
LOW
Figure 3-1. Conceptual presentation of remedial options for
soil and sediment at wood preserving sites.
-------
TABLE 3-1. SOIL ACTION LEVELS VERSUS RISK (CARCINOGENIC PAHs)
AT SUPERFUND WOOD TREATING SITES
Site
Residential
exposures
Action level
(ppm)
Risk
Notes
| United Creosoting. Conroe, TX (9/89)
0.3
1 x 10"®
A
Mid South Wood Prod., Mena, AR (11/86)
3.0
1 x 10*
N. Cavalcade, Houston, TX (6/88)
1.0
1 * 10*
Bayou Bonfouca, SI idol 1. LA (3/87)
2.0
3 x 10"*
B
Midland Products, Ola, AR (3/88)
<0.2
<10"T
C
Koppers, Orville, CA (12/89)
0.19
1 x 10"8
Cape Fear Wood, NC (6/89)
2.5
1 x 10*
Southern Maryland Wood, MD (6/88)
2.2
1 x 10*
Commercial/Industrial
exposures
United Creosoting, Conroe, TX (9/89)
40.0
3 x 10*
A
S. Cavalcade, Houston, TX (9/88)
<700
<1 x 10"*
D
Koppers, Texarkana, TX (9/88)
100
X
O
Ubby Groundwater, MT (12/88)
88
1 x 10*
A. PAHs expressed as BaP equivalents.
B. Carcinogenic PAHs represent 2% of total PAHs. ROD action level is 100 ppm for total PAHs.
C. Action level driven by ARAR (not health risk) Is 1.0 ppm PCP- Inputed PAH level is far below detection limits; health
risk is far less than 10*.
D. Action level is 700 ppm plus no leachate from soils. (Risk and action levels will be less than stated.)
IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Containment Technology
Containment of groundwater plumes is a common component in the overall remediation of a wood
preserving site. One of the first on-site actions establishes containment provisions to accomplish the
following;
• Minimize migration of contaminated groundwater from the site,
• Prevent the increase of groundwater contamination due to water run-on and precipitation,
• Control population exposure to contaminants,
• Contain contaminants while remediation proceeds, and
• Reduce air emissions.
3-3
-------
Thus, containment control ranges from a surface cap that limit's infiltration of uncontamlnated surface
water to subsurface vertical or horizontal barriers that restrict lateral or vertical migration of contaminated
groundwater.
Capping Systems -
Capping systems reduce surface-water Infiltration; control gas and odor emissions; Improve aesthetics;
and provide a stable surface over the waste. Caps can range from a simple native soil cover to a full RCRA
Subtitle C, composite cover.
Vertical Barriers-
Vertical barriers minimize the movement of contaminated groundwater off site or limit the flow of
uncontamlnated groundwater on site. Common vertical barriers include slurry walls In excavated trenches;
grout curtains formed by injecting grout into soil borings; vertically-injected, cement-bentonite grout-filled
borings or holes formed by withdrawing beams driven into the ground; and sheet-pile walls formed of driven
steel.
Wood preserving compounds can affect caps and cement-bentonite barriers. The Impermeability of
bentonlte may significantly decrease when it Is exposed to high concentrations of creosote, water-soluble
salts (copper, chromium, arsenic), or fire retardant salts (borates, phosphates, and ammonia). Specific
gravity of salt solutions must be greater than 1.2 to Impact bentonite [10,11]. In general, soil bentonite
blends resist chemical attack best if they contain only 1% bentonite and 30 to 40% natural soil fines.
Treatability tests should evaluate the chemical stability of the barrier If these conditions are suspected.
Carbon steel used in pile walls quickly corrodes in dilute acids, slowly corrodes in brines or salt water,
and remains mostly unaffected by organic chemicals or water. The salts associated with wood preservatives
and fire retardants will reduce the service life of a steel sheet pile; corrosion-resistant coatings can extend
their anticipated life. Major steel suppliers will provide site-specific recommendations for cathodic protection
of piling.
Horizontal Barriers-
Horizontal barriers can underlie a sector of contaminated materials on-site without removing the
hazardous waste or soil. Established technologies use grouting techniques to reduce the permeability of
underlying soil layers. Studies performed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers [1] Indicate that conventional
grout technology cannot produce an impermeable horizontal barrier because it cannot ensure uniform lateral
growth of the grout. These same studies found greater success with jet grouting techniques in soils that
contain fines sufficient to prevent collapse of the wash hole and that present no large stones or boulders
that could deflect the cutting jet.
Implementation Costs-
Capplnq-Cap construction costs depend on the number of components in the final cap system. I.e.,
costs increase with the addition of barrier and drainage components. Additionally, cost escalates as a
function of topographic relief. Side slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical can cause stability and
equipment problems that dramatically increase the unit costs shown in Table 3-2.
Vertical barriers-Construction costs for vertical barriers are Influenced by the soil profile of the barrier
material used and by the method of placing it. The most economical shallow vertical barriers are so3-
bentonlte trenches (Table 3-3) excavated with conventional backhoes; the most economical deep vertical
barriers consist of a cement-bentonite wall placed by a vibrating beam.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2. CAPPING COSTS
Component
Installation
Cost
W
Bedding layer
On-site excavation, hauling, spreading,
compaction
1.00 to 2.50/yd3
Gas collecting layer
Off-site excavation, hauling, spreading, and
collector pipes
Geonet alternative
12.00 to 18.00/yd2
0.40/ft2
Composite barrier: clay
On-site excavation, hauling, spreading,
compaction
Bentonite board alternative
Add (or off-site clay (<20 mile haul)
2.40 to 6.00/yd3
0.85/ft2
8.00 to 14.00/yd3
Composite barrier: geomembrane
Installed
HOPE - 60 mil
PVC - 40 mil
s, \
83
o 6
Drainage layer
Off-site excavation, hauling, spreading, and
collector pipes
Geonet alternative
12.00 to 18.00/yd2
0.40/ft2
Protective layer
On-site excavation, hauling, spreading,
compaction
1.00 to 2.50/yd3
Vegetative layer
Topsoil hauling, spreading, and grading
10.00 to 16.00/yd3
Asphalt hardened cap option
(4 to 6 in)
Delete protective and vegetative layers, hauling,
spreading, rolling
4.00 to 6.00/yd2
Concrete hardened cap option
(4 to 6 in)
Delete protective and vegetative layers, on-site
mixing, hauling, spreading, finishing
6.00 to 11.00/yd2
TABLE 3-3. VERTICAL BARRIER COSTS
Depth
Cost
Component
(«)
($/«*)
Soil-bentonite slurry wall
30
3 to 7
30-50
6 to 11
50-125
9 to 15
Cement-bentonite slurry wall
Comparable to above
Vibrating beam
Injection grout
3 to 5 times above
Steel sheet pile wall
16 to 28
3-5
-------
Horizontal barrlers-Since few horizontal barriers have been constructed, accurate costs have not
been established. Work performed by COE for USEPA has shown that it Is very difficult to form effective
horizontal barriers. The most efficient barrier installation used a jet wash to create a cavity In sandy soils
Into which cement-bentonite grouting was Injected. The costs relate to the number of borings required.
Each boring takes at least one day to drill.
Typical equipment costs range from $1,200 to $3,000 per day. The spacing of boreholes is a function
of grout penetration; it Is site-specific. Typical boring spaces range from 6 to 10 ft centers. Horizontal
barrier costs for boring and Injection alone may exceed $e0.00/ft2. The cost of the grout Is relatively minor.
Stabilization /Solidification Technologies
Stabilization and solidification (S/S) processes reduce the mobility of a contaminant, either by
physically restricting Its contact with a mobile phase (solidification) or by chemically altering/binding the
contaminant to reduce its mobility (stabilization). Solidification also refers to the use of binders for waste
bulking to facilitate the handling of liquid wastes. While stabilization can be achieved without solidification,
solidification Is usually accompanied by some stabilization.
Binding agents for stabilization fall into several classes. The most common binders are cementitlous
materials, Including Portland cement, fly ash/lime, fly ash/kiln dust. These agents form a solid, resistant,
alumlnosillcate matrix that can occlude waste particles, bind various contaminants, and reduce permeability
of the waste/binder mass. Proprietary agents added to the binder may Improve specific properties of S/S
treatment, such as strength, curing rate, contaminant binding, pore size, or waste dispersion.
Treatment Combinations -
Immobilization treatment does not usually apply to sites contaminated by both organic and inorganic
wood preservatives. S/S technology is not effective on sites contaminated with organic wood preservatives
although new developments are making it increasingly more effective. However, S/S technology can be
combined with other remediation processes in successful treatment trains (Table 3-4).
TABLE 3-4. S/S TREATMENT TRAINS FOR WOOD PRESERVING SITES*
Contaminants
Treatment operations
Metals
Soil washing > S/S
Metals and PCP or creosote
Incineration — > S/S
Soil washing > biotreatment —-> S/S
Land biotreatment > S/S
" U.S. EPA, 1990, Report no. EPA/625/7-90/011 [3]
Technology Applicability-
Organic compounds-There are two considerations in S/S treatment of organic compounds: the
Immobilization of the organic contaminant, and the potential effects of organic compounds on matrix
solidification or on Immobilization of other contaminants.
3-6
-------
Organic compounds can retard or prevent setting of typical S/S matrices. Connor [2} found that many
types of organics have adverse effects on set/cure times, cement hydration, and product properties (e.g.,
unconfined compressive strength). To date, no threshold concentrations have been established for organic
interference with conventional binder systems.
Organic compounds, although present below cleanup action levels, may Interact with a binder or
Inorganic contaminants. They can exert a negative influence on S/S treatment of metals by forming
complexes that hinder those reactions that immobilize metals. Organic compounds that form anions at the
particular pH level of the waste, such as alcohols and carboxylic acids, are most likely to bind with cationic
metals. In addition, the organic compounds may be hydrophobic; thus, they can hinder the waste-binder
contact necessary for Immobilization of metals.
Organics may volatilize during the period between mixing and curing of waste in the S/S process.
Even organics with low vapor pressures can disperse significant concentrations of organic compounds into
the air. This effect is enhanced when the treatment involves heat, as with some cementitlous binders.
Volatilization must be addressed at sites containing benzene (a constituent of creosote) and low molecular-
weight solvents, since they exert appreciable vapor pressures at 20°C.
S/S is not a conventional remedy for organic contaminants. Consequently, little data are available for
guidance in designing S/S treatments for organic wood preservatives. Of 15 records of decision (RODs)
on wood preserving sites stored in the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) data
base prior to September 1991, only one included S/S of soil contaminated by both organic and inorganic
chemicals. More common treatments included soil washing, soil flushing, biological treatment, and
incineration. These techniques either destroy the organic compounds or remove them from the soil matrix
for off-site disposal/destruction.
Several experimental technologies may be useful for S/S of organic wood preservers. Organophilic
clays (e.g., modified smectite) and activated carbon treat organic contaminants, with or without other
cementitious binders. Laboratory tests have demonstrated the sorption of PCPs [4], Organic polymers and
asphalts can also interact with organic waste constituents. At the least, they can form a matrix with an
affinity for organic compounds and with internal spaces large enough to accommodate these molecules.
Only additional experience can provide sufficient evidence to make these binders acceptable for
immobilization. Treatability tests for binders must determine the fate of organic contaminants.
Solidification, or waste bulking, sometimes facilitates the handling of organic-dominated wastes in
preparation for off-site disposal/treatment or for interim management prior to on-site remediation. Two
entries in the ATTIC database describe using solidification followed by RCRA capping. This process usually
produces containment of nonaqueous phase liquids, such as oil-based wood preservatives. The treatment
agent Is often a lime-containing waste, such as baghouse dust from limestone calcination or cement
production (sometimes called kiln dust or fly ash), and fly ash from coal-fired power plants. As with S/S
treatment, the possibility of organic volatilization must be considered in waste bulking processes. There is
no clear evidence that organics will volatilize in bulking wood preserver wastes, but prudence suggests
testing for volatilization until sufficient scientific data can be gathered to prove the practice safe.
Metals-S/S has often been applied to wastes and soils containing metals. Unlike organic compounds
that can be destroyed, metals can only be changed in oxidation state, chemical species, and physical form.
The goal of S/S is to convert the metal to a less mobile form and to physically restrict its contact with water
and air. Cementitious materials are the most common binders. In addition to solidification, calcium
hydroxide in these binders can cause precipitation of many metals as sparingly-soluble oxyhydroxides.
Metals can also adsorb to the aluminosilicate matrix or replace cations normally present in the crystalline
structures of cement.
3-7
**¦
-------
The high alkalinity that favors precipitation of many metals can hinder immobilization if the metals form
soluble anionic hydroxides at a high pH, Cadmium, for example, can precipitate at a moderately alkaline
pH as Cd(OH)2 but becomes increasingly soluble at a higher pH, owing to the formation of an anionic
cadmium hydroxide. Because the pH for minimum solubility differs for each metal, one set of conditions
may not cover all metal-insoluble hydroxides.
Sulfide agents can produce highly insoluble metal compounds with cationlc metal species such as
copper. However, the solubility depends on the permanent exclusion of oxygen and other oxidizers from
contact with the metal sulfide.
Another complication in S/S treatment is the speclation of metals in the raw waste. Chromium,
arsenic, selenium, and some other metals form both soluble cationic species and soluble oxide anions (e.g.,
chromate and arsenite). The latter form will not precipitate as hydroxides; their sorption differs from that
of cationlc species In a cement matrix. Although rarely performed, analyses of raw wastes and their
leachates for meiai oxidation state and chemical species are important in designing the most effective
Immobilization treatment. For some metals, the oxidation state also affects toxicity (e.g., trivalent vs.
hexavalent chromium).
Technology Status/Performance -
Treatabllity test data compiled from numerous sources indicate that the metals in wood preservatives
are amenable to solidification/stabilization. The particular S/S system that will perform well on a given
contaminated material must be determined by site-specific screening and treatability tests. Some results
are shown in Table 3-5. The chromium-containing wastes illustrate the importance of the contaminant
oxidation state In stabilization. Ideally, the waste is tested for contaminant speciation so that prior
experience with the same chemical form of contaminant can assist decision-makers in the selection of
binders for treatability testing. Reduction of hexavalent chromium followed by precipitation as Cr(OH)3 Is
a common water-treatment method that applies to S/S technology, since the hydroxide is compatible with
cement matrices and any solubilized metai would exist in the less toxic form.
TABLE 3-5. S/S METAL TREATABILITY TEST RESULTS
Contaminant
Initial
concentration
Reduction
(%)
Binders
Arsenic
420 mg/L
22 to 91
Cement kiln dust;
slag/lime/fly ash/
silica; suifide/siiicate
Chromium (III)
33 to 3,960 mg/L
34 to 99
76 to 88
Cement kiln dust;
slag/lime/fly ash/
silica
Sulfide silicate
Sulfide silicate
Chromium (VI)
97 to 99
Sulfide silicate
Copper
51 to 99
Unspecified
Source: USEPA RREl, Cincinnati, OH.
3-8
-------
The effect of binders on wastes containing only CCA metals is not completely clear. Table 3-G shows
treatability data for a CCA waste. The degree of stabilization is not constant for one metal across the S/S
formulations, or for one formulation across the metals. Connor [2] reported results on another CCA wood
preserving waste with EP Toxicity leachate levels of t.8 mg/L of As, 90 mg/L of Cr, and 13 mg/L of Cu
before treatment. After treatment with several S/S agents, leachaWe metals ranged from <0.01 to 3 mg/L
of As, 0.5 to 150 mg/L of Cr, and <0.05 to 9.9 mg/L of Cu. In this case, the greatest reduction in
leachability for all three metals was observed with a potassium silicate formulation.
TABLE 3-6. EP TOXICITY TEST RESULTS FOR RAW AND TREATED
CCA WASTE LEACHATE*
Element
Raw
(mg/L)
Treated waste
(mg/L)
As
18
2.3
1.4
2.5
Cr
98.4
116.0
12.4
106.0
Cu
13.6
0.2
4.7
0.1 |
* Data from Weston, 1988, Palmetto Woods Treatability Study. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3482 [3J.
A single binder process does not usually produce optimal immobilization for multiple metals. All three
metals may not need to be remediated at all sites; sometimes only one or two metals need to be
remediated. However, a system can generally be developed to meet cleanup criteria for multiple metals.
The appearance of increased teachable metals in residuals following treatability tests is not unusual; it can
result from contaminant destabilization (soluble complex formation with treatment agents), sample
heterogeneity, or analytical error. Representative sampling, sample homogenization, multiple treatment, and
analytical replication may be necessary to ensure useful results.
Other binder systems may well apply to CCA wood preservative contamination, but there is less
documented experience with noncementitlous agents. The following factors may make an alternative binder
suitable for treatability tests:
• Tolerance of organic contaminants with respect to chemical and physical characteristics,
• Planned posttreatment use such as subpavement,
• Volume increase that affects off-site disposal costs, and
• Data supporting cost effectiveness.
A detailed description of how to evaluate S/S technology as a remedial method for a particular waste
is given in Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical Testing
Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities [5J.
No extant theoretical or empirical method can predict the degree of immobilization attained by
applying a particular S/S technology to a particular waste. Site-specific screening tests and treatability tests
(Table 3-7) determine whether S/S is a suitable and cost-effective remediation method; they can also
optimize the waste/binder/additive/water mix. In addition to ensuring compliance with contaminant- or site-
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-7. WOOD TREATING SITE S/S TREATABILITY TEST RESULTS
Stto
Equipment
Feed
Results
J.H. Baxter Site, Wood, CA
HA2CON, Inc. lab/bench
scale
Soil: As. Cu, Zn, PCP.
creosote
Marked reduction in
metallic contaminants. No
reduction in PCP levels.
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving Siio,
Whitehouse, Fl
Lab/bench scale by three
different vendors
PCP
TCLP PCP concentration
met goals.
No site yet selected
Hayward Baker in situ S/S
Soils/sludges: PCB, PCP
Technique accepted Into
SITE Program.
Selma Pressure Treating,
Selma, CA
Silicate Technology Corp.
process
PCP, As, Cr, Cu
PCP leachate
concentrations reduced up
to 97%; As, Cr, and Cu
distilled water TCLP
leachate concentrations
reduced to 96. 54, and
90%. respectively*.
Site not Identified
Waste Technologies Group,
Inc. (WTG)
Soils:
PAHs 42-205 ppm
Phenol 77 ppm
<3 3 to 4 4 ppm
<3.3 ppm
* (EPA/540/5-91/008).
specific teachability limits, these tests can identify the S/S mix that will balance cost and volume Increase
In achieving Immobilization. The increase in volume upon S/S treatment can significantly impact on- or off-
site, disposal space transportation, and landfill costs.
Implementation Costs-
The cost of treatability screening (initial S/S applicability) for a specific site can range from $10,000
to $20,000. Treatability costs at the remedy selection stage are higher and more variable, depending on the
matrix of binder types, binder ratios, and water contents to be investigated. Associated analytical costs
Increase dramatically as the number of organic compounds being analyzed increases. Costs of $50,000 or
more are not unusual.
Connor [2J estimated the cost of treatment, transportation, and landfill disposal for some common S/S
systems: prices ranged from $74 to $397 per ton for landfilling on site and from $119 to $517 for land filling
200 miles from the contaminated site. The cost was quite dependent on binder cost and on the solids
content of the waste, since much more binder is required to solidify low-solids wastes. Locally available
waste products (fly ash and kiln dust) can be inexpensive S/S agents, while manufactured treatment agents
(organic polymers) can and be quite expensive.
Data Requirements -
Some of the factors affecting S/S are shown in Table 3-8. Collecting and evaluating physical and
chemical data about these factors can help determine the applicability of S/S treatment to the contaminant
and matrix.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-8. FACTORS AFFECTING STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT
Factor
Possible effect
Coal or lignite content
Causes defects in product.
Cyanides content
Affects bonding (>3,000 ppm).
Halide content
Retards setting; leaches easily.
Inorganic salts content
Reduces product strength and affects curing
rates (soluble salts of manganese, tin, zinc,
copper, and lead).
leachable metaJs content
Affects immobilization.
OB and grease content
Affects bonding (>10%).
Organic content
Inhibits bonding (>20 to 45 wt%).
Particle size
Affects bonding (<200 mesh or >1/4" dia.)
Phenol concentration
Affects product strength (>5%).
Semivolatile organics
Inhibits bonding (>10,000 ppm).
Sodium arsenate, borate, phosphate, iodate,
sulfide, sulfate, carbohydrate concentrations
Retards setting and affect product strength.
Solids content
Requires large amounts of reagents (<15%).
Volatile organic concentrations
Affects immobilization.
Sourco: USEPA, 1988 |8).
From a remediation viewpoint, the most important consideration in binder selection is the chemical
composition of the material to be treated Numerous samples from various locations on site should be
analyzed for the active wood preserving ingredients, the carrier oil components, and other characteristically
hazardous compounds, test samples should include full extracts or digestates of the raw waste as well as
on TCLP extracts and extracts from any other regulation-mandated test, to facilitate an estimate of the
leachability of each constituent. Areas known by site characterization data to be sources of migrating
contaminants should be the targets of more extensive sampling.
In addition to chemically characterizing the waste, these data will locate typical and worst case
samples for treatability tests. In multi-contaminant wastes, there may be several worst cases: high metals,
moderate organics; moderate metals, high organics; metals and organics in hydrophobic carrier solvents;
etc.
The remedial manager should study the chemical characterization of the waste, researching the
available literature and vendor treatability data to determine whether the waste is comparable to another
material that has been successfully treated. With organic contaminants, only treatability data that clearly
show no volatilization during treatment are relevant.
3-11
-------
VHrifigstlpn T<>chnplQC|ieg
Vitrification converts waste into a high-strength glass or glass-like substance. It can treat excavated
waste or son In situ. In situ vitrification (ISV) presents two advantages: materials need not be excavated
and they remain buried on site. Vitrified excavated materials provide improved process control and capture/
treatment of volatilized organlcs and metals.
