United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice.of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-97/009
October 1997
vvEPA
Treatment Technology
Performance and Cost
Data for Remediation of
Wood Preserving Sites
-------
-------
EPA/625/R-97/009
October 1997
Treatment Technology Performance and
Cost Data for
Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites
Center for Environmental Research Information
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-C5-0001, Work Assignment 1-23, and Order No.
7C-R327-NNLX issued to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of nati
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compa
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
research program is providing data and technical support for solving ej
and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce envi
ongress with protecting the
nal environmental laws, the
jible balance between human
o meet this mandate, EPA's
vironmental problems today
ecological resources wisely,
ronmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and
and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is
implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies
engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory
environmental regulations and strategies.
is the Agency's center for
risks from threats to human
plrogram is on methods for the
resources; protection of water
groundwater; and prevention
to catalyze development and
and to develop scientific and
ahd policy implementation of
prograim
A key aspect of the Laboratory's success is an effective
dissemination and technology transfer. The Center for Environmental
is the focal point for these types of outreach activities in NRMRL.
for technical information
Research Information (CERI)
This summary document, Treatment Technology Performance and
Wood Preserving Sites, produced by CERI, is a technical resource:
remediation of wood preserving sites.
Cost Data for Remediation of
guidance document for the
E. Timothy Oppelt, Direbtor
National Risk Managerr ent Research Laboratory
in
-------
Abstract
Wood preserving has been an industry in North America for more than 100 years. During this time,
wood preserving facilities have utilized a variety of compounds, including pentachlorophenol (PCP),
creosote, and certain metals to extend the useful life of wood products. Past operations and waste
management practices have resulted in soil and water contamination at a portion of the more than
700 wood preserving sites identified in the United States. Many of these sites are currently being
addressed under Federal, State, or voluntary cleanup programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) has responded to the need
for credible information aimed at facilitating remediation of wood preserving sites by conducting
treatability studies, issuing guidance, and preparing reports.
This report presents information pertaining to applicable treatment and control alternatives for the
remediation of contaminated soil and water at wood preserving sites. It provides background
information on the wood preserving industry; common contaminants, including pentachlorophenol
(PCP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), and metals-containing compounds, such as
chromated copper arsenate (CCA); and environmental concerns associated with these
contaminants.
Ten technologies previously employed for remediation of soil and water at wood preserving sites are
discussed. For soil, the advantages, limitations, and costs associated with implementation of soil
washing, solidification/stabilization (SIS), thermal desorption (TD), incineration, solvent extraction,
base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD), and bioremediation are presented. Treatability and/or case
studies are provided for each technology. Similar information is provided for the remediation of
water using photolytic oxidation, carbon adsorption, hydraulic containment, and bioremediation.
Sources of additional information, in the form of documents and databases, are also listed. The
appendices provide a list of known wood preserving sites and additional soil and water treatability
and case studies.
IV
-------
Contents
Page
Notice jj
Foreword jjj
Abstract jv
Tables ix
Figure . x
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgments xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Document 1-1
1.2 Description of Wood Preserving Industry 1-2
1.3 Number and Status of Sites 1-2
Chapter 2 Wood Preserving Contaminants and Remedial Approaches 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1
2.2 Environmental Concerns 2-2
2.3 Creosote 2-3
2.3.1 Contaminant Description 2-3
2.3.2 Remedial Approaches 2-5
2.4 PCP 2-5
2.4.1 Contaminant Description 2-5
2.4.2 Remedial Approaches 2-5
2.5 Dioxins/Furans (PCDDs/PCDFs) 2-5
2.5.1 Contaminant Description 2-5
2.5.2 Remedial Approaches 2-6
2.6 Metals 2-7
2.6.1 Contaminant Description 2-7
2.6.2 Remedial Approaches 2-8
2.7 Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) 2-8
2.8 Analytical Methods 2-9
Chapter 3 Overview of Performance and Cost 3-1
3.1 Performance 3-1
3.2 Cost 3-1
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter 4 Soil Treatment Technology Profiles 4-1
4.1 Soil Washing 4-1
4.1.1 Technology Description 4-1
4.1.2 Advantages 4-1
4.1.3 Limitations 4-1
4.1.4 Technology Costs 4-1
4.1.5 Treatability Study - American Creosote Works (ACW) Site . . 4-2
4.1.6 Treatability Study - Thunder Bay 4-4
4.2 Solidification/Stabilization (SIS) 4-4
4.2.1 Technology Description 4-4
4.2.2 Advantages 4-6
4.2.3 Limitations 4-6
4.2.4 Technology Costs 4-6
4.2.5 Treatability Study - ACW Site 4-8
4.3 Thermal Desorption 4-9
4.3.1 Technology Description 4-9
4.3.2 Advantages 4-9
4.3.3 Limitations 4-9
4.3.4 Technology Costs 4-9
4.3.5 Treatability Study - Pacific Place Site 4-11
4.4 Incineration 4-12
4.4.1 Technology Description 4-12
4.4.2 Advantages 4-16
4.4.3 Limitations 4-16
4.4.4 Technology Costs 4-16
4.4.5 Treatability Study - International Paper Company 4-17
4.4.6 Treatability Study - Power Timber Company 4-18
4.5 Solvent Extraction 4-20
4.5.1 Technology Description 4-20
4.5.2 Advantages 4-20
4.5.3 Limitations 4-20
4.5.4 Technology Costs 4-22
4.5.5 Treatability Study - Unidentified Wood Preserving Facilities . 4-22
4.5.6 Treatability Study - United Creosoting Company 4-23
vi
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
4.6 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) 4-24
4.6.1 Technology Description 4-24
4.6.2 Advantages 4-24
4.6.3 Limitations 4-25
4.6.4 Technology Costs 4-25
4.6.5 Treatability Study - Montana Pole Company 4-25
4.7 Bioremediation , 4-25
4.7.1 Technology Description 4-25
4.7.2 Advantages 4-27
4.7.3 Limitations 4-27
4.7.4 Technology Costs 4-28
4.7.5 Case Study - Champion international Superfund Site 4-28
4.7.6 Case Study - Southeastern Wood Preserving 4-30
Chapter 5 Water Treatment Technology Profiles 5-1
5.1 Hydraulic Containment 5-1
5.1.1 Technology Description 5-1
5.1.2 Advantages 5-1
5.1.3 Limitations ; 5-1
5.1.4 Technology Costs 5-1
5.1.5 Case Study - Laramie Tie Plant 5-1
5.2 Carbon Adsorption 5-2
5.2.1 Technology Description 5-2
5.2.2 Advantages . . 5-3
5.2.3 Limitations 5-3
5.2.4 Technology Costs 5-3
5.2.5 Treatability Study - McCormick & Baxter (MCB) Site 5-3
5.3 Photolytic Oxidation 5-5
5.3.1 Technology Description 5-5
5.3.2 Advantages . 5-5
5.3.3 Limitations 5-5
5.3.4 Technology Costs 5-6
5.3.5 Treatability Study - MCB Site . 5-6
5.3.6 Case Study - PCP Manufacturing Facility 5-9
VII
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
5.4 Bioremediation 5-10
5.4.1 Technology Description 5-10
5.4.2 Advantages 5-10
5.4.3 Limitations 5-10
5.4.4 Technology Costs 5-11
5.4.5 Treatability Study - ACW Site 5-12
5.4.6 Treatability Study- MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund Site ... 5-13
Chapter 6 Sources of Additional Information 6-1
6.1 Documents 6-1
6.2 Databases 6-3
Chapter 7 References 7-1
Appendices
A List of Wood Preserving Sites A-1
B Soil Treatment Technologies: Additional Treatability and
Case Studies B-1
C Water Treatment Technologies: Additional Treatability and
Case Studies C-1
VIII
-------
List of Tables
Number
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
Distribution of Wood Preserving Sites by EPA Region
Effectiveness of Selected Technologies for the Treatment of Wood
Preserving Contaminants
Relative Potency Factors for PAHs
TEFs for PCDDs and PCDFs from the l-TEF/89 Scheme
Analytical Procedures
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
Summary of Cost Information
Estimated Treatment Costs for Soil Washing
Selected Results - ACW Soil Washing Treatment
Selected Results - Thunder Bay Sediment Soil Washing Treatment
Estimated S/S Treatment Costs for 18,800 Tons of Soil
Total Project Costs for 18,800 Tons of Soil
Approximate Costs for Full-Scale Remediation Using S/S
Selected Formulations Used in ACW Treatability Study
Selected Analytical Results for ACW Treatability Study, SPLP Leachates
Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 1)
Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 2)
Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 3)
Estimated Treatment Costs for the Shirco Commercial Incineration Unit
Selected Results - International Paper Company Incineration Treatment
Selected Process Data - International Paper Company Incineration Treatment
Selected Results - Rotary Kiln Incineration of K001-PCP Wastes
Estimated Solvent Extraction Treatment Costs
Selected Results - Unidentified Wood Preserving Sites Solvent
Extraction Treatment
Selected Results - United Creosoting Solvent Extraction Treatment
Selected Results - Montana Pole BCD Treatment
Estimated Treatment Costs for Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Page
1-4
2-2
2-4
2-6
2-10
3-2
3-3
4-2
4-3
4-5
4-7
4-7
4-7
4-8
4-10
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-17
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-23
4-23
4-24
4-26
4-29
IX
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number Page
4-21 Conceptual Cost Estimates for Solid-Phase Bioremediation 4-29
4-22 Mean Contaminant Concentrations in LTD 1, Lift 4 4-31
4-23 Mean Contaminant Concentrations in LTU 1, Lift 5 4-31
4-24 Selected Results - Southeastern Wood Preserving Slurry-Phase
Bioremediation Treatment 4-32
5-1 Selected Results - MCB Site ACT 5-4
5-2 Estimated Treatment Costs for Carbon Adsorption 5-5
5-3 Estimated Annual Treatment Cost for the perox-pure™ Technology 5-7
5-4 Selected Results - Photolytic Oxidation/Cavitation Treatment 5-8
5-5 Estimated Treatment Costs for Cavitation/UV Peroxidation Treatment 5-9
5-6 Estimated Treatment Costs for MacGillis and Gibbs Site Case Study 5-11
5-7 Selected Results - ACW Conventional Biological, Fenton's Reagent Augmented,
and Fenton's Reagent Plus Ferric Iron Augmented Treatment 5-14
5-8 Selected Results - MacGillis and Gibbs Packed-Bed Reactor Treatment 5-15
6-1 Engineering Bulletin Sources 6-1
6-2 Innovative Site Remediation Technology Volumes 6-2
6-3 Technology-Specific Remediation Case Studies 6-2
6-4 Treatability Study Guidance Sources 6-3
6-5 Databases Containing Additional Remediation Information 6-4
Figure
Number
1-1 Distribution of Wood Preserving Sites by State
Page
1-3
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAR
ACA
ACC
ACQ
ACT
ACW
ACZA
a.k.a.
ARC
APEG
ARAR
ATTIC
AWPI
B(a)P
B.E.S.T.®
BCD
BOAT
bis
BWP
CCA
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERI
CIS
CLU-IN BBS
CO
COD
COC
CRF
DME
DNAPL
DRE
EDTA
EPA
ES&S
GAG
gpm
gr/dscf
GWM
HgCI2
H202
HpCDD
HpCDF
HPLC
. HWSFD
HxCDD
Applications Analysis Report
ammoniacal copper arsenate
acid copper chromate
ammoniacal copper quat
Accelerated Column Test
American Creosote Works
ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate
also known as
air pollution control
alkaline polyethylene glycol
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
American Wood Preservers Institute
benzo(a)pyrene
RCC's Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment
base-catalyzed decomposition
best demonstrated available technology
below land surface
Broderick Wood Products
chromated copper arsenate
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System
Center for Environmental Research Information
contaminant isolation system
Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
contaminant of concern
Combustion Research Facility
dimethyl ether
dense nonaqueous phase liquid
destruction removal efficiency
ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AlliedSignal Environmental Systems and Services
granular activated carbon
gallons per minute
grains per day standard cubic feet
groundwater medium
mercuric chloride
hydrogen peroxide
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
heptachlorodibenzofuran
high performance liquid chromatography
Hazardous Waste Superfund Collection Database
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
XI
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
KOH
KPEG
kW
kWh
L/D
LDR
LNAPL
LP
LTU
MCB
MCL
mg/L
m2g
MS
MSD
NAPL
NPDES
NPL
NRMRL
NTIS
O&M
03
OCDD
OCDF
OHEA
ORD
OSC
OU
PAH
PCDD
PCDF
PCP
PeCDD
PeCDF
POHC
POP
POTW
ppb
ppm
ppq
psi
QA
RBC
RCC
RCRA
RCRIS
RI/FS
ROD
RODS
RPM
potassium hydroxide
potassium polyethylene glycol
kilowatt
kilowatt hour
length to diameter
Land Disposal Restrictions
light nonaqueous phase liquid
liquefication process
land treatment unit
McCormick & Baxter
maximum contaminant level
milligram per liter
square meters per gram
matrix spike
matrix spike duplicate
nonaqueous phase liquid
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Technical Information System
operations and maintenance
ozone
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
octachlorodibenzofuran
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
On-Scene Coordinator
operable unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
polychlorinated dibenzofuran
pentachlorophenol
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran
principal organic hazardous constituents
proof of performance
publicly owned treatment works
parts per billion
part per million
parts per quadrillion
pounds per square inch
quality assurance
rotating biological contactor
Resources Conservation Company
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
remedial investigation/feasibility study
Record of Decision
Records of Decision System
Remedial Project Manager
XII
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
rpm
S/S
SAIC
SBOD
SIC
SITE
SPLP
STC
SVE
SVOC
TCDD
TCDF
TCLP
TCPAH
TD
TEF
TEQ
Ti02
tpd
TPH
UCS
UPRR
UV
UV/H2O2
Vendor FACTS
VISITT
VOC
revolutions per minute
solidification/stabilization; a.k.a. immobilization
Science Applications international Corporation
soluble biochemical oxygen demand
standard industrial classification
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
STC Remediation Inc.
soil vapor extraction
semivolatile organic compound
dioxin (tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
2,3,7,8-tetrachIorodibenzofuran
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
thermal desorption
Toxicity Equivalency Factor
Toxicity Equivalent
titanium dioxide
tons per day
total petroleum hydrocarbons
unconfined compressive strength
Union Pacific Railroad
micrometers
ultraviolet
ultraviolet/hydrogen peroxide
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technology System
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
volatile organic compound
XIII
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Sharon Krietemeyer, Joe Tillman, George Wahl, and Kurt Whitford
of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in conjunction with the EPA
Control Technology Center. Douglas Grosse was the Work Assignment Manager. Special thanks
is given to Ed Bates of EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), and to
Debbie Seibel, Clyde Dial, and Jim Rawe of SAIC. Kurt Whitford was the SAIC Work Assignment
Manager.
Reviewers of this document included Terry Lyons of EPA NRMRL, Robert Stamnes of EPA Region
X, Scott Huling of the EPA Technical Assistance and Technology Transfer Branch, Steven Kinser
of the Technical Support Project Engineering Forum, and Dr. Bruce Pivetz of Mantech Environmental
Research Services Corporation.
XIV
-------
CHAFTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose arid Scope of Document
The primary objective of this document is to
present information pertaining to treatment and
control alternatives applicable to the
remediation of contaminated soil and water at
wood preserving sites. The information
presented herein includes performance data
and order-of-magnitude cost estimates for 10
remediation technologies that have been
applied to environmental media containing
wood preserving contaminants. It is hoped that
this information will enable remedial project
managers (RPMs); on-scene coordinators
(OSCs); State, Local, and Tribal regulators;
technology vendors; consultants; private organi-
zations; and citizens to evaluate the potential
use of these technologies to effectively clean up
wood preserving sites.
This document is divided into seven chapters
and three appendices. Chapter 1 provides
background information about the wood
preserving industry, past and present. Chapter
2 discusses the common contaminants of
concern (COCs) at wood preserving sites, and
.identifies which technologies described in this
document are effective in treating each class of
contaminant. Analytical methods for quanti-
fication of wood preserving contaminants and
factors affecting their behavior and remediation
are also presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
summarizes the performance and cost informa-
tion provided for each technology discussed in
this document. Chapter 4 presents a discussion
of each technology identified in the document
for the treatment of soils, sediments, and
sludges; included are advantages, limitations,
technology costs, and treatability/case studies.
Chapter 5 discussions parallel Chapter 4, but
focus on technologies for the remediation of
groundwater and surface water contamination.
Chapter 6 provides sources of additional
information. Chapter 7 lists the references cited
in the document. Appendix A provides a list of
known wood preserving sites in the United
States, compiled from several sources.
Appendix B presents additional treatability/case
studies in which soils, sediments, or sludges
were treated. Appendix C presents the same
types of studies conducted on water from wood
preserving sites.
This document is not intended to be a
comprehensive description of the wood preserv-
ing industry, remedial technologies, or cost
estimation. Rather it is intended to be used as
a resource guide in conjunction with other
references, such as those listed in Chapter 6,
the opinions of technology experts, and site-
specific information. Therefore, the reader is
cautioned that information provided in this
document is specific to the study cited, and may
not be directly transferable to other applications.
An example of this is in the comparison of cost
information among technologies and across
sites. Given the overwhelming influence of site-
specific factors on treatment technology and
project costs, no attempt has been made to
standardize estimates presented in the cited
literature. Consequently, assumptions and cost
categories used in the specific estimates have
been referenced. Therefore, the cost informa-
tion presented is to be considered general
guidance providing order-of-magnitude esti-
mates.
Each technology profiled in this document was
selected as being applicable, either as stand-
alone or in conjunction with other technologies,
in successfully reducing the mobility, toxicity,
and/or volume of wood preserving contaminants
in soil and groundwater. The soil treatment
technologies presented in this resource guide
are: soil washing, solidification/stabilization
(SIS), thermal desorption (TD), incineration,
solvent extraction, base-catalyzed decompo-
sition (BCD), and bioremediation. The water
treatment and control technologies profiled are
hydraulic containment, carbon adsorption,
photolytic oxidation, and bioremediation. The
term bioremediation as it is used in this
document includes both in situ remediation and
1-1
-------
ex situ treatment of contaminated media.
Although bioremediation and biotreatment are
not synonymous, the term bioremediation
should be taken in this document to encompass
both processes.
This document also discusses the use of
treatment trains. A treatment train is two or
more remediation technologies used sequen-
tially, such as, solid-phase bioremediation
followed by S/S, or solvent extraction followed
by BCD treatment of the extract. Since the
successful use of a given technology approach
is site-specific, treatability studies should be
performed to determine the effectiveness of a
given technology at a specific site. Sources of
Information regarding the design and perfor-
mance of treatability studies are presented in
Section 6.1.
1.2 Description of Wood Preserving
Industry
Wood preserving has been an industry in the
United States for more than 100 years. The
most common wood preservatives are
pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, and
chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Many wood
preserving facilities use, or have used, more
than one type of preservative. When properly
used and disposed of, these preservatives do
not appear to threaten human health. However,
due to operating procedures that were standard
practices at the time, almost all wood
preserving plants 20 years or older have some
degree of soil and groundwater contamination.
This contamination typically represents multiple
types of preservatives.
At present, there are 71 wood preserving sites
listed on the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) National Priorities List for
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (NPL)
[Federal Register, 1996]. There are at least 678
additional sites where wood preserving
operations have been or are currently being
conducted; contamination may be present at
many of these sites as well.
The primary sources of pollution at wood
preserving facilities are lagoons or waste ponds
into which wastewater and sludges were
placed. Other lesser sources of contamination
include the areas around storage and treatment
tanks, which may be contaminated due to
broken or leaky pipes or spills during transfer
operations, and the storage areas contaminated
with the drippings from freshly treated wood and
the stored treated lumber. In some instances,
runoff from drip racks and storage areas has
impacted surface waters as well.
1.3 Number and Status of Sites
A list of wood preserving sites has been
compiled using the following sources:
• The 1995 Wood Preserving Industry
Production Statistical Report [American
Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI), 1996]
• Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Wood Preserving Sites [EPA, 1992a]
• Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) database query results
(query executed February 1997)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS) database query
results (query executed March 1997)
• National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites [Federal Register,
1996]
• National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule
[Federal Register, 1996].
These references identify a total of 749 sites in
the United States where wood preserving is or
has been conducted or where wood preserving
wastes have been identified. These 749 sites
are listed in Appendix A. The geographical
distribution of wood preserving sites by State
and territory is presented in Figure 1-1. The
distribution of wood preserving sites by EPA
Region is presented in Table 1-1.
The number of wood preserving facilities
currently in operation has not been determined;
however, several related estimates have been
made. It is estimated, based on "The 1995
Wood Preserving Industry Production Statistical
1-2
-------
O)
1
o
i
§
•
I
1-3
-------
Table 1-1. Distribution of Wood Preserving Sites
by EPA Region
EPA Region
I
II
111
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Number of Sites
17
12
78
301
83
109
28
31
32
58
749
Report (AWPI Report)" and other sources of
Information, that at least 452 wood preserving
plants are in operation (as of 1995). The
compilation also identified 105 wood preserving
sites believed not to be in operation [AWPI,
1996]. These 105 sites include wood
preserving facilities that are not listed in the
AWPI Report, but are listed in CERCLIS or on
the NPL The compilation also identified 192
wood preserving facilities for which the
operating status is unknown. These 192
facilities are not included in the AWPI Report;
most were found in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) database, RCRIS,
using a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code of 2491 (Manufacturing - Wood Preserv-
ing) to limit the searches.
The CERCLA NPL, published December 23,
1996, includes 71 wood preserving sites. The
proposed NPL (also published December 23,
1996) includes two wood preserving sites
[Federal Register, 1996]. In addition, one wood
preserving site (Brown Wood Preserving in Live
Oak, FL) was deleted from the NPL on
September 22, 1995, and a second wood
preserving site (Boise Cascade/Onan
Corporation/Medtronic, Inc.) was removed from
the proposed NPL on February 15, 1995. The
list presented in Appendix A also identifies 40
wood preserving sites that are being addressed
under programs other than CERCLA.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER 2
WOOD PRESERVING CONTAMINANTS AND REMEDIAL APPROACHES
2.1 Background
This chapter provides information on four
classes of environmental contaminants
commonly found at wood preserving sites:
creosote, focusing on polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs); PCP; polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs); and metals. For each
class of compounds, this chapter presents
information on physical and chemical
properties, occurrence, and environmental fate.
In addition, the general effectiveness of
featured remediation technologies, analytical
methods commonly employed to quantify wood
preserving contaminants, and soil and water
characteristics affecting contaminant behavior
are discussed. Special emphasis has been
placed on PCDDs/PCDFs and nonaqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs), since they often present
the greatest challenge in remediating wood
preserving sites.
It is important to note that EPA has established
presumptive remedies for soils, sediments, and
sludges at wood preserving sites. The objective
of the presumptive remedies approach is to
streamline site characterization and accelerate
the selection of cleanup strategies by utilizing
previous experience gained at similar sites.
Presumptive remedies are expected to be used
at all appropriate sites except under unusual
site-specific circumstances or when high levels
of PCDDs/PCDFs are identified [EPA, 1995b].
The presence of these compounds, however,
does not automatically preclude the use of
presumptive remedies at the site. Bioremed-
iation, TD, and incineration are the presumptive
remedies for soils, sediments, and sludges
when they are contaminated with organic
compounds. S/S is the presumptive remedy
when the above media are contaminated with
metals.
While presumptive remedies specific to wood
preserving sites have not been established for
contaminated groundwater, EPA has developed
generic guidance in the form of a presumptive
response strategy and ex situ treatment
technologies document [EPA, 1996a]. That
document describes a presumptive response
strategy that should be useful, at least in part,
at all sites with contaminated groundwater. It
also identifies presumptive technologies that
should be investigated for ex situ treatment of
dissolved organic and metals contamination.
Several of these ex situ technologies have been
used at wood preserving sites and are included
in this document. Others may be appropriate
and should be considered when ex situ
treatment of groundwater is a remedial option at
a wood preserving site.
In addition to these presumptive remedies,
several other treatment technologies have been
shown to be effective in the treatment of wood
preserving contaminants. Those' discussed in
this document are soil washing, solvent
extraction, and BCD for soils, sediments, and
sludges. The remediation of contaminated
water at wood preserving sites using hydraulic
containment, carbon adsorption, photolytic
oxidation, and bioremediation is also discussed
in this document. Their effectiveness in
remediating contaminants at wood preserving
sites is presented in Table 2-1. For each of
these technologies, the remedial mechanism
(ile., process by which effective remediation is
accomplished) and the level of effectiveness
(demonstrated, potential, or not effective) is
listed. All of the previously identified
technologies are discussed in greater detail in
Chapters 4 and 5 of this document.
Due to site-specific conditions, it is necessary in
some instances to evaluate the effectiveness of
2-1
-------
Table 2-1 Effectiveness of Selected Technologies for the Treatment of Wood Preserving Contaminants*
Contaminant Group
Technology
Effectiveness
Mechanism
Creosote/
PAHs
PCP
PCDDS/
PCDFs
Metals
Soil Treatment
Soil Washing Removal
Solidification/ Stabilization Reduced
Leachability
Thermal Desorption Removal
Incineration Destruction
Solvent Extraction Removal
Base-Catalyzed Destruction
Decomposition
Bioremediation (soils, Destruction
sediments, and sludges)
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
P
D
D
D
P
D
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
Water Treatment
Photolytic Oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Hydraulic Containment
Bioremediation (water)
Destruction
Removal
Containment
Destruction
P
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
1
Sources for this table are: Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites [EPA, 1992a]; Engineering Bulletins (listed
In Table 6-1); and the studies included in this document.
D * Demonstrated effectiveness at either bench-, pilot-, or full-scale.
P * Potential effectiveness as reported in reference source.
N = Not effective
these other treatment technologies in relation
to the presumptive remedies. In evaluating
the ability and appropriateness of using
treatment alternatives to address
environmental concerns, the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
process uses the following nine criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health and
the environment
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
5. Short-term effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State acceptance
9. Community acceptance
Consideration of these criteria may confirm or
preclude the use of a presumptive remedy at a
specific site or show use of another technology
to be preferable.
2.2 Environmental Concerns
The environmental issues at a given wood
preserving site depend on the media in which
the contaminants are present. At most
contaminated wood preserving sites, the soil
has been contaminated first, then contaminants
have migrated into the groundwater. The
migration of contaminants into the groundwater
2-2
-------
is influenced by many contaminant- and site-
specific factors, including the following:
Contaminant Characteristics
— Solubility in water
— Density
— Viscosity
— Volatility
Site Characteristics (Soil and Groundwater)
- pH
— Pore space
— Hydraulic conductivity
— Extent to which the soil is saturated with
water (or contaminants)
— Natural organic content of the soil
— Soil/subsurface material structure and
heterogeneity
— Soil particle size distribution
— Weather conditions
— Depth of groundwater
— Ion exchange capacity of soil
The extent to which the contaminants adsorb to
the soil is influenced by many of the factors just
mentioned. Many contaminants, particularly
organics, have a high affinity for natural organic
materials present in soil. As a result, these
contaminants are most strongly sorbed when
the natural organic content of the soil is high. In
addition, contaminants generally adsorb to fine
soil particles such as silt and clay more strongly
than to larger soil particles such as sand and
gravel. Contaminants that are not strongly
adsorbed to the soil have a greater tendency to
migrate.
The solubility of contaminants in water is also a
major factor in contaminant migration. Water-
soluble contaminants are often quite mobile,
since they have a tendency to be leached from
the soil by rainfall infiltration and surface water
phenomena. Contaminants that are dissolved in
groundwater or surface water will migrate with
the water. If contaminants are leached from the
soil by surface water that flows into a stream,
they will quickly migrate offsite. The migration of
contaminants dissolved in a pond or in the
groundwater, however, will generally occur
more slowly.
Contaminants that are insoluble in water, re-
ferred to as nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs),
generally migrate more slowly than water-
soluble contaminants. The migration of
insoluble contaminants is usually due to gravity,
rather than the movement of water. Insoluble
organics that are moved ahead of the plume by
the hydraulic pressure of the groundwater,
however, can move as fast as water-soluble
contaminants [Pivetz, 1997]. The rate of
migration of these contaminants can also be
less than the velocity of the groundwater if there
is contaminant retardation caused by sorption
onto soil particles [Huling, 1997]. Other factors
that may influence the migration of insoluble
contaminants include the extent to which the
soil is saturated. NAPLs are discussed in detail
in Section 2.7.
In addition to soil and groundwater, other media
that may be contaminated by wood preserving
compounds are air, sediment, and surface
water. Most wood preserving contaminants are
not volatile, so evaporation from surface soils
into the air is not a major concern. Particulate
emissions may be a concern, however,
particularly during site operations that disturb
the soil. If sediment and surface water are
present at the site, the contamination pathways
for these media must be considered in order to
achieve effective site remediation.
2.3 Creosote
2.3.1 Contaminant Description
Creosote is produced as a distillate from coal
tar and is a variable mixture of hundreds of
compounds, primarily semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs). In wood preserving
applications, it may be used either full strength
or diluted with oil. The use of creosote solutions
has generally declined in the last 10 years, but
still represented the second largest volume of
wood preserving solutions consumed in 1995
[AWPI, 1996]. Undiluted creosote is denser
than water and typically collects at the bottom of
aquifers as a dense nonaqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL). PAHs are SVOCs that generally
account for 85 percent (by weight) of the
chemical constituents of undiluted creosote
[EPA, 1992a]. The predominant PAHs in creo-
2-3
-------
sote have two to four aromatic rings, but larger
compounds are also present. The lipophilicity
(i.e., tendency to accumulate in fatty tissues),
environmental persistence, and genetic toxicity
of individual PAHs generally increase with
increasing molecular weight. Some major
components of creosote are as follows [EPA,
1990a][EPA, 1992a]:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylenea
Anthracene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
All of the compounds listed above are PAHs,
except for carbazole and dibenzofuran.
Many of the lower concentration components of
creosote are also PAHs. Those having
substantial environmental significance are listed
below. These seven, and the 10 previously
listed PAHs are included in the data tables in
Chapters 4 and 5 and Appendices B and C of
this document.
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fiuoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
The EPA Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA) has judged seven PAHs to
be probable human carcinogens and has
provided, as temporary guidance, order-of-
magnitude relative potency factors for these
seven PAHs [EPA, 1993a]. These relative
potency factors, presented in Table 2-2, can be
used as weighting factors in the calculation of a
benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] potency estimate. This
ranking of potential potency considers only PAH
carcinogenicity; it does not consider other
health or environmental effects. The use of the
relative potency factors is discussed in more
detail in EPA/600/R-93/089, "Provisional
Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of
Poiycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons" [EPA,
1993a].
Table 2-2. Re!a&se Potency Factors for PAHs
[EPA, 1993a]
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Relative
Potency Factor
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
1.0
0.1
Different sets of relative potency factors have
also been developed and used by some EPA
Regions. Relative potency factors different from
those presented in this document could,
therefore, be used to calculate a B(a)P potency
estimate that is greater or lesser than one
derived from the use of these factors. Because
of these inconsistencies, B(a)P potency
estimates should always include a list of the
relative potency factors used. The potency
factors presented in Table 2-2 are used to
calculate B(a)P potency estimates for the data
presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this
document.
EPA has identified several types of creosote
wastes as listed hazardous wastes under
RCRA [EPA, 1996e]. These include wastewater
process residuals, preservative drippage, and
spent formulations from plants that use
creosote formulations (EPA hazardous waste
code F034). Bottom sediment and sludge from
wastewater treatment (K001) and discarded
unused creosote (U051) are also listed hazard-
ous wastes. The presence of these wastes in
media subjects the media to RCRA regulations.
2-4
-------
2.3.2 Remedial Approaches
EPA has identified bioremediation, TD, and
incineration as presumptive remedies for
creosote-contaminated soils, sediments, and
sludges. Bioremediation can incorporate a
variety of treatment approaches, each with a
potentially different level of effectiveness.
Bioremediation of soil and water has been
shown to be effective in degrading PAHs to
concentrations below cleanup levels in several
full-scale remediations. The technology is
currently in full-scale use at sites throughout the
country [EPA, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1996b].
TD has been demonstrated to be effective in
removing PAHs from soil to concentrations
below cleanup levels in bench-, pilot-, and full-
scale applications. Similarly, incineration has
been effective in destroying PAHs in soil from
wood preserving sites at all three scales of
testing [EPA, 1995b]. "in addition to the
established presumptive remedies, soil washing
and solvent extraction have been shown to
effectively remove PAHs to below cleanup
levels. S/S is not considered to be a conven-
tional treatment technology for organic contam-
inants but has been shown to reduce the
leachability of PAHs present in soil [SAIC,
1997c]. Because PAHs are not chlorinated,
BCD has not been shown to reduce PAH
concentrations significantly. PAH-contaminated
groundwater has been treated using traditional
pump-and-treat technologies, such as carbon
adsorption, as well as by innovative techniques,
including photolytic oxidation. Membrane
separation is another innovative technology
being evaluated for the treatment of PAH-
contaminated groundwater.
2.4 PCP
2.4.1 Contaminant Description
The PCP solutions used in wood preserving are
prepared by dissolving technical-grade PCP in
oil to produce a solution that is 4 to 8 percent
PCP. As with creosote, the use of PCP has
declined over the last 10 years. Technical grade
PCP contains 85 to 90 percent PCP; 2 to 6
percent higher molecular weight chlorophenbls;
4 to 8 percent 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol; and
about 0.1 percent PCDDs and PCDFs [EPA,
1990a][EPA, 1992a]. It is the presence of
PCDDs and PCDFs that is of most concern in
PCP solutions.
PCP is slightly soluble in water (8 mg per 100
mL) but very soluble in oil. Consequently, PCP-
oil solutions that leach into the ground often
collect as light nonaqueous phase liquids
(LNAPLS). PCP adheres strongly to soil. The
extent of sorption is influenced by organic
content, pH, and soil type, with high organic
content correlating most strongly with increased
adsorption [EPA, 1992a].
2.4.2 Remedial Approaches
As with creosote, EPA has identified bioremed-
iation, TD, and incineration as presumptive
remedies for PCP-contaminated soils, sedi-
ments, and sludges. The effectiveness of these
three technologies has been demonstrated in
full-scale applications [EPA, 1992a]. Soil
washing has been shown to be effective in
removing PCP at bench- and pilot-scale [EPA,
1992a] [IT Corp., 1996c]. Solvent extraction
also has been shown to be effective in
removing PCP from soil at all three levels [EPA
1992a] [EPA, 1995c]. Bench-, pilot-, and full-
scale applications have demonstrated the ability
of S/S to reduce the leachability of PCP based
on certain test methods [Bates and Lau, 1995]
[SAIC, 1997c]. BCD has been shown to be
effective in destroying PCP in bench-scale
studies [SAIC, 1997a]. Photolytic oxidation of
PCP in groundwater has been shown at bench-
and full-scale to be most effective when
hydrogen peroxide is incorporated into the
treatment [EPA, 1993b] [IT Corp., 1996a].
Carbon adsorption can be employed to remove
PCP from groundwater, with demonstrated
effectiveness at bench scale [IT Corp., 1996a].
2.5 Dioxins/Furans (PCDDs/PCDFs)
2.5.1 Contaminant Description
PCDDs and PCDFs are compounds that form,
as by-products, during the production of certain
chlorophenolic chemicals, comprising approxi-
mately 0.1 percent of commercial grade PCP.
Of the PCDDs present, the primary congeners
are octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDDs) with
traces of hexa- and heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins (HxCDDs and HpCDDs) [EPA, 1990a].
The PCDD congener of most concern, 2,3,7,8-
2-5
-------
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), has not
been found in PCP produced in the United
States.
TCDD and other congeners, not typically
present in PCP solutions, can be formed during
the incomplete combustion of PCP [EPA,
1992a]. The optimal temperature for the
formation of TCDD is estimated to be between
750° and 900°C, but formation may occur at
temperatures as low as 350°F [EPA, 1986]
[EPA, 1995b]. The implications of this occur-
rence for remediation of wood preserving sites
is discussed later in this section. PCDDs and
PCDFs display a very low solubility in water, but
are significantly more soluble in non-polar
organic solvents. The compounds adsorb
strongly to organic matter and are persistent
under ambient environmental conditions. They
migrate primarily through the movement of
particulate matter (i.e., as dust, through earth-
moving activities, and as soils or sediments
carried by water) and are also transported by
the migration of organic solvents and carrier
oils. Since the primary source of PCDDs and
PCDFs at wood preserving sites is discharged
PCP, these compounds can be expected to
occur in areas where PCP was used or where
PCP wastes were disposed. In groundwater,
PCDDs and PCDFs are most often associated
with LNAPL layers.
EPA's concern with the potentially detrimental
effects of PCDDs and PCDFs on human health
and the environment is evidenced by the listing
of several wastestreams that can potentially
contain these compounds as hazardous waste.
Discarded unused formulations of tri-, tetra-,
and pentachlorophenol are regulated as acute
hazardous waste (EPA hazardous waste code
F027) and, consequently, are subject to the
most stringent management scheme possible
under RCRA. Wastewaters, process residue,
preservative drippings, and spent formulations
from wood preserving processes generated at
plants that currently use or previously used
chlorophenolic formulations (F032), as well as
bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
these wastewaters (K001), are listed as toxic
waste under RCRA, due, in part, to the
presence of PCDDs and PCDFs [EPA, 1996e].
The relative toxicities of PCDDs and PCDFs are
typically assessed using the Toxicity
Equivalency Factors (TEFs) from the "l-TEF/89
scheme" [EPA, 1989a]. The TEFs are used to
calculate the toxicity of a mixture of PCDDs and
PCDFs by using the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD as
a basis. The calculated equivalent toxicity of a
mixture is, therefore, referred to as the 2,3,7,8-
TCDD toxicity equivalent (TEQ), TCDD-TEQ, or
simply TEQ. The TEFs from the "l-TEF/89
scheme" are presented in Table 2-3 [EPA,
1989a].
Table 2-3. TEFs for PCDDs and PCDFs from the
l-TEF/89 Scheme [EPA, 1989a]
Compound TEF
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.5
2,3,7,8-HxCDD ' 0.1
2,3,7,8-HpCDD 0.01
OCDD 0.001
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.05
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF . 0.5
2,3,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1
2,3,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran Q.QQ1
2.5.2 Remedial Approaches
EPA's presumptive remedy guidance for wood
preserving sites contains several caveats that
need to be considered when using bioremed-
iation, TD, or incineration to treat soils, sedi-
ments, and sludges containing PCDDs and
PCDFs [EPA, 1995b]. The document states that
it was not designed to address sites containing
high levels of PCDDs and PCDFs. Bioremed-
iation generally is not considered effective in the
treatment of these compounds [EPA, 1992d]
[EPA, 1994d] [EPA, 1996b]. The use of TD on
soils, sediments or sludges containing PCDDs
and PCDFs, as well as chlorinated phenolic
compounds, must be carefully monitored and
adjusted in order to minimize the formation of
additional PCDDs and PCDFs and to prevent
their conversion to more toxic congeners. In
addition to treatability studies, a full-scale "proof
2-6
-------
of performance" (POP) test should be per-
formed [EPA, 1995b].
Incineration is recognized as an established
technology for the treatment of media and
waste containing PCDDs and PCDFs. Through
trial burns and full-scale applications, inciner-
ation has been shown to consistently reduce
levels of these contaminants to below cleanup
standards in soils, sediments, and sludges.
Destruction of PCDDs and PCDFs in organic
liquids (e.g., PCP carrier oils) can exceed 99.99
percent. With properly controlled secondary
combustion chambers (where required by
incinerator design) and effective air pollution
control devices, incinerator off-gasses can also
meet operating standards for PCDDs and
PCDFs [EPA, 1992a].
Soil washing, when employing a surfactant, has
been shown in bench-scale studies to be
effective in separating PCDDs and PCDFs from
soil [IT Corp., 1996c]. S/S is not a presumptive
remedy for the treatment of media contamin-
ated with PCDDs and PCDFs. Nonetheless, S/S
has been demonstrated to reduce the leach-
ability of these compounds to below cleanup
goals in bench-scale tests [SAIC, 1997c] and
full-scale applications [SAIC, 1996a]. Solvent
extraction of soil during bench-scale treatability
testing achieved significant removal of PCDDs
and PCDFs in several studies [EPA, 1995c]. In
bench-scale studies, BCD has been demon-
strated to be very effective in destroying PCDDs
and PCDFs in soils and oily concentrates
produced by other technologies (e.g.,
condensates from TD) [Tiernan, et al., 1989
and 1996].
Photolytic oxidation of PCDDs and PCDFs in
water from wood preserving sites has resulted
in varying levels of destruction in bench-scale
studies [IT Corp., 1996a]. Based upon bench-
scale testing, carbon adsorption appears to
effectively remove these compounds from water
[IT Corp., 1996a].
Regardless of the technology employed,
treatment residuals will need to be analyzed to
determine the effectiveness of PCDD/PCDF
removal or destruction. Additionally, residuals
from the treatment of chlorinated compounds
using TD and incineration may need to be
analyzed to verify that PCDDs and PCDFs were
not generated during treatment. Depending on
the testing frequency and detection limits
required, analytical costs for PCDD/PCDF
screening can comprise a significant portion of
the project analytical budget. Based upon
information from two nation-wide laboratories,
PCDD/PCDF analytical costs can range from
$650 to $1,125 per sample.
2.6 Metals
2.6.1 Contaminant Description
The use of metals in water-borne wood
preserving solutions has increased over the last
10 years, with consumption in 1995 exceeding
all other processes combined [AWPI, 1996]. By
far the most widely used formulation is CCA.
Other common formulations include
ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA), acid
copper chromate (ACC), ammoniacal copper
quat (ACQ), and ammoniacal copper zinc
arsenate (ACZA). Consequently, metals
contamination at wood preserving sites usually
involves arsenic, chromium, copper, and zinc.
The environmental fate of these metals is
strongly influenced by their intrinsic properties
(e.g., solubility when combined with other
elements) and the properties of the media in
which they are distributed (e.g., pH, cation
exchange capacity). Significant leaching of
metals into groundwater occurs when the metal
retention capacity of the soil becomes over-
loaded. Arsenic occurs in the environment in
two forms: arsenite (III) and arsenate (V). The
arsenite form is four to ten times more soluble
than arsenate. Both adsorb strongly to soils
containing iron, aluminum, and calcium.
Chromium occurs in two valence states;
trivalent chromium is less mobile and toxic than
hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium is
the form used in wood preserving solutions, but
soil conditions favor reduction to trivalent
chromium [EPA, 1992a].
Copper adsorbs to soils more strongly than any
of the four wood preserving metals. Zinc also
adsorbs strongly to soils, especially clay
carbonates and hydrous oxides. Under environ-
mental conditions, some zinc compounds can
be solubilized and migrate through the soil
column [EPA, 1992a].
2-7
-------
EPA has identified several types of arsenic- and
chromium-containing wastes as listed
hazardous wastes under RCRA [EPA, 1996e].
These wastes include wastewater, process
residuals, preservative drippage, and spent
formulations from plants that use inorganic
preservatives containing arsenic or chromium
(EPA hazardous waste code F035). The
presence of these wastes in media subjects the
soil or water to RCRA regulations.
2.6.2 Remedial Approaches
S/S is the presumptive remedy for metals
contamination of soils, sediments, and sludges
at wood preserving sites [EPA, 1995b]. The S/S
process has been demonstrated to be effective
in reducing the leachability of metals in these
materials at bench-, pilot-, and full-scale, with
success dependant on proper selection of
binders and additives and the test method
used. Bioremediation, TD, and incineration are
not effective in treating metals contamination at
wood preserving sites. Depending on the
distribution of metals across the particle sizes in
the material to be treated, soil washing has
been shown to be effective in separating the
metals of concern from the fraction of soil or
sediment destined for return to the site
[Biogenesis Enterprises, Inc., 1993] [EPA,
1995c]. Solvent extraction and BCD are not
designed to remediate metals in media or
sludges.
Groundwater contaminated with metals from
wood preserving operations typically is not
treated by photolytic oxidation or bioremedia-
tion. Carbon adsorption has been effective in
removing low concentrations of metals in some
applications [EPA, 1991c]. Ion exchange resins
are commonly used to treat metals. One in situ
treatment technique currently being evaluated
Is the addition of an excess of chemical
reductants to recovered water contaminated
with hexavalent chromium. Once mixed, the
water is then re-injected into the aquifer. The
excess reductant (sodium metabisulfate in the
cited work) then reduces the hexavalent
chromium in the surrounding aquifer to the less
soluble trivalent form, which precipitates from
the water. Pilot-scale testing has shown the
technique to be technically and economically
feasible [Geochem, 1993].
2.7 Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
(NAPLs)
The extent to which contaminants will dissolve
in the groundwater is determined by their
concentration in the soil and their solubility in
water. Liquid contaminants that are insoluble or
have limited solubility in the groundwater are
often present as NAPLs. DNAPLs or "sinkers"
have densities greater than that of water and
will, therefore, migrate downward through the
saturated soil until they are confined by a less
permeable layer. LNAPLs or "floaters" have
densities less than that of water and,
consequently, will float on top of the water
table. PCP is denser than water; however,
because of the carrier oils used, the PCP
solutions applied in wood treating are lighter
than water. When present, PCDDs and PCDFs
also would be expected to be found in the
LNARL layer. Creosote, on the other hand, is
usually present as a DNAPL [EPA, 1992a].
The depth at which an LNAPL is present varies
with fluctuations in the groundwater level (since
the LNAPL floats on top of the groundwater). If
the groundwater rises and subsequently falls,
organic material from the LNAPL may be
present in pore spaces or remain sorbed to the
soil after the LNAPL layer has receded. The
area of soil that retains LNAPL material after
the groundwater level has fallen is known as the
"smear zone."
The presence of NAPLs complicates in situ
remediation. NAPLs are difficult to recover;
however, if NAPLs are not removed, they may
act as a continuing contaminant source for the
soil and/or groundwater. Selection and imple-
mentation of a cleanup technology must take
this potential source into consideration. At many
sites, the following cleanup scenario has been
employed: (1) utilize a pump-and-treat system
to treat the groundwater and any NAPL that is
recovered with the groundwater; and (2) install
hydraulic containment to contain any remaining
NAPL.
At sites where the NAPL is of sufficient
thickness, free-product recovery has been
added to this scenario. The recovered product
in some cases is of sufficient quality to be used
in wood preserving operations. In other
2-8
-------
instances, the recovered NAPL can be used as
fuel.
Depending on site conditions, the described
approach, coupled with free-product recovery,
usually provides sufficient hydraulic
containment and rapidly decreases contaminant
concentrations. Layers of NAPL too thin for
free-product recovery and soil in the smear
zone, however, can continue to act as sources,
often causing contaminant levels to remain
above cleanup goals for years [Haley et al.,
1991]. One potentially promising variation is the
addition of surfactants to the areas of an aquifer
where NAPLs are present. Regulatory approval
and cost effectiveness, along with surfactant
selection, are areas where further research and
effort are required before surfactant use is
expanded [EPA, 1996d].
2.8 Analytical Methods
Table 2-4 presents some common analytical
methods that can be used to determine the
concentrations of wood preserving
contaminants in soil, water, and organic
materials. When analyses are intended to
determine the amount of contaminants that will
leach from a soil (or other material), rather than
the amount of contaminants present in the soil,
the soil is subjected to a special leaching
procedure. Two common leaching procedures
are SW-846 Method 1311, the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and
SW-846 Method 1312, the Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) [EPA,
1995aJ. TCLP and SPLP leachates are
analyzed using the same methods used to
analyze water samples. However, it should be
noted that the two methods are not comparable
and will produce different results.
2-9
-------
Table 2-4. Analytical Procedures1
Matrix Analytical Parameter
Soil/Sediment Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
SVOCs2
PAHs
PCP
Dioxins/Furans
Water/Leachate Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
SVOCs2
PAHs
PCP
Dioxins/Furans
Organic-Phase Materials Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
SVOCs2
PAHs
PCP
Dioxins/Furans
Preparation Methods
3050A, 3051
3050A, 3051
3050A, 3051
3050A, 3051
3540B, 3541.3550A
3540B,3541,3550A
3540B,3541,3550A
NA3
3005A, 301 OA, 3015
3005A, 301 OA, 3015
3005A, 301 OA, 3015
3005A, 301 OA, 3015
351 OB, 3520B
351 OB, 3520B
3510B.3520B
NA3
3051
3051
3051
3051
3580A
3580A
3580A
NA3
Analytical Methods
6010, 7060A
601 OA
601 OA
6010A
8270B
8100,8310
8040A
8280, 8290
6010A, 7060A4
601 OA
601 OA
601 OA
8270B
8100,8310
8040A
8280^8290
6010A, 7060A4
601 OA
601 OA
601 OA
8270B
8100,8310
8040A
8280, 8290
AH methods are from Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA 1987, SW-846, 3rd Ed.
2 (through Update 118,1995) [EPA, 1995a].
SVOCs Include PAHs and PCP; however, the detection limits available by the designated method(s) are commonly
3 too high for many applications.
4 Preparation procedures are included in the analytical method.
If 7060A will be performed, the preparation procedures included in that procedure should be used.
2-10
-------
CHAPTER 3
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE AND COST
This chapter provides tabular summaries of the
performance and cost data acquired through
the literature search performed for this project.
More detailed information on performance and
cost for each technology is presented in
Chapters 4 and 5.
3.1 Performance
Table 3-1 presents a range of effectiveness for
each of the treatment technologies profiled in
this document. Listed by contaminant (i.e.,
PAHs as B(a)P potency estimates, PCP,
PCDDs/PCDFs as TCDD-TEQs, and metals),
the range reflects the percent change between
untreated and treated samples. It should be
noted that the objectives of many treatability
studies did not include quantifying percent
change or the development of statistically
defensible results. Instead, the objective often
was to determine whether a particular
application of a treatment technology would be
effective under optimal conditions. Conse-
quently, results often lack sufficient replicates
and quality assurance (QA) documentation
necessary to quantify potential full-scale
effectiveness. Soil and contaminant hetero-
geneity also affects study results and, in some
cases, causes treated concentrations to exceed
untreated values. Additionally, site-specific
factors, including contaminant concentrations,
media characteristics, contaminant distribution,
and moisture/solids content, greatly affect
treatment performance. Notwithstanding, the
ranges presented here can be used as general
guidance on the ability of a technology to treat
a class of contaminants.
3.2 Cost
Table 3-2 presents cost ranges for each
technology discussed in this report. The costs
are presented on a "per unit treated" basis. For
water treatment technologies, costs are typically
presented as dollars per 1,000 gallons ($/1,000
gal.) treated. For soil, sediment, and sludge
treatment technologies, costs are usually listed
as dollars per cubic yard ($/yd3) or dollars per
ton ($/ton) of material treated. To facilitate
intertechnology comparison, all soil and sedi-
ment treatment costs have been converted to
$/ton using a reported density of excavated,
moist, packed earth (1.3 tons per yd3) [Perry
and Green, 1984], except when site-specific
density measurements were available.
When available, the cost ranges are presented
as treatment costs and project costs. Treatment
costs are defined as the expenses incurred in
operating the treatment equipment, presented
on a per unit treated basis. Treatment costs
include 6 of the 12 categories typically included
in Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Demonstration Test economic analyses.
The categories considered are startup, equip-
ment purchase/leasing, supplies and consum-
ables, labor (limited to operation of the
treatment unit), utilities, and maintenance.
These categories represent costs directly
related to treatment of the media. Treatment
costs presented in Table 3-2 were compiled
primarily from the studies presented in Chapters
4 and 5 and Appendices B and C. Additional
details can be found in these sections.
Project costs typically include the additional
SITE Demonstration Test cost categories of site
preparation, permitting and regulatory activities,
effluent disposal, residuals and waste manage-
ment, analytical expenses, and site demobil-
ization. These six categories are more sensitive
to site-specific factors and represent activities
typically ancillary to the treatment process. In
some applications of the technologies, ancillary
costs are responsible for a higher percentage of
total costs than treatment costs. While
treatment costs were compiled from the studies
discussed in this document, the ranges of
project costs presented in Table 3-2 were
compiled from these studies and from other
references. Due to this larger base of informa-
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
Percent Change1
Technology
Soil Treatment
Son Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Thermal Desorpt'on
Incineration
Solvent Extraction
Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition
Bioremediation
Water Treatment
Photolytic Oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Hydraulic Containment7
Bioremediation
Total
PAHs
-69 to
-90
-69 to
>-963
-99.9 to
>-99.9
>-99.9
-93 to
>-99
NA
Oto
-97
Oto
-31
NR
NA
-12 to
-97.9
B(a)P
Potency
Estimate
-72 to
-852
-76 to
>-933
>-99
>-99
-83
NA
Oto
-61
-51
NC
NA
-93 to
-95
PCP
-5 to
-83
-23 to
>-993
>-97
>-99
-61 to
>-99
>-99
Oto
-72
-58 to
-99
NC
NA
Oto
—100
TCDD-TEQ Metals
Oto -37 to -55
-71
-73 to Oto>-913
>-993
-57 NR
NR +2 to -93
-96 NR
>-994 NA
-35 to NA
-56
-99 NR
-53 NR
NA NA
NC NR
References
IT Corp., 1996c
Biogenesis
Enterprises, Inc.,
1993
SAIC, 1997a5
SAIC, 1997e
Whiting, etal., 1992
EPA, 1988
EPA, 1995c
SAIC, 1997b5
Tiernan, 19945
SAIC, 1997c5
Mueller, et ai:, 19915
IT Corp., 1996b
EPA, 1995c
IT Corp., 1996
EPA, 1993b
Koppers Industries,
19896
IT Corp., 1996a
ITCorp.,'1996b
EPA, 1991 a
Comparison of concentrations in untreated and treated samples; percent change is stated as a
2 decrease (-) or increase (+).
3 Excludes test In Which soil washing was performed using Dl water only (no additives).
. Percent reduction in SPLP or TCLP leachate.
5 Based upon PCDD/PCDF isomers instead of TCDD-TEQ.
6 Reference Is cited In Appendix B.
7 Reference Is cited In Appendix C.
Hydraulic containment Is not a contaminant reduction technology; therefore, a calculation of percent change is not applicable.
NR « Not reported
NC « Not calculated (typically due to detection limits)
NA * Not applicable
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. Summary of Cost Information
Technology
Soil Treatment
Soil Washing
Treatment1
Cost Range3
($/1,OOOgal
or $/ton)
30 - 200
Year of
Estimate5
1993
Important
Cost Factors
Residuals Disposal
References
I Biogenesis Enterprises,
Project2
Solidification/Stabilization
Treatment
Project
Thermal Desorption
Treatment
Project
Incineration
Treatment
120-200 1994
98-250 1995-96
50-483 1992-95
NR
100-600 1992-93
140-190 1989
Heterogeneity of
Contaminants,
Binder/Waste Ratio
Residuals Disposal,
Moisture Content
Heating Value of
Waste, Moisture
Content
Inc., 1993
EPA, 1994a
Bates and Lau, 1995
SAIC, 1996 and 1997d
EPA, 1993e
Bates and Lau, 1995
EPA, 1994b
Whiting, etal., 1992
EPA, 1989b
EPA, 1990b
Project NR
Solvent Extraction
Treatment 94-112 1992
Project 75-400 1994
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Residuals Disposal EPA, 1993f
EPA, 1995c
Treatment
Project
Bioremediation
Treatment
Slurry-Phase
Composting
Landfarming
NR
200-500 1990
49-105
187-290 1996
27 1992
Contaminant Media,
Pretreatment
Requirements
Cleanup Levels
Cleanup Levels
Cleanup Levels
EPA, 1990b
EPA, 1994a
EPA 1993d
EPA, 1996c
EPA,1996b
3-3
-------
Table 3-2. Summary of Cost Information (continued)
Technology
Project
Slurry-Phase
Composting
Landfarmlng
Cost Range3
($/1,OOOgal
or $/ton)
96-268
187-310
NR
Year of
Estimate5
1990-94
1996
Important
Cost Factors
Cleanup Levels
Cleanup Levels
Cleanup Levels
References
EPA, 1990e
EPA, 1993d
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1996c
EPA, 1996b
Water Treatment
Photolvtic Oxidation
Treatment
Project
Carbon Adsorption
3.90-13.28
2.76 - 58.50
1993
1993-94
Electricity
EPA, 1993b
EPA, 1994a
Venkatadri and
Peters, 1993
Treatment
Project
Hydraulic Containment
Treatment
Project
Bioremediation6
Treatment
Project '
1.38
1.20-6.30
NR
3-754
2.94-14.56
50-90
1995
1991
NR
1992
1991
1992
Contaminant
Concentration
NR
Depth of Contain-
ment Required
Treatment Location
(In Situ vs. Ex Situ)
IT Corp., 1996a
EPA, 1991b
EPA, 1992a
EPA, 1991 a
EPA, 1992a
Treatment costs include expenses incurred In operating the treatment equipment only. These expenses typically include startup, equipment
purchase/teasing, supplies and consumables, operator labor, utilities, and maintenance. Treatment costs were compiled from the studies
2 presented In this document.
Project costs Include treatment costs and additional expenses associated with remediation. These expenses include site preparation,
permitting and regulatory activities, effluent disposal, residuals and waste management, excavation, analytical services, and demobilization.
Project costs were compiled from the studies presented in this document and a review of general treatment technology literature.
Consequently, project costs may be reported as less than treatment costs, reflecting the broader base of information reviewed for project
3 costs.
. Water treatment In $/1,000 gal; soil treatment in $/ton.
s $/ft2 of containment structure.
6 Cost ranges have not been adjusted to 1997 dollars.
Treatment costs for bioremediation of water are based on cost estimates for ex situ, fixed-film bioremediation; a specific
type of bioremediation was not specified for the project costs.
NR s Not reported
3-4
-------
tion, some project cost ranges may include
values that are less than their corresponding
treatment cost ranges.
It is important to note that much of the literature
reviewed did not divide costs into these
categories and did not specify whether profit
was included. Instead, a single estimate or
range was presented without a discussion of
the factors included. In these cases, the
information is presented as project costs.
It is equally important to recognize that the
costs presented are order-of-magnitude esti-
ates and, in many cases, may not reflect full-
scale costs. As with the performance data in
Table 3-1, site-specific factors greatly influence
treatment and project costs. Depending on the
technology, these factors include: contaminant
type and concentration, remediation goals,
media characteristics, media preprocessing
requirements, quantity of media to be treated,
and equipment capacity. Table 3-2 presents the
factors that have the greatest influence on
project costs for each technology. The costs in
Table 3-2, therefore, should be viewed with the
understanding that the uncertainties, anomalies,
and disparities among different applications of
a treatment technology, along with the afore-
entioned site-specific factors, may greatly affect
the actual cost of a specific remediation.
3-5
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4
SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
This chapter provides information on six
technologies used to treat contaminated soils,
sediments, and sludges from wood preserving
sites. For each technology, the chapter provides
a description of the technology, along with
advantages and limitations of its use. A dis-
cussion of the costs associated with operation
of the technology and factors that affect costs
are included. When available, a treatability
study and a case study using the technology to
treat soils from wood preserving sites are
presented. Additional studies are described in
Appendix B. It should be noted that some
studies present costs based upon volume (yd3)
instead of weight (tons). To facilitate inter-
technology comparison, all soil and sediment
treatment costs have been converted to $/ton,
using a reported density of excavated, moist,
packed earth (1.3 tons per yd3) [Perry and
Green, 1984], unless stated otherwise.
4.1 Soil Washing
4.1.1 Technology Description
Soil washing is an ex situ remediation
technology that uses aqueous-based separation
and/or extraction techniques to remove a broad
range of organic, inorganic, and radioactive
contaminants. The process is typically used as
a pretreatment in conjunction with other tech-
nologies when treating wood preserving wastes.
Soil washing processes may be either
continuous or batch processes. Typical appli-
cations do not detoxify, destroy, or significantly
alter contaminants. Rather, the technology
reduces contaminant concentrations in soils by
three mechanisms: particle size separation,
phase transfer, and physical removal (attrition
scrubbing). When appropriately utilized, a
substantial portion of the washed soil will be
amenable to further treatment or can either be
backfilled onsite or beneficially reused/recycled
in some other way. The spent wash water is
then treated to concentrate the contaminants
and fine particles in a residual wastestream.
The residual stream will then require further
treatment and/or disposal, as will the residuals
from water treatment and recycling.
4.1.2 Advantages
There are several advantages to using soil
washing for the remediation of wood preserving
sites. The technology can be customized, by
the addition of appropriate surfactants,
chelants, acids or bases, to remove PAHs,
PCP, and inorganic contaminants from soil
[EPA, 1990e]. Removal of contaminants from a
significant percentage of the soil allows the
material to be reused onsite or at other
locations. The percentage of residuals requiring
further treatment is substantially smaller than
the volume of soil originally requiring treatment,
reducing the volume of hazardous material to
be transported for treatment or disposal.
4.1.3 Limitations
The distribution of contaminants across the
particle size range of the soil is the most
important factor in determining whether soil
washing is appropriate at a site [EPA, 1990e].
Soil washing may not be cost-effective for soils
with high percentages of silt and clay. Soils in
which the majority of contaminants are tightly
bound to larger fractions also may not be good
candidates for this technology. Hydrophobic
contaminants, such as PAHs and PCP, may not
be effectively removed by soil washing without
the addition of surfactants or organic solvents.
These additives may require additional treat-
ment of wash waters prior to recycling or
disposal.
4.1.4 Technology Costs
The cost of performing soil washing is
dependent on several site- and contaminant-
specific factors. The quantity of soil to be
treated affects the size of the soil washing unit
and the time present onsite. Generally,
treatment of larger soil volumes reduces the
4-1
-------
per-ton-treated cost of equipment. Table 4-1
presents treatment costs reported in an EPA-
managed pilot-scale soil washing study. In July
1992, EPA performed pilot-scale soil washing
tests for which one objective was to determine
cost factors for pilot- and full-scale operations
[Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1992]. Cost factors
considered included equipment rental, startup,
treatment labor, consumables/supplies, health
and safety equipment, contingencies,
maintenance, and utilities. The estimate was
based upon the washing of 250,000 tons of soil
with an actual processing rate of 18 tons per
hour for 300 days per year. A total treatment
cost of $35.65 per ton of soil washed was
estimated.
Table 4-1. Estimated Treatment Costs for Soil
Washing [Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1992]
Cost Categories
Treatment Equipment Leasing
Startup
Treatment Labor
Consumables and Supplies
Health & Safety Equipment
Utilities
Maintenance and Contingency
Cost per Ton
of Soil Treated
($)
6.00
1.20
6.70
8.75
3.60
2.80
6.60
Total Treatment Costs1-2
35.65
Does not Include mobilization/demobilization, excavation,
analytical services, process water treatment, or residuals
, management.
Based on the treatment of 250,000 tons using a 20 ton/hr soil
washing unit and 24 hr/day operation with 10 percent downtime.
The characteristics and quantity of waste
generated by the soil washing process have
been identified as two major factors having a
significant effect on soil washing costs [EPA,
1995c]. The quantity of soil to be treated, target
treatment levels, and site preparation also were
identified as important factors.
4.1.5 Treatability Study - American
Creosote Works (ACW) Site
BackgroundA/Vaste Description: Samples of
contaminated soil to be used in soil washing
treatability studies were collected from the ACW
Superfund site located in Jackson, TN [IT Corp.,
1996c]. The site is a former wood preserving
facility contaminated with PAHs, PCP, and
PCDDs/PCDFs. The soil was described in the
project report as black silty or clayey sand with
4 to 10 percent gravel and 15 to 18 percent silt
or clay. Approximately 35 percent of the soil
was smaller than 0.3 millimeters (mm) in dia-
meter. The concentrations of PAHs, PCP, and
PCDDs/PCDFs in the untreated soil are
presented in Table 4-2.
Summary of Study: The treatability studies
were performed at the facility of a soil washing
vendor in the spring of 1996. Two studies, one
using deionized water and one using deionized
water containing 3 percent by weight of Makon-
12 surfactant were performed on soils from
ACW. For both studies, 1.8 kilograms (kg) of
contaminated soil were placed into a 19-liter (L)
washing chamber. Approximately 10.8 kg of
wash solution, adjusted to pH 9 and 49° C, were
then added, and the mixture was agitated for 1
hour. The solids were then allowed to settle for
45 minutes. Free liquids and unsettled solids
were decanted from the chamber and the
remaining soil was sampled.
Performance: Table 4-2 presents the results
from the analysis of the soil and wash water for
the test with and without the surfactant.
Results indicate that washing with surfactant-
containing deionized water increases the
removal of PAHs compared to washing with
deionized water alone. This trend also can be
seen for TCDD-TEQ results. Site- and matrix-
seen for TCDD-TEQ results. Site- and matrix-
specific matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
(MS/MSD) analyses were not performed for this
project. Increases in the concentrations of some
PAHs in the deionized water-washed soil
suggested either that the raw soil and washed
soil were not comparable prior to treatment, or
that analytical results were not accurate.
4-2
-------
Table 4-2. Selected Results - ACWSoil Washing Treatment [IT Corp., 1996c]
Description
Matrix
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-MethylnaphthaIene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
Other SVOCs, ppb
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
Untreated Soil
Soil
440,000
16,000
2,800,000
220,000
310,000
120,000
57,000
130,000
350,000
16,000
940,000
760,000
60,000
470,000
380,000
1,500,000
800,000
9,400,000
200.000
480,000
650,000
ND (54,000)
38,780,000
Soil Washed
with Deionized
Water
Soil
630,000
ND(1 1,000)
2,300,000
240,000
260,000
92,000
54,000
120,000
350,000
16,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
59,000
510,000
460,000
1,900,000
1,100,000
11,000,000
190.000
640,000
620,000
2,700
256,259,000
Percent
Change4
+43
>-31
-18
+9.1
-16
-23
-5.2
-7.7
0
0
+38
+71
-1.7
+8.5
+21
+27
+38
+14
-5.0
+33
-4.6
NC
+561
Soil Washed in a 3%
Solution of Makon-12
in Deionized Water
Soil
. 110,000
5,500
1 ,000,000
58,000
71,000
24,000
18,000
36,000
84,000
4,400
350,000
160,000
20,000
100,000
86,000
430,000
320,000
2,900,000
56.000
110,000
110,000
ND (12,000)
11,079,890
Percent
Change4
-75
-66
-64
-74
-77
-80
-68
-72
-76
-73
-63
-79
-67
-79
-77
-71
-60
-69
-72
-77
-83
NC '
-71
1
Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
, For nondetected results, the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
TCDD-TEQ by l-TEFs/89 [EPA, 1989a] reported in ppq.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NC = Not calculated.