Vitrification of Excavated Waste-
Current industrial-size systems use plasma arc, microwave heating, kiln, and other mixed thermal
methods to accomplish vitrification. For wood preserving wastes, this technology should be considered
Innovative and promising.
In SHu Vttfificatlon-
Thls S/S process converts contaminants into glass-like materials and chemically inert and stable gases
by using large electrodes inserted into the soli [6]. These electrodes, containing significant levels of silicate
material, generate heat (up to 3,600°C) by passing electric current through them. Because dry soils do not
conduct electricity, a layer of flaked graphite and glass frit transfers electrical energy between the electrodes.
This layer acts as a starter to Increase the soil temperature. Soil or rock components melt, organic
compounds pyrolyze in the glass matrix, and many metallic materials fuse or vaporize. The fused waste
material then resides in a chemically Inert and stable crystalline form that has low leachability rates and
almost the same chemical stability as granite. A hood above the treating area draws off process gases and
vapors for further treatment [7].
Technology Applicability-
Vitrification can treat organics and/or immobilize inorganics in contaminated soil and sludge.
Technology Status/Performance -
Vitrification technology has not yet been used to remediate a Superfund site. However, Geosafe
Corporation has demonstrated ISV on radioactive wastes at the DOE's Hanford Nuclear Reservation. A
large-scale remediation project using this process was temporarily suspended because a fire caused the
loss of off-gas confinement and control during a large-scale test (Geosafe Corporation, 1991). Retention
tests on excavated, vitrified, metal-containing waste showed efficiencies ranging from 67 to 99% for volatile
metals such as As, Cd, and Pb, and 90 to 99.9% for nonvolatile metals such as Cu, Cr, and Zn. This
suggests a need for significant metals posttreatment. Organlcs results showed destruction of dioxlns, furans,
PCBs, and PCP as shown in Table 3-9.
TABLE 3-9. VITRIFICATION RESULTS
Initial concentration
Destruction
(PPb)
(%)
DIoxin
>47,000
99.9 to 99.99
Furan
>9,400
99.9 to 99.99
PCB
19,400,000
99.9 to 99.99
PCP
>4,000.000
99.995
3-12
-------
Implementation Costs -
Costs for In situ vitrification approach $350 to $400 per cubic yard 19].
DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
Destruction technologies for remediation of contaminated soil, sludge, and sediment at wood
preserving sites can be divided into three categories:
• Thermal,
• Chemical, and
• Biological.
Table 3-10 lists the typical treatment combinations for destruction options. Waste preparation includes
excavation and conveying the soil, dredging and/or dewatering sediment/sludge, screening to remove
debris, and reducing particle size.
Table 3-11 provides the applicability of destruction options to contaminant groups found at wood
preserving sites.
Thermal Destruction Technologies
Two thermal technologies destroy contaminants in soil, sludge, and sediment: incineration and
pyrolysis.
Incineration-
Incineration treats organic contaminants in solids and liquids by subjecting them to temperatures
typically greater than 1,000°F In the presence of oxygen. Volatilization and combustion of the organic
contaminants occurs, converting them to carbon dioxide (C02), water (H?0), hydrogen chloride (HO), and
sulfur oxides (SO,). Three common types of Incineration systems can treat contaminated solids: the rotary
kiln, the Infrared incinerator, and the circulating fluidized bed units. The rotary kiln and the infrared units
contain a primary chamber that usually operates in the temperature range of 1,000°F to 1,800°F. The rotary
kiln Is a refractory-lined, slightly-inclined, rotating cylinder that serves as a combustion chamber. The
Infrared unit uses electrical resistance heating elements or indirect fired radiant U-tubes to heat material
passing through the chamber on a conveyor belt. As material passes through the primary chamber, the unit
evaporates moisture, volatilizes organic contaminants, and partially combusts the volatilized contaminants.
Since conversion of the organic contaminants is inadequate in the primary chamber, the system sends the
partially combusted gases to a secondary combustion chamber that usually operates between 1,600°F to
2,200°F. The gases are held at temperature for a residence time of 2 seconds to ensure adequate
destruction of the contaminants. The circulating fluidized bed (CFB) unit uses high velocity air to circulate
and suspend the waste particles in a combustion loop. The CFB operates in the temperature range of
1,500°F to 1,800°F and does not need a secondary combustion chamber to achieve adequate destruction
of organic contaminants. The incinerator off-gas requires treatment by an air pollution control (APC) system
to remove particulates and to neutralize and remove acid gases (HCI, NO,, and SO,). Baghouses, venturi
scrubbers, and wet electrostatic precipitators remove particulates; packed bed scrubbers and spray driers
remove acid gases. The CFB removes acid gases by adding limestone to the combustor loop. Figure 3-2
illustrates an incineration treatment train.
Process Residuals-This technology may generate three residual streams: solids from the incinerator
and APC system, water from the APC system, and emissions from the incinerator.
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-10. TYPICAL TREATMENT COMBINATIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OPTIONS
Pretroatment/matorlals
handling
Destruction technology
PosKrMrtment/raaldtialt
manag«m«nt
Excavation/conveying
Dredglng/dewatarlng
Scfeonlng/slze reduction
Incineration
Mr pollution control [
Scrubber effluent treatment/disposal I
Ash treatment/disposal 1
Excavation/conveying
Dredglng/dewat King
Soceanlng/slz# reduction
Pyrolysls
Air pollution control 1
Scrubber effluent treatment/disposal I
Ash treatment/disposal I
Excavation/conveying
Dredglng/dewatoring
Screening/size reduction
Chemical dehalogenation
Air pollution control I
Washwater treatment/disposal [
Treated soil treatment/disposal
Excavation/conveying
Dredglng/dewa!i>ring
Screening/size reduction
Water addition, mixing
Chemical oxidation
Air pollution control
Filtration, treated soil treatment/
disposal
Excavation/conveying
Dredging
Screening/size reduction
Soil washing
Water addition, pH, and temperature
adjustment
Slurry-phase bioremedlation
Air pollution control
Process water treatment/disposal
Treated soil treatment/disposal
Excavatlon/convsylng
Dredging
Screening/size reduction
Mixing, pH adjustment
Solid-phase bloremediation
Air pollution control
incomplete degradation
Products treatment/disposal
Leachate treatment/disposal
Water recirculation system
Conditioning of infiltration water with
nutrients and oxygen
In situ soil flushing
In situ bioremedlation
Groundwater treatment/reinjectlon
Bottom ash (treated soils) from the primary chamber and fly ash from the APC system may contain
heavy metals contaminants such as chromium, lead, copper, and arsenic. The fly ash may also contain high
concentrations of volatile heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic. If these residues fail the
required TCLP leachate toxicity tests, they can be treated by another process, such as
stabilization/solidification, and then be property disposed on site or in an approved landfill.
Liquid wastes from the APC system may contain excess caustic or acid, high levels or chloride,
dissolved and suspended heavy metals, trace organic compounds and fine inert particulates. These
contaminants may require further treatment as follows: neutralization of the acids or bases; chemical
precipitation and/or Ion exchange to remove metals; settling, filtration, and reverse osmosis to remove
particulates; ancl carbon adsorption to remove trace organic compounds.
Stack emissions are minimized by the APC system, the combustion control system, and stack emission
monitors. Fugitive emissions are controlled by equipment design (enclosed feed and ash systems and dust
control systems) and operating procedures.
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-11. APPLICABILITY OF DESTRUCTION
OPTIONS TO CONTAMINANT CLASSIFICATIONS
Group
No.
Contaminant
group
Destruction options
Thermal
destruction
Chemical
dehalogenatlon
Chemical
oxidation
Bioremedlation
In situ
bioremedlation
W02
Dioxins/furans/
PCBs and their
precursors
•
•
0
0
0
W03
Halogenated
phenols,
creosols, ethers,
and thiols
•
e
e
0
e
W07
Heterocyclics
and simple non-
halogenated
aromatics
•
0
0
•
•
W08
Polynuclear
aromatics
•
0
0
•
•
W09
Other polar
organic
compounds
•
o
0
•
•
W10
Non-volatile
metals
0
o
e
0
o
W11
Volatile metals
0
0
0
o
0
• - Demonstrated effectiveness
O - Potential effectiveness
O - No expected effectiveness
Source: USEPA Engineering Bulletins
Technology applicability-Incineration has effectively treated soil, sludge, sediment, and liquids
containing all the organic contaminants found on wood preserving sites, such as dioxins/furans, PCP, PAHs,
and other halogenated and nonhalogenated volatiles and semivolatiles. Incineration has treated wood
preserver wastes to the most stringent cleanup levels. A substantial body of trial burn results and other
quality-assured data verify that incineration can remove and destroy organic contaminants from a variety
of waste matrices to the parts per billion or even the parts per trillion level [1,2]. Incineration does not
destroy metals. However, metals will produce different residuals (bottom ash, cyclone ash, and liquid)
depending on the volatility of their compounds and the incinerator operating conditions [3].
The moisture content and the heating value of the contaminated wastes are important parameters that
affect the economics of the incineration process. High moisture content and high heating value reduce the
Incinerator's capacity. Several feasibility studies have screened out incineration due to either high moisture
content or high heating value of the wastes. This is questionable, however, since engineering solutions can
improve the economics. When a waste has both high heating value and high moisture content, the moisture
content cools the products of combustion efficiently and permits higher throughputs [1]. In addition,
mechanical or thermal dewatering techniques can reduce high moisture content and blending with wastes
of low heating value can process high heating-value wastes.
3-15
-------
TrMiad
<#> am Mora
Figure 3-2. Schematic for an Incineration treatment train [1].
3-16
-------
Technology status/performance-Out of 29 RODs for wood preserving sites, 7 selected Incineration
as an integral part of a treatment train. Thermal destruction has been fully proven in commercial use. Table
3-12 lists the results of several selected incineration treatability studies. Newer techniques being studied will
lower temperatures in primary incineration chambers and add agents (e.g.. lime, iron oxide, fly ash,
proprietary inorganics) to bind and treat volatile metals in the incinerated material.
TABLE 3-12. INCINERATION TREATABILITY TEST RESULTS
Sit*
Equipment
Feed
Results
Allied Chemicals,
Birmingham, AL
John Znk Rotary Kiln
Sludge/sediment:
naphthalene (4%),
phenanthrene (3.5%),
fluoranthene (2.5%), other
active organics (30%)
No detectable priority
pollutants in the ash/
scrubber water residues
[5.6J
Allied Chemicals American
Wood Division, Richton, MS
USEPA Combustion
Research Facility
Sludge: PCPs 970 to 3,800
ppm, PNAs and volatile
organics (benzene and
toluene)
No detectable priority/
volatile/semivolatile
compounds in residual
ash/scrubber water [7]
American Crossarm,
Chehalis, WA
Rotary kiln
Not listed
Treated dioxlns to
<0.001 mg/kg
Bell Lumber,
New Brighton, MN
Rotary kiln
Not listed
Reduced PCP to
<0.5 mg/kg
Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM
Model 500-T Air Incinerator
Boxes treated with PCP
DRES >99.99% [8]
Prentiss Creosote,
Prentiss. MS
Rotary kiln
Not listed
Treated PAHs to <2 mg/kg
Stringfellow Acid Pit
Superfund Site. CA
Pyretron Oxygen Burner
(SITE Demonstration)
Sludge: 6 PAHS -
naphthalene,
acenaphthalene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene,
and fluoranthene
>99.99% DRE (or PAHS [9]
Implementation costs--The cost of incineration includes fixed and operational costs. Site preparation,
permitting, and mobilization/demobilization costs are relatively fixed; operational costs such as labor,
utilities, and fuel, vary according to the type of waste treated and the size of the site. Figure 3-3 shows the
effect of site size on incinerator costs [4], Average costs for incineration range from $300 to $1,000/ton.
These costs do not include excavation, materials handling, or disposal.
Data requirements-Table 3-13 summarizes factors affecting incineration performance. These factors
determine the data requirements for incineration -- the type of information (site/waste characterization,
treatability study, etc.) needed to Implement this technology at a wood preserving site.
Pyrolysis-
Pyrolysis differs from incineration because it uses heat in the absence of oxygen to decompose
organic materials. It transforms hazardous, long-chain, carbonaceous materials into less hazardous,
gaseous components and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon and ash. The gas product contains
lower molecular weight hydrocarbons, CO, H2, and methane.
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-13. FACTORS AFFECTING INCINERATION PERFORMANCE
Factor
Potential effect
Ash fusion temperature
Melts and agglomerates Inorganic salts.
Halogenated organic compound
concentration
Forms acid gases.
Heating value
Requires additional energy use (<8,000 BTU); affect
throughput.
Metals content
Vaporizes; becomes difficult to remove from emissions
(volatile metals: As, Cd, Zn).
Moisture content
Increases feed handling and energy requirements.
Organic phosphorous content
Forms acid gas (high concentrations).
Particle size
Hinders processing (oversized debris); causes high particulate
loading from fines carried through the process.
PCBs, dloxlns
Require higher temperatures for destruction.
Pyrolysis operates at temperatures between 800° and 2,100°F. Cracking organic contaminants
produces coke by-products that add to the heating value of the process, while desorption mechanisms
concentrate the contaminants. Pyrolysis produces fewer air pollutants, allows more control, permits higher
throughput, and operates at lower temperatures than incineration.
Typical treatment combinatlons--The pyrolytlc process generates three streams: solids, liquids, and
gases. The solids consist of the treated soil and the coke formed from hydrocarbon decomposition. Some
compounds volatilize rather than decompose, requiring condensation for further treatment. Condensed
volatiles and process water comprise the liquid streams. They may contain chlorides, volatile metals, trace
organlcs, and particulates. Feedstock dewatering can lower treatment costs. Standard water treatment
techniques for wastewater will suffice for treatment; air pollution control systems will control dusts and scrub
acid gases. S/S can treat solids and fly ash generated from the process.
Technology applicabilitv-Pvrolvsis generally applies to a wide range of organic wastes in soil and
sludge, but not to Inorganics and metals. Treatment data for PCBs (analogous to wood-preserving PCP),
dloxlns, and PAHs are available. Small-scale tests suggest that pyrolysis can treat soil, sediment, and sludge
contaminated with nonhalogenated semivolatiles and PCBs, as well as sediment/sludge contaminated with
dioxlns/furans. However, It will not treat or immobilize metals [10].
Technology status/performance-Pvrolvsis is an emerging technology; performance data are limited.
No ROD has yet chosen pyrolysis.
Five companies market pyrolytic systems; Southdown Thermal Dynamics (HT-V System), Deutsche
Babcock Anlagen AG, Surface Combustion, Westinghouse, and SoilTech, Inc.
3-18
-------
1,600
1.400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400 -
200
Very SmaJ
<5.000
Small Medium
5.000-15,000 15,000-30,000
Large
>30,000
Site Size Tons
Figure 3-3. Effect of site size on incineration costs [1].
3-19
-------
The HT-V System has treated oily sludges contaminated with dloxlns and PCBs at the bench
scale. Wastes contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD were treated with an efficiency of over 99.99%.
A mlxturo of PCB-contamlnated oil, water, and soil showed a 99.99% reduction in PCBs.
The Deutsche Babcock System, tested at full-scale, treated 35,000 tons of soil. The destruction
of 17 PAHs was measured; an efficiency of 99.77% was achieved (Table 3-15).
Implementation costs-Costs have not yet been determined.
Data reoulrements-The primary factors affecting pyrolytic performance are summarized In Table 3-14.
TABLE 3-14. FACTORS AFFECTING PYROLYSIS PERFORMANCE
Factor
Potential effect
Temperature
Residence time
Moisture content (<1%)
Affects number of treatment cycles
pH (5 to 11)
Affects component corrosion
Volatile concentration
Affects pretreatment options
Chemical Destruction Technologies
Two types of chemical destruction technologies apply to contaminated soil, sludge, and sediment at
wood preserving sites:
• Dehalogenation, and
* Chemical oxidation.
Dehalogenation-
Chemlcal dehalogenation uses a chemical reaction to remove the chlorine atoms from chlorinated
molecules. This converts the more toxic compounds into less toxic, sometimes more water-soluble
products, leaving compounds that are more readily separated from the soil and treated [11 J.
Dehalogenation of halogenated aromatic compounds uses a nucleophilic substitution reaction to replace
a chlorine atom with an ether or hydroxy! group. Dehalogenation or dechlorination of chlorinated aliphatic
compounds occurs through an elimination reaction and the formation of a double or triple carbon-carbon
bond [12].
Field and laboratory tests have identified several types of solutions that can dechlorinate PCBs, dioxins,
and furans. These solutions Include potassium polyethylene glycolate (KPEG), sodium polyethylene
glycolate (NaPEG), and methoxypolyethylene glycolate (MPEG). These are generally classified as alkali
polyethylene glycolate solutions (APEG). Figure 3-4 presents a schematic flow diagram for this technology.
The base-catalyzed decomposition process (BCDP) uses sodium bicarbonate in a heated reactor to
effectively treat halogenated compounds.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-15. DEUTSCHE BABCOCK PYROLYTIC ROTARY KILN
CONTAMINATED SOIL RESULTS
Pollutant
March 8, 1989
January 27, 1989
Input
mg/kg
Output
mg/kg
Input
mg/kg
Output I
mg/kg
Naphthalene
101.00
1.7
161.60
0.5
2-methyl-riaphthalene
40.20
0.5
73.80
0.1
1 -methyl-naphthalene
23,40
0.3
42.90
0.1
Dimethyl naphthalene
rid*
nd*
93.20
0.3
Acenaphthylene
nd*
nd*
68.20
0.1
Acenaphthene
nd*
nd*
42.30
0.1
Fluorene
136.00
0.1
238.00
0.1
Phenanthrene
686.00
0.6
1,055.30
1.4
Anthracene
281.00
0.1
226.00
0.3
Ruoranthene
nd*
nd*
688.60
1.3
Pyrene
236.00
0.1
398.20
0.6
Benzo(a)anthracene
155 00
0.2
2,259.20
0.3
Chrysene
214.00
0.3
134.60
0.9
Benzo(a) pyrene
66.60
0.4
111.50
1.1
Benzo(p)fluoranthene
112.00
0.1
168.50
5.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
43.70
0.1
81.90
0.3
Benzo(a) pyrene
86.60
0.2
138.10
0.4
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
16.80
0.1
23.20
0.1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
14,00
0.1
60.20
0.1
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
33.80
0.1
69.50
0.1
Totals
2,266.10
5.2
6,134.80
13.4
Decontamination efficiency
99.77%
99.78%
*nd = not detected
3-21
-------
Figure 3-4. Schematic for chemical destruction process [15J.
3-22
-------
Typical treatment combinations-Dehaloaenation generates three residuals: treated soil, wash water,
and air emissions. Since this treatment is effective only for dioxin/furan/PCB and halogenated
phenol/creosol groups, the presence of other contaminants may demand posttreatment, such as
bioremediation or incineration. The wash water may require treatment prior to discharge. Volatile air
emissions, captured by condensation and/or activated carbon adsorption, can be thermally regenerated.
Technology applicability-Chemical dehalogenation can treat halogenated aromatic contaminants in
a waste matrix consisting of soil, sludge, or sediment. This technology has achieved removal efficiencies
up to 95%, with an average of 83% in bench-scale studies for PCB contaminants (analogous to PCP).
Bench-scale studies produced removal efficiencies of 96% for PCP [13]. The presence of other
contaminants may require a treatment combination that would add bioremediation, incineration, or another
option.
Technology status/performance-Chemical dehalogenation isan innovativealternative to conventional
technologies, such as incineration. Table 3-16 presents several selected wood preserving site treatability
tests.
TABLE 3-16. DECHLORINATION TREATABILITY TEST RESULTS
Site
Equipment
Foed
Results
KPEG Lab Test
Slurry: PCP 1,100 mg/kg,
total PAHs 1,746 mg/kg
Treated soil: 31 ppm
(97%) PCP; 721 ppm (59%)
total PAHs [16]
RREL
Base catalyzed
dechlorination process
(BCDP)
Soil/sediment: PCB. PCP
Selected for SITE demo at
Navy Site. Stockton, CA
117]
Montana Pole and Treating
Site. Butte. MT
PCP/oil/dioxin: 3.5% PCP;
dioxins 442 ppb tetra-
isomers to 83.923 ppb octa-
isomers
Non-detect levels (less than
1 ppb) [18,19]
Sea Marconia CDP Process
(dehalogenation)
Solids/solvents: 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Destroyed [20]
Implementation costs-APEG treatment costs range from $200 to $500/ton [14],
Data requirements-Table 3-17 summarizes the factors that affect dechlorination efficiency and, thus,
determine the data requirements for chemical destruction.
Chemical Oxidation-
Oxidation adds chemical compounds to oxidize organic contaminants and liberate free oxygen. The
presence of heat and a catalyst may enhance its effectiveness. The most common oxidizing agents are
hydrogen peroxide (H202) and ozone (OJ; the catalysts, metals such as Fe, Al, and Cu. Ultraviolet (UV)
radiation can enhance the oxidation process. The presence of photosensitive material (e.g., TiOJ can
significantly enhance the oxidation of highly halogenated organic contaminants.
3-23
-------
TABLE 3-17. FACTORS AFFECTING DECHLORINATION PERFORMANCE
Factor
Potential effect
Aliphatic organics, Inorganics,
metals
Achieves best results with aromatic halides (PCB, dioxins,
chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes)
Aluminum and other alkaline
reactive metals
Requires increased use of reagent; can produce H2 gas.
Chlorinated organics (>5%)
Requires excessive reagent.
Clay and sandy soils
Increases reaction time.
Humlc content
Increases reaction time.
Moisture content (>20%)
Requires excessive reagent.
PH
Must remain >2 for process to be effective.
Catalytic or photocatalytic oxidation converts organic contaminants to products like C02 arid H20.