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
4-3
-------
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
4.1.6 Treatability Study - Thunder Bay
Backoround/Waste Description: In June 1993
a bench-scale treatability study was performed
on contaminated sediment from an unidentified
wood preserving site located on Thunder Bay,
ON, Canada [Biogenesis Enterprises, Inc.,
1993]. The primary contaminants in the
sediment were PAHs. Low levels of PCB,
phenols, and metals also were present. Greater
than 80 percent of the sediment was medium
silt or finer particles (i.e., grain sizes less than
0.038 mm). Prior to treatment, the sediment
contained approximately 9 percent oil and
grease; 2 percent SVOCs; 5,000 ppm total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); and 4,000 ppm
PAHs.
Summary of Study. A bench-scale soil washing
unit was configured to simulate the full-scale
sediment washing unit. First, oversize materials
were removed. Next, the sediment was heated,
using saturated steam, to a temperature
between 80° and 90°F. After transfer to a
sediment/chemical collision chamber, the
proprietary cleaning agents, adjusted to a pH of
10, were added at a pressure of 10,000 pounds
per square inch (psi). The sediment and
cleaning agents then flowed to a collision
scrubber where further contaminant removal
took place. This mixture was recycled through
the process two more times. Finally, the mixture
passed through two hydrocyclones and a
centrifuge where liquids and solids were
separated.
Performance: Table 4-3 presents initial
concentrations of PAHs, arsenic, chromium,
and copper in the untreated sediment.
Concentrations in the solids after final cycloning
(cleaned sediment), and in the buffer tank
(contaminated fines) are presented. Concen-
trations in the liquid after cycloning also are
listed. Overall, the treatment produced a 90
percent reduction in total PAH concentration
between the untreated and clean sediment. The
B(a)P potency estimate decreased by 85
percent.
Reductions in metals concentrations were 39,
55, and 37 percent for arsenic, chromium, and
copper, respectively.
Cosf: Full-scale treatment costs for remed-
iation of less than 10,000 tons (using a batch
feed system) were estimated to be between $40
and $200 per ton. For larger quantities of
sediment, a continuous feed process would be
used, with an estimated treatment cost between
$30 and $110 per ton. Primary factors affecting
cost are sediment type, degree of contamin-
ation, and cleanup target levels. Capital costs of
the system were listed as $400,000 to $800,000
depending on system configuration.
4.2 Solidification/Stabilization (S/S)
4.2.1 Technology Description
Solidification and stabilization are both
immobilization technologies, since they remed-
iate soils and other contaminated materials by
reducing the mobility of contaminants. In S/S
processes, the contaminated materials are
combined with various additives that reduce
contaminant mobility by one or more of the
following mechanisms:
• Decreasing the permeability of the contam-
inated material
» Encapsulating and adsorbing the contam-
inants
• Incorporating the contaminants into the
crystalline structure of the material.
Solidification treatment techniques typically
produce a solid block of waste material that has
a high structural integrity and low permeability.
The contaminants are mechanically encap-
sulated within the solid matrix; they may also
chemically react with certain reagents. Stabil-
ization treatment techniques chemically limit the
solubility or mobility of waste contaminants but
may not change the physical characteristics of
the waste. Stabilization is often applied to
wastes containing a high fraction of nonvolatile
organics, such as sludges. Solidification and
stabilization are often employed together.
4-4
-------
Table 4-3. Selected Results - Thunder Bay Sediment Soil Washing Treatment [Biogenesis
Enterprises, Inc., 1993]
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene 1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndenp(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
, 2-MethyInapthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Total PAHs2
Metals, ppb
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Untreated
Sediment
305,000
16,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
42,000
28,000
82,000
75,000
8,900
400,000
240,000
30,000
NR
1.400,000
770,000
300.000
4,000,000
11BQQQ
15,000
71,000
73,000
I Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA
* -i-**—l nALJA »lnn0» x»>it ins*liis4f* O_mafhwlnonfha!ana
After Cyclone
(Clean
Sediment)
34,000
1,500
16,000
19,000
19,000
6,100
3,900
12,000
12,000
1,400
59,000
30,000
5,000
NR
73,000
88,000
44.000
420,000
17800
9,100
32,000
46,000
, 1993a].
Percent
Change3
-89
-91
-85
-83
-84
-85
-86
-85
-84
-84
-85
-88
-83..
NC
-95
-89
-85
-90
-R5
-39
-55
-37
Buffer Tank
(Contaminated
Fines)
100,000
4,500
40,000
46,000
47,000
12,000
9,200
29,000
28,000
ND
160,000
86,000
12,000
NR
300,000
240.000
110.000
1,200,0004
so. finn4
NR
NR
NR
After
Cyclone
(Liquid)
1,500
99
560
680
720
240
200
490
430
54
2,150
1,250
200
NR
5.600
3,550
1.700
19,000
710
NR
NR
NR
. Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
No detection limit was provided for the non-detected dibenz(a,h)anthracene in this sample; therefore,
a value of zero was assigned for the ND in the calculation of the B(a)P potency estimate and total PAHs.
NR = Not reported
NC = Not calculated
ND = Not detected
Shaded row contains only NR and NC designations.
4-5
-------
4.2.2 Advantages
SIS processes are relatively inexpensive and
can be designed to immobilize both organic and
inorganic contaminants. The technology can be
employed in situ or ex situ. The use of S/S to
immobilize inorganic contaminants is well
accepted; immobilization is the presumptive
remedy for wood preserving sites with soils,
sediments, and sludges contaminated with
inorganic contaminants [EPA, 1995b]. The use
of S/S to immobilize organic contaminants is
still considered innovative, but has been used
to remediate a number of sites.
4.2.3
Limitations
S/S processes increase the volume of the
material being treated (since reagents are
added and are not consumed) and are not
appropriate for wastes containing significant
quantities of volatile contaminants. If volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are present in the
waste material, they may be released during
S/S treatment if not captured by sealed
equipment. It may, however, be possible to
remove VOCs prior to S/S treatment. It also
should be noted that formulations that are
developed to reduce the leachability of one
contaminant group may not be effective on
other contaminants (e.g., formulations that
effectively treat metals may not reduce the
leachability of organics). In some studies, it
appears that formulations actually may increase
the leachability of certain contaminants.
4.2.4 Technology Costs
One document estimates project costs for S/S
treatment to be between $50 and $250 per ton
(1992 dollars)[EPA, 1993e]. Costs are highly
variable due to variations in site, soil, and
contaminant characteristics that affect the
performance of the S/S processes evaluated.
Economies of scale likely to be achieved in full-
scale operations are not reflected in pilot-scale
data [EPA, 1993e].
Information regarding economies of scale can
be obtained from parallel cost estimates
developed for the S/S treatment of 36,000 tons
and 90,000 tons of contaminated soil at the
ACW site in Jackson, TN [SAIC, 1996b]. These
cost estimates are based on conceptual
designs. Estimated costs for treatment only are
$98 per ton for the treatment of 90,000 tons of
soil and $99 per ton for the treatment of 36,000
tons of soil. Treatment costs include only the
equipment, labor, reagents, and consumables
required for S/S treatment. Estimated project
costs are $108 per ton for the treatment of
90,000 tons of soil and $119 per ton for the
treatment of 36,000 tons of soil. Project costs
include costs associated with treatability tests;
site preparation; mobilization; permits; equip-
ment, labor, reagents, and consumables
required for S/S treatment; equipment, labor,
and materials required for placement of the
treated material back into the excavation,
including compaction and capping, analyses;
and demobilization.
A detailed S/S cost estimate was developed for
a SITE Demonstration Test conducted at Selma
Pressure Treating, a wood preserving site in
Selma, CA [EPA, 1992c]. All costs for this SITE
demonstration are given in 1992 dollars. This
cost estimate was based on the S/S treatment
of 15,000 yd3 (approximately 18,800 tons) of
contaminated soil, using a batch process where
the soil and reagents would be mixed together
in a large mixer. The treatment cost was
estimated for four options: mixer sizes of 5 and
15 yd3, and mixing times of 0.5 and 1.0 hour.
The authors considered a 0.5-hour mixing time
optimistic. Estimated costs are summarized in
Table 4-4.
Note that reagent cost represents a significant
portion of the total S/S treatment cost. The S/S
formulation used during the demonstration
results in an estimated reagent cost of $122 per
ton of soil treated [EPA, 1992c]. At other sites,
it may be possible to use formulations that have
significantly lower reagent costs. For example,
estimated reagent costs for the formulations
used in the S/S treatability study described in
Subsection 4.2.5 are $50 to $60 per ton of soil
treated.
The total costs determined for the SITE
demonstration are presented in Table 4-5 [EPA,
1992c].
Following the SITE demonstration, EPA
proceeded with the implementation of an S/S
remedy at the Selma Pressure Treating site
[Bates and Lau, 1995]. Full-scale S/S treatment
4-6
-------
Table 4-4. Estimated S/S Treatment Costs for 18,800 Tons of Soil [EPA, 1992c?
Mixer capacity, yd3
Batch mix time, hours
S/S Equipment Cost1
Startup Cost
Reagent Cost
S/S Labor Cost
Utilities Cost
Maintenance Cost
Total S/S Treatment Cost2
Unit S/S Treatment Cost
(per ton)2
Option 1
5
1
$228,250
$5,000
$2,298,375
$630,020
$86,250
• $7,500
$3,255,395
$173
Option 2
5
.5
$114,125
$5,000
$2,298,375
$319,184
$48,450
$3,750
$2,788,884
$148
Option 3
15
1
$92,750
$5,000
$2,298,375
$210,860
$37,500
$7,500
$2,651,985
$141
Option 4
15
.5
$46,375
$5,000
$2,298,375
$109,604
$24,317
$3,750
$2,487,421
$132
The costs presented are for S/S treatment only. Items that are excluded from this cost estimate but included in the SITE demonstration
cost estimate (Table 4-5) are: auxiliary equipment (earthmoving equipment, wastewater tank, and wastewater truck); auxiliary labor (does
not include off-site support, security, per diem, home leave, and training; site preparation; analyses; and demobilization. In addition, costs
2 associated with residuals treatment and disposal are excluded from both this cost estimate and the SITE cost estimate.
Equipment cost over life of project, based on straight-line depreciation.
Table 4-5. Total Project Costs for 18,800 Tons of Soil [EPA, 1992c]1
Total Project Cost1
Unit Project Cost (per ton)1
Option 1
$4,913,308
$261
Option 2
$3,668,884
$195
Option 3
$3,262,123
$174
Option 4
$2,843,534
$151
The costs presented are for a complete S/S project and exclude only costs associated with residuals treatment and disposal. This cost
estimate includes costs for site preparation, equipment (process equipment and auxiliary equipment), startup, reagents, labor (associated
with treatment and auxiliary activities), utilities, maintenance, analyses, and demobilization.
Table 4-6. Approximate Costs for Full-Scale Remediation Using S/S [Bates and Lau,1995f
Activity
Mobilization/Demobilization
Excavation of Contaminated Soil
Soil Treatment by S/S
Cap
Sampling and Analysis
Excavation and Handling of Clean Soil
Unit Cost ($ per ton of
Project Cost ($) raw soil treated)3
240,000
680,000
4,200,000
700,000
400,000
60000
15
41
256
43
24
4
4-7
-------
Table 4-6. Approximate Costs for Full-Scale Remediation Using S/S (Continued)
Unit Cost ($ per ton of
Activity
Construction Oversight2
Other
Total
Project Cost ($)
660,000
960,000
7,900,000
raw soil treated)3
40
59
482
2 The costs presented exclude remedial design costs and other costs incurred before remediation began.
_ Construction oversight was provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.
Unit costs were calculated by dividing project costs by the tons of soil treated during the project. The 13,088 yd3 of raw soil treated during
the project are estimated, based on information provided in the SITE cost estimate for the Selma Pressure Treating Site, to be equivalent
to 16,403 tons of raw soil.
13,088 yd3 of raw soil was completed during
1993. A summary of actual remediation costs is
presented in Table 4-6. S/S treatment costs
were approximately $256 per ton of raw soil
treated; total project costs were approximately
$482 per ton of raw soil treated.
4.2.5 Treatability Study - ACW Site
Background/Waste Description: S/S remedy
design treatability studies for the ACW site were
performed in late 1996 and early 1997 [SAIC,
1997c]. Soil samples used in this treatability
study were collected at the ACW site in
Jackson, TN on September 25, 1996. The soil
was collected from five pits, screened to
remove particles greater than Vz inch in
diameter, and homogenized. The soil was
placed in five 5-gallon buckets, sampled, and
shipped to STC Remediation, Inc. (STC) for S/S
treatability studies.
Grain size analysis indicated that the sample
was a dark brown silty sand with 2 percent
gravel and 64 percent sand. The grain size
analysis was performed after screening, which
removed a small quantity of rocks and other
debris greater than Yz inch in diameter.
Results of chemical analyses of SPLP leach-
ates from the untreated soil are summarized in
the performance section to facilitate com-
parison with the treated soil.
Summary of the Study. The ACW remedy
design treatability study was performed in three
tiers; this document presents results from Tier
1 only (less expensive formulations were tested
in Tiers 2 and 3; however they were less
effective). In Tier 1, STC treated the ACW soil
with six S/S formulations. This document
presents results for two of those six
formulations, Mix 2 and Mix 6 (see explanation
to follow). Table 4-7 presents the formulations
used in Mixes 2 and 6.
Performance: Each of the six treated materials
was subjected to geophysical tests for falling
head permeability and unconfined compressive
Table 4-7. Selected Formulations Used in ACW Treatability Study [SAIC, 1997c]
Pounds of Reagent per Ton of Soil Treated
Formulation
Mix 2
Mix 6
Portland
Type 1 Cement
400
0
Class F Fly
Ash
200
0
Activated
Carbon
40
0
STCP-11
0
400
STC P-41
0
120
STC P-1 and STC P-4 are proprietary reagents.
4-8
-------
strength (DCS). Each of the six treated
materials was also leached using Method 1312;
the resulting SPLP extracts were analyzed for
metals, SVOCs, and pH. The SPLP leachates
from five of the six treated materials met the
ACW treatment goals for PCP. Since these
results were satisfactory, PCDD/PCDF analyses
were subsequently performed for two Tier 1
samples: the least expensive formulation that
met all treatment goals (Mix 2), and the most
effective (and most expensive) formulation (Mix
6). Table 4-8 summarizes the analytical results
for Mixes 2 and 6.
Cos£ The reagent cost for Mix 2 is estimated to
be $39 per ton of soil treated; the reagent cost
for Mix 6 is estimated to be $62 per ton of soil
treated. These cost estimates are for reagents
only and are based on unit costs provided by
STC[SAIC, 1997c].
OHM Corporation prepared a preliminary design
and cost estimate for the S/S treatment of soil
at the ACW site. Section B.2.1 in Appendix B
provides additional information on the design
and estimate. The estimate included a cost of
$13 per ton for equipment leasing, $0.10 per
ton for utilities, $93 per ton for consumables
(which included S/S reagents, capping
materials, and analytical costs), and $16 per ton
for labor [OHM, 1997]. The estimated projects
costs were $122 per ton of soil treated.
4.3 Thermal Desorption (TD)
4.3.1 Technology Description
TD is an ex situ separation process that uses
direct or indirect heat exchange to vaporize
VOCs and SVOCs from soil, sediment, sludge,
or other solid and semisolid matrices. The
technology heats contaminated media to
temperatures between 300° and 1,000°F. The
vaporized organic contaminants then are swept
into an inert carrier gas, which is treated,
typically by being burned in an afterburner,
condensed in a single- or multi-stage
condenser, or captured by carbon adsorption
beds.
4.3.2 Advantages
If a site is contaminated with organics, TD
offers the advantage of separating the organic
contaminant from the medium to an offgas
stream where the vapors are treated directly or
condensed before treatment. TD has the added
advantage of separating VOCs that may be
associated with the wood processing wastes
(i.e., solvents used in cleaning operations at the
site). The total volume of material requiring
subsequent treatment is typically small in
comparison to the volume of contaminated
medium at any given site. TD may be viewed as
a step in the sequence of remediating a site in
which isolating and concentrating the
contaminants are useful. Groups of organic
contaminants can be selectively removed from
the medium by careful control of the treatment
temperature in the desorption unit [EPA,
1992e].
4.3.3 Limitations
All TD systems require excavation and transport
of the contaminated medium, use of materials
handling/segregation equipment, and feeding of
the material into the desorption unit. The
contaminated medium must contain at least 20
percent solids to facilitate placement of the
waste material into the desorption equipment;
some systems specify a minimum of 30 percent
solids. Materials handling of soils that are tightly
aggregated or largely clay can result in poor
processing performance due to caking. A very
high moisture content may result in low
contaminant volatilization, a need to recycle the
soil through the desorber, or a need to dewater
the material prior to treatment to reduce the
energy required to volatilize the water [EPA,
1994b]. Inorganic constituents or metals that
are not particularly volatile will not be effectively
removed by TD. Since TD does not destroy
contaminants, subsequent treatment of resid-
uals will be required.
TD units have the potential to produce PCDDs/
PCDFs when treating chlorinated compounds
such as PCP. Careful monitoring of operating
conditions and feed rates must be performed.
Treated material may need to be tested for
PCDDs/PCDFs, even if those compounds were
not detected in the feed.
4.3.4 Technology Costs
Operating costs for TD treatment vary accord-
ing to the characteristics of the contaminated
soil; the required cleanup level; and the type,
size, and operating conditions of the system.
4-9
-------
Table 4-8. Selected Analytical Results forACW Treatability Study, SPLP Leachates [SAIC, 1997c]
Concentration in SPLP Leachate
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyiene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)nuoranthene1
Ben20(k)fluof anthene1
Benzofehijperytene1
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrcnp
Total PAHs2
B(s)P potency estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazofe
Dibenzofuran
Pentachtorophenol
Phenol3
TCDD-TEQ, ppq4
Metals, ppb
Arsenfc ..'..:
Chromium3
Copper
Zinc
pH
Untreated
Soil5
100
5.1
22
1,3
ND (5.0)
ND(5,0)
NDCKO)
ND(1,0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
11
55
ND(1.0)
170
240
65
84
690
2.8
160
52
8,200
ND (10)
320
ND(20)
ND (20)
22
420
7.0
After
Mix 2
Treatment
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
.ND(1,0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5,0)
ND{1.0)
NO (1,0)
ND(t,0)
ND (10)
1.2
ND(1,0)
ND (1.0)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
KID M m
28
ND (2 S\
ND(10)
ND (2.0)
120
71
12
ND(20)
60
ND (20)
ND (50)
11.8
After
Mix 6
Treatment
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1,0)
m (5.0)
ND (5,0)
ND(1.0)
ND (1,0)
ND (1,0)
? /• f *•
ND(1.0)
ND (1,0) „
ND(1.0) *
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
Mn (1 rs\
ND (28)
ND (2 8)
ND(10)
ND (2.0)
12
37
14
f
ND (20)
70
ND (20)
ND (50)
11.8
Percent Change6
As Analyzed
Mix 2
>-98
>-60
>-95
>-21
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-90
, >-98
NC
>-98
>-99
>-98
>-R4
-96
NC
>-93
>-96
-99
>+610
-96
' " ","
*N'C
>+200
>-7.7
>-88
NA
Mix 6
>-98
>-60
>-95
>-21
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
>-91
>-98
NC
>-98
>-99
>-98
>-fl4
>-96
NC
>-93
>-96
>-99-
>+270
-95
^~^ %j> s
NC
>+250
>-7.7
>-88
NA
Adjusted for Dilution
Mix 2
>-97
>-47
>-93
?-0
NO
NC
NC
NC
NO
NC
-86
?-97
NC
>-98
>-99
>-97
>-7Q
-95
NC
>-91
>-94
-98
>+840
-95
NC
>+300
NC
>-84
NA
Mix 6
>-97
>-50
>-94
>-3,1
NC
NO -
NC
NO
NC
NO
>-89
>-97
NC
>-98
>-99
>-98
>-RO
>-95
NC
>-92
>-95
>-99
>+370
-94
NC
>+340
NC
>-85
NA
, Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
3 For nondetected results, the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
. Percent change is calculated for these compounds, since teachability could be increased by S/S treatment.
g TCDD-TEQ by l-TEF/89 [EPA, 1989a] reported in ppq'
6 Three samples of the untreated soil were collected, individually leached, and analyzed. Results were then averaged
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NA = Not applicable ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
NC = Not calculated Shaded rows contain only ND and NC designations.
4-10
-------
Examples of operating costs for treatment
include the following:
• Capital depreciation
• Labor
• Travel and expenses
• Health and safety
• Maintenance
• Overhead
• Insurance
• Fuel and utilities
• Treatment and disposal of residual waste
• Analytical services
• Other supplies such as chemicals, carbon,
filters, etc.
Costs for onsite TD treatment vary widely
depending on conditions specific to the site.
Unit costs at some recent cleanups have
ranged from $270 to $340 per yd3 and from
$100 to $400 per ton [EPA, 1994b]. A key cost
variable for using offsite, stationary TD units is
the cost of transporting the soil from the exca-
vation site to the unit. Costs for transportation
.must be included in any comparison between
onsite and offsite treatment systems.
For the specific technology that is described in
the following subsection, the vendor estimated
a unit cost for soils treatment and disposal of
condensed liquids and filtrates of approxi-
mately $600 per ton. The cost assumed
treatment of about 27,000 tons of soil, and
included mobilization, labor, health and safety,
sampling and analysis, and ambient air
monitoring.
4.3.5 Treatability Study - Pacific Place Site
Site/Waste Description: The Pacific Place site
is a 185-acre area of industrial land located in
Vancouver, BC. A wide variety of industrial
activities operated on the site over its history.
These included two manufactured gas plants;
sawmills; boat building, metal plating, wood
preservation, fuel storage, and carpet cleaning
facilities; and railway yards. In particular, coal
tars and metal oxide wastes from the coal
gasification plants and wood preservatives were
mixed with fill material. PAHs, cyanide, lead,
sulfur, TPHs (extractable), and chlorophenols
were among the contaminants detected at
elevated concentrations on the site [Whiting, et
al., 1992].
Four different sample types, each from a
different site locality, were provided for testing
in two separate thermal extraction systems.
These sample types were numbered Sample 1
through Sample 4. In general, all the soil
samples were poorly sorted (well graded) and
were characterized as consisting primarily of
fine to coarse sand with approximately 17 to 34
percent silt and clay. Samples also contained
debris such as brick fragments, metal frag-
ments, and wood chunks. Sample moisture
content ranged from 10 to 45 percent and
averaged 25 percent. The pH of each sample
was near neutral (6.9 to 7.2) except for Sample
1, which had a pH ranging from 4.2 to 5.0.
Summary of Study. Bench-scale treatability
testing was conducted using laboratory-scale
units belonging to two different vendors. For the
purposes of this document, one of the two tests
will be discussed. For this selected test, which
provided data for the more extensive list of
compounds, Samples 1, 2, and 3 were tested
at an operating temperature of 482°C and a
residence time of 85 minutes. Prior to process-
ing, the samples were screened through a %-
inch sieve and then homogenized. The feed
was sampled once each hour. The feed
samples were composited for each temperature
condition and later submitted for laboratory
analyses. An average of about 7 kg of each soil
sample was fed to the system. Feed rates
ranged from 8 to 13 g per minute, depending on
the sample type.
Treated solids and aqueous condensates were
collected and weighed every 15 minutes. Solids
were composited for each steady state
condition and then were subsampled for
analytical testing. Aqueous products were
filtered through 25-micron filter paper. Solid and
aqueous products were then subjected to
chemical and physical analyses.
Since this was a small-scale study, no organic
liquid phase products were generated in these
studies, and no samples of air emissions were
collected and analyzed.
4-11
-------
Performance: The selected analytical results
for treatment of Samples 1, 2, and 3 are shown
in Tables 4-9 through 4-11, respectively. The
results indicate that the process effectively
removed organic compounds from
contaminated soils and met the treatment
goals for the treatability study.
In Sample 1, the highly contaminated sample,
all PAHs except benz(a)anthracene were
reduced by greater than 99 percent. The
concentrations of PAHs (as well as other
organic constituents) in the treated soil were
well below the established treatment goals.
Similar PAH and other organic compound
removal efficiencies were achieved in Samples
2 and 3.
POP was reduced by an average of approxi-
mately 97 percent and 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-
phenol by an average of approximately 76
percent for Sample 1. Due to elevated detection
limits, concentrations of chlorophenols in some
of the treated soils could have been slightly
above the treatment goals. Concentrations of
PCDDs/PCDFs (as TCDD-TEQ) decreased by
57 percent in Sample 1; TCDD-TEQ concen-
trations were not reported for Samples 2 and 3.
Total metals concentrations in the samples did
not change significantly as a result of the
treatment process, nor did the solubility of the
metals appear to be affected by treatment,
based on extraction testing. Total cyanide in the
treated soils from Sample 1 was reduced from
2,500 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg in the lower
temperature run and to less than 0.5 mg/kg in
the 482°C run.
Organics concentrations in the aqueous liquids
produced during the treatability study were
generally very low or insignificant except for oil
and grease and total phenolics. Oil and grease
concentrations ranged from less than 5 to 24
ppm. Total phenolics were detected at high
levels (5.5 ppm to 58 ppm) in aqueous liquids
produced during the treatment of Sample 1 and
Sample 3 soils. These concentrations exceed
the provincial effluent standard for phenols.
There was insufficient volume to allow for the
analysis of liquid-phase organics. Analysis of
emissions during the treatability study was not
performed due to the small scale of the
equipment.
Examination of the analytical testing performed
on treatment residuals from this study shows
that a significant portion of the PAHs from all
sample types and chlorophenols in Sample
Type 3 were effectively collected by the offgas
treatment system.
Cost: Cost information was not provided for
this specific study.
4.4 Incineration
4.4.1 Technology Description
Incineration is an ex situ process that treats
organic contaminants in solids and liquids by
subjecting them to high temperatures, typically
well in excess of 1,000°F, in the presence of
oxygen, thus, causing the volatilization, com-
bustion, and destruction of these compounds.
Hazardous waste incinerator systems can be
either stationary or mobile/transportable, and
are comprised of subsystems for waste
preparation and feeding, combustion of feed, air
pollution control (APC), and residue/ash
handling [Oppelt, 1987]. The three major
wastestreams generated by incineration are
solids from the incinerator and the associated
APC system, water from the APC system, and
emissions from the incinerator [Freeman, et al.,
1995].
Three common types of incineration systems for
treating contaminated soils are rotary kiln, cir-
culating fluidized bed, and infrared systems.
They are best distinguished from each other by
the design of their combustion chamber. For
rotary kiln designs, waste is gravity fed through
a slightly inclined and rotating cylindrical
combustion chamber, which is referred to as
the "primary1 chamber. A "secondary"
combustion chamber (afterburner) further
destroys unburned organics in the flue gases.
Circulating fluidized bed incinerators use a high
air velocity to circulate and suspend the
fuel/waste particles in a combustor loop and do
not require an afterburner. For infrared
processing systems, waste is conveyed into the
combustion chamber and exposed to radiant
heat generated by either electrical resistance
elements or indirect fuel-fired radiant U-tubes.
4-12
-------
Table 4-9. Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 1) [Whiting, et a/., 1992]
Parameter (Treatment Goal)
PAHs, ppb
Acenapbtbene (10*000)
Acenaphthylene (10,000)
Anthracene (10,000)
Benz(a)anthracene1 (1,000)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1 (1,000)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1 (1 ,000)
Benzo(ghi)perylene (1 ,000)
Benzo(a)pyrene1 (1 ,000)
.ChrYsene1
Dibenz(a1h)anthracertet
Fluoranthene (10,000)
Fluorene (10,000)
!ndeno(1)2,3-cd)pYrene1 (1,000)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene (5,000)
Phenanthrene (5,000)
Pvrene 11 0.000)
Total PAHs2
Bfa^P Potency Estimate3
Other SVOCs, ppb
pentechrorophenol fsoo)
2,4,6-TrichforophenQl (500)
2,4,6-Triehloroprienol (500)
2,3A6~Tetracbforophenol (500)
TCDD-TEQ, ppq4
PH
Untreated
Concentration
N0{$>
45,000
100,000
ND (14)
60,000
27,000
190,000
400,000
65,000
NR
530,000
110,000
.6.1,000..
NR
1,300,000
320,000
220.000
3,400,000
410000
NO (1,800)
ND (660)
ND (420)
ND (660)
3,700
4.2-5.0
Treated
Concentration
ND(S}
8
57
180
<1
50
ND (4.7)
ND(10)
.200..
NR
680
ND (0.6)
.33
MR
410
290
350
2,300
ND W\
ND C1.80Q)
1 ND (660)
ND (420)
ND (660)
1,600
NR
Percent
Change5
NC
-99.9
-99.9
+120
—100
-99.8
--100
~-100
-99,7.
NC
-99.9
--100
-??,9..
NC
-99.9
-99.9
-99.8
-99.9
—100
NG
NC
NC
NC *
-57
NC
Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
Total PAHs does not include dibenz(a,h)anthracene and 2-methylnaphthalene. For nondetected results, the detection limit
3 has been used for calculating total PAHs.
. B(a)P potency estimates for this study do not include dibenz(a,h)anthracene, for which no results were reported.
g TCDD-TEQ by l-TEF/89 [EPA, 1989a]. Results are reported in ppq.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NR = Not reported
NC = Not calculated
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
Shaded rows contain only ND, NR, and NC designations.
4-13
-------
Table 4-10. Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 2) [Whiting, et a/., 1992]
Parameter (Treatment Goal)
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene (10,000)
Acenaphthylene (10,000)
Anthracene (10,000)
Benz(a)anthraoene1 (1,000)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1 (1,000)
Benzo{k)fluoranthene1 , (.1,000).
Benzo{ghi)peryfene (1,000)
Benzo(a)pyrene1 (1,000)
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fiuoranthene (10,000)
Fluorene (10,000)
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene1 (1,000)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene (5,000)
Phenanthrene (5,000)
Pvrene (10.000)
Totai PAHs2
Bfa)P Potency Estimate3
Other SVOCs, ppb
Pentachlorophenol (500)
2,4,5-TrichlorophenoI (500)
2,4,6-TrichlorophenOl (500)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (500)
PH
Untreated
Concentration
mm
ND (5)
8,800
3,200
4,300
54100
ND(4.7)
9,500
3,500
• w . "NR'
6,300
1,800
3,700
' NR
ND{5) "
3,500
4.400
54,000
11,000
9,400
1,600
ND (70)
2,400
6.9 - 7.2
Treated
Concentration
Np(5j
'ND (8)
ND (0.7)
ND (14)
ND(1)
ND (0.4)
ND (47)
ND(10)
ND(1)
NR
ND (0.7)
ND (0.6)
ND(1)
NR
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND (2.5)
ND (60)
NDM2)
ND (300)
ND(110)
ND(70)
580
NR
Percent
Change4
NC
NC
~-100
~-100
~-100
~ -.1.0.0.
NC
--100
~-100
NC
~-100
--100
~-100
NC
NC
~-100
~-100
>-99.9
—100
>-97
.>-9.3.
NC
-76
NC
2 Used In calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a]
Total PAHs does not Include dibenz(a,h)anthracene and 2-methylnaphthalene. For nondetected results, the detection limit
3 has been used for calculating total PAHs.
4 B(a)P potency estimates for this study do not include dibenz(a,h)anthracene, for which no results were reported.
Percent change Is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+•).
NR * Not reported
NC - Not calculated
ND * Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses
Shaded rows contain only ND, NR, and NC designations.
4-14
-------
Table 4-11. Selected Results - Pacific Place TD Treatment (Sample 3) [Whiting, et a/., 1992]
Parameter (Treatment Goal)
PAHs, ppb
Acertaphthene (10,000)
Acenaphthyiene (10rOGO)
Anthracene (10,000)
Benz(a)anthracene1 (1,000)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1 (1 ,000)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1 (1,000)
Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,000)
Benzo(a)pyrene1 (1 ,000)
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a, h)antrtraeene*
Fluoranthene (10,000)
Fluorene (10,000)
lndeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene1 (1,000)
24/lethyl naphthalene
Naphtnafene (5,000)'
Phenanthrene (5,000)
Pvrene (10.000)
Total PAHs2
R(a1P Potency Estimate3
Other SVOCs, ppb
Pentachlorophenof (500)
2,4,5-TrichtoropHenol (500)
2.4[6T-TrtcWorophenol (5QO)
£A4t§*Tetra0hlarGph.enoi ^^
PH
Used In calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA,
Untreated
Concentration
ND{8)
ND(8)
5,300
12,000
9,100
6,800
8,900
18,000
11,000
NR
43,000
4,300
6,800
NR
ND(5)
27,000
36.000
180,000
21 000
ND(35)
ND(110)
ND(70)
ND (300)
6.9-7.2
1993a].