The heteroatoms (CI, P, N, S, etc.) in the organic molecule convert to acid gases like HQ, SO,, NO,, or
PaO#. Chemical oxidation in a reactor can produce an aqueous or a slurry phase. These units generally
do not require extensive air pollution control. The technology yields its best results when applied to
excavated material In a reactor.
Typical treatment combinations-Residuals from chemical oxidation, such as partially oxidized
products, may require further treatment. Depending on the oxidizing agent and the chlorine content of the
feed, oxidation of organic compounds forms HCI and NOx. Any salt precipitation must be filtered out and
may require additional treatment.
Technology applicability-Oxidation effectively treats liquids that contain oxidizable contaminants,
such as PCBs, halogenated phenols/creosols, PAHs, nonhalogenated semivolatiles, and metals. However,
thts technology can also be used on similarly contaminated slurried soil and sludge.
Technolonvstatus/performance-Awell established technology, oxidation Is used todisinfect drinking
water and wastewater. It Is also a common treatment for cyanide wastes [22], However, its application in
environmental remediation is limited. To date, no ROD has directed the use of oxidation as a remedy for
soil, sludge, or sediment at a wood preserving site.
Biological Destruction Technologies
Bloremedlatlon uses microorganisms to chemically degrade organic contaminants. Biodegradatlon
can occur either In the presence (aerobic) or in the absence (anaerobic) of oxygen. In the presence of
oxygen, microorganisms convert organics to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell matter. In the
absence of oxygen, they degrade the contaminants to methane, carbon dioxide, and microbial cell matter.
Biological activity accomplishes much of the natural transformation of organic contaminants in soil.
3-24
-------
Both bacteria and fungi have figured In bioremediation processes Most research has centered on
bacteria, but some investigators have found that fungi can play an important role, especially with
halogenated compounds (e.g., PCP). Almost all bioremediation relies on a variety of microorganisms, rather
than one or a few species. It enhances the development of large populations that can transform
contaminants and Initiates intimate contact between microbes and contaminants. If biodegradable
contamination of the soil has endured for more than a few months, and the microorganisms have grown and
reproduced in the contaminated soil, then native microorganisms can generally transform the wastes. The
remedial manager needs to determine what management techniques can optimize the transforming activity
to degrade the wastes to required levels in an acceptable time frame. There is little or no evidence to
indicate that augmentation with cultured microorganisms enhances the natural bioremediation process.
Three bioremediation processes apply to wood preserving sites: slurry-phase, solid-phase, and in situ
biodegradation.
Slurry-phase Bioremediation-
Slurry-phase bioremediation mixes excavated soil or sludge with water in a tank or lagoon to create
a slurry, which is then mechanically agitated. The procedure adds appropriate nutrient*, and controls the
levels of oxygen, pH, and temperature. This process is suitable for high concentrations of organic
contaminants in soil and sludge. However, the presence of heavy metals can inhibit microbial metabolism.
Solid-phase Bioremediation--
Solkj phase bioremediation places contaminated soil in a lined bed to which nutrients such as nitrogen
and phosphorous are added. The bed is usually lined with clay and plastic liners; furnished with irrigation,
drainage, and soil-water monitoring systems; and surrounded by a berm. Aeration, temperature control, and
a leachate collection system may increase efficiency. This process is one of the older and more widely used
technologies for hazardous-waste treatment. It has been particularly successful in the United States,
especially at petroleum refinery sites treated under RCRA and at creosote-contaminated sites.
Composting is a variation of solid-phase bioremediation. Waste decomposition occurs at higher
temperatures resulting from the increased biological activity within the bed. The composting process can
treat highly contaminated material by mixing contaminated soil with a bulking agent (straw, bark, manure,
wood chips), piling It. and aerating it (with natural convection or forced air) in a contained system ~ or by
mechanically turning the pile. Bulking agents, when added to compost, improve texture, workability, and
aeration; carbon additives provide a source of metabolic heat. One significant disadvantage of composting
is the increased volume of treated material due to the addition of bulking agents. Simple irrigation
techniques can optimize moisture, pH, and nutrient control; an enclosed system can achieve volatile
emissions control. Where temperature is critical to removal rates, other sources of organic matter can
increase the biological activity and. therefore, the temperature of the system.
In Situ Biodegradation-
In situ biodegradation promotes and accelerates natural processes in undisturbed soil. It can use
recirculation of extracted groundwater that is supplemented aboveground with nutrients and oxygen.
Alternatively, vacuum or injection methods can supply oxygen to the subsurface soil. Under appropriate
conditions, this technology can destroy organic contaminants in place without the high costs of excavation
and materials handling. It can also minimize the release of volatile contaminants into the air. However, in
situ bioremediation cannot be used to directly destroy concentrated masses of NAPLs.
Typical Treatment Combinations-
Figure 3-5 is a schematic diagram of slurry-phase biodegradation. If the treated and dewatered solids
contain organic contaminants, they may need further treatment. When these solids are contaminated with
3-25
-------
to atmospNra to •imosph*'* to rtmotptnr*
Figure 3-5. Slurry phase bioremediation [22].
3-26
-------
heavy metals, stabilization may be necessary. The process water may also require on-site treatment prior
to discharge. Depending on the waste characteristics, air pollution control measures, such as adsorption
by activated carbon, may be necessary.
Figure 3-6 shows a solid-phase system. Figure 3-7 presents a schematic diagram of an In situ
blodegradation process. Surface treatment of recovered groundwater may accompany this process.
Technology Applicability-
Bioremediation can treat soil, sludge, and sediment contaminated with organic contaminants such as
halogenated phenols and creosols. other polar organic compounds, nonhalogenated aromatics, and PAHs.
Biotreatment of nonhalogenated aromatics and polar organic compounds has produced average removal
efficiencies In excess of 99%. However, a 99% removal efficiency for nonhalogenated volatile contaminants
may have resulted from volatilization tied to bloremediation. Biological treatment In pilot-scale studies on
PAHs as well as on halogenated phenols and creosols has achieved average removal efficiencies of 87%
and 74%, respectively. No data are available on the bloremediation of dioxins and furans {13]. Biotreatment
may not be effective for wastes with high levels of toxic metals.
In situ blodegradation has shown potential for effective treatment of soil containing organic
contaminants such as halogenated phenols, nonhalogenated aromatics, PAHs, and polar organic
compounds.
Technology Stalus/Performance-
Out of 29 RODs for wood preserving sites, 10 sites selected bioremediation as an Integral part of a
treatment alternative: 6 solid-phase processes for excavated waste and 4 in situ remedies. Laboratory
treatability studies and field scale demonstrations have shown that PCP and other organic contaminants In
soil at wood preserving sites are amenable to biodegradation (Table 3-18).
Solid-phase treatment is one of the oldest and most widely used technologies for hazardous-waste
treatment. It has been successfully demonstrated at wood preserving sites with creosote-contaminated soil
and sludge (e.g., Burlington Northern).
In situ bioremediation holds promise for cost-effective treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater
contaminated with creosote and other coal tar products.
Implementation Costs-
One vendor estimates that the cost of a full-scale slurry biodegradation operation ranges from $80 to
$i50/yd3 of soil or sludge, depending on the initial concentration and the treatment volume. The cost to
use slurry biodegradation will vary, depending upon the need for additional pretreatment, posttreatment, and
air emission control [24],
Costs for solid-phase land treatment range between $50 and $80/yd3, according to the need for a liner
and the extent of excavation required. Composting costs about S"l00/yd3 Costs of in situ treatment range
from $8 to $15/lb of contaminant [25).
Data Requirements-
Table 3-19 summarizes the factors affecting biological treatment. A remedial manager can derive data
requirements for biological destruction from this list. The data requirements Include site factors and waste
characteristics.
3-27
-------
Contaminated toil
excavation
Soil
screening
I
Oversized material
to special handling
Solid-phase
troatment
SoH layer
Perforated
drain pipe
Sprinkler
system
Figure 3-6. Solid phase bioremedlation [22].
Biological Nutriont
Inoculum feed
termenter systom
Oxygenation
system
ChemicaJ/WotogicaJ
additive control
and
feed system
Monitoring
well
Injection
welt
- Monitoring
^ wetl
Figure 3-7. In situ bioremediation [23].
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-18. BIOTREATABIUTY TEST RESULTS
Sit*
Equipment
Feed
Results
Arkwood, Inc. Site,
Omaha. AR
BioTrol, Inc. slurry
biodegradation
PCP, PAHs
56-day reduced PCP and
PAH concentrations 85%
and 80%, respectively.
After 98 days, levels not
detectable in TCLP
leachate.
Baxley Creosoting, Inc.,
Baxley, GA
Slurry biodegradation
Soil: Phenol 3.91 mg/kg
TCP 11.07 mg/kg
PCP 420 mg/kg
PAHs 82 to 519 mg/kg
Phenol <0.01 mg/kg
TCP <0.02 mg/kg
PCP <13.1 mg/kg
PAHs 0.5 to <0.03 mg/kg
[24,14,27],
J.H. Baxter Superfund Site
Bench-scale slurry-phase
and solid-phase
bioremediation
Soil: PCP
Soil: PCP
Significant biodegradation
of PCP and other organlcs
[28.29].
Poor degradation during |
90-day studies - a I
relatively short time frame I
[30,31]. E
Burlington Northern,
Brainerd, MN
Bench-scale SITE test of
ECOVA Corporation's
bioslurry reactor
Solid-phase land treatment
by Remediation Technology,
Inc.
Creosote contaminated soil
(PAHs)
Contaminated soil and
lagoon sediment
Reduction of 4- and 6-rlng
PAHs; >89% in first two
weeks, >93% after 12
weeks.
Bioremediation considered
a success [32].
Coleman Evans Site, FL
BioTrol, Inc. biodegradation
treatability study.
A combined soil washing/
soil slurry bioreactor system
PCP average concentration:
369 and 442 ppm
PCP: 3,500 mg/L
Soil washing may be an
effective pretreatment step,
reducing volume of soil
approximately 90% before
bioremediation [33].
PCP degraded [34],
Gulf States Creosote,
Hattiesburg, MS
Pilot-scale landfarming
Soil: creosote
Quick initial drop followed
by slower rate of reduction.
Volatilization was a major
reduction pathway.
Joslyn Manufacturing and
Supply Co., Redmond, VA
ECOVA Corp. solid-phase
land treatment unit
Soil: PCP (360 ppm),
CPAHs (100 ppm)
PCP reduced to 110 ppm;
CPAHs to 43 ppm.
Lake States Wood
Preserving, Munishlng, Ml
Pilot-scale bioremediation
PCP
PCP reduction of 95%
achieved in a field vault in
148 days.
3-29
-------
TABLE 3-18. (Continued)
Sits
Equipment
Feed
Results I
MacGHI# and Gibbs Site,
New Brighton, MN
BtoTrof Slurry Bioreactor
(SBR)
BioTrol, Inc. SITE Program
pilot-scale treatment train
consisting of soil washing,
aqueous treatment, and
slurry biodegradation. (See
soil washing and biological
treatment sections tor other
results.)
Slurry feed:
2.570 i 506 mg/kg PCP
Liquid feed:
59 ^ 19 mg/l PCP
90% PCP removal [35]. [
Major study at 8 wood-
preserving waste sites
PCP
Degradation demonstrated L
on laboratory and field i
scales [36,21], |
North Cavalcade Street,
Houston, TX
BioTrol, Inc. treatability
study combining
blotreatment and soil
washing
Mean PAH concentration:
3,700 mg/kg
Acclimated seed without 1
surfactant removed gi% of |
total PAHs and over 63% of I
the CPAHs in 28 days [37]. f
RREL
In situ bloventing
Technique was accepted 1
into the SITE Program. |
RREL
White rot fungus
Technique was accepted
into the SITE Program.
Scott Lumbar
Alton, MO
Bench-scale aerobic
biological treatment
PAHs
PAHs removed at rates
exceeding 100 ppm/day.
ReTEC Remediation
Technologies, Inc.
conventional landfarming ot
16,000 tons of soil
1,000 ppm PAHs
24 pm BaP
Reduced to 160 ppm PAHs,
12 ppm BaP.
South Cavalcade Street,
Houston, TX
Two slurry reactors (aerobic
and anaerobic)
PAHs
Lower molecular weight
PAHs degraded faster than
those with higher molecular
weight. Destruction
removal efficiencies: 91%
for anaerobic column and
75% in aerobic column I
[38], |
3-30
-------
SEPARATION/CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Separation/concentration options can be used either for excavated or in situ soil. There are several
such options:
Table 3-20 lists typical remedial combinations for separation/concentration options. Table 3-21
summarizes the applicability of these options on contaminant groups and media.
Separation/Concentration Technologies for Treatment of Excavated Soil
Soil Washing -
Soil washing Is a water-based process for mechanically scrubbing excavated soil to remove
contaminants in two ways: by dissolving or suspending them in the wash solution or by concentrating them
into a smaller volume of soil through particle size separation techniques. Soil washing systems that
incorporate both techniques indicate the greatest success for soils contaminated with a heavy metal and
organic contaminants. Contaminants tend to bind chemically and physically to clay and silt particles. The
sDt and clay, In turn, tend to attach physically to sand and gravel. The particle size separation aspect of soil
washing first scours and separates the silts and clays from the clean sand and gravel particles. The process
then scrubs the soluble contaminants from the particle surfaces and dissolves them In the liquid phase. The
soO washing process uses various additives (surfactants, acids, chelating agents) to increase separation
efficiencies. The washed soil, after successful testing, can be returned to the site or reclaimed. The
aqueous phase and the clay/sllt/sludge fraction contain high concentrations of contaminants. These two
streams become waste feed for other on- or off-site destruction technologies.
Typical treatment combinations-Waste feed preparation of excavated soil includes removal,
transportation, and screening to remove debris and large objects. In some cases, the process may need
pumpable feed (achieved by the addition of water or solvent). Soil washing generates four main waste
streams: contaminated solids, washwater, washwater-treatment sludge, and air emissions. Contaminated
clay fines and sludge may require further treatment by other technologies, such as incineration, thermal
desorption, stabilization/solidification, or bioremediation. Discharge standards may mandate washwater
treatment prior to discharge. Permits may require collection/treatment of air emissions from the preparation
area or the washing unit. Figure 3-8 presents a schematic diagram of soil washing.
Technology applicability-Removal efficiencies for soil washing depend on the type of contaminant
as well as the type of washing fluid. Water alone may easily remove volatile organics. Semivolatile organlcs
and hydrophobic contaminants may require the addition of a surfactant or organic solvent; metals and
pesticides require pH adjustment with acids or the addition of chelating agents. Complex contaminant
matrix systems, which contain a mixture of metals, nonvolatile organics, and semivolatile organlcs, may
require sequential washing steps with variations in the wash formulation and operating parameters. Site-
specific, bench- or pilot-scale treatability tests will determine the best operating conditions and wash fluid
compositions. Depending on the washing fluid, soil washing effectively treats waste containing halogenated
phenols and creosols, nonhalogenated aromatics, as well as nonvolatile and volatile metals. The process
Is best suited for sandy and sandy-loam soils that are low in organic matter and clay content. Soil washing
Excavated soil
In situ options
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Steam extraction
Soil flushing
Free product recovery
SVE
3-31
-------
TABLE 3-19. FACTORS AFFECTING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Factor
Potential effect
Contaminant solubility
Make low solubility components more difficult to remove from
soils.
Heavy metals, highly chlorinated
organlcs, some pesticides,
inorganic salts
Inhibit microbial activity (high concentrations). Some
inorganic salts necessary for biological activity.
Moisture content
May inhibit solid-phase aerobic remediation of soils If >80%; I
soil remediation inhibited if <40%. Soil slurry reactors may I
have 80 to 90% moisture content. Uquid phase reactors may I
have >99% moisture content.
Nutrients
Affect activity if lacking (C, N, P).
OH and grease concentrations
Inhibit soil remediation at concentrations >5% by weight.
Oxygen
Sustains aerobic microbial population, inhibits anaerobic
activity.
Particle size
Interferes with microorganism contact if nonuniform.
pH
Works effectively in a range of 4.5 to 8.5.
Soil permeability
Affects movement of water and nutrients for In situ treatment.
Suspended solids concentration
Should be less than 1% (can vary greatly In different types of
bloremediation).
Temperature
Usually inhibits microbial activity (high or low temperatures).
However, in some cases, can tolerate at temperatures down
to freezing and over 100°F.
Variable waste composition
Large variations affect biological activity, especially where
continuous flow liquid bioreactors are used. H
has attained a removal efficiency greater than 99% for nonhalogenated aromatlcs. Bench-scale studies for
nonvolatile and volatile metals achieved 99% [2], In a pilot scale test the BioTrol soil washer achieved
removals of up to 89% PCP and 88% TPAHs [4], In the most recent pilot scale test with EPA's Volume
Reduction Unit {VRU) removals of 98% PCP and about 96% PAHs were achieved [30).
Technology status/performance--Out of 29 RODs for wood preserving sites, 5 have selected soil
washing; 1, solvent extraction; and 1, thermal desorption. Soil washing Is widely accepted in Europe but
has had limited use In the United States. A number of vendors provide soil washing processes. Information
from treatability studies at wood preserving sites indicates possible applications (Table 3-22).
Implementation costs-Vendor-supplied treatment costs for soil washing processes range from $50
to $205 per ton of feed soil.
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-20. TYPICAL TREATMENT COMBINATIONS FOR
SEPARATION/CONCENTRATION OPTIONS
PretrMtment/materlala
handling
Separation/concentration
technology
PoattreatiiMfit residuals
management
Excavation/conveying
Dredging
Screening, water addition
Soil washing
Wastewater treatment
Air pollution control
Contaminated solids treatment/disposal
Wastewater treatment
Sludges treatment/disposal I
Excavation/conveying
Dredging
Screening, water addition
Solvent extraction
Concentrated contaminants treatment/
disposal
Soil residual treatment/disposal
Separated water disposal
Excavation/oonvaying
Screening
Thermal desorption
Air pollution control
Treated soil treatment/disposal
Concentrated contaminants treatment/
disposal
Injection/recovery well installation
In situ steam extraction using
steam, hot air, infrared, micro
waves
Recovered contaminants treatment/
disposal i
Separated water treatment/disposal
Carbon regeneration/disposal
Rushing fluid delivery system
Groundwater extraction well installation
In situ soil flushing
Flushing liquid/groundwater treatment/
disposal
Air pollution control
In situ soil treatment
Extraction well/air injection well
Installation
In situ soil vapor extraction
Air pollution control
Contaminated groundwater treatment/
disposal
Soil tailings treatment/disposal |
Data requirements-Data requirements for soil washing can be derived from the performance factors
In Table 3-23.
Solvent Extraction -
Solvent extraction is a physical separation process that removes contaminants from soil, sludge, or
sediment. It uses organic solvents to isolate contaminants, unlike soil washing which uses water or water-
based solutions. Solvent extraction is more appropriate for organic contaminants than inorganics and
metals; it reduces contaminant volume by concentrating them in the extract phase. There are three broad
categories of the solvent extraction process: conventional solvent extraction, critical fluid extraction, and
supercritical fluid extraction.
Conventional solvent extraction uses organic solvents to selectively extract the contaminants
of concern. The process may require several passes to reduce contamination to the desired
level. The extracted solvent can be stripped of the contaminants, condensed, recycled, and
reused - reducing contaminant volume and providing optimum extraction efficiency.
3-33
-------
Figure 3-8. Aqueous soil washing [1].
3-34
-------
TABLE 3-21. APPLICABILITY OF SEPARATION/CONCENTRATION OPTIONS
1
Separation/concentration options
In situ
Excavated sod
Group
No.
Contaminant group
Soil
vapor
extraction
Steam
extraction
Soil
flushing
Soil
washing
Solvent
extraction
Thermal
desorptkm
W02
Dioxlns, furans, PCBs,
and their precursors
0
0
9
e
9
•
W03
Halogenated phenols,
creosols, ethers, and
thiols
0
0
e
9
9
•
W07
Heterocyclics and simple
non-halogenated
aromatles
•
•
e
•
•
•
W08
Polynuclear aromatics
•
0
0
9
•
•
W09
Other polar organic
compounds
•
9
9
9
•
•
W10
Non volatile metals
0
O
•
•
O
O
W11
Volatile metals
0
0
9
•
0
•
• - Demonstrated effectiveness
9 - Potential effectiveness
O - No expected effectiveness
Source: USEPA Engineering Bulletins
Critical fluid extraction uses solvents which are miscible with water at one temperature and
insoluble with water at another temperature. Triethylamine is an example of a critical solution
temperature solvent.
Supercritical fluid extraction uses highly compressed gases (C02, etc.), raised above their
critical temperatures, to extract contaminants that generally resist extraction by conventional
solvent. The highly compressed, gaseous fluid provides the additional diffusive/solvating power
that is required to extract contaminants from hard-to-reach places in an environmental medium.
Supercritical fluid extraction uses higher pressure and temperature than conventional solvent
extraction. The process can also recycle and reuse the fluid.
Typical treatment combinations-Figure 3-9 provides a schematic diagram of the solvent extraction
process. Solvent extraction generates three streams: concentrated contaminants, treated soil or sludge,
and separated solvent. Concentrated contaminants may receive further treatment or proper disposal; the
treated soil or sludge may require further drying. Depending on the metal content or other inorganic
contaminants remaining, the cleaned solids may need treatment by some other technique such as
stabilization/solidification. Analysis of the liquid component will determine whether further treatment is
necessary before disposal.
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-22. SOIL WASHING TREATABILITY TESTS
Sit*
Equipment
F»«
-------
TABLE 3-23. FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL WASHING PERFORMANCE
Factor
Potential effect
Clay content
Difficult contaminant removal. |
Complex waste mixtures
Affect formulations of wash fluids, may require multiple
process steps.
Humic content
Inhibits contaminant removal if high.
Metals concentration
Resists solubilization (insoluble metals). However, some
metals can be solubilized and removed.