Treated
Concentration
ND(5)
ND(8)
ND (0.7)
NR
ND(1)
ND (4)
ND (4.7)
ND(10)
ND(1)
NR
ND (0.7)
ND (0.6)
ND(1)
NR
ND(5)
180
ND (2.5)
220
ND(10)
ND (300)
ND(110)
ND (70)
NO (110)
NR
Percent
Change4
NC
NG
-100
NC
—100
—100
-100
—100
-100
NG
—100
—100
—.1.00..
NC
NC
99
—100
99.9
—100
NC
NC
NC
NO
NC
3 the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
4 B(a)P potency estimates for this study do not include dibenz(a,h)anthracene, for which no results were reported.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NR = Not reported
NC = Not calculated
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
Shaded rows contain only ND, NR, and NC designations.
4-15
-------
A secondary combustion chamber is used to
treat exhaust gases [Freeman, et al., 1995].
4.4.2 Advantages
Of all the "terminal" treatment technologies,
properly designed incineration systems are
capable of the highest overall degree of
destruction and control for the broadest range
of hazardous wastestreams [Oppelt, 1987]. The
technology has effectively treated soils,
sludges, sediments, and liquids containing all
the organic contaminants found on wood
preserving sites, such as PCDDs/PCDFs, PCP,
PAHs, and other halogenated and
nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs [EPA,
1992a].
The performance of an incinerator is measured
by the Destruction Removal Efficiency (ORE).
ORE requirements for properly operated
incinerators exceed 99.99 percent. Incineration
has treated wood preserving wastes to the most
stringent cleanup levels. A substantial body of
trial bum results and other QA 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 [EPA, 1992a].
4.4.3 Limitations
The primary disadvantage of incineration is that
the inorganic components of hazardous wastes
are not destroyed by the process. These
residual materials exit the incineration system
as bottom ash from the combustion chamber,
as contaminants in scrubber wastes and other
APC residues, and in small amounts in air
emissions from the stack [Oppelt, 1987].
Incineration performance can be limited by the
physical properties and chemical content of the
waste feed, if not accounted for in the system
design. Oversized particles (e.g., stones,
boulders, debris) can hinder processing and
can cause high particle loading from fines
carried through the process. Feeds with high
moisture content increase feed handling and
energy requirements. Volatile metals, such as
arsenic, cadmium, and zinc, vaporize and, thus,
become difficult to remove from emissions.
Alkali metals such as sodium and potassium
can cause severe refractory attack and form a
sticky, low-melting-point submicron particulate,
which causes APC problems. Halogenated
organic compounds and/or high levels of
organic phosphorous can lead to formation of
acid gases [EPA, 1992a].
More than any other technology, incineration is
subject to a series of technology-specific
regulations. Concerns with the potential
formation of PCDDs/PCDFs during the
incineration of chlorinated compounds and
other emissions have prompted detailed
Federal oversight of trial burns and full-scale
operation. In addition, State requirements must
be met if they are more stringent than the
Federal requirements [Freeman, et al., 1995].
4.4.4 Technology Costs
The cost of incineration includes the relatively
fixed costs of site preparation, permitting, and
mobilization/demobilization; and variable
operational costs, such as labor, utilities, and
fuel (operational costs vary according to the
type of waste treated and the size of the site)
[EPA, 1992a].
The specific factors relating to both the site
media and appropriate incinerator design used
include [EPA, 1991b]:
System capacity
Types of feedstocks being fed
Regime (i.e., slagging vs. ashing)
Length-to-diameter (L/D) ratio for rotary kilns
Type of solids discharge system
Type and capacity of afterburner
Type of auxiliary fuel used
Regulatory climate
The moisture content and the heating value of
the contaminated material are two of the more
important parameters that affect the economics
of the incineration process. The heating value
(BTU content) of the feed material affects feed
capacity and fuel usage of the incinerator. In
general, as the heating value of the feed
increases, the feed capacity and fuel usage of
the incineration will decrease. Solid materials
with high Btu content may also cause transient
behaviors that further limit feed capacity. When
PCDDs/PCDFs are present, higher tempera-
tures and longer residence times may be
required to destroy those compounds to levels
4-16
-------
necessary to meet regulatory criteria. Moisture/
water content of soils, sediments, or sludges
can create the need to co-incinerate these
materials with higher BTU streams, or to use
auxiliary fuels [EPA, 1990b].
A detailed cost estimate for the Shirco Infrared
Incineration System was developed for two
SITE demonstrations conducted at two
Superfund sites. Although these were not wood
preserving sites, performance data from
treatment of wood preserving waste by the
same Shirco incineration system are presented
in Subsection 4.4.5. The cost estimate (1989
dollars) was based on an economic model
provided by ECOVA Corporation, in which a
transportable Shirco system having a 100 ton
per day (tpd) capacity would treat 36,500 tons
of material at onstream factors of 85 percent,
70 percent, and 50 percent [EPA, 1989b]. Table
4-12 presents a breakdown of the model's
costs.
4.4.5 Treatability Study - International
Paper Company
Background/Waste Description: In 1985, pilot-
scale testing of ECOVA's Shirco Infrared
incineration unit was conducted on creosote pit
waste at an International Paper Company wood
treating facility in Joplin, MO. The wood
preserving process conducted at the plant used
nine pre-RCRA settling ponds for water
treatment, which were designated as hazardous
waste sites due to the presence of creosote and
PCP[EPA, 1989b].
Summary of Study. The purpose of the onsite
study was to acquire data that would enable
International Paper to clean up the site in the
most cost-effective and permanent manner.
The study consisted of seven test runs
conducted over a 4-day period. The primary
objectives of the test program were to confirm
the ability of the Shirco technology to
decontaminate creosote and PCP-laden soil
and to incinerate the PCP at a verified DRE of
99.9999 percent, and other principal organic
hazardous constituents (POHCs) at a DRE of
99.99 percent or greater. The primary
combustion chamber of the incinerator was set
at a nominal 1,600°F for this study because
previous testing performed on similar wastes at
this temperature indicated successful treatment
of creosote and PCP [EPA, 1989b].
The waste materials processed during the test
program were pre-specified combinations of
waste in ponds that were numbered 1 through
7, and dewatered sludge from the facility's
active wastewater treatment process. Based on
the results of preliminary chemical analysis, test
blends were defined from a combination of the
individual pond wastes. (The goal of the Inter-
Table 4-12. Estimated Treatment Costs for the Shirco Commercial Incineration Unit [EPA 1989b]
Unit Capacity (5) 100 tpd
Onstream Factor
Total Cost, $/ton1'2
85%
70%
139.48
156.33
50%
Startup and Fixed Costs
Labor Costs
Supplies and Consumables Costs
Utilities Costs
Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement Costs
34.89
37.39
10.00
36.58
20.62
39.31
45.40
10.00
36.58
25.04
49.33
63.56
10.00
36.58
35.06
194.53
These costs do not include site preparation, permitting and regulatory, waste excavation, feed preparation,
analytical, demobilization, vendor profit, and ash residual disposal.
All costs are in 1989 dollars and are based on a 100 tpd unit treating 36,500 tons of waste.
4-17
-------
national Paper Co. was to prepare a blend, or a
minimal number of blends, which would
maintain a steady and cost-effective thermal
process during the site cleanup. Thus, three
blends were chosen that would be expected to
demonstrate the realistic range of operating
conditions.)
The test blend most thoroughly evaluated
(designated as Mix 1 in the pilot study report)
consisted of one part Pond 6 waste, plus one
part Pond 2 waste, plus % part dewatered
sludge. Four of the seven test runs conducted
for the entire study consisted of treating Mix 1.
Performance: Table 4-13 presents the
untreated mix waste concentration and flue gas
DREs for the four test runs that involved
incineration of Mix 1 waste. The DREs for each
of the four test rounds exceeded RCRA
performance standards of 99.99 percent for
POP and 99.99 percent for all other PAHs
except for naphthalene. The ORE for nap-
thalene fell short of the 99.99 percent standard
during Test 1.
Table 4-14 presents the particulate emission,
average carbon monoxide (CO) emission, and
ash organic concentration for the same four
tests. With the exception of Test 3, particulate
emissions ranged from 0.016 to 0.07 grains per
dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf), corrected to 7
percent oxygen, as compared to the RCRA
standard of 0.08 gr/dscf. Particulate emissions
reported for Test 3 were 0.147 gr/dscf. The
excessive emissions were reported to be a
result of soot formation caused by an improper
control of oxygen in the primary combustion
chamber. (The stack sampling contractor's
oxygen monitor was not functioning throughout
the entire test program, and Shirco operators
were forced to set incinerator air flow conditions
using best professional judgement [EPA,
1989b].)
The residual organic concentration of each
constituent identified in the waste feed was
nondetectable in the furnace ash (detection limit
ranging from 20 to 40 ppb) for each run, with
the exception of the biphenyl (20 ppb) and
naphthalene (53 ppb) compounds in Test 1.
jst: Cost information was not provided for
this specific study; however, cost information for
an ECOVA Shirco Commercial Unit, based on
an economic model, was provided in Table 4-
12.
4.4.6 Treatability Study - Power Timber
Company
Background/Waste Description: This study was
conducted to test rotary kiln incineration in
support of the determination of the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) for
the waste code K001. Waste code K001
pertains to the wood preserving industry and is
listed at 40 CFR 261.32 as "bottom sediment
and sludge from the treatment of wastewaters
from wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or PCP." Two waste types were
obtained for the study. One type consisted of
K001 wastes from a wood preserving operation
using PCP-based preservative chemicals
(K001-PCP). The source of this waste was the
American Wood Division of Power Timber
Company in Richton, MS. The other waste type
was K001 waste containing creosote (K001-
Creosote). The source of this waste was the
Pearl River Wood Preserving Corporation in
Picayune, MS [Hall, 1989].
Summary of Study. Two test facilities were
used. One of the facilities was EPA's
Combustion Research Facility (CRF) in
Jefferson, AK, where the K001-PCP waste was
incinerated. The other facility was the John Zink
Company Incineration Test Facility in Tulsa, OK
where the K001-Creosote waste was
incinerated. Nine data sets (matched pairs of
untreated and treated data points) were
obtained for K001 wastes using rotary kiln
incineration. Six of the data sets were from the
testing of the K001-creosote waste, and three
data sets were from the testing of the K001-
PCP waste. For the purpose of this document,
the data for the three K001-PCP sample sets
were selected to best represent the wood
preserving waste. When incinerating the
sample sets of the K001-PCP waste, the kiln
rotation speed was kept constant at 0.2 rpm.
The kiln temperature ranged from 1,650°F at
the beginning of the test to 2,046 °F at the test's
conclusion. The afterburner operated initially at
1,840°Fand reached a final temperature of
4-18
-------
Table 4-13. Selected Results - International Paper Company Incineration Treatment [EPA, 1989b]
Parameter
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzd(b)nuorantriefte1
Benzo{k)fluora.nthene
Benzoi5gW)petylene
Benzo(a)pyr6n6
Chrysene
DjfaenzforOanthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndetid(1 ,2,3*cd)pyrene1
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
B(a)P ootencv estimate
Other SVOCs
Biphenyl
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Test
Untreated
Cone.
(mg/kg)
2,300
1,800
6,700
6903
NR
MR
NR
NR
ND
NO
5,500
2,200
NR
850
1,100
1293
8,000
5,800
34,000
NC
ND
1,700
1,200
8,600
1
Flue Gas
ORE
(%)
>99.99985
>99.99980
>99.99995
>99.99948
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
99.99968
>99.99984
NR<
99.99686
99.99435
99.94076
99.99956
99.99969
;-99.99816
NC
NR
>99.99979
99.99926
>99.99996
Test
Untreated
Cone.
(mg/kg)
1,700
ND
4,600
650
NR
NR
NR
NR
870
ND
4,100
2,000
NR
1,700
2,800
1,500
7,500
4,000
30,000
NC
ND
1,700
1,100
6,800
2
Flue Gas
ORE
(%)
>99.99994
NR
>99.99998
>99.99983
NR
NR
NR
NR
>99.99988
NR
>99.99997
>99.99995
NR
99.99905
99.99807
99.99135
99.99996
>99.99997
299.99997
NC
NR
>99.99994
99.99980
>99.99998
Test
Untreated
Cone.
(mg/kg)
1,700
ND
4,600
4703
NR
NR
NR
NR
7203
ND
4,000
2,400
NR
2,500
4,100
2,600
8,000
2,200
31,000
NC
430
2,700
760
12,000
3
Flue Gas
ORE-
(%)
>99.99996
NR
>99.99998
>99.99986
NR
NR-
NR
NR
>99.99991
NR
>99.99998
>99.99997
NR
99.99822
99.99682
99.99049
99.99998
>99.99997
>99.99865
NC
>99.99985
>99.99998
99.99978
>99.99999
Test
Untreated
Cone.
(mg/kg)
4,200
ND
11,000
1,300
NR
NR
NR
NR
2,200
m
14,000
4,600
NR
2,100
4,400
2,500
22,000
7,400
74,000
NC
1,300
5,400
2,800
11,000
4
Flue Gas
ORE
(%)
>99.99996
NR
>99.99998
>99.99998
NR
NR
NR
NR
>99.99993
NR
99.99997
>99.99996
NR
99.99905
99.99918
99.99872
99.99996
>99.99998
a 99.99970
NC
>99.99846
>99.99997
99.99986
>99.99998
2 Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a]
Total PAHs does not include benzo(b) and (k) fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and 1-methylnaphthalene.
3 Because detection limits were not provided for nondetected results, a value of zero was assigned.
Trace concentrations reported below the average detection limit.
NR = Not reported
NC = B(a)P potency estimate was not calculated because values were not reported for four of the seven compounds used in the calculation of the
B(a)P potency estimate.
ND = Not detected
Shaded rows contain only NR and ND designations.
4-19
-------
Table 4-14. Selected Process Data - International Paper Company Incineration Treatment [EPA, 1989b]
TEST NO.
Sample Vol., dscf
Stack Flow, dscf/minute
Waste Feed, pounds/hr
Particulate Emissions, gr/dscf
Average CO Emissions, ppm
Ash Organic Concentration, ppb
42.94
115.38
40.0
0.020
114
73
116.10
80.68
34.0
0.016
28
ND (20)
122.22
106.44
69.9
0.147
35
ND (30)
86.48
119.26
49.2
0.070
18
ND (30)
ND » Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parenthesis.
2,033°F. Monitoring of stack gas emissions
included oxygen (3 to 16 percent), carbon mon-
oxide (<1 percent), and carbon dioxide (4 to >10
percent) [EPA, 1988].
Performance: The results for the three data
sets representing the K001-PCP waste are
presented in Table 4-15. This table presents
the total waste range concentrations for BOAT
listed PAHs and PCP detected in the untreated
waste, the average residual ash concen-
trations, the calculated percent change in
solids, and the average scrubber water
concentrations. The percentage of contaminant
removal from the untreated waste to the
residual ash exceeded 99.5 percent for all
organic compounds and exceeded 99.9 percent
for 9 of the 12 organic compounds reportedly
tested.
Cost Cost information was not provided in the
references for this study.
4.5 Solvent Extraction
4.5.1 Technology Description
Solvent extraction is a means of separating
contaminants from soils, sludges, and
sediments, thereby reducing the volume of
waste that must be treated. The contaminated
solid is brought into contact with a fluid that
selectively dissolves the contaminants. After a
predetermined extraction time, the solid and the
fluid are separated, and the contaminants are
concentrated in the extraction fluid. If the
contaminated soil does not meet cleanup levels
after one extraction, multiple extraction phases
can be used to improve removal efficiency. Full-
scale solvent extraction systems are typically
designed so that the solvent can be recovered
and reused.
The ability of solvent extraction to treat a given
waste relies primarily on the solvent selected.
The contaminants present in the waste must
have a greater affinity for the solvent than they
do for the waste matrix. It is also helpful if the
solvent is easily separated from the solid and
from the extracted contaminants. Solvent
extraction is typically used to remove organic
contaminants, and the extraction fluid is usually
an organic solvent, liquefied gas, or super-
critical fluid.
4.5,2 Advantages
The primary advantage of solvent extraction is
that it can efficiently remove many different
organic contaminants from a variety of soils,
sediments, and sludges. This is partially due to
the flexibility of solvent extraction processes.
The solvent can be selected based on the
target contaminants, and the number and length
of the extraction stages selected based on the
remediation criteria.
4.5.3 Limitations
The primary disadvantage of solvent extraction
is that it produces a concentrated organic ex-
tract that requires further treatment or disposal
4-20
-------
Table 4-15. Selected Results - Rotary Kiln Incineration ofK001-PCP Wastes [EPA, 1988]
Parameter
PAHs, ppm
.Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyiene
Anthracene
BenzCaJanthracene1
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene1
BenzoCgbOperyterte " "
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dipenz(a,h)arithracene1
Fluoranthene
Ruorene
tndefl6(1,2,3-cd)pyren01
2-M ethyThaphthatene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Total PAHs2
Rfa)P Potency E-stimatp3
Untreated Waste
.13,POQ.r.18,pQQ..
NR
8,500-13,000
<2,500 - 3,400
940 - 2,300
NR
<250-940
<24500 - 3,600
NR
13,000-21,000
8,200 - 12,000
NR
NR
26,000 - 43,000
28,000 - 42,000
9.200-15.000
110,000-170,000
600 - 1 500
Ash
<2.5
—
<2.5
<2<5
<2.5
*«
<2.5
<2.5
~
<2.5
<2.5
—
-
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<28
<30
% Change4
>-99,98
—
>-99.98
>-99.93
>-99.89
Wtf
>-99.73
>-99.93
—
>-99.99
>-99.98
—
-
>-99.99
>-99.99
>-99.98
• —
—
Scrubber Water
<0.010
—
<0.050
<0.010
<0.050
«.
<0.050
<0.050
—
<0.050
<0.050
~
~
<0.050
<0.050
O.050
<0.47
<0056
Pentachlorophenol
Metals
920 - 3,000
<12.5
>-99.58
<0.020
1
2
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA,
1.1-
1.5-
2.9
2.7
6.7-11
30-64
1989a].
/«u:\^^«.
0.4
1.1
2.0
2
I /
.1
_ !
-0.8
-8.2
-6.8
-11
L.\^«.iU«..A.
-64 to
-27 to
-38 to
-83 to
.^ :«.!.. ««./4
-72
+2.0
-70
-93
O O A>J\HU IB
<0.01
-0
.12
<0.045
0.07
0.61
-0.
-1
15
.1
2-methylnaphthalene. For nondetected results (e.g., less than values), the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
B(a)P estimates for this study do not include dibenz(a,h)anthracene or indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, for which no results were reported.
In addition, results for benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene were reported together. B(a)P potency estimates were, therefore, calculated
using the relative potency factor for benzo(b)fluoranthene, which is higher than the factor for benzo(k)fluoranthene. This results
. in a conservative B(a)P potency estimate.
Percent change is stated in a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NR = Not reported
Shaded rows contain only NR designations.
4-21
-------
(unless the contaminants can be used or re-
cycled after they have been extracted from the
soil). In addition to the organic contaminants,
the concentrated extract may also contain
organically bound metals (which can co-extract
with the organic contaminants) and traces of
the extraction solvent.
4.5.4 Technology Costs
In the Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies, Version 4.0 (VISITT
4.0) (July 1995) [EPA, 1995c], two vendors
provide project-specific cost estimates for
solvent extraction treatment of contaminated
materials from wood preserving facilities. The
National Research Council of Canada provides
a unit cost estimate of $227 to $363 per ton of
sludge treated, based on a treatability study it
performed at a wood preserving facility in
Edmonton, Alberta. (During this treatability
study, the untreated sludge had a PCP con-
centration of 1,500 ppm; the treated sludge had
a PCP concentration of 10 ppm.) CF Systems
estimates a unit cost of $220 per ton, based on
its remediation of contaminated materials from
the United Creosoting Co. site in Conroe, TX.
CF Systems also provides a general solvent
extraction price range of $75 to $400 per ton of
contaminated material. These cost estimates
were provided by the vendors, and it is not
known whether all indirect costs associated with
treatment were included.
The bid submitted to EPA provided a more
detailed cost estimate for the remediation of
contaminated soil from the United Creosoting
site in Conroe, TX [EPA Region VI, 1997]. The
cost for treatment only was estimated to be $97
per ton of soil treated; this cost included plant
erection, startup, and operation, but did not
include system design, plant fabrication,
demobilization and salvage, disposal of
organics, financial assurances, or peripheral
site work (e.g., site preparation, excavation,
backfilling, soil handling, and air monitoring).
The total project cost was estimated to be $311
per ton of soil treated; this cost included all of
the categories previously listed. These cost
estimates were prepared in 1995 and were
based on the treatment of 114,750 tons of soil.
Independent, detailed solvent extraction cost
estimates were developed for a SITE demon-
stration conducted using the Resources
Conservation Company (RCC) Systems Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) solvent
extraction system. The sediment treated during
the SITE demonstration was not from a wood
preserving site, but COCs did include PAHs. All
costs for this SITE demonstration are given in
August 1992 dollars. The SITE demonstration
cost estimate is based on a proposed
commercial unit with a projected treatment
capacity of 186 tons of contaminated material
(soils, sediments, or sludges) per day. Cost
estimates were based on continuous operation
with online percentages of 60 percent,' 70
percent, and 80 percent. Estimated treatment
costs are summarized in Table 4-16 [EPA,
1993f].
4.5.5 Treatability Study - Unidentified
Wood Preserving Facilities
[EPA, 7993/7
Background/Waste Description: In June 1991,
solvent extraction treatability studies were
performed at a laboratory in Vicksburg, MS.
These studies used contaminated soil from two
unidentified wood preserving facilities [EPA,
1993fJ. Analytical results for the untreated
materials are presented in Table 4-17 to
facilitate comparison with the treated materials.
Summary of Study: Soils from two wood treat-
ing facilities were treated using the RCC pilot-
scale B.E.S.T.® unit. The treatability studies
were sponsored by EPA. The objective of these
tests was to determine the BOAT standard for
contaminated soil and debris. This standard
was successfully established [EPA, 1993f].
Performance: PAHs were the target
contaminants in these treatability tests; only
total PAHs were reported. Results were as
presented in Table 4-17 [EPA, 1993f].
Cost Cost information was not provided.
4-22
-------
Table 4-16. Estimated Solvent Extraction Treatment Costs [EPA, 1993f]
Online Percentage
Equipment Cost Incurred During Treatment
Fixed Costs1
Solvent Extraction Labor Cost
Cost for Supplies
Cost for Consumables
Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement
Costs
Total Cost2
Cost,
Option 1
60%
10.62
9.13
48.14
15.40
28.48
0.35
112.12
$/ton of material treated
Option 2
70%
9.11
7.85
41.27
14.84
28.48
0.30
101.85
Option 3
80%
7.97
6.90
36.11
14.46
28.48
0.27
94.19
The fixed costs presented are only the fixed costs incurred during treatment (insurance, taxes, etc.). Additional one-time fixed costs will
be incurred during system startup. The total one-time startup costs are estimated to be $147,480. The impact of these one-time costs on
the unit cost of treatment depends on the total amount of material being treated. If the total amount of material is 18,800 tons, the unit costs
attributed to startup will be $7.84 per ton.
These cost estimates do not include costs associated with site preparation, excavation or dredging of contaminated materials, permitting
or regulatory compliance, startup, treatment or disposal of residuals or effluents, analyses, or demobilization.
Table 4-17. Selected Results - Unidentified Wood Preserving Sites Solvent Extraction Treatment
[EPA, 1993f]
PAH Concentration, ppb
Material
Soil from wood treating
facility #1
Soil from wood treating
facility #2
Before Treatment
10,900,000
14,000,000
After Treatment
109,000
8,200
Percent Change1
-99
' -99.9
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
4.5.6 Treatability Study - United Creo-
soting Co. [EPA, 1995c]
Background/Site Description: In 1995, a
treatability study was conducted using solvent
extraction at the United Creosoting Co., Inc. in
Conroe, TX. Soils, sludges, and natural
sediments were contaminated with creosote
and other contaminants from wood preserving
operations [EPA, 1995c]. Analytical results for
the untreated materials are summarized in
Table 4-18 to facilitate comparison with the
treated materials.
Summary of Study. The treatability study was
conducted in order to determine if solvent
extraction could be used successfully as a
component in the site remediation process.
Results indicated that this technology would be
capable of meeting site cleanup goals.
Performance: Application of solvent extraction
reduced the concentration of selected PAHs by
greater than 95 to greater than 99 percent. PCP
concentrations were reduced by greater than 61
percent. Results are presented in Table 4-18.
Based upon the treatability study results, a full-
4-23
-------
Table 4-18. Selected Results - United Creosoting Solvent Extraction Treatment [EPA, 1995c]
Parameter
Concentration
Before Treatment
After Treatment
Percent Change
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Pentachlorophenol, ppb
150,000 to 250,000
75,000 to 120,000
50,000 to 130,000
33,000 to 330,000
<1, 000 to 1,750
<4,000 to 4,000
<1, 000 to 900
<1 ,500 to 13,000
>-98to~-100
-95 to >-96
-98 to -99
-61 to >-99
Concentrations provided by vendor.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
scale cleanup is being implemented using the
CF Systems solvent extraction technology to
treat 35,000 tons of contaminated soils,
sludges, and natural sediments [EPA, 1995cj.
ene glycol (APEG) treatment, in which
potassium polyethylene glycol (KPEG) is a
common reagent. An example BCD reaction is
represented by the following chemical equation
[Tiernan, 1996]:
Chlorinated Acceptor + A/aOH + Hydrogenated Donor Cafe/^sfe > Donor + Hydrogenated Acceptor + NaCI + H,O
^on° -tRr\° r*. r z
320°-360°C
Cosf (1995): The estimated treatment cost
associated with this project was $220 per ton.
For other wastes, treatment prices may range
from $75 to $400 per ton. These cost estimates
were provided by the vendor and it is not known
whether they include all indirect costs
associated with treatment. The vendor indicated
that the factors that most strongly affect the unit
treatment price for this process are the quantity
of waste requiring remediation, the
characteristics of the soil, the target
contaminant concentrations, and the initial
contaminant concentrations [EPA, 1995c].
4.6 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
(BCD)
4.6.1 Technology Description
The BCD process is a catalytic hydrogenation
process in which atoms of chlorine and other
halogens (e.g., fluorine, bromine) are removed
from molecules and replaced by hydrogen
atoms. A related process is alkaline polyethyl-
Several different combinations of reagents can
be used in the BCD process, all of which utilize
a basic (caustic) reagent such as sodium
hydroxide or sodium bicarbonate, usually in
combination with liquid carriers/reagents as well
as catalytic materials.
BCD can be used to treat soil directly, or it can
be used to treat concentrated organic residuals
from soil treatment processes such as solvent
extraction or TD. The contaminated soil or
waste and the BCD reagents are continuously
mixed at an elevated temperature for the
required reaction time.
4.6.2 Advantages
The primary advantage of BCD is that it is
capable of treating chlorinated aromatic
contaminant, including PCDDs/PCDFs, by
effectively dechlorinating them, even in very
concentrated wastes.
4-24
-------
4.6.3 Limitations
When BCD is applied directly to soil, it may be
necessary to remove residual reagent and
treatment by-products from the treated soil
before final disposal. Also, the pH of the soil
may be raised during treatment and may need
to be lowered prior to final disposal. During
treatment of oily wastes, precautions may need
to be taken to avoid releasing contaminants
volatilized by the elevated temperatures
required for treatment [EPA, 1990c]. BCD is not
applicable to nonhalogenated compounds, such
as PAHs.
4.6.4 Technology Costs
According to one reference, chemical
dehalogenation using APEG is expected to cost
$200 to $500 per ton of waste treated [EPA,
1990c]. A 1989 KPEG reference states that "the
cost of KPEG treatment of liquid wastes at field
sites evaluated to date is approximately $24 per
gallon" [Tiernan, et al., 1989]. Neither of these
references presents information regarding the
cost categories that are included in these cost
estimates.
4.6.5 Treatability Study - Montana Pole
Company
Background/Waste Description: In 1989, a
BCD treatability study was conducted using soil
from the Montana Pole Co., a wood preserving
plant in Butte, MT. The soil treated during this
treatability study had been contaminated by a
petroleum oil waste that was about 3 percent
PCP and contained PeCDDs and PeCDFs
[Tieman, et al., 1989]. Analytical results for the
untreated soil are presented in Table 4-19 to
facilitate comparison with the treated soil.
Summary of Study. Laboratory tests were
conducted to determine whether the BCD
process would dechlorinate PeCDDs and
PeCDFs in the contaminated soil and, if so, to
select appropriate operating conditions for
treatment. The laboratory procedures were as
follows:
1. Contaminated' soil (50 g) was placed in a
glass reaction vessel with 20 g of solvent
and 2 g of solid potassium hydroxide (KOH).
These materials were heated to between
80° and 95 °C and mixed for 1 hour. The
mixture was then allowed to cool, and a
small aliquot of the mixture was removed for
analysis to determine the effect of treatment
with KOH only.
2. Hot KPEG reagent (11 g) was added to the
soil slurry. The mixture was heated to
maintain a temperature in the range of 70°
to 105°C. It was stirred continuously and
aliquots of the mixture were removed
periodically to determine the effect of KPEG
treatment at different reaction times.
3. After being removed from the mixture, each
aliquot was mixed with 50 percent sulfuric
acid to quench the BCD reaction. The
aliquots were then analyzed for PeCDDs
and PeCDFs.
Performance: Table 4-19 presents selected
results of the study. The percent reduction for
compounds that were detected in the untreated
soil ranged from greater than 88 to greater than
99 percent [Tiernan, et al., 1989].
Cosf (1989): The party performing the treat-
ability studies estimates that full-scale BCD
treatment could be performed for approximately
$24 per gallon of liquid waste. (Note: Cost
categories for cost estimates were not provided
in the reviewed references for BCD treatment.)
A soil treatment cost estimate was not
developed for this study [Tiernan, et al., 1989].
4.7 Bioremediation
4.7.1 Technology Description
Bioremediation usually refers to the use of
microorganisms to break down complex organic
contaminants into simpler compounds. The
technology usually involves enhancing natural
biodegradation processes by adding nutrients,
oxygen (if the process is aerobic), and in some
cases, microorganisms to stimulate the
biodegradation of contaminants. (Anaerobic
processes utilize microorganisms that can
degrade contaminants in the absence of oxygen
[EPA, 1993g].) It typically is performed by
adding nutrients, adjusting moisture levels, and
controlling the concentration of oxygen in the
treatment area or vessel. Microorganisms
already present in the soil may be biodegraders
or additional strains may be introduced.
4-25
-------
Table 4-19. Selected Results - Montana Pole BCD Treatment [Tiernan, et a/., 1989]
Parameter
After
Before KOH
Treatment Treatment
After KOH Treatment Plus KPEG
Treatment for the Specified Time
Percent
15min 30mm 45 mm 1 hour 1.5 hour 2 hours Change1
DIoxlns/Furans, ppb
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDDs
Total TCDFs
Total PeCDDs
Total PeCDFs
Total HxCDDs
Total HxCDFs
Total HpCDDs
Total HpCDFs
Total OCDD
Total OCDF
ND
(5.65)
ND
(3.83)
8.22
ND
(5.17)
ND
(6.45)
17.9
544
686
5,020
1,072
19,266
1,237
4.40
10.9
60.6
29.8
2,350
8.46
3,632
5.51
227
ND
(2.49)
113
ND
(3.78)
ND
(0.745)
0.673
ND
(0.745)
18.0
27.1
ND
(0.729)
63.4
ND
(0.858)
13.6
ND
(0.278)
20.5
ND
(1.87)
ND
(0.561)
ND
(0.450)
ND
(0.543)
ND
(0.846)
ND
(1.34)
ND
(0.34)
9.21
ND •
(0.589)
11.5
ND
(0.377)
21.1
ND
(2.37)
ND
(0.787)
ND
(0.509)
ND
(0.787)
ND
(0.509)
ND
(1.53)
ND
(0.782)
1.07
ND
(0.977)
8.20
ND
(0.345)
14.5
ND
(1.41)
ND
(0.163)
ND
(0.216)
ND
(0.163)
ND
(0.216)
ND
(0.393)
ND
(0.266)
1.40
ND
(0.340)
6.86
ND
(0.199)
16.8
ND
(1.44)
ND
(0.825)
ND
(0.497)
ND
(0.825)
ND
(0.497)
ND
(2.51)
ND
(0.777)
10.4
ND
(1.46)
5.78
ND
(0.374)
12.5
ND
(0.514)
ND
(1.02)
ND
(0.610)
ND
(1.02)
ND
(0.610)
ND
(1.97)
ND
(0.608)
9.06
ND
(0.907)
5.77
ND
(0.307)
12.1
ND
(0.639)
NC
NC
>-88
NC
NC
>-97
>-98
>-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
Based upon concentrations before treatment and after 2 hours. Percent change is stated as a
NC * Not calculated
ND * Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses
decrease (-) or increase (+).