Particle size distribution
Affects removal from wash fluid (particles outside
<0.063 mm or >2 mm difficult to treat; oversize debris
requires removal).
Separation coefficient
Requires excessive leaching (highly-bound
contaminant).
Wash solution
Difficult to recover or dispose.
Source: USEPA, 1988 (7).
Technology applicability-Solvent extraction is effective in treating sediment, sludge, and soil
containing contaminants similar to wood preserving sites, e.g., halogenated phenols and creosols, simple
nonhalogenated aromatics, PAHs, and other polar organic compounds. This technology generally does not
resolve contamination by nonvolatile and volatile metals.
Technology status/performance -Three commercial vendors offer solvent extraction systems that
have been tested at Superfund sites: the CF Systems Extraction System, the Basic Extractive Sludge
Treatment (B.E.S.T.) System (Resource Conservation Company), and the Terra-KJeen Corp. System. The
CF Systems process treated soil from a wood preserving site. Results of several treatability tests are shown
in Table 3-24. The SITE Program demonstrated the Carver Greenfield Process (Dehydro-Tech Corp.) on
Superfund waste in Edison, NJ.
Implementation costs-Cost estimates for solvent extraction range from $100 to $700/ton. The most
significant factors influencing costs are the waste volume, the number of extraction stages, and the operating
parameters such as labor, maintenance, setup, decontamination, demobilization, and time lost in equipment
operating delays.
Data reguirements-Table 3-25 helps identify the data needed to evaluate the system's performance.
Thermal Desorption-
Thermal desorption physically separates volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from excavated
soil, sediment, and sludge. Thermal desorption uses ambient air, heat, and/or mechanical agitation to
volatilize contaminants from soil into a gas stream for further treatment. Depending on the process selected,
3-37
-------
Emissions
control
-~Treated emissions
Recycled solvent
Waste preparation
• oversize reject removal
• particle classification
Extractor
1st stage morganic
contaminant
removal
Solids
Separator
Solvent with I——
organic contaminants
Dewatonng
Concentrated
organic
contaminants
Reuse/disposal
Stabilization/solidification
Post treatment
- Incineration
Figure 3-9, Solvent extraction process [8J.
3-38
-------
TABLE 3-24. SOLVENT EXTRACTION TREATABILITY TESTS
1 SHt
Equipment
Feed
Results
I Bayou Bonfouca Ste,
9 Slidell. LA
B.E.S.T. (pilot-scale) solvent
extraction
SVOCs
Siity soil, >99% removal
with 146 mg/kg residual
TEA; clayey soil, >98%
removal with 243 mg/kg
residual TEA
Sanivan Group Extraksol
PCBs, PCP, PAHs
SITE demonstration
scheduled in 1992
| Jennlson-Wright Corp.,
| Granite City, IL
B.E.S.T. (pilot-scale)
Creosote, PCP
Achieved 97% removal of
total SVOCs
¦ Treban Site,
1 Tulsa, OK
Terra-Ween
PCB, PCP, creosote,
naphthalene
PCB removal up to 99%
1 United Creosotlng Co.,
I Cooroe, TX
CF Systems critical fluid
extraction with propane
PCP, PAHs, dioxin/furan
Removal of 91% PCP, 98%
PAHs, 72% dioxin/furan
191
Pine Street Canal Site.
Burlington, VT
B.E.S.T. (bench-scale)
CPAHs
TEA solvent: >99%
removal, <1.5 ppm
residual CPAH
Propane solvent: 67.6 to
75 8% removal, 4.6 to 61
ppm residual
TABLE 3-25. FACTORS AFFECTING SOLVENT EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE
Factor
Potential effect
Complex waste mixtures
Affects solvent selected.
Metals
Resist removal.
Particle size
Affects solubilization. Particle size requirements vary
with system from > 1 /8" to 2" diameter.
PH
Incompatible with extracting solvent.
Separation coefficient
Requires additional extraction steps (highly bound)
contaminants.
Volatiles
Require additional extraction steps (high
concentrations).
Source; USEPA (1988) [7]
3-39
-------
this technology heats contaminated media to temperatures between 200° and 1,000°F, driving off water,
volatile, and some semivolatile contaminants. Off-gases may be burned in an afterburner, condensed for
disposal, or captured by carbon adsorption beds.
Typical treatment combinations-Thermal desorptlon systems create up to seven residual streams:
treated media, oversized contaminated rejects, condensed contaminants, water, particulates, clean off-gas,
and/or spent carbon. Debris and oversized rejects may be suitable for disposal on site. Depending on the
residual content of nonvolatile heavy metals In the treated medium, solidification may be necessary.
Condensed contaminants receive further treatment. Figure 3-10 is a schematic diagram of a thermal
desorptlon process.
Technology applicability-Thermal desorption can successfully treat halogenated phenols and
creosols as woll as volatile nonhalogenated organic compounds at wood preserving sites. It cannot
effectively separate from the contaminated media the nonvolatile metals (As, Cd, Pb, Zn) nor PAHs with
boiling points above 1,000°F Mercury, a volatile metal, can be treated with some thermal desorptlon units.
Bench-, pilot-, and full-scale studies have demonstrated that thermal desorption achieves treatment
efficiencies of 99% or greater for VOCs, SVOCs, and PAHs. Some vendors can treat PCBs, pesticides, and
dloxlns/furans !n contaminated solids (11,12].
Lime addition may tend to make contaminants bind more strongly, thus hindering thermal desorptlon.
Alternatively, lime treatment may induce thermal desorption In wet wastes since the hydration of quicklime
Is highly exothermic and can elevate the waste temperature to the vicinity of 100°C. Lime addition for easier
handling should be considered a bulking process; bulking is solidification without stabilization [13].
Technology status/performance-Commercial-scale. thermal desorption units are already In
operation. The following treatability results (Table 3-26) suggest applications at wood preserving sites.
TABLE 3-26. THERMAL DESORPTION TREATABILITY TESTS
Sit*
Equipment
Feed
Results
Burlington Northern
Supeifund Site,
Bralnerd, MD
Pilot-scale thermal
desorption
Creosote
>99.97% removal of
SVOCs.
Hazardous Waste Research
and Information Center
Thermal Desorption Study
using IT Corp. desorber
Manufactured gas plant.
PAHs: 400 to 2,000 ppm
TPAH concentrations
ranged from 0.5 to 85 ppm.
Jannlson-Wrlght Corp.,
Granite City, IL
ReTeC bench-scale thermal
desorption
Creosote, PCP
Removals from 85 to 98%.
Recycling Sciences
International Thermal
Dosorpiion/Vapor Extraction
Technique
Soil, sediment, sludge with
PCB, PAH, PCP
Selected for SITE
demonstration.
Remediation Technologies,
Inc. (ReTec)
PAHs: 1,321 to <0.1 ppm
2.5 to <0.1 ppm (82 to
99% removal). See Table
4-26 [14.15].
3-40
-------
Claan oA-gas
—~
Figure 3-10, Thermal desorpiion treatment [10].
3-41
-------
TABLE 3-27. RETEC TREATMENT RESULTS ON
CREOSOTE-CONTAMINATED CLAY
Compound
Original
sample
(ppm)
Treated
sample
(ppm)
" ^ 1
Removal
efficiency
(%)
Naphthalene
1,321
<0.1
>99.9
Acenaphthylene
<0.1
<0.1
—
Acenaphthene
293
<0.1
>99.96 |
Ruorene
297
<0.1
>99.96
Phenanthrene
409
1.6
99.6
Anthracene
113
<0.1
>99.7
Fluoranthene
553
1.5
99.7
Pyrene
495
2.0
99.6
Benzo(b)anthracene
59
<0.1
>99.99
Chrysene
46
<0.1
>99.8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
14
2.5
82.3
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
14
<0.1
>99.8
Benzo(a) pyrene
15
<0.1
>99.9
Dlbenzo(ab)anthracene
<0.1
<0.1
...
Benzo(ghl)perylene
7
<0.1
>99.4
lndeno(123-cd) pyrene
3
<0.1
>99.3
Source: Ramln, 1990 [15].
Implementation costs-Several vendors have documented processing costs that range from $80 to
$350 per ton of feed processed [15,16,17], Costs must be considered in context because the base year
of the estimates varies. Costs also differ due to the quantity of waste to be processed, the term of the
remediation contract, the moisture content, the organic constituency of the contaminated medium, and the
cleanup standards to be achieved.
Data reau?rements--Table 3-28 describes the factors affecting thermal desorption performance. Data
requirements can be derived from these factors.
3-42
-------
TABLE 3-28. FACTORS AFFECTING THERMAL DESORPTION
Factor
Potential effect
Clay content or tightly aggregated
particles
Inadequately removes volatile contaminants.
Mercury content
Volatilizes.
Metals, inorganics, low volatile organics
Succeed with highly volatile organics
(Henry's Law Constant >3x103 atm-ms/mole).
Moisture content
Requires additional energy (high moisture content).
pH
Causes corrosion (outside 5 to 11 range).
Silt content
Causes high particulate loading.
Volatile organic content
Resists destruction (concentrations >10%).
Source: USE PA, 1988 (7).
Description of In Situ Technologies
Steam Extraction -
Steam extraction physically separates volatile and semivolatile organics from soil, sediment, and
sludge. The process uses a combination of thermal and mechanical energies generated by steam, hot air.
Infrared elements, and electrical systems to volatilize and transport the contaminants to the desorbed phase.
The extracted contaminants in the vapor phase can either be condensed and sent off site for further
treatment, or destroyed in the vapor phase using a suitable technology. After passing through a carbon
adsorber that removes trace quantities of organic contaminants, the noncondensibles in the vapor phase
can vent to the atmosphere.
Typical treatment combinations -Steam extraction systems may be mobile or stationary. A mobile
system injects steam through rotating cutter blades that disperse it through the contaminated medium. In
a stationary system, steam flows through individual valves from the manifold to the injection wells. Recovery
wells remove gases and liquids from the soil. The system then recovers the contaminants as condensed
organics in the product water and on spent carbon. The water product is treated to remove any residual
contaminants before disposal or reuse; the carbon can be regenerated or sent for proper disposal.
Technology applicability-Steam extraction is effective in removing the VOCs, such as
nonhalogenated volatiles, often found at wood preserving sites. It may be effective for halogenated phenols
and creosols, PAHs, and other polar organic compounds. A study of a mobile steam extraction system
showed an 85% average removal efficiency for volatile contaminants [18].
Technology status/performance-Steam extraction Is an emerging technology that appears
promising, particularly if used in conjunction with SVE. However, only a limited number of commercial-scale
systems are in operation.
3-43
-------
SITE Demonstration Test - Western Research Institute
The CROW process developed by Western Research Institute involves an adaptation of a
technology currently used for primary production of heavy oil and tar sand bitumen and for
secondary petroleum recovery. Steam and hot water displacement move the accumulated oily
wastes arid water aboveground for treatment. This technology was tested at both the laboratory
and pilot scales; It could apply to wood preserving sites contaminated with PCP and tar-like
creosote [19]. The developer of the process has been invited to participate in the SITE Program
to demonstrate the process at a Minnesota wood preserving site.
SITE Demonstration Test - Texarome, Inc.
Texaroma, Inc. steam extraction system may remove PCBs, PCP, and creosote from soil,
sludge, and sediment. The process has been accepted Into the SITE Program.
Implementation costs-Estimates place costs for a stationary steam extraction system at about $50
to $300/yd3, according to site characteristics [18]. For a mobile technology, a SITE demonstration reported
costs of $111 to $317/yds for 10-yd1 and 3-yd3 treatment rates, respectively (70% on-line efficiency). Cost
estimates for this technology strongly depend on the treatment rate, which Is a function of the soil type, the
waste type, and the on-line process efficiency [20].
Data reaulrement3-Table 3-29 illustrates important performance factors for steam extraction. Data
for these factors should be collected.
TABLE 3-29. FACTORS AFFECTING STEAM EXTRACTION
Factor
Effect
Constituent vapor pressure
Affects removal efficiencies; requires vapor pressure curve for
each pollutant.
Variable soil composition/
consistency
Causes Inconsistent removal rates.
Contaminant depth
Determines treatability volume.
Infiltration rate
Excessive rate hinders removal of organics.
SoH moisture content
Adds energy requirements for steam extraction.
Temperature
Inhibits volatilization (low temperature).
Soli Flushlng-
Soll flushing extracts contaminants from soil with water or other suitable aqueous solutions. Sol
flushing introduces extraction fluids into soil using an in situ injection or infiltration process (Figure 3-11).
This method may apply to all types of soil contaminants. Soil flushing accomplishes permanent removal
of contaminants from the soil; it proves most effective In permeable soils. The process must use an effective
3-44
-------
collection system to prevent migration of contaminants and potentially toxic extraction fluids to
uncontaminated areas of the aquifer. With bioremediation, soil flushing may make a cost-effective
combination at certain sites. Typically, it is used in series with destruction treatments.
Typical treatment combinations-Depending on the contaminants, soil flushing can be a stand-alone
treatment or part of a treatment system. Additional technologies treat the contaminated flushing fluid and
groundwater to remove heavy metals, organics. and total suspended solids. Lime precipitation can remove
metals; activated carbon, air stripping, or other appropriate technologies can remove organics. Wherever
possible, treated water should recycle to the front end of the soil flushing process. The wastewater sludge
and solids (such as spent carbon) require appropriate treatment before disposal.
Technology applicability-Depending on the type of flushing additive, in situ soil flushing can treat
wood preserving site contaminants, such as halogenated phenols and creosols, simple non-halogenated
aromatics, PAHs, other polar organic compounds, and nonvolatile and volatile metals [2].
Technology status/perforroance-Out of 29 RODs for wood preserving sites, 2 have selected In situ
soil flushing. Soil flushing is an innovative technology with limited experience in the United States.
Laboratory and site-specific treatability studies must precede selection as a treatment alternative. Some
research/treatability test results are listed in Table 3-30
TABLE 3-30. IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING TREATABILITY TESTS
Sit*
Equipment
Feed
Results
Laramie Tit Treating, WY
Wasie-Tech Services. Inc.
93.000 mg/kg total
extractable organics (TEO)
First test: 74% reduction of
TEO to 24,000 mg/kg.
Second test: 96% reduction
to 40,000 mg/kg [21].
L.A. Clarke & Sons, Inc.,
Fredericksburg, VA
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
AJkali-polymer-surfactant
(APS) formulation
Creosote
Pilot-scale test 80 to 85%
removal of creosote (22],
Dworkln el al. [23] indicate that in situ soil flushing, in combination with a biodegradation process, can
be a cost-effective means of remediating soil contaminated with creosote. Specifically, soil flushing may
remove high concentrations of the PAHs associated with creosote contamination; the process train may then
apply in situ biodegradation. This system of flushing/biodegradation could significantly reduce, or possibly
eliminate, the health risks and environmental impacts associated with the migration of PAHs into
groundwater and surface water.
Kuhn and Piontek [24] proposed using in situ soil flushing combined with biodegradation to remediate
a contaminated wood preserving site Screening tests determined that several combinations of alkaline
agents, polymers, and surfactants might be effective for the specific site. They successfully predicted the
degree of contaminant removal achievable with the combination. Laboratory testing removed 98 percent
of the contaminants in core samples representing ideal field conditions. This program showed that in situ
soli flushing followed by In situ biodegradation can be a cost-effective method of site remediation.
Implementation costs-Soil flushing costs are in the range of $50 to $120/yd3 [25].
3-45
-------
Spray application
W
it
Pump
>•
Flushing
additives
Groundwater
treatment
Pump
n
Vadose
zone
Groundwater
zone
Low permeability
zone
Figure 3-11. Soil flushing [21].
3-46
-------
Data requirements-Table 3-31 illustrates some Important parameters affecting in situ soli flushing
performance. These factors can provide a basis for determining data needs.
TABLE 3-31. FACTORS AFFECTING IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING
Factor
Effect
PH
Affects reagent requirements.
Heavy metals
May require pH adjustment (leaching) for removal.
Humic content
Inhibits desorption of contaminants.
Solubility data
Determines formula of suitable washing fluid.
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
Measures clay fraction's ability to adsorb cations.
Site hydrogeology
Affects flow patterns that permit recapture of flushed
contaminants.
Free Product Recovery-
A nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is an immiscible liquid; it creates a physical interface with water.
NAPLs are divided into two general categories: dense (DNAPLs), having a specific gravity greater than
water; and light (LNAPLs), having a specific gravity less than water. Because of the behavior of wood
preservative components, both DNAPLs and LNAPLs are likely to be found at sites contaminated with these
compounds. The most common compounds associated with DNAPLs at wood preserving sites are creosote
and PCP. DNAPL transport in the subsurface can be difficult to detect. Therefore, they are often overlooked
during site characterization, but can have a significant effect on site remediation and technology selection.
DNAPLs may be present In the subsurface In various physical states or phases: gaseous, solid, water,
and immiscible. In the unsaturated zone, the pore space may be filled with one or all three phases
(gaseous, aqueous, immiscible). DNAPLs migrate downward by the force of gravity, and vertically as well
as horizontally by soil capillarity [26J. Migration takes place until the DNAPL no longer is a continuous
phase but has been dispersed into isolated globules. These globules slowly leach into groundwater over
long periods of time and contaminate it. The fraction of the hydrocarbon that is retained in the porous
media by capillary forces is called residual saturation.
Selection of site-specific remediation approaches requires site characterization of the subsurface.
Characterization may include groundwater analysis to determine contamination from DNAPL, and physical
and chemical analyses of the soil and aquifer material by exploratory borings to determine the type, phase,
and location of the DNAPL. Cone penetrometer tests and soil-gas surveys can provide additional data.
NAPL compounds such as creosote may be recoverable if concentrations exceed their residual
saturation. Normal recovery mechanisms consist of extraction wells and interceptor trenches/drains.
3-47
-------
Extraction Wells-At wood preserving sites, extraction wells can capture contaminated groundwater
or mobile NAPLs, which can be pumped to the surface for treatment. Proper well placement requires
locating the contaminated groundwater plume or NAPLs in three-dimensional space, determining aquifer and
chemical properties, designing a capture system, and installing the extraction, and in some cases, injection
wells. Immobile NAPLs trapped in pore spaces by capillary forces may not readily flow to extraction wells.
This residual saturation can become a significant source of miscible contamination. Unfortunately, a
monitoring well water sample may not indicate residual NAPL because only the dissolved fraction travels
in the water withdrawn from the well. The rate of NAPL dissolution limits its removal rate. Pump-and-treat
removal may need the support of another remedial alternative that better addresses residual saturation (e.g.,
vacuum extraction) and/or hydraulic containment, such as interceptor trenches and drains [27],
Interceptor Trenches and Subsurface Drains-These buried conduits collect and convey liquids by
gravity. Drains and trenches function like an infinite line of extraction wells. They create a continuous zone
of influence In which groundwater flows by gravity toward the drain or trench. Trenches and drains contain
or recover a plume, or lower the groundwater table to prevent contamination of groundwater/surface water.
They usually drain to a collection sump where the NAPL Is pumped to the surface.
For shallow contamination, drains may be more cost effective than extraction wells, particularly in
strata with low or variable hydraulic conductivity. Under these conditions, it may be difficult to design wells,
and cost-proh bitive to use a well-pumping system. However, subsurface drains can have higher operation
and maintenance costs than pumping if sections of the trench system need excavation and replacement.
Soil Vapor Extraction-
SVE physically separates and concentrates VOCs dispersed in contaminated soil. It is an in situ
technology that either injects hot air or fluid to force vapors out of the soil, or applies a vacuum to withdraw
vapors from the soil. It then either condenses them for disposal off site or destroys them by a suitable
technology.
Typical treatment combinations-SVE generates the following waste streams: vapor and liquid
residuals, contaminated groundwater, and soil tailings from drilling the wells. The usual vapor treatments
are carbon adsorption and thermal destruction. Other, less common, treatments include condensation,
biological degradation, and ultraviolet oxidation. Contaminated groundwater can be treated and discharged.
Highly contaminated soil tailings must be collected for treatment by another technology, such as
Incineration. Figure 3-12 shows a schematic diagram of SVE treatment.
Technology appllcabilitv-SVE has been effective in removing volatile organic compounds found at
wood preserving sites, such as nonhalogenated volatiles. It may be effective for other wood preserving
contaminants: semivolatile halogenated phenol and creosols, PAHs, and other polar organic compounds.
Site-specific treatability studies are the only means of determining the applicability and performance of an
SVE system. The process works best in well drained soil with low organic carbon content.
Technology status/performance-SVE is an accepted technology that has operated commercially
for several years, although not yet at wood preserving sites where it may prove successful in conjunction
with steam extraction.
Implementation costs-Typical costs for SVE treatment range from $J0 to $150/ton [28]. Capital
costs cover well construction, vacuum biowers, vapor and liquid treatment systems, pipes, fittings, and
Instrumentation. Operations and maintenance costs include labor, power, maintenance, and monitoring
activities. Costs also vary according to site, soil, and contaminant characteristics.
3-48
-------
Water table
Figure 3-12. In situ soil vapor extraction [29].
3-49
-------
WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Water treatment options address process wastewater, surface water, and groundwater at wood
preserving site:;.
Based on the site-specific contaminants and the selected remedies, process wastewater can require
a range of treatment. The treatment of any surface water and remediation of groundwater may occur at the
beginning, throughout or after the other remedial actions. Site-specific data will drive the selection of
treatment options.
The future use of the site will also dictate the remedial methods to be selected for water treatment.
There are basically two categories of treatment: Destruction technologies for organic contaminants and
separation/concentration technologies that treat both organic and inorganic contaminants.
The technologies that treat wastewater, surface water, and groundwater at wood preserving sites are
also appropriate to other types of sites. A brief overview is provided below. More detailed information is
available In other USEPA documents listed in the bibliography.