Although aerobic bioremediation is more widely
employed, many highly-chlorinated compounds,
including PGP, can be degraded under anaero-
bic conditions [Litchfield, et al., 1994].
Bioremediation technologies applicable to soils,
sediments, and sludges are often divided into
four categories: slurry-phase, solid-phase,
composting, and in situ (bioremediation
technologies applicable to contaminated water
are discussed in Subsection 5.4). Slurry-phase
bioremediation is performed by mixing
contaminated soils, sediments, or sludges with
water under aerobic conditions [EPA, 1990f].
The mixing provides contact between micro-
organisms and contaminants, while ensuring
aerobic conditions throughout the mixing unit
(bioreactor).
Solid-phase bioremediation uses conventional
soil management practices, such as tilling,
fertilizing, and irrigating, to accelerate microbial
degradation of contaminants in above-ground
treatment systems. If necessary, highly contam-
inated soils can be diluted with clean soils in
order to reduce contaminants to levels
conducive to biodegradation [EPA, 1993g].
Composting uses bulking agents, such as straw
or wood chips, to increase the porosity of
contaminated soils or sediments. Additional
additives employed to increase nutrients and
readily degradable organic matter include
manure, yard wastes, and food-processing
wastes. The resulting mixture often favors the
growth of thermophilic microorganisms capable
of degrading the organic contaminants of
concern [EPA, 1996c].
4-26
-------
In situ bioremediation is accomplished by
providing electron acceptors (e.g., oxygen and
nitrate), nutrients, moisture, or other amend-
ments to soils or sediments without disturbing
or displacing the contaminated media. In situ
bioremediation often is used in conjunction with
traditional pump-and-treat and soil flushing
groundwater systems, in which the treated
water is amended as required to stimulate
mjcrobial activity and reinjected into the zone of
contamination. Bioventing is a type of in situ
bioremediation where vacuum extraction wells,
air injection wells, or both are installed and
operated at relatively low flow rates, providing
increased oxygen to microorganisms in the soil
[EPA, 1994d].
An emerging and, as yet, unproven application
of in situ bioremediation is phytoremediation
which could potentially remove contaminants
(usually metals) from soils through plant uptake
mechanisms. Phytoremediation also may
degrade organic contaminants in soil through
the stimulation of microorganisms in the plant
root zone (rhizosphere).
4.7.2 Advantages
Both in situ and ex situ bioremediation tech-
nologies have been shown to be successful in
treating both water-soluble and relatively insol-
uble compounds. Organic compounds that are
highly soluble in water may biodegrade rapidly
particularly in slurry-phase systems. In general,
the rate of biodegradation of a given compound
is proportional to the solubility of that compound
in water. Slurry-phase bioremediation also has
the advantage of allowing more precise control
of operating conditions (e.g., temperature, mix-
ing regimes) than solid-phase, or in situ applica-
tions. Slurry-phase systems utilizing tanks can
be operated under anaerobic or aerobic
conditions, either sequentially in the same
tanks, or in series with multiple units. Slurry-
phase bioremediation allows improved contam-
. inant monitoring due to increased homogeneity
of the contaminated media.
Solid-phase bioremediation and composting
offer several advantages common to slurry-
phase, and other ex -situ treatment tech-
nologies: better process control, increased
homogeneity, and improved contaminant
monitoring. Additionally, treatment units can be
built to accommodate large quantities of media.
Composting also enriches the treated soil,
providing nutrients for revegetation [EPA,
1996c].
In situ bioremediation minimizes the need for
excavation and transport of contaminated soils,
sediments, or sludges. Materials handling
costs, VOC releases, and fugitive dust
emissions are consequently reduced [EPA,
1994d]. Energy costs during treatment typically
are less than other remedial approaches.
4.7.3 Limitations
Many factors affect the success of
bioremediation. The physical form, amount,
location, and distribution of contaminants
greatly impact the degree to which
contaminants will be degraded [EPA, 1993g].
Biodegradable contaminants may undergo
mineralization (complete degradation to inor-
ganic constituents); however, incomplete
degradation (ending with the formation of
organic intermediates) is also possible. Soil
characteristics, including particle size distri-
bution, moisture content, and permeability also
affect the success of bioremediation. Soil and
contaminant characteristics will both affect
bioavailability (the extent to which contaminants
are available to microorganisms). For example,
high molecular weight PAHs and soils con-
sisting primarily of fine particles (i.e., silts and
clays) are often associated with low bioavail-
ability. Bioavailability of contaminants in soil can
decrease with time, as the contaminants "age"
and become more strongly sorbed to soil
particles.
Bioremediation is slower than many other
technologies and may require frequent
monitoring during startup. Monitoring and
sampling will also be necessary to determine
when cleanup levels have been achieved.
Temperature, moisture content, and pH values
below or above the optimal range for the
microorganisms will slow or halt bioremed-
iation. In some cases, excessive biomass
growth may impede further remediation [EPA,
1992d]. Concentrations of certain contaminants
(e.g., PCP and wood preserving metals) may be
high enough to be toxic to the microorganisms.
Bioremediation has not proven to be effective
on PCDDs/PCDFs. These and other factors
4-27
-------
limit the effectiveness of bioremediation in
some situations.
In addition to these general limitations, in situ
and, to a lesser extent, solid-phase bioremed-
iation present potential difficulties in measuring
the performance of the treatment. Contaminant
spatial heterogeneity, fate and transport, and
sorption dynamics all lead to variability in results
across the site and over time. Sorption
dynamics are a particularly important con-
sideration for composting, during which
contaminants may bind strongly to the added
organic matter, reducing bioavailability.
Degradation rates, therefore, may be limited by
desorption kinetics instead of microbial activity
[EPA, 1996c]. Also, composting usually results
in a three-to-four-fold increase in the volume of
material to be managed after remediation.
4.7.4 Technology Costs
Costs for implementing bioremediation vary
widely depending on the type of treatment. In
situ approaches generally cost less than
treatments requiring excavation and soil
handling [EPA, 1994d]. Ex situ applications
incur these costs but still are economically
preferable to many other treatment tech-
nologies. Estimates of the treatment costs for
the composting remediation of 20,000 tons of
explosives-contaminated soils ranged from
$187 per ton for windrow composting to $290
per ton for mechanically-agitated in-vessel
composting [EPA, 1996c]. Slurry-phase biore-
mediation costs were estimated in 1990 to be
$105 to $195 per ton [EPA, 1990fj. In a 1993
SITE demonstration of slurry-phase bioremed-
iation, costs were developed for operation of
70,000- and 290,000-gallon reactors used to
treat 22,000 tons (20,000 yd3 with a site-
specific, measured density of 1.1 tons/yd3) of
contaminated soil from a wood preserving
facility. Table 4-20 presents treatment and
project cost estimates for both reactors. The
two largest cost components for the entire
project were total project labor (including labor
associated with screening and milling the soil)
and analytical costs.
Conceptual cost estimates were prepared for
three solid-phase bioremediation scenarios for
the Southern Maryland Woodtreating Site in
Hollywood, MD [Roy F. Weston, 1994]. The
three scenarios are based on 5, 10, and 15
years of operation for an onsite, ex situ, solid-
phase bioremediation system. Capital and
operating cost estimates are presented in Table
4-21. (The capital and operating costs were not
combined into a total project cost because the
cost basis for the capital costs is different from
the cost basis for the operating costs.)
4.7.5 Case Study - Champion International
Superfund Site [EPA, 1996a]
Background/Site Description: The Champion
International Superfund Site is a former wood
preserving facility in Libby, MT [EPA, 1996b].
Soil and groundwater at the site are contamin-
ated with PAHs and PCP. The Record of
Decision (ROD) for the site specifies biological
treatment for the remediation of both soil and
groundwater.
Summary of Study. Full-scale prepared bed
bioremediation of contaminated soil has been
underway at the Champion International
Superfund Site since 1989 [EPA, 1996b]. In
1989, it was projected that treatment of the
stockpiled soil (45,000 yd3 of soil, screened to
1 inch) would take 10 years. In 1996, treatment
was still on schedule for completion in 1999.
The prepared bed system consists of two 1-
acre lined, bermed land treatment units
(designated LTD 1 and LTU 2) with leachate
collection systems [EPA, 1996b]. Contaminated
soils are placed in the LTUs in 6- to 12-inch lifts
for treatment during the summer season
(approximately March to October). The system
uses indigenous microorganisms, and a new lift
is added to an LTU when the soil in the
preceding lift meets treatment goals. Water
(recycled leachate or water from other onsite
sources) is added to maintain moisture levels at
approximately 40 to 70 percent of field capacity.
Nutrients (inorganic forms of nitrogen and
phosphorus) are added, sometimes as
frequently as every other day. Each active LTU
is tilled at least weekly, when weather con-
ditions permit.
Several laboratory studies were conducted in
conjunction with the full-scale treatment
process [EPA, 1996b]. One of these studies
evaluated the contribution of nonbiological
mechanisms, such as volitilization and leach-
4-28
-------
Table 4-20. Estimated Treatment Costs for Slurry-Phase Bioremediation [EPA, 1993d]
Cost Category
Capital Equipment
Reactor and mechanism
Startup and Fixed
H&S Monitoring
Establish Operating Procedures
Equipment Mobilization
Scale Up Optimization
Labor1
Supply and Consumable
Utilities
Equipment Repair and Replacement
Treatment Costs
Treatment Cost/yd3 (Cost/Ton)2
Project Cost/yd3 (Cost/Ton)3
70,000-Gallon
Capacity Unit
125,000
2,000
9,000
7,500
50,000
1,875,000
27,000
110,000
95,000
2,300,500
$11 5 ($105)
$295 ($268)
Cost, $
290,000-GaIlon
Capacity Unit
256,000
2,000
9,000
7,500
50,000
645,000
15,000
43,000
40,000
1,067,500
$53 ($49)
$145 ($132)
Labor associated with operation of reactor only. Estimate does not include labor for screening and milling.
1
2 Based on treatment of ^'.OOOyd3 (22,000 tons, based on measured soil density of 1.1 tons/yd3 at "the site. Estimate does not include costs
for site preparation and regulatory; pretreatment equipment; design, engineering, and construction; treatment or disposal of effluent and
3
residuals; analytical; and demobilization.
Includes treatment cost and additional categories listed in Footnote 2.
Table 4-21. Conceptual Cost Estimates for Solid-Phase Bioremediation [Roy F. Weston, 1994]
Cost Category
Capital Costs1
Construction of Cells
Excavation of Soils
Farming
Handling and Backfill
Site Restoration
Biological Study
Groundwater Treatment Plant
Operating Time
of 5 Years
3,753,610
1,277,200
1,658,400
673,500
4,860,250
1,000,000
475.220
Cost, $
Operating Time
of 1 0 Years
3,753,610
1,277,200
3,140,400
673,500
4,860,250
1,000,000
475.200
Operating Time
of 15 Years
3,753,610
1,277,200
4,622,400
673,500
4,860,250
1,000,000
475.220
4-29
-------
Table 4-21. Conceptual Cost Estimates for Solid-Phase Bioremediation (continued)
Cost. $
Cost Category
Operating Time
of 5 Years
Operating Time
of 10 Years
Operating Time
of 15 Years
Mobilization, Construction Management, Site Services, and
Demobilization
Technology Implementation (designs, plans, specifications,
regulatory approval, insurance, bonds, permits)
3,013,602
3,013,602
3,339,642
3,339,642
3,665,682
3,665,682
Overhead and Profit
Contingency on Capital Costs
Total Capital Costs1
Annual Operating Costs
Groundwater Treatment Plant
Monitor Wells Sampling/Analysis
Contingency on Annual Operating Costs
Total Annual Operating Costs
Total Operating Costs for Duration of Treatment,
Present Value
1,369,818
3,425,405
24,521,000
445,950
259,460
176,353
881,763
4,006,000
1,518,018
3,794,519
27,172,000
445,950
259,460
176,353
881,763
7,647,000
1,666,218
4,165,239
29,825,000
445,950
. 259,460
176,353
881,763
10,957,000
2 Capital costs are in 1993 dollars and do not include any interest or escalation.
Present value of operating costs for the duration of treatment, calculated using an annual interest rate of 6 percent and
an annual cost escalation of 4 percent
ing; this study indicated that the majority of the
apparent decrease in contaminant
concentrations was due to biological processes.
Additional laboratory studies demonstrated the
ability of indigenous microorganisms to
mineralize the target contaminants at
temperatures and moisture contents
representative of site conditions.
Performance: The primary COCs at the site are
naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, PCP, and
total carcinogenic PAHs (TCPAHs), which are
defined as the sum of the following 10 PAHs:
fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluor-
anthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthra-
cene, benzo(ghi)perylene, and indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene [EPA, 1996b]. Tables 4-22 and 4-23
present mean concentrations and percent
removals for the COCs in LTD 1, Lifts 4 and 5,
respectively.
Costs: Construction costs for the two LTUs
totaled $400,000, and monitoring requirements
plus annual operations were estimated to cost
$117,000 in 1992. Using this information and
the projected total treatment duration of 10
years for 45,000 yd3, the total treatment cost
and unit treatment costs can be estimated.
Assuming that costs remain constant (no
increase due to inflation), the total treatment
cost (construction, monitoring, and operation of
the system) will be $1,570,000 to treat 45,000
yd3 of soil. The unit treatment cost is therefore
approximately $35 per yd3, or approximately
$27 per ton of contaminated soil.
4.7.6 Case Study - Southeastern Wood
Preserving
Background/Site Description: The Southeas-
tern Wood Preserving Superfund Site, located
in Canton, MS, used creosote and PCP to treat
wood products. Large quantities of soil and
sludge contaminated with PAHs are present at
the site.
Summary of Study. A full-scale slurry-phase
bioremediation of sludge was performed at the
Southeastern Wood Preserving site by OHM
Corporation. Approximately 10,000 yd3 (estimat-
4-30
-------
Table 4-22. Mean Contaminant Concentrations in LTU1, Lift 4 [EPA, 1996b]
Contaminant
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TCPAH
PCP
5/8/91 1
Concentration
(mg/kg)
4.5
2.52
76.5
230
132.1
6/27/91 1
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.72
1.02
4.82
40.12
10.1
Percent
Change3
-62
-60
-94
-83
-92
9/1 9/91 1
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.42
0.22
4.6
33.0
20.7
Percent
Change2
-91
-92
-94
-86
-84
9/1 /921
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.52
0.72
3.92
41.0
10.52
Percent
Change2
-67
-72
-95
-82
-92
Lift 4 was placed in LTU 1 on May 7,1991; Lift 5 was added on top of Lift 4 on July 26,1991.
Mean includes one or more non-detects that were averaged in as zeros.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
Table 4-23. Mean Contaminant Concentrations in LTU 1, Lift 5 [EPA, 1996b]
Contaminant
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TCPAH
PCP
7/27/91 1
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.12
<0.953
135
254
119.4
9/1 9/91 1
Concentration
( mg/kg)
1.02
0.72
35.3
103
40.5
Percent
Change4
-9.1
NC
-74
-59
-66
9/1 /921
Concentration
(mg/kg)
2.0
1.02
4.32
37.1
16.9
Percent
Change4
+82
+5.2
-97
-85
-86
Lift 5 was placed in LTU 1 on July 26,1991.
3 Mean includes one or more non-detects that were averaged in as zeros.
. All results were non-detects; detection limits were averaged together.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
ed to be 13,000 tons) of RCRA-listed waste-
water treatment sludge (EPA hazardous waste
code K001) were treated in 200,000-gaIlon
reactors [EPA, 1995c]. Treatment for each
batch required 5 to 30 days depending on
temperatures in the reactors.
Performance: Table 4-24 presents initial and
final concentrations along with percent change
for PAHs. Percent reductions ranged from 33
for indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene to 99 for acenap-
thene. The B(a)P potency estimate decreased
by 61 percent. The initial and final concen-
trations of benzo(k)fluoranthene were not
reported and, therefore, are not included in the
B(a)P potency estimate. QA results were not
presented in this report.
Cost Remediation costs were reported at
$190 per yd3 (approximately $146 per ton).
Factors considered in this vendor-reported cost
were not listed.
4-31
-------
Table 4-24. Selected Results - Southeastern Wood Preserving Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Treatment [EPA, 1995c]
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphtheno
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzofluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)peryiene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2l3-cd)pyrene1.
2-MethylnapWhaIen©
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Total PAHs2
B(a)P Potency Estimate3
Initial Concentration
909,000
93,000
1,950,000
280,000
321,000
92,000
130,000
296,000
92,000
1,708,000
630,000
.94,000..
NR
93,000
1,031,000
1.148.000
8,867,000
292,000
Final Concentration
6,000
15,000
121,000
12,000
209,000
18,000
79,000
36,000
9,000
32,000
14,000
31,000
JMR
ND
34,000
33.000
649,000
113,000
Percent Change4
-99
-84
-94
-96
-35
-80
-39
-88
-90
-98
-98
..-33.
NR - ^
NC
-97
-97
-93
-61
2 Used In calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
Total PAHs does not Include 2-methylnaphthalene. Since a detection limit was not provided for the nondetected result, a value
3 of zero was assigned.
Results were reported for benzofluoranthene only, rather than for benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene separately. B(a)P potency
estimates were, therefore, calculated using the benzo(b)fluoranthene factor, which is higher than the relative potency
. for benzo(k)fluoranthene. This results in a conservative B(a)P potency estimate.
Percent change Is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NR * Not reported
NC * Not calculated
ND 3 Not detected
Shaded row contains only NR designations.
4-32
-------
CHAPTER 5
WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
This chapter provides information on four
technologies used in the remediation of
contaminated water. For each technology, the
chapter provides a description of the tech-
nology, along with advantages of the tech-
nology, and limitations of its use. A discussion
of costs associated with operation of these
technologies and with factors that affect costs
is included. When available, a treatability study
and a case study using the technology to treat
water from wood preserving sites are
presented. Additional studies are described in
Appendix C.
5.1 Hydraulic Containment
5.1.1 Technology Description
Hydraulic containment involves the design and
installation of a system that physically and/or
hydraulically prevents contaminant migration.
Physical control can be achieved by slurry walls
(a.k.a, cut-off walls), buried drainlines,
collection sumps, infiltration galleries, and
geomembranes. Hydraulic containment sys-
tems often consist of a physical control used in
conjunction with hydraulic controls (e.g., in
conjunction with a pump-and-treat system).
5.1.2 Advantages
The main advantage of hydraulic containment
technologies is that they usually can be
implemented quickly in situations where soluble
and mobile constituents pose an imminent
threat to a source of drinking water. The design
requirements and practices associated with
their installation are well understood.
5.1.3 Limitations
Some hydraulic containment systems (i.e.,
dewatering wells) require periodic maintenance
to remain operational. They also frequently
require monitoring equipment to anticipate and
alert personnel of operational problems (i.e.,
system shutdowns). Physical barriers (i.e.,
slurry walls) can be susceptible to chemical
attack, which can eventually lead to increased
hydraulic activity. Successful applications of
physical barriers for containment of DNAPLs
rely on the presence of a horizontal
impermeable boundary which prevents further
downward migration of the DNAPLs, as well as
the ability to key-in the physical barrier to the
impermeable boundary [Huling, 1997]. Once
physical barriers are installed, it is often difficult
to assess their actual performance.
5.1.4 Technology Costs
Costs for implementing hydraulic containment
vary greatly depending upon site- and
technology-specific factors. Depth of confining
layers, soil type, contaminant mobility, and
groundwater pH are important site-specific
factors. Materials of construction, emplace-
ment approaches, and maintenance require-
ments of the chosen technology affect project
costs. Costs are generally less for shallow
(less than 30 feet) slurry walls, and most
expensive for deep (greater than 50 feet)
injection grouting. The range (in 1992 dollars)
was $3 to $75 per square foot of containment
structure [EPA, 1992a].
5.1.5 Case Study - Laramie Tie Plant
Background/Waste Description: In 1986, hy-
draulic containment was implemented at the
Laramie Tie Plant site located near Laramie,
WY [Piontek & Simpkin, 1992]. Railroad tie
treating operations began in 1886 and
continued on an intermittent basis until the
facility closed in 1983. Creosote was the
primary wood-preserving agent used and is
responsible for the majority of the contamin-
ation now present at the site. PCP was also
used, but in much smaller quantities. Site soils
and groundwater are believed to have become
contaminated by drippings and spills associated
with the wood-preserving activities, direct
discharges of wastewaters to low-lying areas,
5-1
-------
and contaminant release from some waste-
water impoundments at the site.
A remedial investigation conducted at the site
revealed widespread contamination, which
consisted largely of an immiscible, heavier-
than-water mixture of creosote and PCP in
carrier oil. The mixture resulted in a DNAPL
pool that had accumulated at the base of a
highly permeable alluvial deposit, at an average
depth of approximately 10 feet. It was estimated
that this alluvial deposit contained
approximately 6.5 million gallons of DNAPL
distributed over an area of approximately 90
acres. DNAPL migration into the underlying
bedrock has been generally limited by the fine-
grained character of the bedrock and the
naturally upward flow of groundwater.
Summary of Study. While the site investigation
was still under way, the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) began implementing a series of
measures to address the potential risks to
human health and the environment posed by
the site contamination. Early in the project,
several actions were quickly undertaken to
mitigate the potential for severe contaminant
release from the site. In 1983, a dike was built
along the adjacent Laramie River to protect the
site from floods. In the fall of 1983, a short
section of sheet-pile wall was installed to cut off
the subsurface flow of oil from the site into the
Laramie River along a suspected preferential
flow path.
As the remedial investigation was nearing its
conclusion, UPRR began evaluating more
permanent options for preventing the inter-
mittent seepage of DNAPLs into the Laramie
River, as well as the more constant flow of
contaminated alluvial groundwater into the river.
In 1986, a system installed to prevent further
contaminant migration from the site began
operation. This system, called the Contaminant
Isolation System (CIS), consisted of the
following:
• A physical barrier to contaminant migration:
a 10,000-linear-foot, soil-bentonite cutoff wall
• A hydraulic barrier to contaminant migration:
17,000 linear feet of horizontal drainline that
sustains inward groundwater flow to the site
• A system to treat the contaminated ground-
water generated in the hydraulic containment
system: an oil removal system and filtration
with activated carbon
Performance: Installation of the CIS was
reported to have stopped the intermittent
seepage of oil into the Laramie River.
Contaminated alluvial groundwater that formerly
flowed into the Laramie River is now intercepted
and treated before it reaches the river. The
contaminated groundwater that had the highest
potential for offsite migration to receptor wells is
now being pumped out of the ground and
treated in the CIS activated carbon water
treatment plant. The conclusion reached after 4
years of operating and monitoring this system is
that the actual and most imminent risks formerly
posed by the site contamination have been
addressed by these remedial actions and the
other site management practices that are
currently being employed.
Cost: Cost information was not available.
5.2 Carbon Adsorption
5.2.1 Technology Description
Carbon adsorption is used to remove organic
contaminants from groundwater by adsorption
of the contaminants onto a carbon surface. The
adsorption of contaminants to carbon is caused
by chemical and physical interactions between
the contaminant molecules and the carbon
surface. The surface area and pore size of the
carbon, the solubility and molecular size of the
organic contaminants, and the contact time
between the water and activated carbon
surface determine the effectiveness of the
adsorption process. Generally, organics of low
solubility and high molecular weight are the
most readily removed by this process, since
these molecules enable the most effective use
of the carbon's adsorption area. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) is frequently used be-
cause its structure provides a large number of
5-2
-------
adsorption sites per pound of carbon. The
contaminants adsorb to the surfaces of the
microporous carbon granules until most of the
adsorption sites are utilized. The GAG may then
be either regenerated or disposed of. GAC may
be used in a fixed adsorption bed or a moving
adsorption bed.
5.2.2 Advantages
Carbon is an excellent adsorbent because of its
large surface area, which can range from 500 to
2,000 m2/g, and because its surfaces are highly
attractive to many different types of
contaminants. Almost all organic compounds
can be adsorbed to GAC to some degree. GAC
can be and is commonly used in conjunction
with other treatment technologies. For example,
GAC can be used to remove contaminants from
the offgas from air stripper and soil vapor
extraction (SVE) operations. GAC has also
been used to remove low concentrations of
certain types of inorganics (i.e., metals);
however, it is not widely used for this appli-
cation. (Ion exchange is a common treatment
for metals.)
5.2.3 Limitations
The wide-scale use of GAC can cause it to be
inappropriately selected when an alternative
technology may be more effective. Compounds
that have low molecular weight and high polarity
are not recommended for GAC treatment.
Streams with high suspended solids (;>50 mg/L)
and oil and grease C>10 mg/L) may cause
fouling of the carbon and require frequent back-
washing. In such cases, pre-treatment prior to
GAC is generally required. High levels of
organic matter (e.g, s1,000 mg/L) may result in
rapid reduction of the carbon's effectiveness.
Even lower levels of background organic matter
(e.g., 10 to 100 mg/L) such as fulvic and humic
acids may cause interferences in the adsorption
of specifically targeted organic contaminants
which are present in lower concentrations. In
such cases, GAC may be most effectively
employed as a polishing step in conjunction
with other treatments.
5.2.4 Technology Costs
Costs associated with GAC are dependent on
wastestream flow rates, type of contaminants,
concentrations, and site and timing require-
ments. Typically, costs are less with lower
concentration levels of a contaminant of a given
type. Costs are also less at higher flow rates. At
liquid flow rates of 100 million gallons per day
(mgd), costs range from $0.10 to $1.50 per
1,000 gallons treated. At flow rates of 0.1 mgd,
costs increase to $1.20 to $6.30 per 1,000
gallons treated [EPA, 1991c].
The amount of carbon required and the
regeneration/reactivation frequency are impor-
tant economic considerations. Compounds that
do not adsorb well often require large quantities
of GAC, and this will increase costs. In some
cases, the spent GAC may be a hazardous
waste, the management of which can
significantly add to the cost of treatment.
5.2.5 Treatability Study - McCormick &
Baxter (MCB) Site
Background/Waste Description: The contamin-
ated medium for this treatability study was
groundwater contaminated with PAHs, PCP,
and PCDDs/PCDFs. The groundwater was
collected from two wells screened in different
aquifers. The shallow well was screened at 20
ft below land surface (bis) and the deep well
was screened at 175 ft bis. The water from
each of these wells was composited to gen-
erate a 50:50 test water mixture.
Summary of Study. A carbon adsorption treat-
ability study was conducted on water from the
MCB Superfund site at an undisclosed vendor
facility [IT Corp, 1996a]. This study consisted of
an accelerated column test (ACT) evaluation of
a GAC system. The ACT system achieves
acceleration of the carbon adsorption cycle
through a scaling down of the conventional
column testing hardware. The ACT simulates
actual stream conditions and process perfor-
mance to provide dynamic data, rather than the
equilibrium capacity data generated by an
isotherm. This ensures full consideration of flow
conditions and the effects of flow on adsorption
capacity. The minimum amount of carbon that
will be consumed at full-scale is then predicted
based on the amount of water treated before
breakthrough of the target chemical(s) occurs.
Except for the reduced scale, all other
components of the test system (reservoir,
pump, tubing, etc.) and the overall system
design are essentially identical to larger-scale
5-3
-------
laboratory or field evaluation systems [IT Corp.,
1996a].
One 19-L (5-gallon) sample of groundwater
from the MCB site was used for testing. The
water was filtered using a 1.0-micrometer (^m)
glass-fiber filter to remove solids. The filtered
water was then used as the influent to the ACT.
The ACT was conducted using a high-activity,
pulverized GAG. The water was also filtered
with regular carbon before treatment in order to
prevent clogging of the fine carbon bed in the
ACT filter. The carbon adsorption vendor
designed the ACT system to simulate the
expected MCB groundwater flow rate of 80 gpm
and the amount of carbon in one of its stock
treatment units. The size of the water sample
requested by the vendor was determined to be
too small to ensure breakthrough of the
contaminants. Therefore, the quantity of carbon
actually used in the ACT was 25 percent of the
amount specified in the ACT design.
The ACT column was operated for 7 days,
during which time the operation of the column
was monitored by compositing two 1-L samples
of treated water per day. Samples of treated
groundwater were screened for the presence of
PAHs using D-TECH PAH test kits (Model TK-
1006-1). Based on the results of the sample
screening, samples were selected for laboratory
analysis for SVOCs and PCDDs/PCDFs.
Performance: The results for selected
contaminants of concern (PCP and PCDDs/
PCDFs) and the calculated B(a)P potency
estimates and TCDD-TEQs are presented in
Table 5-1. Acenaphthylene was the only PAH
detected in the influent or effluent. (The Day-3
sample was analyzed by a more sensitive
method, high performance liquid chromato-
graphy (HPLC); however, the influent was not
reanalyzed using HPLC.) The concentrations of
all seven PAH compounds used in the calcula-
tions of the B(a)P potency estimates were not
detected and, consequently, the estimates
were not calculated.
The document in which these results were
reported stated that PCP results for the ACT
effluent indicated that breakthrough of the
chemical may have occurred within the first day.
The Day 1-ACT sample analysis indicated that
about 47 percent of the PCP was removed [IT
Corp., 1996a]. The carbon treatment vendor
extrapolated the carbon use data to a full-scale
system.
Table 5-1. Selected Results - MCB Site ACT [IT Corp., 1996a]
Influent Results
Effluent Results
Parameter
SVOCs, ppb
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-MethylphenoI
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
TCDD-TEQ (ppq)1
Cone.
7,400
38
94
30
4J
U
51.2
Cone.
Day 1
3,900
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
21.2
Cone.
Day 2
11,000
27
74
29
<50
<10
25.9
Cone.
Day 6
8,000
30
82
29
3J
1 J
24.1
Test End
% Change2
+8.1
-21
-13
-3.3
-25
0
-53
2 TCDD-TEQ by l-TEFs/89 [EPA, 1989a]. Results are reported in ppq.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+)
J - Estimated value
5-4
-------
The phenol data are largely inconclusive. Many
influent and effluent values are well within
sample variability. In the case of 2,4,5- and
2,4,6-trichIorophenol, Day-1 and Day-2 effluent
detection limits were above their respective
influent concentrations.
The measured concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in all ACT samples (including the filtered
influent) were nondetectable at a level below
the treatment objective. Other PCDD and
PCDF congeners were detected in all samples.
Overall, there was a 53 percent reduction in
TCDD-TEQ between the influent and Day-6
effluent.
Costs: Table 5-2 presents the capital and
O&M costs for the ACT carbon treatment
system. Capital and O&M costs were reported
for a system with a flow rate of 80 gpm.
Dividing the capital cost evenly over 10 years
(a reasonable duration for pump-and-treat
remediation) and adding O&M costs produces
a treatment cost of $1.38 per 1,000 gallons
treated.
simultaneous introduction of . ozone (O3),
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), or titanium dioxide
(TiO2) catalyst. The combination of chemical
oxidation and UV photolysis has been shown to
destroy a wide variety of organic contaminants.
This destruction is accomplished through the
generation of highly reactive hydroxyl radicals,
which theoretically break down complex
compounds into simpler ones. However,
intermediate compounds can be more toxic
than the parent compound; therefore,
screening tests should be performed [Manila!,
et al., 1992]. In groundwater remediation,
UV/oxidation, a subset of photolytic oxidation,
is a viable alternative to air stripping, activated
carbon adsorption, and biotreatment [EPA,
1991d].
5.3,2 Advantages
Photolytic oxidation effectively treats liquids
that contain oxidizable contaminants. The
UV/H2O2 process is effective over a wide pH
range and the process creates no waste by-
products or air emissions. Phenols, which are
common contaminants at wood preserving
Table 5-2. Estimated Treatment Costs for Carbon Adsorption
Cost
Treatability Vendor
Carbon Treatment -
Recommended Treatment System
Dual-vessel system containing
Capital ($)
($/1,OOOgal)
O&M
($71,000 gal)
Treatment
($/1 ,000 gal)1
20,000 Ibs of 8 x 30 mesh virgin
activated carbon at a carbon use
rate = 1.19lb/1,000gal
0.19
1.19
1.38
Based on treatment of 420,480,000 gallons of water at the design flow rate of 80 gpm. (Capital costs divided evenly over a 10-
year project), Expenses included in O&M were not itemized. The cost estimates do not include site preparation, permitting and
regulatory compliance activities, or demobilization.
5.3 Photolytic Oxidation
5.3.1 Technology Description
Photolytic oxidation is a process that uses
ultraviolet (UV) radiation to destroy or detoxify
hazardous chemicals in aqueous solutions.
Absorption of energy in the UV spectrum
elevates molecules to higher energy states,
thus increasing the ease of bond cleavage and
subsequent oxidation of the molecule.
Photolytic treatment can be enhanced by the
sites, are easily oxidized and, therefore, can be
easily treated by photolytic oxidation
processes. Another advantage of these
processes is that several oxidants or
photocatalysts can be used in combination with
UV light.
5.3.3 Limitations
If oxidation reactions are not complete, residual
hazardous compounds may remain in the
5-5
-------
treated water. In addition, intermediate
hazardous compounds may be formed (e.g.,
trihalomethanes, epoxides, and nitrosamines).
Incomplete oxidation may be caused by
insufficient strength or quantity of the oxidizing
agent(s), inhibition of oxidation reactions by
low or high pH, the presence of interfering
compounds that consume reagent, or
inadequate mixing or contact time of the
contaminant and oxidizing agent(s).
Determination of potential reactions and their
rates byway of treatability tests may be critical
to prevent explosion or formation of unwanted
compounds.
Oil and grease in the media should be
minimized to optimize the efficiency of the
oxidation process. Oxidation is not cost-
effective for highly concentrated wastes
because of the large amounts of oxidizing
agent(s) required. The cost of generating UV
light and the problem of scaling or coating on
the lamps are two of the biggest drawbacks to
UV-enhanced chemical oxidation systems.
These systems do not perform as well in turbid
waters and slurries because the reduced light
transmission reduces their effectiveness.
5.3.4 Technology Costs
Treatment costs for photolytic oxidation are
strongly influenced by site-specific factors.
These factors include: contaminant type and
concentration, quantity of water, flow rate of
water to be treated, local energy costs,
treatment costs, and interfering compounds.
Direct treatment costs for a 10-year treatment
period were determined from information
presented in three SITE Demonstration Test
Applications Analysis Reports (AARs). The
range of values for treating 1,000 gallons of
water were $4.35 to $16.30 [EPA, 1990d],
$5.14 to $13.28 [EPA, 1993b], and $5 to $11
[EPA, 1994c], (The values have not been
adjusted for inflation.) Direct treatment costs
include only the costs associated with setup,
operation, and demobilization of the treatment
unit. They do not include expenses such as
site preparation, ancillary equipment, analytical
services, and residuals disposal. It also should
be noted that none of the demonstrations were
conducted on water with wood preserving
contaminants as a major constituent.
In an effort to standardize the cost components
considered when performing intertechnology
comparisons, direct treatment costs have been
reduced to the expenses common to the
operation of most technologies. Table 5-3
provides an example of a revised analysis of
one of the AARs previously cited. The example
provides annual treatment costs for the
treatment of 260,000,000 gallons of
contaminated water using three different
treatment rates.
5.3.5 Treatability Study - MCB Site
Background/Waste Description: In September
1995, a photolytic oxidation treatability study
was conducted on groundwater from the MCB
Superfund site in Stockton, CA [IT Corp.,
1996a]. The contaminated medium for this
treatability study was groundwater contamin-
ated with PAHs, PCP, and PCDDs/PCDFs.
The groundwater was collected from two wells
that were screened in different aquifers. The
shallow aquifer well was screened at 20 ft bis;
the deep aquifer well was screened at 175 ft
bis. The water from each of these wells was
composited to generate a 50:50 test water
mixture.
Summary of Study. The purpose of the
treatability study was to examine the
destruction of PCP, PCDDs/PCDFs, and PAHs
in groundwater using cavitation with UV
oxidation and H2O2. This treatment used H2O2,
hydrodynamic cavitation, and UV radiation to
photolyze and oxidize organic compounds
present in water. Cavitation occurs when a
liquid undergoes a dynamic pressure reduction
while under constant temperature. Ideally, the
end products of the process are water, carbon
dioxide, halides, and in some cases, organic
acids. The treatment objectives for the site
groundwater were the criteria for discharge to
the Stockton, CA publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). The local utility had set the
discharge criteria as the drinking water
maximum contaminated levels (MCLs).
A 50:50 mixture of water from the two wells
was collected and mixed in a 500-gallon tank.
This mixture was considered representative of
the groundwater contamination at the site.
5-6
-------
Table 5-3. Estimated Annual Treatment Costs for the perox-pure™ Technology [EPA, 1993b]
Estimated Annual Costs (1993 $)
Total Treatment Costs/1,000 gal.
10gpm
$13.28"
50 gpm
$5.645
100 gpm
Treatment Equipment
Labor
Start-Up
Consumables
Utilities
Maintenance & Modifications
2.2001
39,000
1001
7,550
9,200
11,000
18.5002
39,000
5002
24,200
45,900
18,500
58.0003
39,000
1.0003
48,450
91,700
29,000
$5.146
2 One-time cost divided over a 50-year treatment period
3 One time cost divided over a 10-year treatment period
4 One time cost divided over a 5-year treatment period
5 Assumes 5.2 million gallons treated annually
6 Assumes 26 million gallons treated annually
Assumes 52 million gallons treated annually
Note: These cost estimates do not include costs associated with site preparation, permitting and regulatory compliance,
ancillary equipment, analytical services, effluent disposal, and residuals shipping and handling.
Approximately 475 gallons of groundwater
were available for onsite treatment using a
pilot-scale cavitation system. The system that
was transported to the MCB site contained a
low-energy and a high-energy UV reactor.
Each UV reactor housed low-pressure,
mercury-vapor lamps that generate UV
radiation. The low-energy reactor housed 1.2-
kilowatt (kW) lamps; the high-energy reactor
housed 10-kW lamps.
For this pilot-scale study, the flow rate was
kept constant at 1 gallon per minute (gpm) for
the test runs that included UV radiation. (Note:
There were other test runs conducted which
did not involve UV radiation.) Variables for the
UV studies included lamp intensity (1.2 kW
versus 10 kW), irradiation time (10 min. versus
8 min.), and H2O2 dosage (0 ppm to 100 ppm).
Performance: The results of three runs, which
included UV radiation as part of the treatment
of the groundwater, are presented in Table 5-4.
The results are difficult to interpret due to the
lack of QA data that would indicate accuracy of
the values. However, in a general sense, the
data show that UV alone (Condition 1) was
somewhat effective in degrading PAHs and
PCP.
The data are inconclusive with respect to
photolytic oxidation because more than one
test condition was varied for each of the test
conditions. For example, for PCP, the lowest
percent removal achieved occurred not only
when lamp intensity was low, but when no
H2O2 was added. When H2O2 was added, lamp
intensity was increased. Condition 3 appears to
have performed better for treating PAHs than
Condition 2, as a result of a 25 percent
increase in H2O2; however, the best removal of
PCP was achieved under Condition 2. Since
there is only one sample result for each of the
two conditions, sample variability cannot be
ruled out as the cause of the variations
observed between Conditions 2 and 3.
Cost. Capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) cost information are presented in Table
5-5. Treatment costs for cavitation were not
provided. Capital and O&M costs were
reported for a system with a flow rate of 80
gpm. Dividing the capital cost evenly over 10
years (a reasonable duration for pump-and-
treat remediation) and adding O&M costs
produces a treatment cost of $8.27 to $9.00
per 1,000 gallons treated.
5-7
-------
Table 5-4. Selected Results - Photolytic Oxidation/Cavitation Treatment [IT Corp., 1996a]
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo{k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
B(a)P Potency Estimate2
Other SVOCs, ppb
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
8 Condition 1;
Influent
Results
Cone.
690
<60
220
120
78
39 J
19J
58 J
120
6J
520
410
20 J
130
17J
1,300
490
4,300
86
370
11,000*
36 J
2.2 X104
b
Effluent Results
Condition 1a
Cone.
660
<21
150
61
40
20 J
9J
28
65
3J
360
290
11 J
40
<21
970
220
3,000
42
300
4,600
38
NR
Condition 2:
Change4
-4.3
NC
-32
-49
-49
-49
-53
-52
-46
-50
-31
-29
-45
-69
NC
-25
-55
-31
-51
-19
-58
+6
NC
Condition 2b
Cone.
360
9J
72
72
52 J
30 J
13J
34 J
81
<60
330
250
16J
690
5,400
800
280
8,500
<108
250
140 J
29 J
4.8x10"
Change4
-48
NC
-67
-40
-33
-23
-32
-41
-33
NC
-37
-39
-20
+430
+32,000
-38
-43
+99
NC
-32
-99
-19
+118
Condition 3:
Condition 3°
Cone.
240
6J
54 J
51 J
40 J
17J
<55
25 J
58
<55
270
160
11 J
490
4,200
580
190
6,500
<90
170
1,200
19J
2.8x10"
Change"
-65
NC
-75
-58
-49
-56
NC
-57
-52
NC
-48
-61
-45
+280
+25,000
-55
-61
+51
NC
-54
-89
-47
+27
H2O2 » 0 ppm
UVIamp = 1.2kW
Flow rats «1 gpm
Treatment time = 10 mln.
H2O2 = 80 ppm
UVIamp = 10kW
Flow rate = 1 gpm
Treatment time = 8 min.
H2O2 = 100 ppm
UVIamp = 10kW
Flow rate = 1 gpm
Treatment time = 8 min.
2 Used In calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1989a].
_ For nondetected (i.e., less than) results, the detection limit was used to calculate total PAHs and the B(a)P potency estimate.
* TCDD-TEQ by I-TEFs/89 [EPA, 1989a]. Results reported in ppq.
Percent change is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
* Value Is suspect due to MS/MSD recoveries of 560 and 577 percent.
J = Estimated Value
NO Not calculated
NR * Not reported
5-8
-------
Table 5-5. Estimated Treatment Costs for Cavitation/UV Peroxidation Treatment [IT Corp., 1996a]
Treatability Vendor
Cost
Recommended
Treatment System
Capital ($)
($71,000 gal)
O&M
($/1,OOOgal)
Treatment
($71,000 gal)4
Cavitation
UV Peroxidation
Vendor did not recommend
a treatment system design
a) UVtypeSX
H2O2 dose = 300 rng/L
Catalyst2
270-kW system
b) UVtypeSX
H2O2 dose = 300 mg/L
Without catalyst
360-kW system
0.74
0.92
7.53d
8.083
8.27
9.00
2 Designed for PGP destruction only.
3 Ferrous sulfate
4 Based on $0.06/kWh and 10% of capital expense per year.
Based on treatment of 420,480,000 gallons of water at the design flow rate of 80 gpm. (Capital costs divided
evenly over a 10-year project.) These cost estimates do not include ancillary costs such as site preparation,
disposal, permitting, and analyses.
5.3.6 Case Study - POP Manufacturing
Facility
Background/Waste Description: In 1988, a
case study of photolytic oxidation was
conducted on groundwater from an unidentified
PCP production site in Washington State [EPA,
1993b]. PCP contamination was discovered in
local groundwater surrounding a chemical
manufacturing company that had produced
PCP for more than 30 years. The site geology
has caused brackish groundwater containing
high concentrations of iron and calcium
carbonate. The chemical company initiated a
remediation effort that included a pump-and-
treat process,
Summary of Study. After bench-scale testing,
the perox-pure™ chemical oxidation system
was selected to reduce PCP concentrations in
treated groundwater to below a target level of
0.1 mg/L. A full-scale perox-pure™ system was
installed in 1988. When the remediation effort
began, groundwater was contaminated with
PCP at levels of up to 15 mg/L, three times
higher than expected. Iron was detected at
levels of up to 200 mg/L, 20 times higher than
expected. Pretreatment recommendations
resulted in the selection of an iron oxidation
and removal system, which included
clarification and multimedia filtration. The
groundwater was stabilized and the scaling
tendency was reduced by adding acid to lower
the groundwater pH to approximately 5. H2O2
was added to the influent to achieve a
concentration of 150 mg/L. The average flow
rate was approximately 70 gpm, and the power
requirement was 180 kW.
Performance: The perox-pure™ system treated
maximum influent PCP concentrations of 15
mg/L to an average effluent concentration of
0.1 mg/L. The perox-pure™ system also
reduced iron concentrations in the groundwater
to acceptable levels.
Cost. The O&M costs for continuous operation
of the perox-pure™ system installed at the
Washington site were reported for a flow rate
of 70 gpm. Included in the O&M costs were
electricity, chemicals (H2O2 and acid), and
general maintenance. For each 1,000 gallons
treated, costs were as follows: electricity (at
$0.06 per kilowatt hour [kWh]), $2.57; 50
percent H2O2 (at $0.35 per pound), $0.87; acid
(at $0.085 per pound), $0.03; and estimated
maintenance requirements, $0.43. The total
O&M cost per 1,000 gallons treated was
reported to be $3.90.
5-9
-------
5.4 Bioremediation
5.4.1 Technology Description
Bioremediation involves the use of
microorganisms that have the ability to
metabolize and degrade organic contaminants,
either in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) or in
oxygen depleted environments (anaerobic).
PCP, for example, has been degraded under
both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The
microorganisms can be indigenous (naturally
occurring in the wastestream) or exogenous
(introduced from another source).
Bioremediation can be performed in situ or ex
situ. In situ biological treatment of aquifers is
usually accomplished by stimulation of in-
digenous microorganisms to degrade organic
waste constituents present at a site. The
microorganisms are stimulated by injection of
inorganic nutrients and, if required, an
appropriate electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen)
into aquifer materials [EPA, 1994d]. In general,
biological systems can degrade only the
soluble fraction of the organic contamination.
Thus, the applicability of the treatment is
ultimately dependent upon the solubility of the
contaminant and the mass transfer of the
contaminant from the sorbed or NAPL phase to
the dissolved phase.
Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) are a
common ex situ bioremediation system for the
treatment of wastewaters. RBCs employ
aerobic fixed-film treatment to degrade either
organic and/or nitrogenous (ammonia-nitrogen)
constituents present in aqueous wastestreams.
Fixed-film RBC reactors provide a surface to
which microorganisms can adhere. Treatment
typically is achieved as the surfaces rotate
through the wastewater, enabling systems to
acclimate biomass capable of degrading
organic waste [EPA, 1992d]. RBCs are
generally applicable to influents containing
organic concentrations between 40 and 10,000
mg/L (one percent) of soluble biochemical
oxygen demand (SBOD). (Note: SBOD
measures the soluble fraction of the biodegrad-
able organic content in terms of oxygen
demand.)
5.4.2 Advantages
In situ bioremediation is a relatively
inexpensive technology to implement since it
attempts to optimize natural bioremediation
and biotransformation processes. In situ
bioremediation of aquifers can be used to treat
contaminants that are sorbed to aquifer
materials or trapped in pore spaces, although
the treatment rate may be limited by the rate of
contaminant desorption from aquifer materials
or diffusion from pore spaces. In addition to
treatment of the saturated zone, organic
contaminants held in unsaturated, capillary,
and smear zones can be treated when an
infiltration gallery is used. The areal zone of
treatment using bioremediation can be larger
than with other remedial technologies because
the treatment moves with the plume and can
sometimes reach areas that would otherwise
be inaccessible. The areal zone of treatment
will, however, be limited by in situ transport
issues such as preferential groundwater flow
paths, aquifer clogging, and consumption of
electron acceptors and nutrients.
RBCs and other ex situ bioremediation tech-
niques offer the advantage of increased
process control. Contaminant concentrations
can be adjusted through the addition of clean
water. Temperature, pH, and nutrient loading
also can be modified to optimize microbial
activity. Contaminant monitoring additionally is
simplified by the presence of readily accessible
sampling points for treated water and sludge.
5.4.3 Limitations
Bioremediation systems do not effectively
remove most inorganics or non-biodegradable
organics. Wastes containing high concen-
trations of heavy metals and certain pesticides,
herbicides, or highly chlorinated organics can
resist treatment by inhibiting microbial activity.
Wastestreams containing toxic concentrations
of these compounds may require pretreatment
to remove or dilute these materials prior to
biological treatment. Extremes in pH can limit
the diversity of the microbial population an may
suppress specific microbes capable of de-
grading the contaminants of interest. (In gen-
5-10
-------
eral, organic degradation is optimal a pH be-
tween 6.0 and 8.5; nitrification requires the pH
to be greater than 6.) Temperatures below
55 °F also reduce biological activity. [EPA,
1992d]
In situ bioremediation of contaminated ground-
water is often limited by the ability to deliver
nutrients and electron acceptors into the
aquifer. The presence of NAPLs will greatly
limit the effectiveness of bioremediation due to
the physical effects of the NAPL phase and
the very high, generally toxic, concentrations of
the contaminants [Huling, 1997]. Bioremed-
iation in aquifers with saltwater intrusion may
be inhibited due to high salinity. Additionally,
treatment monitoring is difficult due to spatial
and temporal heterogeneity.
Some ex situ bioremediation systems are
susceptible to excessive biomass growth,
particularly when organic loadings are
elevated. As an example, if the biomass for an
RBC fails to slough off and a blanket of
biomass forms which is thicker than 90 to 125
millimeters, the resulting weight may damage
the shaft and discs. Also, general care must be
taken to ensure that organic pollutants do not
volatilize into the atmosphere. To control their
release, gaseous emissions require offgas
treatment. Additionally, nutrient and oxygen
deficiencies can reduce microbial activity,
causing significant decreases in biodegra-
dation rates.
5.4.4 Technology Costs
Treatment costs using ex situ bioremediation
techniques have been estimated to be as low
as $2.94 per 1,000 gallons treated (1991
dollars) [EPA, 1991a]. Another EPA document
presents a range of $50 to $90 per 1,000
gallons treated [EPA, 1992a]. Table 5-6
presents treatment costs for a bioremediation
study using fixed-film bioreactors.
Table 5-6. Estimated Treatment Costs for MacGillis and Gibbs Site Case Study [EPA, 1991a]
Unit Type and Capacity 5 gpm Mobile 5 gpm Stationary 30 qpm Stationary
Cost Category $71,000 gal % $/1,OOOgal % $/1,OOOgal %
Capital Equipment
(amortized over 10 years)
Labor
11.11
1.49
76
10
1.16
1.49
25
32
0.51
0.50
17
17
Labor
Consumables & Supplies
Nutrient
Caustic
Utilities
Electricity
Heat
Total ($/1 ,000 gal)1
1.49
0.042
0.24
0.216
1.46
14.56
10
0.31
2
1
10
100
1.49
0.042
0.24
0.216
1.46
4.61
32
1
5
5
32
100
0.50
0.017
0.24
0.216
1.46
2.94
17
1
8
7
50
100
These cost estimates do not include costs associated with site preparation, permitting and regulatory activities, startup, effluent
treatment and disposal, residuals management, analytical services, maintenance/modification, and demobilization.
5-11
-------
The estimated treatment cost for the fixed-film
biological treatment is in the range of $2.94 to
$14.56 per 1,000 gallons, depending on
system size. Major contributors to cost are
labor, which decreases significantly as scale
increases, and heat requirements. Factors
affecting the cost of bioremediation systems
include the type and size of the bioremediation
system, the type and concentration of organics
present, hydraulic residence time, treatment
location (in situ or ex sifu), nutrient and oxygen
requirements, and pre- and post-treatment
activities.
5.4.5 Treatability Study - ACW Site
Background/Waste Description: In March of
1995, a treatability study using chemical
oxidation to augment bioremediation was
conducted using groundwater from the ACW
site in Jackson, TN [IT Corp., 1996b].
Contaminants, including PAHs, PCDDs/
PCDFs, PCP, and other phenolic compounds,
were apparently spread by drippings/pillage,
leakage from tanks, and leaching from pits. A
waste consisting of an oil/water emulsion was
prepared by mixing groundwater composited
from 5-feet-deep pits.
Summary of Study. Fenton's Reagent was
chosen as the augmentation chemical for the
study. Fenton's Reagent (H2O? and ferrous
sulfate) acts as a chemical oxidizing agent by
generating hydroxyl radicals. The hydroxyl
radicals in turn react with organic compounds
such as petroleum hydrocarbons, oxidizing
them more quickly than ozone or H2O2 alone
[IT Corp., 1996b].
Samples were analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs
during an initial characterization of treatability
study water. (These compounds are known to
be recalcitrant; therefore, additional pretreat-
ment analyses were not requested by EPA.)
SVOC analysis and TPH analysis were
conducted on the pretreatment sample in order
to establish new baseline concentrations for
these parameters. The TPH analysis was
conducted on the sample in order to provide a
quick, inexpensive means of tracking the
progress of the study.
The experimental design for this study involved
setting up five test conditions:
1. Conventional
Biological
Treatment
2. Fenton's
Reagent
Treatment
3. Fenton's
Reagent Using
Chelated Ferric
Iron Treatment
4. Abiotic Control
Slurry in nutrient media.
Slurry in nutrient media with
10 millimolar (mM)
concentration of ferrous ions
and 0.5 molar (M)
concentration of H2O2.
Slurry in nutrient media with
10 mM concentration of
chelated ferric iron and 0.5 M
concentration of H2O2.
Chelated ferric iron was
added as a ferric iron/EDTA
complex in solution.
Slurry in deionized water and
0.1 percent mercuric chloride
(HgCI2).
5. Biotic Control Slurry in deionized water.
For each treatment condition, a slurry was
prepared using 50 ml_ of the ACW water
(sludge) sample, 25 g of sterile soil, and 25 ml_
of sterile deionized water for each treatment
condition. The controls were set up in the
same manner. The initial total organic carbon
(TOC) concentration of the water sample was
determined to be 227 mg/L. Nutrient amend-
ment was applied to each treatment by adding
0.04 g of Restore™. Restore™ is a proprietary
blend of nutrients including: 5 percent ammon-
ium chloride; 20 percent disodium phosphate;
12.5 percent monosodium phosphate; and 12.5
percent sodium tripolyphosphate. No nutrients
were added to the abiotic or biotic controls.
The abiotic control was established by adding
0.4 g of mercuric chloride (HgCI2) to the
treatment vessel.
Four replicates of the first three treatments
were established so that one replicate could be
sacrificed at each of four time points for TPH
analysis. The treatments and the biotic control
were placed on a shaker set at 120 revolutions
per minute (rpm) and incubated at 25°C. The
abiotic control was placed in a refrigerator at
4°C.
The treatments were sampled for TPH after 5,
10, 15, and 30 days. The treatments and
controls were analyzed for SVOCs and
PCDDs/PCDFs at the end of the study (Day
30). The abiotic and biotic controls were
5-12
-------
sampled only for TPH measurements at the
end of the study.
Performance: The results for the treatability
study are presented in Table 5-7. Biotreatment
without Fenton's Reagent reduced total PAH
concentrations by 96 percent, and B(a)P
potency estimates were reduced by 95 per-
cent. PCP concentrations, however, were
reduced by only 38 percent. When biotreat-
ment was augmented with Fenton's Reagent
plus ferric iron, the percent removal for total
PAH was 93 percent, and the B(a)P potency
estimate was reduced by greater than 93
percent. PCP was reduced by 85 percent.
Cost Cost information was not presented in
this study.
5.4.6 Treatability Study - MacGillis and
Gibbs Superfund Site
Background/Site Description: In 1986, a
treatability study on bioremediation was
conducted at the MacGillis and Gibbs
Company in Minneapolis, MN [EPA, 1991 a].
Both MacGillis and Gibbs Company facilities
have been used for wood preserving for
several decades. Originally, creosote was used
in the treatment; in the 1950s, PCP in oil was
substituted. Also, for a period in the 1950s,
waste PCP solution was used for weed control
on the site.
A section of the MacGillis and Gibbs property,
where disposal had frequently taken place,
collected water and formed a pond. In the
1970s, MacGillis and Gibbs replaced PCP with
the CCA process and substituted closed reac-
tors for the open troughs, thus reducing the
opportunities for inadvertent spills and leaks.
As the result of an RI/FS, it was concluded that
the soil and groundwater at the sites were
contaminated with PCP and lesser
concentrations of PAHs. Both sites were
placed on the EPA NPL in 1984.
Summary of Study. A 30-gallon, packed-bed
reactor was used in the 9-month pilot-plant
study. The system was activated using
indigenous microflora and later amended with
inoculations of a Flavobacterium acclimated to
PCP. The unit operated in a continuous mode
for the duration of the study. Air was
continuously injected to maintain aerobic
conditions, and adjustments in pH and
nutrients were made as necessary.
Performance: The results of this pilot-scale
study are presented in Table 5-8. The packed-
bed system was reported to have effectively
removed PCP, PAHs, and other constituents
that were found to be present. The specific
rate of PCP degradation was as high as 70 mg
of PCP/L of reactor volume/hr, well beyond the
values normally reported in the literature. All
PCP analyses were carried out using a HPLC
method developed by the vendor. Extensive
removal of PAHs was also confirmed. While
substantial reductions in chemical oxygen
demand (COD) also occurred, the levels in the
effluent indicate the presence of considerable
refractory material.
Cost Cost information was not presented in
this study.
5-13
-------
Table 5-7. Selected Results - ACW Conventional Biological, Fen ton's Reagent Augmented, and
Fenton's Reagent Plus Ferric Iron Augmented Treatment [IT Corp. 1996b]
Influent
Results
Effluent Results
Fenton's Reagent
Biological
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
Bfa)P Potency Estimate2
Other SVOCs, ppb
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
Cone.
77,625
2,377
29,594
18,436
10,188
4,852
1,844
6,792
17,466
631
121,289
53,367
2,329
82,476
44,634
194,062
58.219
726,000
10,600
58,219
77,625
631
582
1,019
1,455
NR
Cone.
10,000
420
860
1,100 .
550
250
120
340
1,000
40
6,500
1,200
140
<330
36
220
3.900
27,000
560
2,700
48,000
530
58
<330
<330
3,125,600
Change4
-87
-82
-97
-94
-95
-95
-93
-95
-94
-94
-95
-98
-94
>-99
—100
—100
-93
-96
-95
-95
-38
-16
-90
>-67
>-77
NC
Fenton's Reagent
Cone.
19,000
430
4,400
1,700
880
430
<3,200
560
1,700
<3,200
10,000
13,000
<3,200
22,000
15,000
28,000
7.400
130,000
<4,300
12,000
52,000
<3,200
<330
440
<3,200
3,883,000
Change4
-76
-82
-85
-91
-91
-91
NC
-92
-90
NC
-92
-76
NC
-73
-66
-86
-87
-82
>-*>£>
-79
-33
NC
>-43
-57
NC
NC
+ Ferric Iron
Cone.
9,000
160
2,000
730
380
190
78
240
'730
<330
4,600
5,000
110
9,900
3,800
14,000
2800
54,000
<690
4,700
12,000
<330
<330
<330
<330
3,508,000
Change4
-88
-93
-93
-96
-96
-96
-96
-96
-96
>-48
-96
-91
-95
-88
-91
-93
-95
-93
>-93
-92
-85
>-48
>-43
>-67
>-77
NC
2 Used In calculation of B(a)P potency factor [EPA, 1993a].
- For nondetected (i.e., less than) results, the detection limit was used to calculate total PAHs and the B(a)P potency estimate.
4 TCDD-TEQ by l-TEFs/89 [EPA, 1989a]. Results reported in ppq.
Percent change Is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NC* Not calculated
5-14
-------
Table 5-8. Selected Results - MacGillis and Gibbs Packed-Bed Reactor Treatment [EPA, 1991 a]
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Bezno(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-Methylnaphthaterte
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Total PAHs2
RfalP Potency Estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Pentachlorophenol
Influent
Concentration
2,041
4,402
252
292
448
178
315
211
171
296
466
545
203
NR
1,932
264
232
12,200
603
93,000
Effluent
Concentration
140
ND
20
9
8
7
4
5
8
33
153
ND
ND
NR -
81
38
15
520
40a
ND
% Change3
-93
~-1004
-92
-97
-98
-96
-99
-98
-95
-89
-67
--1004
~ -1.QQ4.
NC
-96
-86
-94
-96
-93
~-1004
2 Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1989a]
Total PAHs does not include 2-methylnaphthalene. Since no detection limits were provided for nondetected results, a value
3 of zero was assigned.
4 Percent change is stated in a decrease (-) or increase (+).
a Detection limits were not presented for these compounds. The % change, therefore, is considered to approach 100.
No detection limit was provided for the nondetected dibenz(a,h)anthracene in this sample; therefore, a value of
zero was assigned for the ND in the calculation of the B(a)P potency estimate.
NC = Not calculated
ND = Not detected
NR = Not reported
Shaded row contains only NR and NC designations.
5-15
-------
-------
CHAPTER 6
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
6.1 Documents
EPA has published a series of Engineering
Bulletins on topics that discuss most of the
technologies included in this document. Table
6-1 lists these Engineering Bulletin sources for
each of the 10 treatment categories and the
EPA reference number that may be used to
obtain the documents.
EPA has also published a series of "Innovative
Site Remediation Technology" volumes that
provide more detailed information regarding
some of the technologies included in this
document. Table 6-2 lists the volumes that are
relevant to the technologies discussed in this
document. This series was also published by
the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers®, 130 Holiday Court, Suite 100,
Annapolis, Maryland 21401. In addition, the
American Academy of Environmental Engin-
eers® is currently publishing a second series
that expands upon the information provided in
the first set. The new series also addresses
innovative technologies not included in the
original series.
Table 6-1. Engineering Bulletin Sources
Treatment Category
Bulletin Subject
EPA Reference No.
Water Treatment
Photolytic Oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Hydraulic Containment
Bioremediation
Soil Treatment
Soil Washing
S/S Treatment
Thermal Desorption
Incineration
Solvent Extraction
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Bioremediation
Chemical Oxidation
Granular Activated Carbon
Landfill Covers
Slurry Walls
Rotating Biological Contactors
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Thermal Desorption
Mobile/Transportable Incineration
Solvent Extraction
Chemical Dehalogenation
In Situ Biodegradation
Slurry Biodedegradation
Composting
EPA/540/2-91/025, October 1991
EPA/540/2-91/024, October 1991
EPA/540/5-93/500, February 1993
EPA/540/5-92/500, October 1992
EPA/540/5-92/007, October 1992
EPA/540/2-90/017,
EPA/540/5-92/015,
EPA/540/5-94/501,
EPA/540/2-90/014,
EPA/540/5-94/503,
EPA/540/2-90/015,
EPA/540/5-94/502,
EPA/540/2-90/016,
EPA/540/5-96/502,
September 1990
July 1993
February 1994
September 1990
April 1994
September 1990
April 1994
September 1990
October 1996
6-1
-------
Table 6-2. Innovative Site Remediation Technology Volumes
Treatment Category
Volume Number and Title
EPA Reference No.
Water Treatment
Bioremediation
Soil Treatment
Soil Washing
S/S Treatment
Thermal Desorption
Incineration
Solvent Extraction
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Bioremediation
Vol. 1, Bioremediation
Vol. 3, Soil Washing/Soil Flushing
Vol. 4, Solidification/Stabilization
Vol. 6, Thermal Desorption
Vol. 7, Thermal Destruction
Vol. 5, Solvent/Chemical Extraction
Vol. 2, Chemical Treatment
Vol. 1, Bioremediation
EPA/542/B-94/006
EPA/542/B-93/012
EPA/542/B-94/001
EPA/542/B-93/011
EPA/542/B-94/003
EPA/542/B-94/005
EPA/542/B-94/004
EPA/542/B-94/006
The Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable, a consortium of Federal agencies,
has compiled technology-specific case studies
into a series of documents. These documents
contain a number of studies conducted at wood
preserving sites. Table 6-3 lists the documents
and EPA reference numbers. Additional
information on the development of these
documents is available from the Technology
Innovation Office within EPA'sOffice of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
Other relevant EPA publications include
treatability study guidance documents (including
a general guide and several technology-specific
guides) and Fact Sheets that accompany each
of the technology-specific guides. Table 6-4 lists
the Treatability Study Guidance Documents and
Fact Sheets that are relevant to technologies
discussed in this document.
Table 6-3. Technology-Specific Remediation Case Studies
Treatment Category
Title
EPA Reference No.
General
Water Treatment
Groundwater Treatment
Soil Treatment
Bioremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Thermal Desorption/Soil
Washing///? Situ Vitrification
BioremediationA/itrificat'on
Soil Vapor Extraction/Other In
Situ Technologies
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2
EPA/542/R-95/001
EPA/542/R-97/010
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment EPA/542/R-95/003
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption,
Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation and
Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction
and Other In Situ Technologies
EPA/542/R-95/002
EPA/542/R-95/004
EPA/542/R-95/005
EPA/542/R-97/008
EPA/542/R-97/009
6-2
-------
Table 6-4. Treatability Study Guidance Sources
Treatment Category Guide Subject
EPA Reference No.
General
Soil Treatment
Soil Washing
Thermal
Desorption
Solvent
Extraction
Base Catalyzed
Decomposition
Bioremediation
Conducting Treatability
Studies Under CERCLA
Soil Washing
Thermal Desorption
Remedy Selection
Solvent Extraction
Chemical Dehalogenation
Aerobic Biodegradation
Remedy Screening
Biodegradation Remedy Selection
EPA/540/R-92/071a, October 1992
EPA/540/2-91/020A, September 1991 (guide)
EPA/540/2-91/020B, September 1991 (fact sheet)
EPA/540/R-92/074A, September 1992 (guide)
EPA/540/R-92/074B, September 1992 (fact sheet)
EPA/540/R-92/016a, August 1992 (guide)
EPA/540/R-92/016b, August 1992 (fact sheet)
EPA/540/R-92/013a, May 1992 (guide)
EPA/540/R-92/013b, May 1992 (fact sheet)
EPA/540/2-91/013A, July 1991 (guide)
EPA/540/2-91/013B, July 1991 (fact sheet)
EPA/540/R-93/519a, August 1993 (guide)
EPA/540/R-93/519b, August 1993 (fact sheet)
Additional documents containing potentially
useful information are as follows:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Presumptive Remedies for Soils,
Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater
Sites,. Directive: 9200.5-162. EPA/540/R-
95/128. 1995.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Wood Preserving Sites. EPA/600/R-92/182.