Destruction Options Separation/Concentration Options
Chemical oxidation Adsorption Membrane separation
Dehalogenation Filtration Precipitation
Biological treatment Ion exchange Oil/water separation
Air stripping
Table 3-32 summarizes the water treatment options applicable to various contaminant groups found
at wood preserving sites.
Destruction Technologies for Water Treatment
Chemical Oxidation-
Thts process oxidizes ions or compounds to render them nonhazardous or to make them more
amenable to subsequent removal or destruction processes. It is most useful as a polishing step for dilute,
relatively clean, aqueous wastes. The cost of chemicals, particularly for nonselective oxidation, limits the
application of this technology to heavily contaminated wastes.
Chemical oxidants are relatively nonselective; they may oxidize other compounds In the waste prior
to destroying the contaminants of concern. As a result, this process has limited application to waters with
large amounts of oxidlzable components.
Chemical oxidation primarily treats and/or destroys PCP, nonhalogenated aromatics, PAHs, other polar
organic compounds, and nonvolatile and volatile metals found at wood preserving sites. Chemical/UV
oxidation Is a well-established disinfection technology for drinking water and wastewater. Enhanced systems
now frequently treat hazardous streams [1]. Chemical/UV treatment technology at a wood preserving site
Is outlined below.
South Cavalcade Street, Houston, TX
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. carried out UV/ozone oxidation of oil- and grease-free
site groundwater.
3-50
-------
TABLE 3-32. APPLICABILITY OF WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS TO CONTAMINANT GROUPS
—a—-3MHN- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦-¦¦¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦ ' ¦¦¦¦¦¦' - ¦ ¦ ¦ 111
Orogp
Mo.
g==lB =
CeotamlMUt gvoap
W«l»r friiimm I
Ch««nlMi
oxM«tfon
•iofogtoaf
ttvrtmtnt
to *n*
WofMntdUCkMi
AdMVpttM
ion
UCMA9*
Itomtom
IMBm
Biarialim ¦ II
rtvcipisQOfl i
W02
0lOKin«/M*nt/PC8t atkJ
Mr pttumon
9
•
O
0
•
0
0
° E
I W03
Hak>g«n*l*d ph#r>o*»,
cr«o*oi«, *od thkXi
•
•
0
0
•
0
•
o 0
WOT
H*t«rocyclkai and iVnpto
non h*i<>9»n*i*d
•
o
•
•
•
0
o
0 8
woe
Po#ynuci#«/ •romaflti
•
0
•
•
•
0
•
O 1
woe
Oh* poW o<9«nk:
compound*
•
0
•
•
•
0
•
o
W10
NofWotelL*
•
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
WH
VoMHifflMiii
•
o
O
o
o
•
•
•
• • DtmorairtiMl
9 • Po
O O • No •*p*cl*d
-------
Contaminants in feed
Results
Phenol, PAHs Levels declined by 98.4% and 52.5%, respectively.
Lower molecular weight 2- and 3-rlng PAHs
showed greatest reduction [2],
Dehalogenatlon-
Dehalogenatlon uses chemical reagents to remove halogens from halogenated molecules, to break
apart chlorinated molecules, or to change the molecular structure of the molecule. The process generally
uses metallic sodium to strip the halogen away from constituents and form a sodium salt. Most
dehalogenatton research has centered on the detoxification of PCBs (analogous to PCP). This process
applies to many other halogenated organic molecules, such as chlorinated pesticides and dioxins [3].
Biological Treatment-
Biological treatment of water, like soil blotreatment, detoxifies wastestream organic matter through
microbial degradation. The most prevalent type Is aerobic. A number of biological processes can treat
water from wood preserving sites. These include conventional activated sludge techniques; various
modifications of activated sludge techniques (e.g., those using pure-oxygen activated sludge, extended
aeration, and contact stabilization); fixed-film systems (e.g., rotating biological discs and trickling filters); and
In situ biological treatment.
• The activated sludge process Introduces aqueous waste into a reactor containing a
suspension of aerobic bacterial culture. The bacterial culture transforms organics Into cell
constituents, other organics, C02 and water. It also produces new bacterial cells.
• In the pure-oxygen activated sludge process, oxygen or oxygen-enriched air replaces ambient air
and Increases the transfer of oxygen.
• Extended aeration requires longer residence times and a higher population of microorganisms.
• Contact stabilization requires only short contact of the aqueous wastes and suspended
microbial solids, with subsequent settling and further treatment to remove sorbed organics.
• Fixed-film systems require contact of the aqueous wastestream with microorganisms attached
to some Inert medium, such as rock or specially designed plastic material [4].
• Rotating biological contactors consist of a series of rotating discs connected by a shaft set
In a basin or trough. The contaminated water passes through the basin where the
microorganisms, attached to the discs, metabolize the organics in the water.
• In situ bloremediation of groundwater is becoming a frequently selected treatment for low-
to-intermediate concentrations of organic contaminants. The addition of nutrients into an
Impacted aquifer, enhances the natural degradation of chemical compounds by indigenous
microorganisms.
Technology status/performance-Several in situ bioremediatlon technologies have been
demonstrated on a semi-commercial scale. However, they should be considered emerging technologies.
Several fixed-film biological treatment processes have commercially treated wastewater. An example of
bloremediation at a wood treating site is cited below:
3-52
-------
MacGillis and Gibbs Site, New Brighton, MN
BloTrol aqueous treatment system (BATS)
BioTrol, Inc. SITE Program pilot-scale treatment train consisting of soil washing, aqueous
treatment, and slurry biodegradation.
Contaminants in feed Results
14 mg/L PCP 1.3 mg/L PCP (91% removal)
44 mg/L PCP 3 mg/L PCP (94% removal) [5J
(See bioremediation and aqueous soil washing treatment sections of this document for additional
detail.)
Separation/Concentration Technologies for Water Treatment
Adsorption
In adsorption, one substance binds to the surface of another by physical and/or chemical means. In
the adsorption process, contaminants transfer to the adsorbent, the most common of which are activated
carbon and resins. The imbalance of forces in the pore wails of the adsorbent allow the contaminants to
attach arid concentrate. Once adsorption has occurred, the molecular forces in the pore walls stabilize.
For further adsorption, regeneration of the adsorbent is necessary. Adsorption can effectively separate
various contaminants from aqueous streams.
Adsorption, especially granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment, has removed PAHs, other polar
organic compounds, PCP, non-halogenated aromatics, dioxins, furans, and some nonvolatile and volatile
metals from water at wood preserving sites.
Koppers Co., Inc., Texarkana, TX
South Cavalcade Street, Houston, TX
Contaminants in feed Results
PAHs GAC successfully removed PAHs from groundwater.
Old Midland Products, Ala, AR
Contaminants in feed Results
PCP After processing groundwater through a 0.45
micron membrane filter, GAC removed 95% of the
PCP. (Up to 19 mg of PCP were removed per
gram of carbon.)
Filtration-
Filtration Isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous medium. The driving force
in filtration is either gravity or a pressure differential across the filtration medium. Filtration techniques
3-53
-------
include separation by centrifugal force, vacuum, or high pressure. Therefore, filtration can separate various
contaminant particulates from an aqueous stream.
Ion Exchange-
Ion exchange removes ions from the aqueous phase by the exchange of electrical charges between
the contaminants and the exchange medium. Ion exchange materials may consist of resins made from
synthetic organic materials that contain ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are attached.
They may also be inorganic and natural polymeric materials. After the toxic materials have been removed,
the resins can be regenerated for reuse.
Membrane Filtration-
Membrane filtration technologies, such as reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration, separate chemical
constituents from water. Reverse osmosis (RO) Is a pressure-driven, membrane-separation process. It does
not destroy the chemicals; it merely concentrates them, making reclamation possible. RO is a low-energy
process. It requires no phase change for separation of the dissolved materials, nor latent heat of
vaporization, fusion, or sublimation. However, RO and ultrafiltration are very sensitive to the presence of
fines that can clog the membranes. The membranes are also fragile; they often rupture from overpressure.
Reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration can treat groundwater contaminated with PCP, heterocyclics, simple
nonhalogenated aromatics, PAHs, other polar organic compounds, some nonvolatile metals, and some
volatile metals (6].
Preclpitatlon-
This physical/chemical process transforms dissolved contaminant into an insoluble solid, facilitating
the contaminant's subsequent removal from the liquid phase by sedimentation or filtration. The process
usually employs adjustment of pH, addition of a chemical precipitant, and flocculation. Usually, metals
precipitate from the solution as hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates. The solubilities of the specific metal
contaminants and the required cleanup standards will dictate the process to be employed.
Oil/Water Separation-
OH/water separation removes oil from water by providing surface contact that de-emulsifies oil particles
from the water phase. Oil/water separation is a frequent pretreatment for other processes.
Typical Treatment Combinations-
Table 3-33 presents typical treatment combinations for the remediation of water contaminated with
wood preserving contaminants. The table includes pretreatment requirements and posttreatment/residuals
management. It also relates the applicable media and wood preserving contaminant groups to a treatment
train process.
Depending on the wastestream characteristics and the primary technology selected, the remedial
combination may Include pretreatment to remove free oils, using an oil/water separator, pH adjustment,
addition of a chemical agent to enhance coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and removal of suspended
solids by filtration. In case of biological treatment, the water may require heating to reach an optimum
temperature, and the addition of inorganic nutrients.
The main process residual of an adsorption system is the spent sorbent holding the hazardous
contaminants, which requires treatment or regeneration. As shown In Table 3-33, other water-treatment
technologies such as filtration, ion exchange, chemical oxidation, precipitation, etc., produce contaminated
3-54
-------
TABLE 3-33. TYPICAL TREATMENT COMBINATIONS FOR WATER
Pretreatment/materlala
handling
Water treatment
technology
Potttreatment/reaiduaU
management
Pumping
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Rooculation/sadlmentation
Filtration
Chemical oxidation
Sludge treatment/disposal
Oxidized products treatment/disposal
Pumping
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Flocculation/sedimentation
Filtration
Dehalogenation
Sludge treatment/disposal
Pumping, flow equalization
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Flocculation/sedimentation
Biological treatment
Sludge treatment/disposal
Polishing
Injection well/extraction
Well installation
Soil flushing
Oil/water separator
Nutrient addition
pH adjustment
In situ bioremediation
Pumping
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Filtration
GAC treatment
Spent carbon disposal/regeneration
Polishing treatment
Pumping
Oil/water separator
Filtration
Ion exchange
Regeneration of ion exchange resin
Disposal of regeneration solution
Sludge treatment/disposal
Pumping
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Flocculation/sedimentation
Membrane filtration
Sludge treatment/disposal
Pumping
Oil/water separator
pH adjustment
Precipitation
Sludge treatment/disposal
Polishing treatment
siudge, which also requires treatment prior to disposal. Depending on the contaminant, the treated water
may need polishing by activated carbon or biological treatment.
Technology Status/Performance-
To date. 11 out of 29 RODs for wood preserving sites have selected granular activated carbon (GAC)
treatment as an Integral part of a remedial action. One wood preserving site selected ion exchange to treat
groundwater contaminated with chromium. Two wood preserving sites contaminated with creosote wastes
have selected chemlcal/UV oxidation. Three sites have chosen precipitation, fixed-film biological treatment,
and in situ bioremedlatlon, respectively.
3-55
-------
Implementation Costs-
Table 3-34 summarizes the estimated treatment costs for water treatment technologies. Costs must
be considered In project-specific context because the base years of the estimates vary. Wastestream flow
rates, types of contaminant, toxic concentrations, and the desired cleanup standards make costs highly
variable.
TABLE 3-34. WATER TREATMENT COSTS
Water treatment
Cost
($/1,000 gals treated)
Reference
Granular activated carbon
SO.48 to 2.52
$0.22 to 0.55
m
[8]
Membrane filtration
$1.38 to $4.56
[9]
Ion exchange
$0.30 to 0.80*
[9J
Chemical/ultraviolet oxidation
$70 to 150
11]
Precipitation
$0.07 to 0.28"
[91
Fixed-film biological treatment
$50 to 90
* 1987 dollars
b 1982 dollars
Data Requirements -
Table 3-35 summarizes data requirements for water-treatment technology options. The data
requirements provide a basic guideline for the types of information required to remediate wood preserving
sites.
3-56
-------
TABLE 3-35. DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER-TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
J Techootogy
Data needs
Possible effects
I Granular activated
Molecular weight
Loses efficiency with low molecular weight
cartoon
compounds.
Polarity
High polarity compounds not
recommended.
Suspended solids
Can foul carbon {high suspended solid*
>50 mg/L).
Oil and grease
May cause fouling of the carbon
Organic matter
Rapidly exhaust (high levels of organic
matter, e.g., 1,000 mg/L).
Membrane filtration
Size of particles
May interfere with operation.
Oil and grease
May interfere with the system.
Contaminants
Succeed only with contaminant-specific
membranes.
Ion exchange
Oil and grease
May clog resin.
Suspended solids
May cause resin blinding (preferable limits
<50 mg/L).
Dehalogenation
Oil and grease
May interfere with efficiency of the system.
pH
May interfere with process operation.
Suspended solids
May Interfere with process operation.
Chemical oxidation
Oil and grease
Optimize the system efficiency (low levels).
Concentration of
Proves too expensive for highly
oontaminants
concentrated wastes.
Precipitation
pH
Can interfere with operation.
Oil and grease
Can interfere with process.
In situ biological
Physical
Moisture content
Inhibits bacterial activity (contents outside 40
treatment
to 80%)
PH
Loses effectiveness beyond 4.5 to 8.5.
Particle size
May interfere with process (nonuniform 1
particle size).
Water solubility
Hinder biodegradatlon (low).
Oxygen availability
Limits oxygen rate.
Temperature
Loses effectiveness outside temperature
range 15 to 70°C.
Chemical
Variable waste
Vary biological activity and cause I
composition
inconsistent biodegradatlon |
3-57
-------
TABLE 3-35. (Continued)
Technology
Data needs
Possible effects
Heavy metals, highly
chlorinated organics,
some pesticides,
Inorganic salts
Can be highly toxic to microorganisms.
Nutrients (C, N, P)
Affects activity.
Physical
Moisture content
Inhibits bacterial activity (content outside 40-
80%).
Biological
Biodegradability
Inhibits process.
Soil characteristics
Permeability
Soil conditions
Soil pH
Organic contont
Moisture content
Site hydrology
Promotes movement of water and nutrients
through contaminated area.
Vary biological activity and cause
inconsistent biodegradation. 1
Inhibits biological activity (pH <5.5). 1
Limits biological growth. I
Limits biological growth (content < 10%). D
Determines flow patterns that permit
pumping for extraction and reinjectlon.
Groundwater
characteristics
Dissolved oxygen
pH, alkalinity
Limits biological growth.
Inhibit biological activity.
3-58
-------
REFERENCES
Remedial Options - Immobilization
1. USEPA. Grouting Techniques in Bottom Sealing of Hazardous Waste Sites. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, EPA/600/2-86/020. Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986.
2. Connor, J.R. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York. 1990. 692 pp.
3. USEPA. Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled Wood Preserving Sites. EPA/625/7-90/011,
Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1990. 21 pp.
4. Boyd, S.A., S. Shaobai, J. Lee, and M.M. Mortland. Pentachlorophenol Sorption by Organo-Clays.
Clays and Clay Mineralogy, Vol. 36, 1988. pp. 125-130.
5. USEPA. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical Testing
Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities. EPA/625/6-89/022, Center for Environmental
Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989. 82 pp.
6. Fitzpatrick, V.F., C.L. Timmerman, and J L. Buelt. In Situ Vitrification - An Innovative Thermal
Treatment Technology. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on New Frontiers for
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-87/018F, 1987, pp.
305-322.
7. Fitzpatrick, V.F. In Situ Vitrification: An Innovative Melting Technology for the Remediation of
Contaminated Soil. In: Contaminated Soil 1988 Volume 1, Proceedings of the 2nd International
TNO/BMFT Conference on Contaminated Soil, April 11-15, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany,
K. Wolf, J. van den Brink, F.J. Colon, (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988. pp.
857-859.
8. USEPA. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-
88/004. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1988.
9. Mann, J. Michael. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. European Soil Washing for U.S. Applications. In: Design
and Construction Issues at Hazardous Waste Sites. Conference Proceedings. EPA/540/8-91/012.
U.S. EPA. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1991.
10. Roy Weston. Installation Restoration General Environmental Technology Development Guidelines for
In-PIace Closure of Dry Lagoons. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials. May 1985. NTIS AD-
A140 665, Tables 24 and 28.
11. USEPA. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration Control. EPA/540/2-84/001, February
1984. NTIS PB88-113295.
Remedial Options - Destruction
1. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/014.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC and Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
3-59
-------
2. USEPA. Stumbar, J. et al. EPA Mobile Incineration Modifications, Testing and Operations, February
1986 to June 1989, EPA/600/2-90/042, 1990.
3. USEPA, Stumbar, J. et al. Effect of Feed Characteristics on the Performance of Environmental
Protection Agency's Mobile Incineration System. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Research
Symposium, Remedial Action, Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/600/9-90/006,
1990.
4. McCoy and Associates, Inc. The Hazardous Waste Consultant. Volume 7, Issue 3, 1989,
5. USEPA, Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled Wood Preserving Sites. EPA/635/7-90/011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, 1990.
6. USEPA. incineration of Creosote and Pentachlorophenoi Wood Preserving Wastewater Treatment
Sludges. EPA/600/S2-89/060, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
7. USEPA. Pilot-Scale Incineration of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Pentachlorophenoi Wood
Preserving Processes, Final Report. EPA Contract 68-03-3267, Cincinnati, OH, 1988.
8. USEPA, Controlled Air Incineration of Pentachlorophenoi Treated Wood. EPA/600/S2-84-089,
Cincinnati, OH, 1984.
9. USEPA. The Superfund innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.
EPA/540/5-89/013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC, 1989.
10. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Pyroiysis Treatment. Draft. OERR, Washington, DC and ORD,
Cincinnati, OH. 1991.
11. Rogers, C., A. Kornel, L. Peterson. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Mobile KPEG Destruction
Unit for PCBs, DIoxIns, and Furans in Contaminated Waste," Land Disposal Remedial Action,
Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Waste; Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Research
Symposium, Cincinnati, OH, July 1987. EPA/600/9-67/015. 361 pp.
12. Morrison, R.T., and Boyd, R.N. Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1973.
13. USEPA. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil. EPA/540/2-89/053.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
1990.
14. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment. EPA/540/2-
90/015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC, 1990.
15. McCoy and Associates, Inc. The Hazardous Waste Consultant. Volume 7, Issue 6, 1989.
16. Lithertand, S. Treatment of Wood Preserving Waste Using Innovative Techniques. Proceedings of
Wood Preserving Waste Treatment Forum, Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University,
1990.
3-60
-------
17. NEESA. Tech Data Sheet - Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment. Base Catalyzed Decomposition
Process (BCDP). Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, 1991.
18. Kornel, A., C.J. Rogers, and H. Sparks. Field Experience with the KPEG Reagent. In: Proceedings,
Technical Assistance to USEPA Region IX: Forum on Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites, San
Francisco, CA, 1988.
19. Tiernan, T.O. et al. Laboratory and Field Test to Determine the Efficacy of KPEG Reagent for
Detoxification of Hazardous Wastes Containing Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDD) and
Dibenzofurans (PCDF) and Soils Contaminated with Such Chemical Wastes. Chemosphere, 18(1 -
16):835-841, 1989.
20. USEPA. Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies for Dioxin-Containing Wastes.
EPA/600/2-86/096, 1986.
21. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment. Draft. ORD, Cincinnati, OH and Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, 1991.
22. USEPA. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-
88/004. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC, 1988.
23. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (Draft). Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
24. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation. EPA/540/2-90/016. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC, 1990.
25. Torpy. M.F., H.F. Stroo, and G. Brubaker. Biological Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Pollution
Engineering, May 1989.
26. Environmental Solutions, Inc. On-Site Treatment of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils. Under contract
by Western States Petroleum Association. Undated.
27. Christiansen, J., B. Irwin, E. Titcomb. and S. Morris. Protocol Development for the Biological
Remediation of a Wood Treating Site. In: Proceedings from the 1st International Conference on
Physicochemical and Biological Detoxification of Hazardous Wastes, Atlantic City, NJ, 1989.
28. McGinnis, G.D., H. Borazjani, D.F. Pope, D. Strobel, J. Wagner, L.K. McFarland. F. Hendrix. and M.
Hannlgan. Bioremediation Demonstration Unit at Weed, California, [n: Proceedings of Bioremediation
of Wood Treating Waste Forum, Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University,
March 14-15, 1989.
29. McGinnis, G.D., J. Matthews, and D. Pope. Bioremediation Studies at a Northern California Superfund
Site. In: Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association. 84th Annual Meeting, Vancouver,
British Columbia, In Press, 1991.
30. Mueller, J.G., S.E. Lantz, B.O. Blattmann. and P.J. Chapman. Bench-Scale Evaluation of Alternative
Biological Treatment Processes for the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol- and Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Solid-Phase Bioremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 25(6): 1045-1054, 1991.
3-61
-------
31. Mueller, J.G., S.E. Lantz, B.O. Blattmann, and F.J. Chapman. Bench-Scale Evaluation of Alternative
Biological Treat ment Processes for the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol-and Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Slurry-Phase Bioremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 25(6): 1055-1061, 1991.
32. Sims, R.C. On-Site Remediation of Wood Preserving Contaminants in Soils. In: Proceedings,
Technical Assistance to USEPA Region IX: Forum on Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites, San
Francisco, CA, 1988.
33. BloTrol, Inc. Bench-Scale Testing of Biological Degradation of Organic Contaminants from Soils from
Coleman Evans Site. Prepared for EBASCO Environmental, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, 1990.
34. Mahaffey, W.R., and R.S. Sanford. Bioremediation of PCP-Contamlnated Soil: Bench to Full-Scale
Implementation. Remediation, Summer 1991, p. 305.
35. Stlnson, M.K., H.S. Skovronek, and W.D. Ellis. EPA SITE Demonstration of the Biotrol Soil Washing
Process. Paper for publication in the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 1992.