1992.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
f CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-
88/004. 1988.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Users Guide to the Presumptive Remedies
for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood
Treater Sites. EPA/540/R-96/024. In Press.
6.2 Databases
The databases in Table 6-4 contain information
that may be relevant to the remediation of wood
preserving sites. Most are operated by EPA and
are accessible through the World Wide Webb.
6-3
-------
Table 6-5. Databases Containing Additional Remediation Information
Database
Description
Access
Alternative Treatment
Technology Information
.Cenjer (ATTIC)
Contains information about uses of
treatment technologies in Superfund
actions
- Modem access: (513)569-7610
- Telnet access: CINBBS.CIN.EPA.GOV
- Voice assistance: £513)569-7272
Cleanup Information
(CLU-IN) Bulletin Board
_SysternJBB_S)
Includes bulletins, downloadable
databases, regulatory updates, and
jiies_sages
- Modem access: (301)589-8366
- Internet access: http://www.clu-in.com
_-__Vqice_assistance: (301J 589-8368
Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection
Data Base (HWSFD)
Contains bibliographic references
and abstracts for documents in the
Hazardous Waste Superfund
Collection at EPA Headquarters
JJbrary_
- Voice assistance: (800) 334-2405
National Technical
Information Service
(NTIS) Bibliographic Data
Base
The largest single source for public
access to Federally-produced
information
Available to the public through a number of
commercial vendors, including the following:
BRS, (800) 345-4277
CISTI (Canada), (800) 668-1222
DATA-STAR, (800) 221-7754
DIALOG, (800) 334-2564
ORBIT, (703) 442-0900 or
(800) 456-7248
STN International, (800) 848-6533
Records of Decision
System (RODS)
Contains the full text of the
Superfund RODs for NPL sites
nationwide
To obtain a user ID through the National
Data Processing Division, contact Mike
Research and
Development Electronic
Bulletin Board
Includes on-line bibliography, public
domain software and databases, and
bulletins
Modem access: (513)569-7610
Voice assistance: (513)569-7272
Superfund Treatability
Database, Version 5.0
Contains data from numerous
treatability studies conducted under
CERCLA
Download from ORD BBS: (513) 569-7700
Will be available from ORD home page:
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ORD/BBS.html
.contact _G]e_n_n_Shaullj513)_ 569-7408
Vendor Field Analytical
and Characterization
Technology System
(Vendor FACTS),
Version 1.0
Contains vendor-supplied information
regarding innovative technologies for
hazardous waste characterization
and analysis
Download from Vendor FACTS home page:
http://www.prcemi.comA/FACTS
Vendor FACTS hotline, (800) 245-4505
Vendor Information
System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies
(VISITT), Version 5.0
Contains vendor-supplied information
regarding innovative technologies for
hazardous waste site remediation
Download from VISITT home page:
http://www.prcemi.comA/ISITT
VISITT hotline, (800) 245-4505
6-4
-------
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
American Wood Preservers Institute. The 1995
Wood Preserving Industry Production
Statistical Report. September 1996.
Bates, E.R., and M.C. Lau. Full-Scale
Stabilization of Soils Contaminated with CCA
and PCP at the Selma Pressure Treating Site,
Selma, CA. Presented at the Air & Waste
Management Association Meeting, San
Antonio, TX. June 1995.
Biogenesis Enterprises, Inc. Final Report:
Bench Scale Studies of Thunder Bay Harbour
Sediment, Biogenesis Washing Process.
1993.
DeFeo, B. Removal and Recovery of Creosote
Sludge at a Wood Treatment Plant.
Remediation, Vol. 4,^No. 4. 1994.
Federal Register. Vol. 61, No. 247. 40 CFR Part
300. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites (FRL-5668-3) and
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No.
21 (FRL-5668-4). December 23, 1996.
Freeman, H.M., and E. Harris. Hazardous
Waste Remediation - Innovative Treatment
Technologies. Technomic Publishing Co.
1995.
Geochem. Results of Recent "Push-Pull"
Testwork at Chromium Site. Memorandum
from Jim Rouse to Douglas Grosse. October
28, 1993.
Haley, J.L, B. Hanson, C. Enfield, and J. Glass.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ground Water
Extraction Systems. Ground Water Monitoring
Review, pp. 119-124. Winter 1991.
Hall, F.D. Incineration of Creosote and
Pentachlorophenol Wood Preserving
Wastewater Treatment Sludges. EPA/600/2-
89/060, November 1989.
Huling, S.G. EPA Technical Assistance and
Technology Transfer Branch, Memorandum
Re: Technical Review Comments - Wood
Preserving Technology Guide. May 16, 1997.
IT Corporation. Section VII (results of photolytic
oxidation and carbon adsorption water
treatment tests). Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C2-0108. 1996a.
IT Corporation. Soil Biodegradation Tests.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under EPA Contract No.
68-C2-0108. 1996b.
IT Corporation. Section VI (results of soil
washing tests). Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C2-0108. 1996c.
Koppers Industries. Personal communication
between Mr. Marvin Miller, P.E., Kopper
Industries, and Dr. Gary Welshans, PRC.
1989.
Litchfield, C.D., G.O. Chiervzzi, D.R. Foster,
and D.L. Middleton. A Biotreatment-Train
Approach to a PCP-Contaminated Site: In
Situ Bioremediation Coupled with an
Aboveground BIFAR System Using Nitrate as
the Electron Acceptor. In Bioremediation of
Chlorinated and Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Compounds. CRC Press, Inc.
1994.
7-1
-------
OHM Corporation. Personal communication
between Dr. Paul Lear of OHM Corporation
and Kurt Whitford of SAIC. Fax describing
proposed S/S treatment system for ACW in
Jackson, TN. March 25, 1997.
Oppelt, T.E. Incineration of Hazardous Waste.
A Critical Review. Journal of the Air and
Pollution Control Association, Vol. 37, No. 5.
May 1987.
Perry, R.H. and D. Green. Perry's Chemical
Engineers' Handbook. Sixth Edition. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. 1984.
Manila!, V.B., et al. Water Res., 26, 1035. 1992.
Mueller, J.G., S. Lantz, B. Blattmann, P.
Chapman. "Bench-Scale Evaluation of
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes
for the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol-
and Creosote Materials: Solid-Phase
Bioremediation." Environmental Science
Technology, Vol. 25, No. 6. 1991.
Piontek, K.R., and T.S. Simpkin. Factors
Challenging the Practicability of In Situ
Bioremediation at a Wood Preserving Site.
Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the
Air and Waste Management Association,
June 21-26, Kansas City, Missouri. 1992.
Pivetz, B. Mantech Environmental Research
Services Corporation. Comments attached to
S.G. Huling Memorandum Re: Technical
Review Comments - Wood Preserving
Technology Guide. May 16, 1997.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Final Report Pilot-Scale
Soil Washing Study, Pensacola, Florida.
Report to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Response Team,
Edison, NJ. January 28,1992.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Appendix E, Engineering
Backup Data for Remediation Alternative Cost
Estimates - Southern Maryland Woodtreating
Site, Hollywood, MD. May 1994.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). TCLP, SPLP, and Total Metals
Analyses of Stabilized Soil, Selma Pressure
Treating Site, Selma, California - Final Report
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under EPA Contract No.
68-C5-0001, Work Assignment 0-03. April
1996a.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Final Cost Estimate for the
Implementation of Ex Situ
Stabilization/Solidification of the American
Creosote Works Site in Jacksonville, Florida
(Note: Title is incorrect; should have read
Jackson, Tennessee). Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C5-0001, Work Assignment
1-03, Technical Directive A. June 5, 1996b.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Wood Preserving Sites Treatability
Study - Base Catalyzed Dechlorination, Final
Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under EPA Contract No.
68-C4-0001, Work Assignment 1-04. March
1997a.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Wood Preserving Sites Treatability
Study. CF Systems Solvent Extraction
Technology - Final Report. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
EPA Contract No. 68-C5-0001, Work
Assignment 1-04. March 1997b.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). American Cresosote Works
Solidification/Stabilization Remedy Design
Treatability Study. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C5-0001, Work Assignment
1-20. April 1997c.
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Personal experience with S/S
treatability studies. 1997d.
7-2
-------
Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Solidification/Stabilization Treatability
Study, Texarkana Site, Texarkana, Texas.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under EPA Contract No.
68-C5-0001, Work Assignment 1-21. April
1997e.
Tiernan, T.O., D.J. Wagel, J.H. Garrett, G.F.
VanNess, J.G. Solch, and LA. Harden.
Laboratory and Field Tests to Demonstrate
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, Vol. 18, Nos. 1-6, pp. 835-841.
1989.
Tiernan, T.O. Final Report on BCD Treatability
Tests on the Concentrated Organic Stream
Resulting from Solvent Extraction of
McCormick and Baxter Site Soil. Prepared for
Science Applications International Corporation
under Subcontract No. 16-950060-89 with
Wright State University. July 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Technical Resource Document: Treatment
Technologies for Dioxin-Containing Wastes.
EPA/600/2-86/096. October 1986a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT)
Background Document for K001. EPA/530-
SW-88/0310. August 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs
and CDFs) and 1989 Update. EPA/625-3-
89/016. March 1989a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Shirco
Infrared Incineration System. Applications
Analysis Report, EPA/540/AS-89/010. June
1989b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled
Wood Preserving Sites. EPA/625/7-90/011.
November 1990a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable
Incineration Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/014.
September 1990b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical
Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treat-
ment. EPA/540/2-90/015. September 1990c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ultrox
International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation
Technology, Applications Analysis Report.
EPA/540/AR-89/012, Case Study D-6,
September 1990d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing Treat-
ment. EPA/540/2-90/017. September 1990e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation.
EPA/540/2-90/016. September 1990f.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site
Groundwater by BioTrol, Inc. Applications
Analysis Report. EPA/540/A5-91/001,
September 1991 a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Superfund Engineering Issue: Issues
Affecting the Applicability and Success of
Remedial/Removal Incineration Projects.
EPA/540/2-91/004. February 1991 b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated
Carbon Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/024.
October 1991 c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation
Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/025. October
1991d.
7-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood
Preserving Sites. EPA/600/R-92/182. October
1992a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide
for Conducting Treatability Studies under
CERCLA, Final. EPA/540/R-92/071a. October
1992b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Applications Analysis Report: Silicate Tech-
nology Corporation's Solidification/
Stabilization Technology for Organic and
Inorganic Contaminants in Soils. EPA/540/
AR-92/010. December 1992c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Rotating Biological
Contactors. EPA/540/S-92/007. October
I992d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide
for Conducting Treatability Studies under
CERCLA: Thermal Desorption Remedy
Selection, Interim Guidance. EPA/540/R-
92/074A. September 1992e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk
Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. EPA/600/R-93/089. July
1993a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perox-
pure™ Chemical Oxidation Technology,
Peroxidation Systems, Inc. Applications
Analysis Report. EPA/540/AR-93/501. July
1993b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Applications Analysis Report: Resources
Conservation Company B.E.S.T.® Solvent
Extraction Technology. EPA/540/AR-92/079.
June 1993c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Applications Analysis Report: Pilot-Scale
Demonstration of a Slurry-Phase Biological
Reactor for Creosote-Contaminated Soil.
EPA/540/A5-91/009. 1993d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin:
Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and
Inorganics. EPA/540/S-92/015. February
1993e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Applications Analysis Report: Resources
Conservation Company B.E.S.T.® Solvent
Extraction Technology. EPA/540/AR-92/079.
June 1993f.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide
for Conducting Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy Selection,
Interim Guidance. EPA/540/R-93/519a.
August 1993g.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide, Second Edition.
Prepared by the DOD Environmental
Technology Transfer Committee. EPA/542/B-
94/013. October 1994a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption
Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/501. February
1994b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CAV-
OX® Cavitation Oxidation Process, Magnum
Water Technology, Inc. Applications Analysis
Report. EPA/540/AR-93/520, Case Study C-1,
May 1994c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Biodegradation
Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/502. April 1994d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-
846), 3rd. Ed., through Update MB, 1995a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments,
and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites. Directive:
9200.5-162. EPA/540/R-95/128. December
1995b.
7-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VIS1TT
4.0 (Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies). EPA-542-C-95-001.
July 1995c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bioremediation in the Field. EPA/540/N-
95/500. August 1995d.
U.S. Environmental Proteciton Agency.
Presumptive Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment
Technologies for Contaminated Groundwater
1 at CERCLA Sites, Final Guidance.
EPA/540/R-96/003. October 1996a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Champion International Superfund Site, Libby,
Montana: Bioremediation Field Performance
Evaluation of the Prepared Bed Land
Treatment System. Volumes I and II.
EPA/600/R-95/156 ..August 1996b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering Bulletin: Composting. EPA/540/
S-96/502. 1996C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Research Brief: Surfactant-
Enhanced DNAPL Remediation: Surfactant
Selection, Hydraulic Efficiency, and Economic
Factors. EPA/600/S-96/002. August 1996d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wood
Preserving Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Compliance Guide. A Guide to
Federal Environmental Regulation.
EPA/305/B-96/001. June 1996e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VI. Personal communication between Earl
Hendrick of Region VI and Kurt Whitford of
Science Applications International
Corporation. April 10, 1997.
Venkatadri, R., and R.W. Peters. Chemical
Oxidation Technologies: Ultraviolet Light/
Hydrogen Peroxide, Fenton's Reagent, and
Titanium Dioxide-Assisted Photocatalysis.
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 107-149. 1993.
Whiting, S., G. Helland, and J. Kinsella.
Evaluation of Thermal Extraction
Technologies for Treatment of Soils
Contaminated with Coal Tars and Wood
Preservatives at the Pacific Place Site,
Vancouver, B.C. Presented at the Fourth EPA
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International. November 17-19, 1992, San
Francisco, California. 1992.
7-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF WOOD PRESERVING SITES
-------
-------
r
1
PL,
a
cu
u
rt
I
•
I
2
eg
•S
1
1
I
2
H
Sheffield
1
Northport
Brierfield
1
Deca
1
•a
1
CO
03
U
ey
cKi
Preservers
Preserving
Ba
Brown W
Company
ba Pressure Treated Forest Produc
C
ndustries,
Fo
Cave
0
U
5
d Treating Inc
ond
Treatment
Eve
Everwood Treatment Co
Wi
1
00
1
A-l
-------
O"S
°
5
CO
Haleyville
g
Abbeville
I
8
na
Ck
Great Southe
i
!
Pr
Great Southern
ber Co., Inc.
Gulf L
i
o
e
H
od Products
e
H
u
•a
o
a
3
04
o"
at
=2
I
tries, Inc.
Koppe
-------
O
u
U
-
a
S
2
S
S
I
o
1
y N
Sillayan
d Treating
Sou
ting
d
ea
Sou
ting
Southeast
mber Sales C
Southern
f
1
3
bO
e
I
mber Co
Stallworth
S
pi
H
a
Co.
eyerhae
ber Comp
3
O
Pacific
er Co
sa T
Pond
A-3
-------
re
ii
" GQ
is
is c\
S
w
.1
J8
~y,
s
o
§
5S
1
g
g
"S
P
g
g
e
P
•
o
N
3
Prescott
Southwest Forest Ind.
£
1
O
CO
!>•<
fe
P"
•
CO
rt
C
1
1
1 Anthony Wood Treating
g
g
•J
,0
1<4
PH
U
•
CO
ni
H
1
S
o
1 Arkwood, Inc.
g>
•S
0
CO
^
^
^
•
OT
Bl
s
1
o
o
1-
V?
1 Commercial Lumber Sale
jj-
1
CO
t*
>>
**"
•
CO
ca
S
1
f
1 Curt Bean Lumber Co.
QN
1
$*
>>
^"
•
W
jrt
c
1
Glenwood
Curt Bean Lumber Co.
£
1
H
^
^""
•
C/3
g^j
S
1
tol)
Q
Pi
s
I
p
2
I
"1
P
g
0
r§
^
•
w
nj
s
1
1
&
o
^
t/r
| Fordyce Wood Preserver
£
I
O
8
>
•>
^""
•
W
03
3
1
13
| Hatfield Lumber Co.
g
g
,3
P
g
o
3
p
•
W
rt
g
1
Hermitage
1 Hermitage Wood Prod.
£
.1
O
K*1
^
^"
•
w
d
s
1
3
8
ffi
| Hixson Lumber Sales Co
g>
1
O
CO
>^
^
^
•
CO
s
1
ai
Plumervill
| Hixson Lumber Sales Co
g
K"1
H
g
^•~
^
•
CO
g
1
3
S
o
,5
n
O
8
| Hoover Treated Wood Pr
g
>x
(J
•
OT
rt
g
1
•s
!
1 Koppers Industries, Inc.
£
1
O
t*-1
^
^
•
OT
rt
S
1
1
o
U
!
CO
I
£
1
o
t^
^
^
•
CO
Rj
1
f
O
,sa
0
U
M.M. Barksdale Lumber
g
55
Pi
U
^
•
CO
s
1
I
CO.
| Mid-South Wood Product
£T
1
55
PH,
^
•
CO
0)
1
Plainview
W)
•3
rt
£
-------
&•/-*
0 tS
Jr
^5 3
«i OT
I®
Si Ox
X,°*
g
illiiiiiiei
1
^t
w
r \
C4
g
8
&
?
Q
C3
r^H
^
•
CA
jrt
1
1
•*-*
Ozark Timber, Inc.
^K
M
r ^
X
1
s
^
s
Q
T«H
^
•
OQ
cC
J
Plainview
Plainview Lumber Company
S
rx
y
^**
j
55
55
CM
O
•
03
1
1
Q
W
'fie
<2
^^^
^*
t-i
4>
-S
o
CO
J)H
^t
*^^
'
{rt
1
fi
S
Rison Wood Products, Inc.
^~\
ir^
-.
ed
^^
o
S5
o
55
U
'
grt
1
Unknown
Scott Lumber
/_s
^f
V-l
->
CQ
X"N
Tj-
Ul
53
§
CO
J^
^^
^^
X
HH
Q
1
U
Fontana
CO
California Cascade Industrie
Tj-
t_t
S
•S
o
CO
>2
^^
*^^
X
2
1
u
Woodland
CO
California Cascade Industrie
<5
PH
O
P"l
s3
55
55
^^
*"*^
X
HH
S
1
U
«
Coast Wood Preserving
/_^
^*
v^
S
«
O
CO
t*
^J
^^
"
s
i
Fontana
o'
a
Fontana Wood Preserving, I
^j
S
^ V
(^
J^
CU
'^f
-
03
2
1
Long Bead
5
td
i— ;
^5
MH
Q
MH
B2
^
CO
»>*
H
1
Cu
^is
U
><
3
1
u
1
6
1-5
J^
5
r\
rt
o
0
^
g
g
Pi
^Q
*
X
HH
3
1
03
U
o
I
Koppers Company, Inc.
A-5
-------
5)
RC
1
S3
1
O
ol
i
o
o
PH
u
u
u
OH
n
O
PH
a
B
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
u
1
i
3
u
•8
i
1
3
I
e
Oro
kto
S
Stoc
Bake
ational Ci
CO
O
ve
a
Q
1
"3
O
a
es,
rving Co.
Pr
San Diego
o
U
o
1
CO
on Co
thern Califo
alia Poleyar
Co.
Treat
1
(Vi
Inc.
Treat
rn W
We
A-6
-------
o
1
o
1
O
o
O
04
CO
sS
I
1r^
<1 ^
• 1?
u
O
OH
u
u
OH
U
1
0
§
I
I
•§
4J
•g
4J
4J
S
OH
UH
O-i
I
I
I
E
4J
4J
4J
V-t
g
s
1
urham
Bridge
Ple
Mo
a
Pensa
1
ffl
CQ
lle
Jacks
o
nville
Jac
1
I
1
£
1
1
Aer
Ba
o
U
I
J>
%
W
0
O
23
«
<
1
o
00
Lumber
Aljo
erican Creosote
Apalachee Pole Co
.s1
o
I
•g
I
Bro
"O
o
o
n Ev
Tal
Creosote Ta
A-7
-------
u
O
6
sS
£
CJ
u
OH
-------
1
0
1
O
.a
I
s
A
G
o
E-
•
•§
I
•G
•3
I
|
o
E
$
G
o
E
ceville
Graceville
Pe
Lakeland
1
khart
Rockledge
I
1
"8
CO
Pensacola Wood Trea
1
ng C
ting
od
Southeast
nville
Jac
a
IP
•o
£
««
J
Southern L
PQ
ds
e
Auburn
oducts Co
Sunbelt Fores
bution Systems
Total Di
Co
ni
ucts
niversal Forest
cola
I
o
1
I
A-9
-------
S
1
I
PH
sS
V)
sS
CL,
•N
O
O
AH
u"
•3
•a
E
-3
E
•
u
•i
Rt
•&
0)
'
ctt
•&
O
o
IH
$
•I
I
6
tH
6
•a
•a
acksonvill
o
acks
I
1
College Pa
21
at
1
1
OH
East Poin
Cleveland
boro
Sta
a
on of Jackson
Pro
«<«
2
C
1
3
1
ustries
tic
trie
od
Atiantic
rving Co
Augu
M Wood Products
ion International Corp.
Cleveland Wood Preserving
A-10
-------
1
U
g
1
O
i
O
I
o
o
E2
•E3)
•&
•a
Rt
•&
03
'>
•
0
ft
8
o
at
'
Homeville
a
vington
U
e
ro
State
ng Co
Cox Wood Prese
(Augusta Wood)
Preserving,
Treating
od
CO
•&
S
o
Wood Preserving Co.
f
OH
.at
6
.1*
^.
va
P
»
I
ber Company
Hogan L
-1
at
ence S
A-ll
-------
Regulator
Status (3
1
O
1
O
J
O
CO
sS
Q
P
•"
cti
I
I
I
'FTn
g
r Tunber Co,
M
rt
I
u
trie
rt
'&
rt
•Rh
8
o
1
03
I
o
esville
G
•a
I
I
8
IS
03
'&
(-1
o
f
'Gb
U
ing Co.
Pr
oultrie
1
1
H
8
oducts, In
Pine
1
i
00
co
ber Co
U
I
Sh
I
nt
•&
o
East Point
d
1
&
O
U
1
Southern
'&
O
Corporation
St. Bea
Ul
o
Woodbi
1
2
*
A-12
-------
a-
1
O
O
I
Q
J3
o
CL,
.>Y 41 >™
N S S>
a
a
a
*
a
a
a
X
03
n!
•63)
8
o
03
•&
•a
f
Fitzgerald
PH
Eato
rville
Ho
s
•I
Hoboken
ton
•3
o
s
Ewa Beach
Pu
ulu
H
r Co., Inc.
Tolleson Lu
ood Preserving
Top Notch
Union Camp Corp. DBA Tho
Treating Co.
u
fe
1
p
1
Products
Varn
o
U
1
1
'S
Hawaii Wood
Enterprises)
ting C
o W
ting C
u W
Ho
ly
g Su
3
a*
Prot
'
I
3
0)
A-13
-------
b»
I6
fl
ii
f
«fe £ «~s
11?
""'I13
< 3
8>f
I
cS
0
fc
O
2>
O
1
&
*
,2
•S
»
| Montgomer
CO
s
Northern Illinois Lumber Spec
2^
O
1
s
.S3
S
g
i
Perma-Treatof Illinois, Inc.
^
1
CO
£
CO
H
Streator
d
£
Rocky Top Wood Preservers,
A-14
-------
o s5
«j*»
• ft
*s
*<- I*"-.
O fe J-H
» '•§
R s »
^l53
P4
03
g
J
!M
CT)
1
5
0
CJ
j£
>
«
43
Indianapolis
cS
1
«
CJ
1
0
„
•
^
>
ctf
3
Shelbyville
Culpeper Wood Preservers
S
|
P
Q
^
5
>
03
HH
Winslow
Foster Wood Products
3
w
eu
o
>
c$
HH
Indianapolis
Hoosier Treating Co.
S- N
°
|
P
O
,9
5
>
03
3
P
Indiana Wood Treating
1
CA
CJ
>
a
33
^
Indianapolis
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp
g
1
3
o
P
>
c$
^
T5
Q
Peters Revington Furniture
1
0
o
P
>
CQ
3
Indianapolis
1
CJ
6
In
J
O
8
t^
>
c$
1
Huntingburg
1 Southern Indiana Treating
•£
°
w
^
>
CT;
C
1
i
1
1
^— s
0
w
^
>
a
CO
c
Westville
o
c
Walker-Williams Lumber Co
/— X
0
8
U
>
OJ
1
1
ffi
Western Tar Products Corp.
a
|
P
g
§
5
•
C^
3
Muscatine
w
8
City of Muscatine, Orange Si
1
O
CO
^
•
cd
1
Oskaloosa
o
Indiana Wood Preserving, In
g
1
P
o
P
5
f3
1
Muscatine
S
1
f
CO
s
1
s
1
P
o
13
h— 1
o3
1
Farmington
*i
| Shimek Forest HQ Wood Tre
2
Q
P
g
6
5
5
CTj
a
S
1
1
St. Regis Paper Co.
$
o
P
g
6
P
H- t
cfl
I
Muscatine
| Timmons Storage Area
1
°
CO
^
s
nj
1
t
Q
| Tri-State Forest Products, Im
A-15
-------
jl a
Bj is
A*
|s
&s
®
*'lp
ct
§!
,
g
IB
S
Conjpaay Name
S
£
|
P
J
53
g
1
Muscatine
i
CO
o
oO
I
s
^
o
p
1
*
*
t
I
?3
White Plain
o
a
1 Appalachian Timber Svcs., I
S
3
o
S
1
P
"
^
!
£
Louisville
o
yS
•s
| Brown Wood Preserving Co.
£
V-
^
o
s
(J
^
t
1
d
i
co
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp
S
3
S
o
H- (
^
1
2
1
o
i
^
Easterday Tie & Timber Co.
s
w
^
H- (
JT
1
i
Escue Wood Products
^
%
$
&
*
^
1
Winchester
tH
«
•g
(3
S
S
P-,
1
J
2
£
0
p
j
p
~
*
1
Warfield
Kermit Lumber Company
$
%
CO
)— 1
*
1
1
[ Koppers Industries, Inc.
a
^
1
p
1
p
HH
o
1
c
He
Nell Banks Campton Site
£
§
CO
^
fc
#
1
Leitchfield
Pioneer Wood Preserving
2!
^
s
^
H- 1
^
1
I
S
Quality Forest Products, Inc.
s
^
8
^
^
t
i
Winchester
f
o
Southern Wood Treatment C
£
%
0
P
J
*
HH
t
1
.3
1
O
I Tri-Co Wood Preserving
£
g
Q
P
|
^
*
*
I
t>0
|
55
•4-*
1 Wood Treatment Co. , Inc.
^
Z
0
PH
CJ
?
a
1
Winnfield
American Creosote
g
O
w
^
^
g
!
Shreveport
•
Arnold Forest Products Corp
^
*
0
PH
u
*
1
I
1
Bayou Bonfouca
s
Ul
o
CA
O
^
,
1
a
J
ni
CO
f
i
Benton Creosoting Works/K<
Mills, Inc.
A-16
-------
2!
•a
1
0
1
0
2!
£
><
00
sS
OH
-------
s
§
1
*
£
CJ
3
3
3
to
.5
"53
3
•3
a
'ca
3
1
t
1
•a
•a
1
Simsboro
I
o
I
ting Co
e T
arion P
liver Treated Products
1
s
!
£
1
>£
Reddell C
po
I
I
Pr
Standa
1
0
PH
•§
Me
tland
F
illards
Baltimore
CO
i
Rockville
I
I
fe
s
I
CO
§
CO
&
U
CO
O
2
Wood, Inc
ng Life Trea
erving Co
d P
Reliance
A-18
-------
I***
s l^
««
**S-
|S
^f_
i^?
pgs
<£
-------
>.
IS
3 K
^
G
CO
I
.
I
42
1
oo
1
o
CO
B,
I
o
s
Westland
| Weyerhauser Co.
•S
O
«
^
a
"3
o
S
West Branch
| Woodstock, Inc.
^
02
PH
^
S3
>>
0,
0
§
S
^
1
-a
•n
1
d
^00
1
J
l||g
p£ «fc g<«^
lH
0
U
.2
o
CO
n
S
f
E
Boise Cascade/Onan Corp/
Medtronic, Inc.
S
S
C
i
J3
J
.
C*1
o
U
1
o
•ft
H-l
O
f
a
ft!
O
^
^
o
B
fl
§
•jS
^
O
C/3
s
CO
Page & Hill Forest Product
S
O
CO
>H
.
O
00
S
i
•22
J
^
£
TJ
1
8
1
o
^
0
o
0
r^
s
S
1
CO
1
00
Qj
u
1
|
A-20
-------
lHiite$!nl$pPS
-;->:-: I-'-:-:-:-:':-:-:-:":-:-:-:-.-:-:-:-:-.-:-:-:-??!-:-:-! . .-: :•
:•:-:•:•:•'-'•: r---:-:-:-:-"":-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-, :•;•' : : ;•:
i®
t3 2*5
fe 2J
ill
^'|P
< J
0, 5h
1
t/3
C(
I1
Jz;
u
i
^
4
PH
>
«
o
1
S
|
St. Regis Paper Co.
a
^
r^
^
>
1
D
O
3
s
j
Timber Wholesalers, Inc.
!
o
*s^
r^
^
>
0
7
PL,
U
H-(
.1
W
"M
CO
S
Louisville
American Creosote Works
1
^
**
U
'
f
*£o
CO
S
Hattiesburi
/ov
U
4)
"1
H
American Wood Co. (Powe
1
o
>7
PH
U
'
.&
CO
"53
CO
S
d
Brookhave
d
W)
Brookhaven Wood Preservin
1
I
3
"c
p
|
p
h-H
a,
en
C/2
s
i
Q
I— i
Cavenham Forest Industries,
1
i
3
"c
p
1
p
H-(
&
.&
*c«
"55
CO
s
Edwards
.
d
>>
s
0
U
•S
CO
CO
2
U
1
1
U
I
o
J^J
r^
^
«
&
.&
CO
"53
CO
S
d
Brookhave
Columbus Lumber Co.
i
i
S
PS
p
Q
P
1— 1
1
CO
CO
CO
s
Hazlehurst
^
§
Copiah County Mfg./Treatai
Company
(U
>5J
**
^
h— C
.1
CO
CO
CO
s
1
Deforest Wood Preservers
I
J7j
PL,
CJ
HH
'55
tn
'55
C/3
§
rj
Brookhave
EscambiaWood
1
o
Q
'rJ
P
0
d
fc
•1
S3
M
•52
s
Fernwood
Fernwood Industries, Inc.
£
1
O
!>H
r
^
*
•1
00
1/1
«}
s
Jackson
Pollen Wood Preserving Co
PH
z
^
o
«
.&
S2
^9
*sS
*
J
4
o
U
g
1
1
1
PH
|
5
'pj
p
i
^
^
.i
•SS
C/3
s
S3
Brookhave
a
K3
PH
1
s_x
1
o
fc
PL,
o"
'
a
"3S
*co
§
bfl
Hattiesburj
Gulf State Creosote
A-21
-------
ii
.g
so CJ,
•2 c-
2 S
£*
^f .
O ^ *-H
|||
Ck
if
2
3
CO
d
| <£
« S-
U
x — »
\n.
PH
O
12
U
'
.u
M
CO
•^
S
Learned
d
u
1
I
1
a
0
3
>«
^
h— <
io
CO
M
S
1
International Paper Co.
S,
1
0
(8
K-I
1
«
CO
CO
CO
« —
^
1
1
6
O
1
en
&
1
"
U
•
a
W
en
^
s?
Columbi
I
1
6
o
s
1
1
^
o
^
P
fe
1
>
d,
en
s
d
3
!
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
1
oS
>->
OH
o"
•
&
04
CO
CO
CO
CO
s
JS
P
Koppers Industries, Inc.
1
Sj
0
^
&
§
o
1— <
R*
di
CO
CO
s
1
Laurel Lumber Company
1
o
en
>->
^
'
&
OH
cn
CO
Grenada
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
|H
8
£
*
•
G,
DJ
cn
en
en
en
s
&
Horn La
Memphis Wood Preserving Corp
g
o
^
PH
'
a
en
CO
s
at
Columbi
| Newsom Brothers Old Reichold {
I
O
cn
><
U
•
&
&i
en
cn
cn
^
8
ffi
&
u
t>0
;
Oi
cn
en
'en
en
s
1
Penick Forest Products
3
5
O
^
^
g
O
^
•
&
d«
CO
CO
^
1
&>
J3
1 Pine Belt Wood Preserving Com]
G?