36. USEPA. Characterization and Laboratory Soil Treatability Studies for Creosote and Pentachlorophenol
Sludges and Contaminated Soil. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma,
74820. EPA/600/2-88/055, 1988.
37. BloTrol, Inc. ATreatability Study of Biotreatment and Soil Washing of Soil from North Cavalcade Street
Superfund Site, Houston, Texas. Prepared for EBASCO Environmental, Inc., Dallas, Texas, 1990.
38. Keystonti Environmental Resources. Inc. Feasibility Study Report on South Cavalcade Street Site,
Houston, Texas, 1988.
Remedial Options - Separation/Concentration
1. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/017. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH,
1990.
2. USEPA. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil. EPA/540/2-89/053.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
1990.
3. BloTrol, Inc. Laboratory-Scale Treatability Study of the BioTrol Soil Washing System for Soil From the
Cape Fear Wood Preserving Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina, 1990a.
4. Stlnson, M.K., H.S. Skovronek, and W.D. Ellis. EPA SITE Demonstration of the BioTrol Soil Washing
Process. Paper for Publication in the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 1992.
5. BloTrol, Inc. A Treatability Study of Biotreatment and Soil Washing of Soil from the North Cavalcade
Street Superfund Site, Houston. Texas. Prepared for EBASCO Environmental, Inc., Dallas, Texas.
October 1990.
6. Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. Feasibility Study, South Cavalcade Site, Houston, Texas,
1988.
3-62
-------
7. USEPA. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-
88/004, 1988.
8. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Solvent Extraction Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/013. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
9. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Final Report on United Creosoting Company Site, Conroe, Texas. Prepared for
Texas Waste Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.
10. USEPA. Treatment Technology Bulletin: Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1990.
11. USEPA. Thermal Desorption Technologies. Paul de Percin. Superfund Technology Demonstration
Division. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1991 AWMA Conference,
Vancouver, B.C. 1991.
12. USEPA. Thermal Desorption Attainable Remediation Levels. Paul de Percin. Superfund Technology
Demonstration Division. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1991 USEPA
Symposium, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1991.
13. USEPA. Fate of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Soil Following Stabilization with Quicklime.
EPA/600/2-91/052. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC, 1991.
14. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/008. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, 1990.
15. Ramin, A. Thermal Treatment of Refinery Sludges and Contaminated Soils. Presented at American
Petroleum Institute, Orlando, FL, 1990.
16. Nielson, R. and M. Cosmos. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3) of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Soil: A Technology Demonstrated. Presented at the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Meeting, Denver, CO. 1988.
17. Swanstrom, C., and C. Palmer. X*TRAX~ Transportable Thermal Separator for Organic Contaminated
Solids. Presented at Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.
18. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/005. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, 1991.
19. USEPA. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC,
1989.
20. USEPA. Applications Analysis Report - Toxic Treatment In Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping Technology,
1990.
21. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Flushing. EPA/540/2-91/021. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH, 1991.
3-63
-------
22. Waste-Tech Services, Inc. Evaluation of the Pilot-Scale Field Test Using Alkaline-Polymer-Surfactant
(APS) In Situ Flush Technology at the LA. Clarke Superfund Site. Prepared for Hydrosystems. Inc.,
Sterling, VA. November 1991.
23. Dworkln, D., D.J. Messinger, and R.M. S ha pot. In Situ Rushing Bioreclamation Technologies at a
Creosote-Based Wood Treatment Plant. In: Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, April 19-21, 1988, Las Vegas, NV. Hazardous Materials
Control Reserach Institute, Washington, DC, 1988.
24. Kuhn, R.C. and R. Piontek. A Site-Specific In Situ Treatment Process Development Program for Wood
Preserving Site. Presented at Robert S. Kerr Technical Assistance Program - Oily Waste Fate,
Transport, Site Characterization, and Remediation. May 17-18, Denver, CO, 1989.
25. Environmental Solutions, Inc. On-Site Treatment Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils. Under Contract
by Western States Petroleum Association. Undated.
26. USEPA. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids • A Workshop Summary. Held in Dallas, TX. April, 1991.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, 1991.
27. USEPA. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Groundwater Remediation Technology. EPA/600/8-90/003.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, 1990.
28. USEPA. Applications Analysis Report - Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System. EPA/540/A5-
89/003, 1989.
29. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/006. Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH, 1991.
30. Pilot Scale Treatability Study for Escambia Site in Pensacola, FL. Tests Conducted by Environmental
Response Team arid Releases Control Branch, Edison, NJ. Document in Preparation.
Remedial Options - Water Treatment
1. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/025. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
1991.
2. Keystone Environmental Resources. Inc. Feasibility Study Report on South Cavalcade Site, Houston.
TX, 1988.
3. Crawford, Michael A. Separation and Treatment of Organic Contaminants in Liquids.
Physical/Chemical Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. CERI/90-16. United States Environmental
Protection Agency Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
4. Canter, LW. and R.C. Knox. Groundwater Pollution Control. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml, 1985.
5. USEPA. Demonstration Bulletin: Aqueous Biological Treatment System by Biotrol, Inc EPA/540/M5-
91/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, NJ,
1991.
3-64
-------
6. National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation (NETAC). A Technology Overview of
Existing and Emerging Environmental Solutions for Wood Treating Chemicals. Prepared for Beazer
East, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.
7. Nyer, Evan K. Groundwater Treatment Technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1985.
8. USEPA. Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment. EPA/540/2-91 /024. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
1991.
9. USEPA. Technologies for Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drinking Water Treatment Facilities.
EPA/625/4-89/023. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Drinking Water,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989.
3-65
-------
SECTION 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Section 2 - Contaminants at Wood Preserving Sites
Ames, B. N., J. McCann, and E. Yamasaki. 1975. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with
the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mulat. res. 31:347-364.
Anderson, M. C. and D. T. Malotky. 1979. The adsorption of protolyzable anions on hydrous oxides at the
isoelectric pH. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 72:413-427.
Anderson, A/1. C., J. F, Ferguson, and J. Gavis. 1976. Arsenate adsorption on amorphous aluminum
hydroxide. J Colloid Interface Sci. 54:391-399.
Apajalahti, J.H.A., and M.S. Salkinoja-Salonen. 1986. Degradation of Pdychlorinated Phenols by
Rhodococcus chlorophenolicus. Appl Microbiol. Biotechnol. 25:62-67.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 17th edition.
Washington, DC.
Baham, J., N. B. Ball and G. Sposito. 1978. Gel filtration studies of trace metal-fulvlc acid solutions extracted
from sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qua!. 7:181-188.
Baham, J. and G. Sposito. 1986. Proton and metal complexation by water-soluble ligands extracted from
anaerobically digested sewage sludge. J. Environ. Quai 15:239-244.
Bauer, J.E., and D.G. Capone. 1985. Degradation and Mineralization of the Polycylic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Anthracene and Naphthalene in Intertidal Marine Sediments. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 50(1) 81 -90.
Becker, G. 1977. Experience and Experiments with Creosote for Crossties. Proc. Am. Wood-Pres. Assoc.
73:16-25.
Behel, D., D. W. Nelson, and L. E. Sommers 1983. Assessment of heavy metals equilibria in sewage
sludge-treated soil. J. Environ. Qua!. 12:181-186.
Boyd, S. A., L. E. Sommers, and D. W. Nelson. 1979. Infrared spectra of sewage sludge fractions: evidence
for an amide binding site. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:893-899.
Boyd, S. A , L. E. Sommers, D. W. Nelson, and D. X. West 1983. Copper(ll) binding by humic acid extracted
from sewage sludge: an electron spin resonance study. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:43-46.
4-1
-------
Boyle, M. 1989. The Environmental Microbiology of Chlorinated Aromatic Decomposition. J. Environ.
Quality. 18(4):395-402.
Bullch, A. A. 1979. Use of luminescent bacteria for determining toxicity In aquatic environments, {n: L.L
Markings and R.A. Klmerle, (eds) Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM 667, Amer. Soc. for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 98-106.
Cavallaro, N. and M. B. McBride. 1978. Copper and cadmium adsorption characteristics of selected acid and
calcareous soils. Soil Scl. Soc. Am. J. 42:550-556.
Cemlglla, C.E., and S. A. Crow. 1981. Metabolism of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Yeasts. Arch. Microbiol.
129:9-13.
Chao, T. T. and R. F. Sanolone. 1989. Fractionation of soil selenium by sequential partial dissolution. Soil
Scl. Soc. Am. J. 53:385-392.
Chaudhry, G.R., and S. Chapalamadugu. 1991. Biodegradation of Halogenated Organic Compounds.
Microbiologics/ Reviews, 55(1):59-79.
Chu, J. P. and E. J. Klrsch. 1972. Metabolism of Pentachlorophenol by an Axenic Bacterial .Culture. Appl.
Microbiol. 23(5):1033-1035.
Chu, J. P. and E. J. Kirsch. 1973. Utilization of Halophenols by a Pentachlorophenol Metabolizing
Bacterium. Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 14:264-273.
Coover, M. P., R. C. Sims, and W. J. Doucette. 1987. Extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from
spiked soli. J. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem. 70:1018.
Crosby, D. G. 1981. Environmental Chemistry of Pentachlorophenol. Pure Appl. Chem. 53:1052-1080.
Cserjesl, A. J. 1972. Detoxification of Chlorinated Phenols. Int. Biodeterior. Bull. 8(4):135-138.
DaRos, B., R. Merrill, H. K. Willard, and C. D. Wolbach. Emissions and Residue Values from Waste Disposal
During Wood Preserving. Project Summary. EPA-600/S2-82-062. August 1982.
Dlgulllo, D. C., and I. H. Suffet. 1988. Effects of physical, chemical, and biological variability in modeling
organic contaminant migration through soil. In: Superfund '88, Proc. 9th National Conf., Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, p. 132.
Dodge, R. H. and D. T. Gibson. 1980. Fungal Metabolism of Benzo(a)anthracene. p. 138. In: Abstracts
of the 1980 American Society for Microbiologists Annual Meeting. ASM, Washington, DC.
Donagian Jr., A. S., and P. S. c. Rao. 1986. Overview of terrestrial processes and modeling. In Guidelines
for Field Testing Soil Fate and Transport Models, S. C. Hern and S. M. Melancon, (eds) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems, Las Vegas, NV, p. 1.
Dragun, J., J. Barkach, and S. A. Mason. 1990. Misapplication of the EP-TOX, TCLP, and CAM-WET tests
to derive data on migration potential of metals In soil systems. In: P. T. Kosteckl and E. J. Calabrese (eds)
Petroleum contaminated soils. Lewis Publ. Chelsea. Ml.
4-2
-------
Dudley, L M„ J. E, McLean, R. C. Sims arid J. J. Jurinak. 1988. Sorption of copper and cadmium from the
water-soluble fraction of an acid mine waste by two calcareous soils. Soil Sci. 145:207-214.
Dudley, L M., J. E McLean, T. H. Furst, and J. J. Jurinak. 1991. Sorption of Cd and Cu from an acid mine
waste extract by two calcareous soils: column studies. Soil Sci. 151:121-135.
Dudley, L. M., B. L McNeal, J. E. Baham, C. S. Coray and H H. Cheng. 1987. Characterization of soluble
organic compounds and complexation of copper, nickel, and zinc in extracts of sludge-amended soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 16:341-348.
Edgehill, R. U. and R. K. Finn, 1982. Isolation, Characterization and Growth Kinetics of Bacteria
Metabolizing Pentachlorophenol. Eur. J. Appl, Microbiol. Biotechnol. 16:179-184.
Elprince, A. M. and G. Sposito. 1981. Thermodynamic derivation of equations of Langmuir-type for ion
equilibrium In soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:277-282.
Elrashldi, M. A, and G. A. O'Connor. 1982. Influence of solution composition on sorption of zinc by soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am .J. 46:1153-1158.
ERT, Inc. 1985b. The Land Treatability of Creosote Wastes (second draft). Document No. PD481-400a,
Environmental Research and Technology, Concord, MA.
Garcia-Miragaya, J., R. Cardenas, and A. L. Page. 1986. Surface loading effect on Cd and Zn sorption by
kaolinite and montmorillonite from low concentration solutions. Water, Air, Soil Poliut. 27:181-190.
Gardner, W. S., R. F. Lee, K R. Tenore, and L. W. Smith. 1979. Degradation of Selected Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Coastal Sediments: Importance of Microbes and Polychaete Worms. Wafer, Air,
Soil Pollution 11, 339.
Gibson, D. T. 1972. The Microbial Oxidation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 1(2): 199-223.
Grenney, W. J., C. L. Caupp, R. C. Sims, and T. E. Short. 1987. A mathematical model for the fate of
hazardous substances in soil: Model description and experimental results. Hazardous Wastes & Hazardous
Materials 4:223-239.
Grenney, W. J., C, L. Caupp, R. C. Sims, T. E. Short. 1987. A mathematical model for the fate of hazardous
substances in soil: model description and experimental results Hazard. Wastes & Hazard. Materials, 4:223.
Griffin, R. A, and A. K. Au. 1977. Lead adsorption by montmorillonite using a competitive Langmuir equation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:880-882.
Groenewegen, D. and H. Stolp. 1976. Microbial Breakdown of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Tbl.
Bakt. Hyg. I. Abt.: Orig. B162,225.
Grove, J. H, and B. G. Ellis. 1980. Extractable chromium as related to soil pH and applied chromium. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:238-242.
Gruebel. K. A., J. A Davies, and J. O. Leckie 1988. The feasibility of using sequential extraction techniques
for arsenic and selenium in soils and sediments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:390-397.
4-3
-------
Haggblom, M.M., LJ. Nohynek, arid M.S. Salkinoja-Salonen. 1988. Degradation and O-methylatlon of
chlorinated phenolic compounds by Rhodococcus and Mycobacterium strains. Appl. Environ, Microbiol.
54:3043-3052.
Harrison, R. M., D. P. H. Laxen, and S. J. Wilson. 1981. Chemical associations of lead, cadmium, copper,
and zinc In street dust and roadside soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:1378-1383.
Harter, R. D. 1983. Effect soli pH on adsorption of lead, copper, zinc, and nickel. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
47:47-51.
Harter, R. D. 1984. Curve-fit errors in Langmuir adsorption maxima. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:749-752.
Harter, R. D. and D. E. Baker. 1977. Application and misapplication of the Langmuir equation to soil
adsorption phenomena. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:1077-1080.
Harter, R. D. and G. Smith. 1981. Langmuir equation and alternative methods of studying "adsorption"
reactions In soils. In: R. H. Dowdy, J. A. Ryan, V. V. Volk, and D. E. Baker (eds). Chemistry In the sol
environment. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wl.
Hendrlckson, L. L and R. B. Corey. 1981. Effect of equilibrium metal concentration on apparent selectivity
coefficients of soil complexes. Soil Sci. 131:163-171.
Herbes, S. E. and L. R. Schwatl. 1978. Microbial Transformations of Polycyclie Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Pristine and Petroleum-Contaminated Sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35:306.
Hetrick, L A. 1952. The Comparative Toxicity of Some Organic Insecticides as Termite Soil Poisons. J.
Econ. Entomol. 45(2):235-237.
Hilton, H.W., and Q.H. Yuen. 1963. Adsorption of Several Pre-Emergence Herbicides by Hawaiian Sugar
Cane Soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 11 (3):230-234.
HIngston, F. J., A. M. Posner, and J. P. Quick. 1971. Competitive adsorption of negatively charged ligands
on oxide surfaces. Faraday Soc. 52:334-342.
Hoffman, R.E., and S. E. Hrudley, Evaluation of the Reclamation of Decommissioned Wood Preserving Plant
Sites In Alberta. Waste and Chemicals Division and H. E. L. P. Project, Alberta Environment.
Huddleston, R. L, C. A. Bleekmann, and J. R. Wolfe. 1986. Land Treatment Biological Degradation
Processes jn: R. C. Loehr and J. R. Malina, Jr., eds. Land Treatment: A Hazardous Waste Management
Alternative. Water Resources Symp. No. 13, Center for Research in Water Resources, Univ. of Texas at
Austin, TX. pp. 41-61.
Ide, A., Y. Nikl, F. Sakamoto, I. Watanabe, and H. Watanabe. 1972. Decomposition of Pentachlorophenol
In Paddy Soil. Agric. Biol. Chem. 36(11):937-1844.
James, R. O. and T. W. Healy. 1972, Adsorption of hydrolyzable metal ions at the oxide-water interface: III.
thermodynamic model of adsorption. J. Colloid Interlace Sci. 40:65-81.
Jenne, E. A. 1968. Control of Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn concentrations in soils and water - the dominant
roJe of hydrous manganese and iron oxides. Adv. in Chem. 7:337-387.
4-4
-------
JRB Associates, Inc. Wood Preserving: Preliminary Report of Plants and Processes. 1981. National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Jury, W. A., W. F. Spencer, and W. J. Farmer. 1983. Behavior assessment model for trace organics In soil:
Model description. J. Environ. Qua!. 12:558-564.
Jurinak, J. J. and N. Bauer. 1956. Thermodynamics of zinc adsorption on calcite, colomite. and
magneslte-type minerals. Soil Sci Soc. Am. Proc. 20:466-471.
Karckhoff, S. W„ D. S. Brown, and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of Octanol/Water Distribution Coefficients,
Water Solubilities, and Sediment/Water Partition Coefficients for Hydrophobic Organic Pollutants. EPA-
600/4-79-032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Karns, J.S., Kilbane, J.J., Duttagupta, and A.M. Chakrabarty. 1983. Metabolism of Halophenols by 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid-Degrading Pseudomonas cepacia. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
46(5): 1176-1181.
Keck, J., Sims, R.C., Coover, M., Park, and B. Symons. 1989. Evidence for Cooxidation erf Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil. Water Research, 23(12): 1467-1476.
Keiley, i., and C.E. Cerniglia. 1991. The metabolism of fluoranthene by a species of Mycobacterium.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology, 7(1991): 19-26.
Kramer, J. R. and H. E. Allen. 1988. Metal speciation: theory, analysis and application. Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
Kuo, S. and A. S. Baker. 1980. Sorption of copper, zinc, and cadmium by some acid soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 44:969-974.
Lake, D. L,, P. W. W. Kirk, and J. N. Lester. 1984. Fractionation, characterization, and speciation of heavy
metals in sewage sludge and sludge-amended soils: a review, J. Environ. Qua!. 13:175-183.
Lamar, R.T., J.A. Glaser, and T.K. Kirk. 1990a. Fate of Pentachlorophenol (PCP) in Sterile Soils Inoculated
with the White-Rot Basidiomycete Phanerochaete Chrysosporium: Mineralization, Volatilization, and
Depletion of PCP. Soil Biol. Biochem., 22(4)433-440.
Lamar, R.T., and D.M. Dietrich. 1990b. In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from Contaminated Soil by
Phanerochaete spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(10):3093-3100.
Latterell, J. J., R. H. Dowdy, and W. E. Larson. 1978. Correlation of extractable metals and metaJ uptake of
snap beans grown on soil amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qua!. 7:435-440.
Lehmann, R. G. and R. D. Harter. 1984. Assessment of copper-soil bond strength by desorption kinetics.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:769-772.
Lewis, D. L, H. P. Kollig, and Robert E. Hodson. 1986. Nutrient Limitation and Adaptation of Microbial
Populations to Chemical Transformations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 51, No. 3. pp. 598-
603.
Lindsay, W. L. 1979, Chemical equilibria in soils, John Wiley and Sons. New York.
4-5
-------
Loehr, R. 1989. Treatability potential for EPA listed hazardous chemicals in soil, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, EPA/600/2-89/011.
Lynch, J., and B. R. Genes. 1989. Land treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soils. In Petroleum
Contaminated Soils, Vol. 1: Remediation Techniques, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment, P. T.
Kostecki and E. J. Calabrese, (eds), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, p. 163.
Mahaffey, W.R., and R.S. Sanford. 1991. Bioremediation of PCP-Contaminated Soil: Bench to Full-ScaJe
Implementation. Remediation, Summer 1991, 305-323.
Matthews, J.E. and A. A. Bulich. 1984. A toxicity reduction test system to assist predicting land treatability
of hazardous wastes. In: J. K. Petros, Jr., W. J. Lacy, and R. A. Conway, (eds). Hazardous and Industrial
Solid Waste Testing: Fourth Symposium, STP-886, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA. pp. 176-191.
Matthews, J. E. and L Hastings. 1987. Evaluation of toxicity test procedure for screening treatabBity
potential of waste in soil. Toxicity Assessment: An International Quarterly 2:265-281.
Mattlgod, S. V. and G. Sposito. 1979. Chemical modeling of trace metals equilibrium In contaminated soil
solutions using the computer program GEOCHEM. In E. A. Jenne (ed) Chemical modeling in aqueous
systems. ACS No. 93 Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, D.C.
Mattlgod, S. V.. A. S. Gibaldi, and A. L Page. Effect of ionic strength and ion pair formation on the
adsorption of nickel by kaolinite. Clays Clay Miner. 27:411-416.
McBrlde, M. B. and J. J. Blaslak. 1979. Zinc and copper solubility as a function of pH in an acidic soil. Soil
Scl. Soc. Am. J. 43:866-870.
McBrlde, M. B. and D. R. Bouldin. 1984. Long-term reactions of copper(ll) in a contaminated calcareous soil.
Soil Scl. Soc. Aw. J. 48:56059.
McCann, J. R.. R. Choi, E. Yamasaki, and B. N. Ames. 1975. Detection of carcinogens as mutagens In the
Salmonella/mlcrosome test: Assay of 300 chemicals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 72:5135-5139.
McGlnnls, G.D., H. Borzajani, L.K. McFarland, D.F. Pope, and D. Strobel. A Characterization and Laboratory
SoH Treatability Studies for Creosote and Pentachiorophenol Sludge and Contaminated Soil. EPA/600/3-
88/055.
McGlnnls, G.D., H. Borzajani, D.F Pope, D. Strobel, J. Wagner. L.K. McFarland, F. Hendrix, and M. Hannigan.
Bioremediation Demonstration Unit at Weed, California. In: Proceedings of the Bioremediation of Wood
Treating Waste Forum, Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University, March 14-15,
1989.
McGlnnls, G.D., J. Matthews, and D. Pope. 1991. Bioremediation Studies at a Northern California Superfund
Site. In: Proceedings of Air and Waste Management Association, 84th Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British
Columbia, In Press.
McKenna, E. J. and R. D. Heath. 1976. Biodegradation of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pollutants
by Soil and Water Microorganisms. Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Research Report No. 113, UILU-WRC-76-0113.
4-6
-------
McLean, J. E., R. C. Sims, W. J. Doucette, C. R. Caupp, and W. J. Grenney. 1988. Evaluation of mobility
of pesticides In soil using USEPA methodology. J. Environ, Eng., Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 114:689-703.
McLean, J. E., R. C. Sims, W. J. Doucette, C. L. Caupp, and W. J. Grenney. 1988. Evaluation of mobility
of pesticides in soil using USEPA methodology. J. Environ. Eng., Am. Soc. Civil. Eng., 114:689.
Meas, J. C., G. S. Wood, J. J. Hassett, and W. L Banwart. 1979. Sorption of PolynucJear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons by Sediments and Soils. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 14:1524-1528.
Medvedev, V. A. and V. D. Davidov. 1972. Transformation of Individual Organic Products of the Coke
Industry in Chernozem Soil. Pochrovedenie. 11.22-28.
Micklewright, James T. Wood Preservation Statistics, 1988. A Report to the Wood-Preserving Industry In
the United States. 1990 Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers Association.
Mikesell, M.D., and S.A. Boyd. 1985. Reductive Dechlorination of the Pesticides 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and
Pentachlorophenol in Anaerobic Sludges. J. Environ. Qual. 14(3):337*340.
Mikesell, M.D., and S.A. Boyd. 1988. Enhancement of Pentachlorophenol Degradation In Soil through
Induced Anaerobiosis and Bioaugmentation with Anaerobic Sewage Sludge. Environ. Sci. Techno!.,
22(12):1411-1414.
Murdoch, L, B. Patterson, G. Losonsky, and W. Harrar, 1988. Innovative Technologies of Delivery or
Recovery: A Review of Current Research and a Strategy for Maximizing Future Investigation. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, Contract 68-03-
3379.
Murthy, N. B. K.» D. D. Kaufman, and G. F. Fries. 1979 Degradation of Pentachlorophenol in Aerobic and
Anaerobic Soil. J. of Environ. Sci. Health, B141-14.
Neal, R. H.. G. Sposito, K. M. Holtzclaw. and S. J. Traina. 1987. Selenite adsorption on alluvial soils: II.
composition effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1165-1169.
O'Connor, G. A., R. S. Bowman, M. A. Elrashidi, and R. Keren. 1983. Solute retention and mobility in New
Mexico soils: I. characterization of solute retention reactions. Agric. Exper. Station Bulletin #701. New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
O'Connor, G. A., C. O'Connor, and G R. Cline 1984. Sorption of cadmium by calcareous soils: influence
of solution composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:1244-1247,
Oscarson, D. W., P. M. Huang, W. K. Liaw and U. T. Hammer. 1983. Kinetics of oxidation of arsenite by
various manganese dioxides Soil Set. Soc. Am. J. 47:644-648.
Overcash, M. R., D. Pal, J. B. Weber, and M. C. Miles. 1982. Behavior of Organic Priority Pollutants In the
Terrestrial System: Di(N-Butyl) Phthalate Ester, Toluene, and 2,4-Dinitrophenol. Office of Water Research
and Technology. U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Page, A. L., R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney. (eds). 1982 Methods of soil analysis. Part. 2. Chemical and
microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wl
4-7
-------
Park, K. S., R. C. Sims, and R. R. Dupont, W. J. Doucette, and J. E. Matthews. 1990. Fate of PAH
compounds In two soil types: Influence of volatilization, abiotic loss and biological activity. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem., 9, 187.
Pritchard, P. H. 1981. Model ecosystems. In: R. A, Conway (ed), Environmental Risk Analysis for
Chemicals. Van Hostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Qui, X. and M.J. McFartand. 1991. Bound Residue Formation in PAH Contaminated Soil Composting using
Phanerochaete Chrysosporium, Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials. 8(2): 115-126.
Rajan, S. S. S. 1979. Adsorption of selenite, phosphate, and sulphate on iron hydrous oxides. J. Soil Sci.
30:709-718.
Rochklnd, M. L, J. W. Blackburn, and G. S. Sayler. 1986. Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic
Compounds. EPA/600/2-86/090, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Rogoff, M. H. 1961. Oxidation of Aromatic Compounds by Bacteria. Adv. Appl. Microbial. 3:193-221.
Ross, D., T, P. Marzlarz, and A. L. Bourquln. 1988. Bioremediation of hazardous waste sites in the USA:
case histories. In Superfund '88, Proc. 9th National Conf., Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute,
Silver Spring, MD, p. 395.
St. John, W. D., and D. J. Sikes. 1988. Complex industrial waste sites. In Environmental Biotechnology -
Reducing Risks from Environmental Chemicals through Biotechnology, G. S. Omenn, (ed), Plenum Press,
New York, NY, p. 163.
Santillan-Medrano, J. and J. J. Jurinak. 1975, The chemistry of lead and cadmium in soils: solid phase
formation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:851-856.
Saber, D.L, and R.L Crawford. 1985. Isolation and Characterization of Flavobacterium strains that Degrade
Pentachtorophenol. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 50(6):1512-1518.
Short, T. E. 1986. Modeling processes In the unsaturated zone. In: R. C. Leohr and J. R. Malina, Jr. (eds)
Land Treatment: A Hazardous Waste Management Alternative. Water Resources Symposium No. 13, Center
for Research In Water Resources, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. pp. 211-240.
Sims, R. C. 1982. Land Treatment of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dept. Biol.
Agr. Eng., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Sims, R. C., J. L Sims, D. L Sorensen, and L. L Hastings. 1987. Waste/Soil Treatability Studies for Four
Complex Industrial Wastes: Methodologies and Results Vol. 1. Project # CR-810979.
Sims, R. C., J. L Sims, and R. R. Dupont. 1984. Human health effects assays. J. Water Poilut. Control Fed.
56:791-800.
Sims, R. C., J. L Sims, and R. R. Dupont. 1985. Human health effects assays. J. Water Poilut. Control Fed.
57:728-742.
Sims, R. C. 1990. Soil remediation techniques at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. J. Air & Waste
Management Assoc. 40: In press (May).
4-8
-------
S\ms, R. c., J. L. Sims, and R. R. Dupont. 1987. Human health effects assays. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
59:601-614.
Sims. R. C., D. L Sorensen, J. L Sims, J. E. McLean, R. Mahmood. and R. R Dupont. 1984. Review of
in place treatment technologies for contaminated surface soils - Volume 2: Background information for In
situ treatment. EPA-540/2-84-003b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
Sims, R. C., W. J. Doucette, J. E. McLean, W. J. Grenney, and R. R. Dupont. 1988. Treatment potential for
56 EPA listed Hazardous chemicals in soil. EPA/600/6-86/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, April,
Sims, R. C., J. L. Sims, and R. R. Dupont. 1988. Human health effects assays. J, Water Pollut. Control Fed.
60:1093-1196.
Sims, R. C , J. L. Sims, and R. R. Dupont. 1986 Human health effects assays. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
58:703-717.
Silviera. D. J and L. E. Sommers 1977. Extractability of copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead in soils incubated
with sewage sludge, J. Environ. Qua!. 6:47-52.
Sisler, F. D. and C. E. Zobell. 1947. Microbial Utilization of Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons. Science 106:521-
522,
Sparks, D. L. 1989. Kinetics of soil chemical processes. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA
Sposito, G. 1979. Derivation of the Langmuir equation for ion exchange reactions In soils. Soil Sci. Soc Am.
J. 43:197-198.
Sposito, G. 1989. The chemistry of soils Oxford University Press. New York
Sposito, G., F. T. Bingham, S. S. Yadav, and C A. Inwye. 1982. Trace metal complexation by fulvic acid
extracted from sewage sludge. II. Development of chemical models. Soil Sci. Soc. Am J. 46:51-56.
Sposito, G., K. M. Holtzclaw, and C. S. LeVesque-Madore. 1979. Cupric ion complexation by fulvic acid
extracted sewage sludge-soil mixtures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:1148-1155.
Sposito, G., K. M. Holtzclaw, and C. S. LeVesque-Madore. 1981. Trace metal complexation by fulvic acid
extracted from sewage sludge: I. determination of stability constants and linear correlation analysis. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:465-468.
Sposito, G., C S. LeVesque, J. P. LeClaire, and N. Senesi. 1984. Methodologies to predict the mobility and
availability of hazardous metals in sludge-amended soils. California Water Resource Center. University of
California, Davis, CA.
Stanlake. G.J.. and R.K. Finn. 1982. Isolation and Characterization of a Pentachlorophenol Degrading
Bacterium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 44(6): 1421-1427.
Steiert, J.G., Pignatello, and R L. Crawford 1987. Degradation of Chlorinated Phenols by a
Pentachlorophenol-Degrading Bacterium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, S3(5):907-910.
4-9
-------
Stevens, D. K., W. J. Grenney, Z. Yan, and R. C. Sims. 1989. Sensitive Parameter Evaluation for a Vadose
Zone Fate and Transport Model. EPA/600/2-89/039, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK.
Stevens, D. K., W. J. Grenney, and Z. Yan. 1988. User's Manual: Vadose Zone Interactive Processes
Model. Dept. of Civil and Environ. Eng., Utah State Univ., Logan, UT.
Symons, B. D., R. C. Sims, and W. J. Grenney. 1988. Fate and transport of organics in soil: Model
predictions and experimental results. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 60:1684-1693.
Symons, B. D. and R. C. Sims. 1988. Assessing detoxification of a complex hazardous waste, using the
Mlcrotox™ bloassay. Arch. Environ. Contamination Toxicol. 17:497-505.
Sudakar-Barlk and N. Sethunathan. 1978. Metabolism of Nitrophenols in Flooded Soils. J. Environ. QuaJ.
7:349-352.
Suzuki, T. and K. Nose. 1971. Decomposition of Pentachlorophenol in Farm Soil. (Part 2). Penta
Metabolism by a Microorganism Isolated from Soil. Noyaku Seisan Gijutsu, Japan, 26:21-24.
Technology Overview of Existing and Emerging Environmental Solutions for Wood Treating Chemicals.
December 1990. National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation. University of Pittsburgh
Applied Research Center.
Thompson, Wanren S., and Peter Koch. Preservative Treatment of Hardwoods: A Review. USDA Forest
Service. General Technical Report SO-35. 1981.
Topp, E., R.L Crawford, and R.S. Hanson. 1988. Influence of Readily Metabolizable Carbon on
Pentachlorophenol Metabolism by a Pentachlorophenol-degrading Flavobacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
54:2452-2459.
Top, E., and R.S. Hanson. 1990. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol by a Flavobacterium Species Grown
In Continuous Culture under Various Nutrient Limitations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
56(2):541-544.
Topp, E., and R.S. Hanson. 1990. Factors Influencing the Survival and Activity of a Pentachlorophenol-
Degradlng Flavobacterium sp. in Soil Slurries. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:83-91.
Tortensson, L and J. Stenstrom. 1986. "Basic" Respiration Rate as a Tool for Prediction of Pesticide
Persistence In Soil. Toxicity Assessment 1:57-72.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1980. The Biologic and Economic Assessment of
PentachloropheiKil, Inorganic Arsenicals, Creosote. USDA, Number 1658-1 I.Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1986. Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Demonstrations.
EPA/530/SW-86-032, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988. Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals during Land Treatment of Oily
Wastes: RITZ User's Guide. EPA/600/8-88-001, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK.
4-10
-------
USEPA. 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, Contract No. 68-03-3413, November.
USEPA. 1990. Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/540/2-90-
002, January.
USEPA. 1983. Microbial Degradation of Selected Hazardous Materials: Pentachlorophenol,
HexacNorocylcopentadiene, and Methyl Parathion. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/2-83-117.
USEPA. 1986a. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 1B. SW-846. Third Edition,
USEPA. 1986b. Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Demonstrations. Final Draft.
EPA-530/SW86-032. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington. DC.
USEPA. 1986c. Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. Ohio EPA/600/2-86/090.
USEPA. 1988a. Characterization and Laboratory Soil Treatability Studies for Creosote and
Pentachlorophenol Sludges and Contaminated Soil. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, Oklahoma. 74820. EPA/600/2-88/055.
USEPA. 1989b. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface. Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA/625/4-89-019.
USEPA. 1990. Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled Wood Preserving Sites. Center for
Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati. Ohio, 45268.
EPA/625/7-90/011.
USEPA. 1986. Test methods for evaluating solid waste: physical/chemical methods. SW-846. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D. C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. MINTEQA1, an equilibrium metal speciation model: user's
manual. USEPA. EPA/600/3-87/012. Athens. GA.
Veith, J. A. and G. Sposito. 1977. On the use of the Langmuir equation in the interpretation of adsorption
phenomena. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:697-702.
Verschueren, D. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Van Nostrand/Relnhold
Co., New York. p. 659.
Ward, C. H., M. B. Thomson, P. B. Bedient. and M. D. Lee. 1986. Transport and Fate Processes In the
Subsurface, Jn: R. C. Loehr and J. F. Malina, Jr., (eds) Land Treatment: A Hazardous Waste Management
Alternative. Water Resources Symp. No. 13. Center for Research in Water Resources. Univ. of Texas at
Austin, TX. pp. 19-39.
Watanabe, I. 1973. Isolation of Pentachlorophenol Decomposing Bacteria from Soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
Tokyo. 19(2): 109-116.
4-11
-------
Weaver, J., C. G. Enfield, S. Yates, D. Kraemer, and D. White. 1989. Predicting Subsurface Contaminant
Transport and Transformation: Considerations for Model Selection and Field Validation. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, EPA/600/2-89/045, August.
Williams, R. T. 1959. Detoxification Mechanisms. 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 796
pp.
Wodson, E. A. 1977a. Fate of arsenicals in different environmental substrate. Environ. Health Perpect.
19:73-81.
Woolson, E. A. 1977b. Generation of allylarslnes from soil. Weed Sci. 25:412-416.
Zasoski, R. J. and R. G. Burau. 1988. Sorption and sorptive interaction of cadmium and zinc on hydrous
manganese ox'-de. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:81-87.
Section 3 - Remedial Options - Immobilization
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide Specifications for Highway
Construction. National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004.
ASTM. 1990. Physico-Chemical Aspects of Soil and Related Materials. Special Technical Publication. STP-
1095.
ATTIC Online System - Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center, computerized data base and
electronic bulletin board on treatment of contaminated materials. Information: J. Perdek, EPA, (908) 321-
4380; modem access: (301) 670-3808.
Boyd, S. A., M. M. Mortland, and C. T. Chiou, 1988. Sorption Characteristics of Organic Compounds on
Hexadecyltrimothylammonium-Smectite. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., vol. 52, pp. 652-657.
Robert M. Koerner, 1990. Designing with Geosynthetics, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall.
Mortland, M. M., S. Shaobai, and S. A. Boyd, 1986. Clay-Organic Complexes as Adsorbents for Phenol and
Chlorophenols. Clays Clay Miner., vol. 34, pp. 581-585.
Roy F. Weston. May 1985. Installation Restoration General Environmental Technology Development -
Guidelines for In-Place Closure of Dry Lagoons. U.S. Army Toxic & Hazardous Materials Agency. NTIS AD-
A140 655.
Sims, R. C., 1990. SoH Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: A Critical Review.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association Reprint Series, No. RS-15, Air and Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 43 p.
USEPA. July 1989. Technical Guidance: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface
Impoundments. EPA/530-SW-89-047.
USEPA. February 1991. Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal
Landfill Sites. IEPA/540/P-91/001.
USEPA. September 1985. Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/2-85/002.
4-12
-------
USEPA. May 1991. Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers.
EPA/625/4-91/025.
USEPA. August 1989. Seminar Publication: Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design,
Construction, and Closure. EPA/625/4-89/022.
USEPA, 1987. Geosynthetlc Design Guidance for Hazardous Waste Landfill Cells and Surface
Impoundments. EPA/600/S2-87/097.
USEPA. May 1991. Technical Guidance Document: Inspection Techniques for the Fabrication of
Geomembrane Field Seams. EPA/530/SW-91/051.
USEPA. November 1991. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles,
Fourth Edition. EPA/540/-5091/008. ORD and OSWER, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1984. Compatibility of Grouts with Hazardous Waste. EPA-600/2-84-015.
USEPA. February 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration Control. EPA-540/2-84-001,
NTIS PB88-113295.
USEPA. Block Displacement Method Field Demonstration and Specifications. EPA/600/S2-87/023, March,
1987. NTIS PB87-170338.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1991 Recommendations to the NRC for Soil Cover
Systems Over Uranium Mill Tailings and Low-Level Radioactive Wastes. NUREG/CR-5432.
Xanthakos, P. 1979. Slurry Walls. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Section 3 - Remedial Options - Destruction
ERM-Southwest, Inc. 1990. Feasibility Study Report on Arkwood, Inc. Site, Omaha, Arkansas.
USEPA. 1988b. Treatment Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soils. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA/600/6-88-001.
USEPA. 1989a. Treatability Potential for EPA Listed Hazardous Wastes in Soils. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OKIahoma. EPA/600/2-89-011.
USEPA. 1989b. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface. Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA/625/4-89-019.
USEPA. 1991. On-Site Treatment of Creosote and Pentachloropheno! Sludges and Contaminated Soil.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820. EPA/600/2-91/019.
USEPA. Handbook: Vitrification Technologies for Treatment of Hazardous Waste. ORD, Washington, DC,
1992.
4-13
-------
Section 3 - Remedial Options - Separation/Concentration
Helsel. R., E. Alperln, A. Groen. November 1989. "Engineering-Scale Demonstration of Thermal Desorptlon
Technotogy for Manufactured Gas Plant Site Soils" for the Hazardous Waste Research and Information
Center, Savoy, Illinois, 61874, Report #HWRIC RR-038, November 1989.
Ellis, W.D. and M. Stinson. 1990. SITE Demonstration of a Soil Washing System by BioTrol at a Wood
Preserving Site in New Brighton, Minnesota. Presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineer's
National Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Ellis, William D. and Mary K. Stinson. 1991. SITE Demonstration of a Soil Washing System by BioTrol, Inc.
at a Wood Preserving Site In New Brighton, Minnesota. In: Remedial Action, Treatment, and Disposal of
Hazardous Waste. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991c. Survey of Materials Handling Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/2-91/010.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Section 3 - Remedial Options - Contaminated Water
Groundwater Treatment Technology. 1985. Van Nostrand Relnhold Co., New York.
4-14
-------
APPENDIX
Table A-1 Cleanup Goals and Treatment Train Comparisons at NPL
Wood Preserving Facilities
Table A-2 Cleanup Goals and Treatment Train Comparisons at
Non-NPL Wood Preserving Facilities
-------
TABLE A-1. CLEANUP GOALS AND TREATMENT TRAIN COMPARISONS
AT NPL WOOD PRESERVING FACILITIES
Site nam*
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminant*
Cleanup goal*
Technology
Region I
Hocomonco Pond,
Westborough, MA
RD
Soil
Creosote
Phenol
Excavate/on-site landfill
disposal
Sediment
Creosote
Phenol
Dewater/excavate/on-site
landfill disposal
Pine Street Canal,
Burlington, VT
Residual oil
Wood chips saturated
with organic compounds
Region III
Mid Atlantic Wood Preservers,
Harmans, MD
RA80
Soil
Cu
a
As
10 mg/kg
Excavate/off-site disposal In
approved facility
Soil
Cu
Cr
As
Off-site disposal
Soil - As conc.
> 10 mg/kg and
< 100 mg/kg
Capping
Groundwater
Cu
Cr
As
Southern Maryland Wood
Treating Corp.,
Hollywood. MD
RA82
Lagoon liquid
VOCs
CPAHs
BNAs
Spray irrigation. V
Lagoon sludge and
freshwater pond
sludge
VOCs
CPAHs
BNAs
Composit sludge and
topsoil/spread on waste
treatment area
RO
Soil and sediment
VOCs
CPAHs
BNAs
2.2 ppm surface (1 ppm
subsurface)
Excavate/on-site
Incineration/dispose ash on
sit*
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
>
Sits name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Southern Maryland Wood
Treating Corp.,
Hollywood, MO (cont.)
RO {cont)
Surface water and
jrsur.dwaisf
VOCs
QO(«U.
BNAs
Slurry wall/pump and treat/
dltchsrQS cn si'$
Havertown PCP Silo,
Havertown, PA
RA82&88
Storm water
PCP
Cu
Benzene
Toluene
17 mq/L
5jig/L
Containment
RO
Sol!
No action
Surface water
Oil/water separator
Drums
VOCs
Phenols
Oioxins
PCP
PAHs
As
Cr
Off-site land disposal
Tank wastewater
VOCs
PCP
OH-site treatment/disposal
LA. Clarke & Sons, Inc.
Fredericksburg, VA
RAS2
Soil
Creosote
CPAHs
Benzene
Heavy metals
Excavate/create RCRA*
regulated soil waste pile
RD
Subsurface soil
Creosote
CPAHs
Benzene
Heavy metals
10.3 mg/kg (80 mg/kg TPAH)
94.03 Mg/kg
In situ soil Hushing/in situ
biodegradation
Lagoon sediment
Creosote
CPAHs
Benzene
Heavy metals
Biological degradation
Wetland sediment
Creosote
CPAHs
Benzene
Heavy metals
Excavate/on-slle landfarming
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Sit* name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminant*
Cleanup goals
Technology
L.A. Clarke & Sons, Inc.,
Fredericksburg, VA (cont.)
RD (cont.)
Untreated soil/
sediment
Creosote
CPAHs
Benzene
Heavy metals
0.08 mg/kg
Excavate/dredge/consolidate
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.,
Porstmouth, PA
RI/FS
Soil
Sediment
Tanks
Groundwater
Creosote
PCP
Culpeper Wood Preservers,
Inc., Culpeper, VA
Groundwater
As
Cr
Saunders Supply Co.,
Chuckatuck, VA
RAM
Soil
PCP
CCA
Pb
Excavate, otl-site disposal in
EPA-regulated landfill
FS89
Groundwater
PCP
Pb
Cr
As
Surface water
Cr
RA91
Sludge
Dioxins (TCOD
equivalent)
Dechlorination
Soil
PCP, As
Excavate, thermal desorption (]
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preserving Site), Richmond,
VA
RI/FS
Surface soil
PAHs,' As, dioxin, furans
Groundwater
PAHs, dioxins/furans,
As. PCP
Surfacv water
As
Sealand Ltd. and Oil Industry,
Mount Pleasant, DE
RAM
Tanks • coal tar
Drums
Solid waste
PAHs
Creosols
Solvents
Other toxic organic
compound*
Removal to RCRA
facility/cap (day layer)
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
She name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Sealand Lid, and Oil Industry,
Mount Pleasant, DE (cont.)
RA83
(cont.)
Soil
Tanks
Drums
PAHs
Creosols
Solvents
Other toxic organic
compounds
Groundwater
Nickel
Acenaphthalone
Wesllina, PA
RD
VOCs
Benzene
5#fl/L
No action, groundwater
monitoring
Region IV
American Creosote Works,
Inc., Pensacola, FL
RA83
Waste ponds
Pond sludge
Creosote
Creosote
PQTW
Solidify/cap
RD85
Solids, sludge, and
sediment
Organies
Dioxins
CPAHs
PCP
No action (on-site RCRA
permitted landfill)
RD89
Surface soil
Organies
Dioxins
CPAHs
PCP
2,5 ppb tor 2,3.7,8-TCDD
toxicity (eq )
SO ppm
30 ppm
Excavate/on-site
bioremediation/oniite
treated soil disposal
RI/FS
Subsurface soil
Sludge
Groundwater
Brown Wood Preserving,
Live Oak, FL
RA88
Lagoon water, sludge
and soil
Creosote
PAHs
Remove/off-she disposal
Lagoon water
PAHs
Creosote
100 mg/kg of TPAHs
Pump/treat/discharge to
POTW
Severely
contaminated soil
and sludge
PAHs
Creosote
PCP
100 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
Excavate/oH-slte disposal
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site nam*
Statu*
Matrix
Contamlnanla
Cleanup goals
Technology
Brown Wood Preserving,
live Oak, Fl (com.)
RA88
(com.)
Lass contaminated
toll
PAHS
Creosote
Excavate, on-site
biodegradatlon/cover with
clean fill |
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving Co.,
Jacksonville. FL
RA80
Groundwater
PCP
Qosed loop treatment
RA85
Sludge
PCP
Excavate/soil washing/S/S
RO
Soil and sediment
(PCP conc.
>10 mg/kg)
PCP
10 mg/kg
Excavate/on-site
incineration/on-site disposal
Groundwater with
PCP concentration
> i#tg/L
PCP
1 Mg/L
Pump/carbon adsorption/
discharge to on-site drainage
ditch
Cape Fear Wood Preserving,
Fayettevilte, NC
RA77
Soil
Creosote
Remove/landfarming
RA84
Soil and sludge
Excavate/off-site disposal
Lagoon water
On-site storage
RA86
Sludge
Excavate/solidification
Wastewater
CCA
On-site storage g
RD
Drainage system
solidified creosote
CCA salt crystals
OH-site disposal In RCRA
landfill
Soil
As
Benzene
a
CPAHs
TPAHs
94 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
88 mg/kg
2.5 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
Excavate/on-site soil
flushing/on-site disposal; or
thermal desorption/soil
washing/on-site disposal; or
S/S/on-site disposal
Sediment
TPAHs
As
Cr
3 0 mg/kg
94 mg/kg
88 mg/kg
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
>
6
Sit* name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Cap® Few Wood Preserving,
Fayetteville, NC
RD
American Creosote Works,
Inc. (Jackson Plant),
Jackson, TN
RA83
RA86
Lagoon water
Storage tanks
Creosote
PCP
Pump and treat; storage
oil/water on-site, stabilize
¦oil/sludge; clay cap over
lagoons
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goal*
Technology
American Creosote Works.
Inc., (Jackson Plant),
Jackson, TN (corn.)
BO
Sludge
Tank oil and sludge
VOCs
PAHs
Phenols
On- or off-site Incineration
Process liquid tank*
VOCs
PAHs
Phenols
On-site treatment/on-slw
stream discharge
Diked water
Pump and treat/discharge
pending
Newsom Brothers Old
Reichold Site, Columbia, MS
Soil
POP
Excavate/off-site disposal
Wastewater
PCP
POTW
Koppers Co , Inc.,
Montgomery, Al
Beazer Materials and
Services, Rorence, SC
Region V
Carter Lee lumber Co.,
Indianapolis, IN
Soil
Phenanthrene
Din-butylphlhalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysane
Benio(b,k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
mder>o(U,3
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
>
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
SH« nam*
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Reilly T»r and Chem. Corp.,
St. Louis Park, MN
RA86
St. Louis Park Well
(drinking water)
PAHs
Phenol
Pump/well water/GAC
treatment system
RA
Groundwater
CPAHs
PAHs
Phenols
280 ng/L
280 ng/L
Monitor/pump & ireat/POTW
Exposed hazardous
waste
PAHs
Phenol
Cap and (ill
Ritari Post arid Pole,
Sebeka, MN
Groundwater
PCP
St Regis Paper Co ,
Cass Lake, MN
RA86
Groundwater
Surface water
Creosote
PCP
CCA
PAHs
Pump and treat/sudaoe
discharge
Soil
CCA
PCP
Creosote
Excavate/on-site storage
Reilly Tar and Chem, Corp.
(Dover Plant). Dover, OH
Soil
Creosote
Groundwater
Creosote
Pump and treat
Moss-American Co., Inc.,
Kerr-McGee Oil Co ,
Milwaukee, Wl
RA73
River sediment
Dredged
RA77 & 78
Soil
Removed
RO
Sediment and soil
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
CPAHs
Other organic®
6.1 mg/kg
Reroute river channel,
excavate/on-site soil
washing/bioremediation/ on-
site disposal/cap
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Sit* nam*
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goal*
Technology
Moss-American Co., Inc.,-
K«r-McGa# Oil Co.,
Milwaukee, WI (cont.)
RD (cont.)
Groundwater
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
PAHs
Other organics
0.067 >ig/L
68.6 iig/L
124.0 m/L
Membrane banler/pump and
treat/discharge to POTW or
river
Liquid waste
On-site Incineration
Region VI
Arkwood, Inc., Omaha, AR
RA
Soil
Dioxln
PCP
PAHs
Ong/kg
Excavate/incinerate/
backfill /stabilization
Groundwater
PCP
Natural attentuation
Mid-South Wood Products,
Mena, AR
RA
Soils
PAHs
PCP
As
Cr
3 mg/kg
5.6 mg/kg
19.4 mg/kg
Excavate/consolidate/cap
Groundwater
PAHs
PCP
As
Cr
Pump and treat/surface
discharge
Pond sludge or liquid
PAHs
PCP
As
Cr
Stabilization/cap
Old Midland Products,
Ola, AR
RA
Soil, sediment
CPAHs
Excavate/on-site
incineration/ash disposal on-
site/cap
Sludge
PCP
1 ppm
Excavate/on-site
Incineration/ash disposal on-
site/cap
Groundwater, surfac*
water
PCP
PAHs
0.2 mg/L
28 ng/L
Collect/treat with carbon
adsorption
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site nam*
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology |
Bayou Bonlouca, Slidell, LA
RA85
Soil
Creosote
PAHs
Excavate/off disposal I
Contaminated water
OM-site disposal |
RD
Soil, sediment
Total PAHs
100 mg/kg
Excavate/on-site I
Incineration/on-site ash I
disposal/cap |
Groundwater
PAHs
100 iig/l
Pump and treat
Koppers Co., Inc.,
Te*arkana, TX
RA
Soil, sediment
CPAHs
PCP
As
a
Cu
Zn
Beniene
Toluene
Xylene
100 mg/kg
83,000 mg/kg
2 mg/kg
1,500 mg/kg
lit,000 mg/kg
633,000 mg/kg
Excavate/washing/disposal
on-site; or excavate/
washing/disposal off-site
hazardous waste facility
Groundwater
CPAHs
PCP
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
As
a
Cu
0.003 Mg/L
2,000 nfl/L
5»g/l
220j»g/l
50 M9/L
50 |ig/l
1,000 Mg/L
Collection/treatment using
oil/water separation/carbon
adsorption/recycling NAPts/
reinjeeiion of treated
groundwater; or collection/
treatment using oil/water
separation/carbon
adsorption/incineration of
NAPLs off site, reinjection of
treated groundwater
North Cavalcade Street Site,
Houston, TX
RA
Soil, sediment
PAHs
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
1 mg/kg
0.04 mg/kg
In situ biological treatment
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goal*
Technology
North Cavalcade Street Site,
Houston, TX (cent.)
RA (cont.)
Groundwater
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
5W/L
o w n
440 jtg/L
Pump and treat using oil/
rfUIWI
adsorptlon/off-slte
Incineration of NAPLs/
reln]ectk>n/discharge Into
drainage ditch
South Cavalcade Street Site,
Houston, TX
RA
Soil
PAHs
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
As
Cr
Pt>
700 mg/kg
In situ soil (lushing.
Excavate/soil washing/
replace soil/cap
Groundwater
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
As
Cr
Pb
PAHs
5M9/L
28Mg/L
440 ng/l
50(tg/L
50*g/l
50Mg/L
1 ng/L
Pump and treat using
physical/chemical
separation /pressure
nitration/carbon adsorption/
reinjection/off-site
incineration or recycling of
NAPLs
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co., Texarkana, TX
RA
Soil, sediment
TPAHs
CPAHs
PCP
Dioxin
2,450 mg/kg
3 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
20 Mfl/kg
Excavate/on-site
incineration/ash disposal on
site/cap
Sludge
PCP
Groundwater
CPAHs
Oioxin
PCP
0.001 MO/L
0.001 mg/L
10 M9/L
Pump and treat using carbon
adsorption/reinjection into
the aquifer
United Creosoting Co ,
Conroe, TX
RA83
Regrade contaminated soil,
divert surface water/cap
RA
Soil
PAHs
PCP
Dioxins
Dibenzo furans
320 Ag/kg
ISO mg/kg
1
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminant*
Cleanup goal*
Technology |
United Creosotmg Co ,
Conroe, TX (cont.)
RA (oont.)
Low organic
concentrate
OH-site Mneratlon/dlsposal I
on site
RD
Soil
Excavate/oonsolidat*/
temporary cap
Region VIII
Broderick Wood Products
Co., Denver CO
RD
Sludge and oil
PCP
As
Cd
Pb
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene
7.98 mg/kg
7.98 mg/kg
7,28 mg/kg
0.143 mg/kg
0.162 mg/kg
Excavate/on-site
incineration/off-site ash
disposal
Soil
PCP
As
Cd
Pb
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene
7.98 mg/kg
7.98 mg/kg
7 28 mg/kg
0.143 mg/kg
0.162 mg/kg
Excavate/on-site
Incineration/off-site ash
disposal; or if volume Is
large excavate/store on site
Burlington Northern Railroad
(Somers Tie-Treating Plant),
Somers, MT
RAS6
Swamp pond sludge,
•oil and water
Creosote
Metals
Re move/on-site landfarm 1
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Burlington Northern Railroad
(Somer# Tie-Treating Plant),
Somets, MT (cont.)
RO
Soil
Creosote
Metals
CPAHs
TPAHs
Zn
3.6 mg/kg
1,875 mg/kg
15,750 mg/kg
Remove/off-site landfarm
Sediment
TPAHs
Zn
1,875 mg/kg
15,750 mg/kg
Remove/off-site landlarm
Groundwater
Benzene
CPAHs
TPAHs
Zn
5 jrg/L
0.03 tLQ/L
0.3 jig/L
1,100
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
>
55
Sit* name
Status
Matrti
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie
RO (con!.)
Soil
Creosote
Oil recovery/soi! flushing/
Treating, Laramie, WY (coni.)
PCP
bioreclamation
Oils
Region IX
Coast Wood Preserving,
RA83
Soil, sediment
Cr
To be determined
Ukiah. CA
Cu
As
Groundwater
Cr
Pump and store on-site
Cu
As
J.H. Baxter Co., Weed, CA
RO
Soil
As
8 ppm
Excavate/landfarm; or
Cr
500 ppm
excavate/S/S
Cu
2,500 ppm
Oioxin
0.001 ppm
Furan
0.001 ppm
CPAHs
0 51 ppm
PCP
17 ppm
Zn
5.000 ppm
Sediment
As
8 ppm
Excavate/treatment to be
Cr
18 ppm
determined
CPAHs
0.5 ppm
PAHs
0.5 ppm
PCP
1 ppm
Zn
26 ppm
Groundwater
As
5 ppb
Extraction/biological
Benzene
1 ppb
treatment/precipitation
Cr
8 ppb
Cu
11 ppb
Dioxin
0.000025 ppb
CPAHs
5 ppb
PAHs
5 ppb
PCP
2.2 ppb
Zn
90 ppb
Surface water
Soil controls
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Site name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Koppers Co., Inc.,
Ofoville, CA
RA73
Groundwater pumping,
discharge oH site, off-site
disposal of debris
RA86
Alternate water supply to
residents
RA
Soil
TPAHs
PCP
As
Cf
Xylenes
Cu
PCDO/PCDF
Metals
17 ppm
500 ppm
2,500 ppm
0.01 ppm
In situ blodegradation;
excavate/soli washing/
redisposal on site/cap;
Excavate/solidification/ on-
site disposal
Groundwater
TPAHs
PCP
As
Cf
Cu
Xylene
PCDD/PCDF
0.031
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Sit* nam*
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminant*
Cleanup goal*
Technology
Southern California Edison
Co., (Visalia Poleyard),
Visalia, CA
RA76
Soil
Dioxins/furans
PCP
Creosote
Excavate/landfill disposal
RA77
Groundwater
PCP
Creosote
Slurry wall/pump and treat
using carbon
filtration/discharge into
sewer
RAM
Groundwater
PCP
Creosote
Pump and treat using
filtration/discharge into
nearby creek
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.,
Turlock, CA
RA79
Soil
Cr
Cu
As
Excavate/off-site disposal
RA80
Groundwater
&
Cu
As
Pump and treat/reinjection
Region X
Joseph Forest Products,
Joseph, OR
Soils
As
Cr
Cu
American Crossarm and
Conduit Co., Chehalis, WA
RA86
Soil, debris
Creosote
PCP
Recovered and stored on site
RA89
Soil, debris
Creosote
PCP
Dioxin
Incineration
Sludge
PCP
S/S/landfill
Groundwater
PCP
On-site water treatment
Wyckott Co./Eagle Harbor,
Bainbridge Island. WA
Rl/FS
Soil, sediment,
groundwater
Creosote
RD • Remedial Design PS - Feasibility Study
Rl - Remedial Investigation RA • Removal/Remedial Action
-------
TABLE A-2. CLEANUP GOALS AND TREATMENT TRAIN COMPARISONS
AT NON-NPL WOOD PRESERVING FACILITIES
Sits nam*
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goal*
Technology
Region 1
Industrial Box and Lumber,
Parson Field (Kezar FaBs), ME
Soil
PCP
Drummed
Region II
GCL Tib & Treating, NY
Creosote
Bioremediation (composting)
Region III
Eager Beaver lumber Co.,
Townville, PA
Soil
Surface water
PCP
Tetrachlorophenol
Dioxin
Xylene
Lindane
Excavate/disposal
Beliietd Avenue Site,
Philadelphia, PA
Containers
PCP
Containment
National Wood Preserves, PA
PCP
Region IV
Brown Wood Preserving Co.,
Northport, Al
Not available
Water treatment
Escambia Wood,
Pensacola, FL
Creosote
Water treatment
lindsley lumber, Dania, Fl
Surface water
Soil
Groundwater
PCP
Dioxin
On-site incineration
Augusta Wood Preserving
Co., Augusta, GA
a
Cu
As
Soil removal/land disposal
Brunswick Wood Preserving,
Brunswick, 6A
PCP
Creosote
Pump and treat, off-site
disposal of chemicals
Dickerson Post Treating,
Homeville, GA
Soil
Creosote
PAHs
Excavate/landlill
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
Site nam*
Sutut
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup 90a!*
Technology
Dickerson Post Treating,
Homeville, GA (cont)
Liquid creosote
Creosote
Incinerated
Escambia Wood, Camilla, GA
Sludge
PCP
Stabilize/cap
Wastewater
PCP
On-site wastewater treatment
American Creosote Works,
Louisville, MS
Sludge
PCP
Creosote
Solidification/cap
Groundwater
PCP
Creosote
Monitoring
Escambia Wood,
Brookhaven, MS
Groundwater
Creosote
PCP
Pump and treat/on-site
discharge
Chemicals
Creosote
PCP
OM-site disposal
Hinds Wood Preserving Co.,
Learned, MS
Creosote
Prentiss Creosote & Forest
Products, Prentiss, MS
RA87
Lagoon water
Creosote
PCP
Pump and treat on site
Sludge
Creosote
PCP
S/S
Soil
Creosote
PCP
Excavate
RA88
Soil
Creosote
PCP
On-site incineration
Southeastern Wood
Preserving, Canton, MS
RA
Soil
PAHs
Creosote
PCP
Containment/soil washing/
bioremediation
Southern Lumber Company,
Crosby, MS
Surface water
Creosote
On-site oil/water treatment
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
ro
o
Site name
Statu*
Matrix
Contaminant*
Cleanup goat*
Technology
Southern lumber Company,
C;csfcy, MS (eon!.)
Sludge
Creosote
PCP*
Coal tar
Off-site Incineration
Davenport Creosote,
Pinetops, NC
SoH
Creosote
Coal tar
Removal/disposal
Everhart Lumber Co.,
New Bern, NC
Soil
PCP
Excavate/disposal
Surface water
PCP
Water treatment
Kellwood Timber Products,
Hardeeville, SC
Wastewater tanks
CCA
Remove/recycle
Sludge and soil
Pb
CCA
Containment
Creosote Tanks/Tallyrand
Road, Jacksonville, FL
Sediment
Creosote
PCBs
Removal/solidification
Rorida Steel, FL
Creosote
Incineration
Gulf State Creosote,
Hattiesburg, MS
Creosote
PCP
Bioremediation (landfarm)
Region V
Jennison-Wright Corp. site.
Granite City, IL
Creosote
PCP
Lake States Wood Preserving,
Munishing, Ml
PCP
Region VI
Mountain Pressure Pine
Treating, Plainview, AR
Surface water
PCP
CCA
Carbon bed treatment
Surface soil
PCP
CCA
Excavate/containment
Sludge
PCP
CCA
S/S/backfill/cap
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
Sit® name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology |
Mountain Pressure Pine
Treating, Plainview, AR (com.)
liquid containers
PCP
CCA
Off-site disposal
American Creosote,
Winnfteld, LA
Barrels
PAHs
Dioxins/furans
PCPs
Caitoon filter/mixed bed
gravity filtration 1
Springer Wood Treater.
Springer, NM
PCP
Creosote
Excavate/landfill
Scott Lumber, AR
Creosote
Bioremediation (landfarm)
Region VII
Scott Lumber Co , Alton, MO
RA
Soil
CPAHs
Creosote
TPAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Coal tar
14 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
Excavate/bioremediation
Region VIII
Beaver Wood Products,
Columbia Falls, MT
Soil
PCP
Cap
Blackfeet Post & Pole.
Browning, MT
Soil
PCP
Dioxins/furans
On-site incineration
Liquid
PCP
Dioxins/furans
Creston Post & Pole Yard,
Kalispell, MT
Soil
PCP
DiOxin
Cap
Groundwater
PCP
Dioxin
Evans Post & Pole,
Browning, MT
Soil
PCP
On-site Incineration
Kalispell Pole & Timber Co.,
1 Kalispell, MT
Soil
Groundwater
PCP
Oioxln
Heavy metals
Covered • seep
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
Site name
Status
Matrix
Contaminants
Cleanup goals
Technology
Laity's Post & Treating Co.,
Columbia falls, MT
Sol!
"Likely* PCP
Cap
Rocky Boy Post & Pole,
Box Elder, MT
Soil
PCP
Dioxin/furan
Creosote
TPAHs
Chryseno
1 ppm surface
< 10 ppm subsurface
1 ppb as 2,3,7,8-TCDD
<5 ppm
<50 ppm
On-site Incineration
Whitewood Custom Treaters,
Inc., Whitewood, SD
Soil
As
Cr
Excavate/oH-site disposal
Chippewa Pole, MT
Creosote
PCP
Incineration
Region IX
Marley Cooling Tower, Co.,
Stockton, CA
Soil
Groundwater
Cr
Cu
As
Region X
Puget Sound Plywood,
Eugene, OR
Rangerfund ll/Westfir,
Westfir, OR
PCP
Soliditication/drummed
RD - Remedial Design FS - Feasibility Study
FU • Remedial Investigation RA - Removal/Remedial Action
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Pleas© make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in ins upper
left-Hand comer.
II you oo no! wish lo lecefva these reports CHECK HEBE Q;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to ih« address in the
upper ion-tend comer.
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/R-92/182
------- |