.J
1
Q
!zi
PH
u"
'
&1
.&
CO
CO
CO
Prentiss
0
Prentiss Creosote & Forest Prodi
&
1
o
*
PH
U
•
&
&<
en
en
en
S
d
1
O
Southeastern Wood Preserving
52,
$
O
&
o
*Z
-------
Sj ~cS
^
.a ^
f*"*^
ON
l-tt
|||
S^\ Jfv *A
H|^
24
«$
.
w?
g
fc
§
e
0 '
^
D
o
f~i
0
>
•C3< :
05
•53
s
1
s
Southern Pine Wood Preserving
Company
I
c
0
,3
•P
0
*^_j
P
•a
"co
s
2 !?
11
PH O
Southern Wood Preserving
1
O
05
X-1
^
>
1
CO
S
Hartiesburg
w>
1
Southern Wood Pres. Of Hatties
1
O
05
I^1
••a
.§
05
s
ts
^
1
1
1
05
1
I
O
s
>-
>
•a
.8
CO
s
Philadelphia
Thomasson Lumber Co.
1
O
g
K"1
>
'a
.g
05
S
"3
3
x-v
a
Thomasson Lumber Co. (Laurel
§
05
(^
O
'a
.a
.S3
a
HH
o"
o
a
H
i
'e
0
3
P
I
r^
^
a
CO
S'
Louisville
fi
o
S
S
Ul
1
o
05
J^
>
a
•a
.S3
CO
s
I
l
Treated Materials Co., Inc.
I
O
05
^
^
>
•a
DH
•53
.S3
CO
CO
S
1
4
6
O
1
s
00
S
I
O
05
^
^
>
• 1-t
CO
.23
CO
CO
s
Lucedale
6
CJ
§
s
00
B
s
05
K"1
O
>
•a
•53
.23
"05
O5
S
CM
4
J
1
I
o
CO
^
„
s
CO
s
o
A.K. Gibbon Lumber Co.
1
e
0
S
P
1
"^y
°
„
$
CO
S
A&R Oak Fencing, Inc.
S
<8
K*
?
O
CO
CO
s
Steelville
Arneson Timber Co.
S
c
0
^
P
|
*f_j
p'
e
O
CO
CO
s
u
/oos
1
1
fc-
B
1
i
05
&*
^
i
CO
s
rt.
1
International Paper Co.
I
O
O5
K^
?
I
CO
s
Pleasant Hil
International Paper Co.
A-23
-------
S
I
fr
§
u
o
o
o
<
01
3
I
1
i
*S)
e
S
r
I
S
Flooring
S
S
P
e
Pole
(Li
Creston Post & Pole Yard
& Pole
Evans P
A-24
-------
11
1®-
^ oS
J1®
*•* If "*•*
^ cti -
^
O-i wj
g
IS
• I
V?
i
55
^t
«•
Montana
1
1
el
O
oJO
^
Kalispell Pole & Timber Co. (Bui
Northern Railroad)
|
X
K^1
PM
U
•
Montana
Bozeman
5?
&
o
HH
i
6
U
1
P
J
s
i
55
55
e
|
^
f
Montana
«t
Columbia F
Larry's Post & Treating Co.
1
O
J*-*
•^
•
Montana
03
U
4
•+_*
i
I
g
*
55
PM
U
H- f
Montana
1
| Montana Pole and Treating
OH
O
55
CM
U
*
Montana
•§•
1
"o
p->
1
1
55
0_
h- H
Montana
03
1
f
5P S
II
S 0
(D fl
li
1
j"-1
^
•
1
c
00
2
Central Nebraska Wood Preserve
1
ft
>H
CM
•
1
1
|
c/a
I
. w
S
1
o
K^
Q-
0
^
"
J
a
S
1
Nevada Wood Preserving
j:
j
s
P
g
1
P
k— 1
-8
i
i
•a
[3
i
|
V
>*
>
«
s
.11
Bethlehem
A
Littleton Lumber & Supply Co., .
i
x^
U
' H
-------
11
.a ^
f$->
v>
S §v
O* v^
O
S
*o > C?
% i ;-"
111
t5|p
A.
if
to
0
I1
1
(n
J3
£
o
^
P-.
CJ
•
o
_u
New Me
|
I
c1
CL,
CO
1
0
en
i5j
._
^
H
New Yoi
o
B
p-
1 A.C. Dutton Lumber Coi
i
o
en
!iH
^
H
1
a
I
Ja
>™H
1 Atlantic Wood Industries,
1
O
en
l2
H
04
^t
^
«
^
1
Cortland
1 Bestway Enterprises, Inc.
Ui
°?
1*2
&
H
1
1
o
CJ
bo
a
•a
CO
1
1
1
§
1
en
?2
^
H
New Yoi
"8
j> CO
P<
o
CJ
1
CJ
d
i
e
g
g
J3
S
o
^
s
i
West Athens
^
*™s
•a
o
tH
>
1 Northeast Treaters of Nev
i
en
>^
H
U^
'&
a
•
1
o
.
jS
^
1 Wood Treaters of Buffalo
!
en
,*J
j
^
'
S
1
CJ
Albemarle
0.
>5
n
1
SP
c
Albemarle Wood Preservi
1
O
en
•2
K"
^
*
1
0
I
Morganton
1 Brackett Brothers Corp.
J
o
en
*S2
^
«
1
I
Mocksville
o
CJ
j=
1 C.A. Seaford & Sons Lur
Ui
o
°3
"sis
K"
^
^
1
CJ
1
Middleburg
3
I
CJ
^
>7
c,;
H-4
1
CJ
Fayetteville
bJ)
H
| Cape Fear Wood Preservi
i
p,
>
g
*a
^
§
g
g
13
•
"2
i
I
,
1
1
CJ
1
o
en
>w
•^
^
-
1
1
^
Scotland Nee
,
^
.
o
O
Kr\
| Carolina Wood Preserving
i
o
en
,4>
>•
^
^
|
CQ
CJ
•3
1
i
| Coastal Lumber Co.
1
O
en
ai
^
^
£
a
CJ
1
f
1
s
hn
0^
1 Cove City Wood Preservi
!
en
•5^
K*
^
fc
1
J3
O
!§
1
I
Cox Wood Preserving Co
(Structural Wood)
A-26
-------
Q**'!
ll
(3 *°
|®
$> §!
5"^
t*^ ^3S* j^-s.
|lt
^ >R
«^
1
1
fe
>?r
. i
^
o
U
a
s
CJ
•3
Q
^
I
ffi
Davensport Creosote
^
0
•
a
J~"
•s
Q
^
Charlotte
Durable Wood Preservers, Inc.
Tj-
1
O
•
a
P
0
€
Q
^
Wilmington
A
1
CO
tn
T3
cS
td
in"
. i
CM
^
b
^
CU
a
p
Rt
CJ
£
o
fc
g
1
Everhart Lumber Co.
*•:
1
O
*
•
g
"p
CJ
-s
o
fc
Greensboro
Fortress Wood Products, Inc.
-<
U
£
u
a
"2
CJ
€
o
fc
1
General Timber, Inc.
*-'
J
O
°1
>
a
"p
rt
CJ
-S
Q
^
3
g
General Wood Preserving Co., I
T^-
i
o
*
•
>
a
"3
0!
CJ
•3
Q
&
1
Gold Hill Wood Preservers, Inc.
Tj-
J
O
*
•
>
g
"3
0]
CJ
•£
Q
&
Goldston
Goldston Lumber, Inc.
A-2
__<
0
00
88
CJ
>
a
"3
03
CJ
•B
Q
^
rt
Holcomb Creosote Co.
,7
1
o
Z,
OH
§
"3
CO
CJ
€
Q
£
Morrisville
4
6
I
<*:
o
f
>
a
•3
03
CJ
•g
Q
^
1
3
1
f.
I
T}-
1
O
*
*
a
"3
03
CJ
•S
Q
*
||
1
8
1
Tj-
1
O
*
•
a
"3
OS
CJ
•3
g
^
Laurinburg
c3
Q
1
rf
1
O
*
•
>
a
"3
CJ
•£
Q
*
Henderson
a"
-s
1
I
rf
1
o
*
•
>
a
"3
03
CJ
•£
o
S5
2
a
"3
03
CJ
•S
Q
*
Elizabeth City
d
a
South Atlantic Wood Preservers,
rf
1
O
*
•
>
a
-31
03
CJ
•5
O
^
Kemersville
cS
CO
rj-
1
O
*
•
>
a
75
03
CJ
€
g
^
Morrisville
•\
o
CJ
1
1
j
-------
o S
3 a
Qj ^
«<*
|e
P
Types of
Preservatives)
Used(l)
«jj ,2
o
ri
••g ^
Pt
s
Company Nan
r*.
^
o
>
•
1
53
U
•£
1
r*
u
EUzabeth
1 Universal Forest Products
;*,
1
1
•g
&
|
Woodtreaters, Inc.
Tj-
,£3
0
1
•
5
1
Q
•g
£
|
6
1
<<
cd
Pr
i
^
i
>
§
Orrville
tf
Tf
S
fg
°
1
H
>
1
d
1
Q
d
U
t_l
PH
•s
j Dayton Flameproof & Wo
•*;
rfi
•fl
o
1
*
>
1
3
6
1?
Ss
1 Great Northern Wood Pres
•"*
*"* '
o3
-S
O
CA
*
^
>
1
d o
Washingtc
Courthous
1
6
u.
S
i
Tt
^
O
I/I
^
-
>
1
bo
•8
o
1
6
1
Cleveland
JB
£*
.N
Manufacturers Wholesale 1
Tj-
rg
O
^
-
>
1
1
4)
V^
^
_«
"o
Ul
o
m
S
rj-
,g
0
^
*
>
1
1
1
0
>-i
.
a
| McArthur Lumber & Post
•*
*s
0
*
»
-
I
Norwalk
8
| Midwest Wood Treating, I
ri-
.g
0
^
•
>
o
8
O
j
a
i— <
Quality Wood Treating Co
i-l
CM
^
o
55
O
>
o
8
I
Q
&
j
<<
2
n?
i.
^
o
>
1
I
>.
T!
^
^
Southern Wood Piedmont 1
TJ-
^^
dj
€
°
>«
.r
>
l
Hamilton
| Universal Forest Products
TJ-
x*"'
Jri
•fl
0
:*
-
>
1
g
1
0-
£
n
O
r j
| Walker-Williams Lumber
A-28
-------
^
§3 a
3» •*•>
•S^
.a'H'
11
o
%fs
• §; ^ "i
tfjrf
r|
g
fl
g
P
o
P
X
1
1
*j_i
Alta Timber Co., Operation o
Weyerhaeuser
Q
Burlington Northern Railroad,
Russ
-------
>> -^
I6
ti
.g ^
f£
(H
*fs-
i.si
fri|&
CJ
if
a
07
§
I1
Company Nams
j
H
!§
U
X
a
2
o
Portland
a
,s
o
1 McCormick & Baxter Creos
e§
^
i
P
g
4
5
X
a
o
Portland
Pacific Wood Treating Corp
2S
*
1
I*
X
c
a
PH
Philadelphia
| Belfield Avenue Site
S
«
en
O
B
'.rt
>
PH
en
'o
•3
Q
$
U
!
i
1
PQ
Ul
o
C/)
sS
^
B
•a
fi
Champion
| Champion Lumber Co.
m
1
en
£
3
•a
>
(i!
•a
| Coastal Lumber Co.
l_i
1
en
£
3
•I
#
Uniontown
[ Coastal Lumber Co.
f_i
£
O
1
^
S
•a
S!
S"
S
«SJ
S3
B
00
00
1
en"
c3
r
1 Commonwealth Wood Presei
x~s
>o
pi
o
%
PH
B
.rt
^
gj*
K
fi
Townville
5
i
i
. A-30
-------
1
1
0
i
o
o
t-i
1
i
i
o
1
O
u
PH
u
U
u
cS 'Eb
3
a
B
nt
3
1
Have
canvi
8
1
i
1
1
1
•a
Have
Fombell
Gordon
2
i-i
ja
S
Wesfline
on
Ad
CO
CO
s
ffi
PCP Site
O
U
8
6
!
&
ellott Wood
1
National
mber Co
oth
S
Products
Fore
nive
A-31
-------
£"-
fe
1!
& w
•3 ^
.s'S'
ll
O
S
111
H § i3
&
d
< ,o
ID
5
Plant Location
(City)
J
i
?
0
P
g
1
5
s
1
fi
Philadelphia
a
'•§
"a3
«
1 Wood Treating Corp. of Phil
1
0
^
g
1
£
w
o
o
S
o
I
."*
03
1 Boricua Wood Processing
J
o
S
H
E
^
i— i
T3
1
1
Davisville
ll
• ,2
CO M
¥
0
g
1
p*
>:
§
2
ca
O
1
CO
Florence
05
1 Beazer Materials and Service
1
w
£
*
a
2
1
CO
1
1
PM
1 C.M. Tucker Lumber Corp.
1
o
w
£
fc
g
g
CO
Charleston
d
„
<3
ol
J Charleston Timber & Wood ]
1
o
ft
£
HH
a
1
u
55
O
CO
j
| Collum's Lumber Mill
i
^
^
a
2
a
1
CO
Columbia
J Colwood Company, Inc.
I
e
§
P
g
0
£
6
a
1
1
CO
Greenville
1 Colwood Company, Inc.
1
»
H
i^
1— C
g
I
1
CO
Orangeburg
| Cox Wood Preserving Co.
i
u
^
*
3
1
u
!
Richland
1 Davis Brothers Lumber Co.
O
ft
£
>
s
i
u
1
CO
5
| Edisto Wood Preserving
i
p
^
*
g
|
£
*
3
2
c3
1
CO
•a
&
R)
,"
t
|
O
in"
i
55
0
£
^
3
J
1
CO
Hardeeville
Kellwood Timber Products
i
0
f
Q
J^
H- (
a
1
i
CO
Charleston
4
6
U
^
?
^
CO
*
O-i
U
t*
fc
a
3
I
Florence
4
00
a
i
o
«
^
u
"
fc
^
1
1
f
I Lakewood Treating, Inc.
1
o
w
f
£
HH
3
1
-s
§
CO
1
4
o"
1
1
O
<»
>H
^
fe
a
§
u
1
CO
Camden
•|
CO
1
A-32
-------
w
%•
&
1
%?•
»'i'
«o
u
g
CO.
U
1
CO
I
2-
£
I
o
1
CO
rg
1
U
South Wood Prese
No
S
03
o
g
CO
Cayce/Dixi
etto Wood Preserving
Pa
2'
OS
U
€
Hardeeville
1
1
CO
a
1
^
ng C<
Sumter
sS
U
.1
o
co
«S
O
1
o
CO
Co
United Wood Trea
03
Q
•s
o
CO
Rapid City
i
co
Forest Products
J
0
g
CO
Co
ateria
'On
o"
g
CO
dat
eeler Co
£
Q
1
CO
OH
O
.8
Jac
•8
1
en
1
Gap Forest Products
B
Q
P
8
Mosheim
ga
neville
G
rvers,
Cherokee Wood Pr
ber Co
Coasta
A-33
-------
u
1
O
"o ^G1
S 1§
f M
H !(? P
S
(O
8
18
Nashville
nchester
Sweetwater
CO
•3
1
i
t
t
s
CO
Nashville
Houston
W
S
I
u
San Antonio
on
Ho
Jerico Indus
S
I
if
i
•«
Sunbright
gley Charcoal Plan
ting Co
Cass County T
ber Co., Inc
Dean L
A-34
-------
1
I
1
o
o
o
OH
o"
o
O
U
'
3
-------
fr~
j| j»
i«
te
E gj
*»
^f^
t§> « 13
< §
&l
I
g
"§
I6
5S
^^
"**-s
•S
O
>^
^
^
1
g
8
Powell Lumber of Texas, Inc.
*-^
Ul
g
J^
0
^
1
*
*
^
CO
1
c
C/3
1
co'
1 South Houston Lumber Co.
«
^
i
J2
5
g
o
*
CO
1
CO
a
Q
| Southwest Shelving Co., Inc.
K
O
0
•§
D
g
1
^
CO
1
1
Q.
&1
1 Temple Inland Forest Product Co
M
U
J
'Z
P-,
u"
*
CO
1
1
1 Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
^
g
CO
^
u
*
1
1
1 Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.
H-)
§5
!Z
o<
U
*
CO
*
^
^
1
«
CO
1 Universal Forest Products
iv*
c
CA
^
^
*
1
1
| Walker Wood Preserving, Inc.
K
0
*
e
1
*
OT
1
Denison
1 W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Co.
^
£
CO
£
*
*
1
Houston
j Wood Protection Co.
(U
•S
O
u
>-<
^
^
1
8
£
1
1
1
S
•1
o
£
*
1
1
*
0
CO
| Utah Wood Preserving
_i
^
£
?
1
hH
«
^
1
I
1 Pine Street Canal
^
•1
0
CO
£
*
3
S
.s
1
o
a
Anderson Brothers Lumber Co., I
^
0
£*
*
B
1
Newsoms
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
3
o
£
-------
l^
S* •§
a««
.a^
ffc
XD o\
<»f»
|f|
'"I*
i|
.
Richmond
Ji
Beazer Materials & Services,
t-i
£
O
,s
>*
^
B
•a
•a
i>
1
f
!
i
w
M
o
,8
^
u
B
at
'3
'§)
i>
1
o
O
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp.
S
M
,S
^
£
1— I
a
at
"5b
j>
2
I
}
1 Commonwealth Wood Presen
^
^
p
o
•g
P
g
|
^
a
at
"Gb
I>
Covesville
Cove Creek Industries
i
_f
tn
!>^
£
t— i
'•§
1
t
U
Culpeper Wood Preservers
u.
1
O
en
K«
>
B
•g
"So
i>
Gloucester
..
Gloucester Lumber Products,
$
g
|
•3
P
g
|
P
3
at
•a
£
I
B
h— (
O
(§
-»
5
| Everdure, Inc.
s
u
.g
t^
H
&
*
a
•a
•a
'£
Milford
i— i
| Hoover Treated Wood Produc
^
U
,8
K*
U
a
at
•a
'Eh
!>
1
13
CO
Koppers Industries, Inc.
§
j-
*
g
^
u
a
at
•a
'Eh
i>
Fredricksburg
H
HH
a"
o
CO
%
O
J
£
J
°
8
^
^
a
at
•a
•a
i>
Providence
Forge
1
g
y
en
£*
^
3
at
'So
Madison
o
Madison Wood Preservers, In
\-,
I
O
W
K"1
£
)-H
a
,i>
1
McCready Lumber Co.
!_
3
O
00
K""1
£
I-H
HH
HH
t-
J>
•i
CO
o
U
1
8
ffi
2
o
en
t*-1
£
B
at
'Eb
J>
.a.
Potomac Supply Corp.
fe
£
^
P-l
CJ
^
3
!>
Richmond
Rentokil, Inc.
£
u<
i
o
en
r*
£
3
1
f
g
| Rocky Top Wood Preservers,
A-37
-------
1 ®
II
|s
1,2
S
|ls
Sf 6
H | P
ci
it
I
§
l-t
a
i
U
^
&
n4
l^
B
03
•a
I
f
5
d
U
CO
CO
a
•^
-S
O
^->
•^
S
03
•a
B
i
i
co"
•3
CO
^
O
^4
|
o"
*
B
1
Warsaw
Wood Preservers, Inc.
•<
3
^H
•^
X
Washingto
Washougal
1 Allweather Wood Treaters
^
&)
j"
/^
CU
U
X
Washingto
Chehalis
d
U
1 American Crossarm & Condu
^
i
CO
H
n><
X
Washingto
j
Brooks Manufacturing Co.
<
%
o
„§
*
Q
"S
^
X
d
Washingto
.S3
O
3
1
^
X
1
1
ofl
Q
d
U
1
td
A.38
-------
1
O
1
O
W
a*
U
U
o
1
O
PH
U
U
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
a
I
••a
•a
•5b
--
CTJ
I
I
S
Ta
CS
CO
•
oo
00
Rt
f
I
'Si
1
CO
|
PH
A
Trea
<
U
C3
-------
i!
«»
•5 CM
S
<*- £> ,-H
s*ss
H fc "s
H § P
CL, "fib
w «
I
CO
e»
0
PH
e"
U
1
°
*
a
Kt
•a
1
1
•i
ff\
O
U)
1
i
o
*
U
a
Rt
•a
I
1
|
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp.
j
o
to
^
a
.w
f
OT
1
'S
«
cS
1
1
1
o
CO
a
1
I
1
1
4
!
IH
&
CO
CO
£
§
CO
o
a
.rt
I
1
W)
1
Koppers Industries, Inc.
1
°
f
a
at
•a
1
6
t;
£
•*-»
£
I
CO
CO
1
o
CO
a
•I
B
1
Ranson
1 Universal Forest Products
j
o
CO
>
a
'0
CO
Prentice
c
8
d
U
D
S
|
1
CO
O
>
.a
0
o
CO
I
CO
Koppers Industries, Inc.
1
O
CO
>
.3
0
o
CO
.s
rt
U
1
Midwest Manufacturing Co.
1
O
1
£3
>
'0
0
o
1
Oshkosh
Morgan Products, Ltd.
g
*•
o
>
0
I
1
HH
«j O
1 8
1 ^
1
O
CO
>
a
'0
0
o
.S3
CO
'cS
1
•§*
Northern Crossarm Co., Inc.
J
O
Q
O
0
>
ri
'0 '
0
o
CO
l!
Onalaska Municpal Landfill
g
*
Q
'S
>
.a
0
1
CO
1
Penta Wood Products
1
O
CO
>
ri
'0
0
o
CO
i
CO
Peterson Wood Treating Co.
el
1
^
>
d
'0
Q
O
CO
^
Quality Wood Treating Co., 1
%
CO
H
s
>
a
1
O
CO
1
13
Quality Wood Treating Co., ]
A-40
-------
b^
f ^
3 H
I5 ^a
CKi M
.a^
f=« x_^
V"i
S ox
O ^
^
«*.*Y^
» '1°
^* <8 P
>
/_x
^f,
Ul
<
CJ
•
1=1
'§
0
g
£
H
bo
1
Webster Industries, Inc.
/ ^
2^
Wl
J
o
w
>-<
^
g
'g
8
1
X
•S
3
Woods Run Forest Products, Inc.
^_^
^j,
^
i
to
o
**
£
I-H
£
bO
.g
1
1
•J
'J3
S
1
o
CJ
cd
*
^
z
CL,
Cj"
H
^
60
.9
1
•a
1
3
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
<{<
K
$
03
4)
>->
OH
tn
^
W)
.s
.1
rt
(3
•g
i
4
1
1
H
o
CJ
£
t& s
VJ W o
« •! 1'
I.s i
«r co g
0^ WJ M
"S '? -^
H 1
,J3 Q .^
0 fe 0
3 ^ «
*° « to
M OT ^J
o w
» g"i -s
§ i <§* '§ vx
• |l| 11
'| § c£ 2 '^ ^
"2 <£ § « § 0- i
^ *O S ^ J3 ^ V
S 5 § i2 2 « "
g !* '§ -o >S a •
• 2
C/3 d> *° &0
III*'
i£
85-9^1
r- s> •§ »
^;
.2 o\
5'
e e
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ADDITIONAL TREATABIUTY AND CASE STUDIES
-------
-------
B.1 Soil Washing
B. 1.1 Case Study - Pilot Demonstration
of OHM's Soil Washing Unit at Cape
Fear Site
Background/Waste Description: OHM's 40-ton-
per-hour pilot-scale soil washing unit was used
in a demonstration at the Cape Fear Superfund
site, Fayetteville, NC. Soil at the site is contam-
inated with arsenic, chromium, and PAHs.
Summary of Study: Approximately 1,200 tons
of contaminated soil material were treated
during the 5-day demonstration. The OHM soil
washing system operated at 30 tons per hour
for 8 hours each day.
Performance: Treatment goals for the cleaned
soil were less than 100,000 ppb of PAHs; less
than 2,500 ppb of carcinogenic PAHs; less than
94,000 ppb of arsenic; and less than 88,000
ppb of chromium. The contaminated fines left
onsite were required to have less than 100 ppb
of carcinogenic PAHs in the SPLP (SW-846
Method 1312) leachate.
Approximate levels of PAHs in the
contaminated soil were as follows:
acenaphthene, 200,000 ppb; acenaphthylene,
10,000 ppb; anthracene, 100,000 ppb; benz(a)-
anthracene, 100,000 ppb; benzo(b)fluor-
anthene, 40,000 ppb; benzo(k)fluoranthene,
40,000 ppb; benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 5,000 ppb;
benzo(a)pyrene, 30,000 ppb; chrysene, 100,000
ppb; dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 1,000 ppb;
fluorene, 20.0,000 ppb; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,
5,000 ppb; phenanthrene, 500,000 ppb; and
pyrene, 300,000 ppb. Initial chromium levels
were approximately 80,000 ppb, and arsenic
was not detected in the untreated soil.
All treatment goals were met with the exception
of carcinogenic PAHs in the soil, which ranged
from 4,500 to less than 2,000 ppb.
Cost: Capital expense/leasing costs were $40
per ton of soil treated. This included all equip-
ment costs for excavation, attrition scrubbing,
screening, fines dewatering, back-filling, and
project support (e.g., decontamination trailers,
office trailers and equipment, etc.). Annual
consumable (e.g., chemicals) costs were $8.50
per ton of soil treated. This included all
chemicals used for attrition scrubbing and fines
dewatering. Annual utilities costs were $1.50
per ton of soil treated. The labor costs during
treatment were $35 per ton of soil treated. This
included all labor costs for excavation, attrition
scrubbing, fines dewatering, backfilling, and
project administration. This cost estimate does
not appear to include costs associated with
permitting and regulatory compliance; startup;
effluent monitoring and disposal; residuals and
waste shipping, handling, and transportation;
analyses; or demobilization.
OHM Corporation. Personal Communication
between Paul Lear, OHM Corporation, and Kurt
Whitford, SAIC. March 25, 1997.
B.2 Solidification/Stabilization (SIS)
B.2.1 Process Design for the ACW Site
in Jackson, TN
Background/Waste Description: The soil at the
ACW site is contaminated with VOCs, PCP,
PAHs, dioxins, and furans. Maximum contam-
inant concentrations in the soil are 200 ppm
VOCs; 21,300 ppm PAHs; 2,500 ppm PCP; 15
ppm dioxins; and 2.6 ppm furans.
Summary of Study: OHM prepared a prelim-
inary process design and cost estimate for the
S/S treatment of 35,100 tons of contaminated
soil at the ACW site. OHM proposed completing
all onsite work within a 75-day period. OHM's
S/S equipment proposed for the site included a
soil screening plant and a pugmill unit. The
screening plant was designed to screen out
materials greater than 2 inches in diameter. The
pugmill was designed to mix the screened soil
with reagents designed to immobilize the
contaminants, particularly the PAHs. The
average operating capacity of this system is
150 tons of soil per hour; the maximum
operating capacity is 200 tons of soil per hour.
Performance: This process design was not
associated with a particular treatability study,
and no performance results were included.
OHM anticipated that the process would be able
to achieve the proposed performance criteria for
the SPLP leachate, which were as follows:
B-1
-------
• B(a)P potency estimate of less than 10 ppb
• POP concentration of less than 200 ppb
• TCDD-TEQ of less than 30 ppq
Cosf; Based on the operating parameters
described above, OHM estimates the following
costs:
• Equipment costs of $13 per ton of soil
treated (includes all equipment costs for
excavation, screening, S/S treatment,
stockpiling, backfilling, capping, and project
support)
• Utilities costs of $0.10 per ton of soil treated
• Consumables costs of $93 per ton of soil
treated (includes S/S reagents, clay and soil
for capping, and analytical testing)
• Labor costs of $16 per ton of soil treated
(includes all labor costs for excavation,
screening, S/S treatment, backfilling,
capping, and project administration)
The sum of these costs is approximately $122
per ton of soil treated. This cost estimate does
not include costs associated with site pre-
paration, startup, offsite disposal of residuals, or
demobilization.
Source:
Personal Communication with OHM
Corporation. Fax describing proposed S/S
treatment system for ACW site in Jackson, TN.
1997.
B.2.2 Treatability Study - MCB Superfund
Site In Stockton, CA
Background/Waste Description: In the summer
of 1996, a solidification treatability study was
conducted using soil from the MCB Superfund
site in Stockton, CA. Soil samples used in this
treatability study were collected at the MCB site
on May 24,1995. The soil was collected from a
pile of soil that was excavated from the process
area, screened, and homogenized in prepar-
ation for an unrelated treat-ability test. After
collection, the soil was screened through new
1^-inch by }£-inch wire cloth, placed in ten 5-
gallon pails, and shipped to vendors.
Particle size analysis indicated that the sample
was a silt or clay soil with 3 percent gravel and
38 percent sand. The soil used in the particle
size analysis may not be entirely representative
of the soil used in the treatability studies
because it was not from the pails shipped to
Vendors A or C (it was from one of the other
pails of soil collected at the same time).
Results of chemical analyses of TCLP and
SPLP leachates from the untreated soil are
summarized in the performance section to
facilitate comparison with the treated soil.
Vendor A and Vendor C each collected a soil
sample from the pail(s) of soil they received,
and shipped the sample to the analytical
laboratory. The analytical laboratory compos-
ited these samples and analyzed the composite
only. Since this process may have introduced
inaccuracies, the composite sample may not be
completely representative of either sample, but
is considered sufficiently representative.
Summary of Study: Each of the two vendors
tested several mixes prior to the treatability
study documented in the performance tables.
Each vendor used the results of the preliminary
tests to select one mix for the final treatability
study. The mixes used in the final treatability
study were as follows:
Vendor A added the following reagents to 1,600
g of soil:
120 g of carbon
120 g of cement
150 mL of water
Vendor C added the following reagents per
1,000 g of soil:
80 g of cement
120 g of proprietary reagent P-4
Unknown quantity of water
Performance: Results of chemical analyses are
presented in Tables B.2-1 (TCLP leachates)
and B.2-2 (SPLP leachates). Geophysical
testing was also performed on soils treated by
Vendor A and Vendor C. The soil treated by
Vendor A had a hydraulic conductivity of 6.8 x
10~7 cm/sec and an unconfined compressive
strength of 280 psi. The soil treated by Vendor
B-2
-------
C had a hydraulic conductivity of 2.2 x 10'7
cm/sec and an unconfined compressive
strength of 170 psi.
Cost f1997): The reagent cost for Vendor A's
treatment is estimated to be $60 per ton of soil
treated; the reagent cost for Vendor C's
treatment is estimated to be $50 per ton of soil
treated. These cost estimates are for reagents
only and are based on unit costs provided by
S/S vendors.
Sources:
IT Corporation. Description of Materials Tests.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0108,
1996.
SAIC. Wood Preserving Sites Treatability Study:
Solidification/Stabilization. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C5-0001, Work Assignment 0-
03, Technical Directive F, and Work
Assignment 1-04, Technical Directive B, March
1997a.
B.3 Thermal Desorption (TD)
B.3.1 Pilot-Scale TD of Creosote
Contaminated Soil
Background/Waste Description: A Superfund
soil from an unspecified site was tested in a
pilot-scale desorber. The soil was a fine, sandy
soil, 75 percent of which had a grain size
diameter between 0.1 and 0.4 mm. The
moisture content was only 10 percent and the
heating value was below 500 BTU/Ib.
Summary of Study: The TD pilot plant was a
continuously rotating desorber tube partially
enclosed within a gas-fired furnace shell. The
tube has a 6J^-inch internal diameter and is 14
feet, % inch long. The heated part of the tube is
6 feet, 8 inches long. Small baffles located
within the tube provide soil mixing. The
desorber is rated at 320,000 BTU/hr maximum
heat duty. The estimated maximum heat that
can be transferred to'material in the desorber
tube is 100,000 BTU/hr. Natural gas or propane
is used to fire the 14 equally spaced burners.
Soil is fed to the burner via a screw feeder. A
stationary thermowell was extended into the
tube with six thermocouples to measure soil
temperature and three thermocouples to
measure gas temperature along the tube
length.
Based on previous bench-scale tests, an
operating temperature of 555°C and a residence
time of 10 minutes were used in the pilot-scale
desorber. A nitrogen purge was continuously
introduced into the desorber at a rate of 2 cubic
feet per minute to help flush contaminants and
to maintain an atmosphere that does not
support combustion (i.e., <6 percent oxygen).
Soil samples were taken before and after
treatment. Six sets of temporally related soil
samples (waste feed and treated residual) were
collected to evaluate system performance. Each
feed and residual sample comprised three
composites. To allow for residence time, a
treated sample, was taken approximately 20
minutes after the corresponding feed sample.
Performance: Table B.3-1 gives the average
concentration of SVOCs in the pre-treatment
and post-treatment soil. Greater than 99.9
percent removal was accomplished for prac-
tically all of the SVOCs.
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Lauch, R.P., et al. Removal of Creosote from
Soil by Thermal Desorption. Hazardous
Materials Control/Superfund '91; Proceedings of
the 12th National Conference, December 3-5,
1991, Washington, D.C.
B-3
-------
Table B.2-1. Selected TCLP Results - MCB Solidification Treatment
nnncentration in TCLP Leachate
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
. Anthracene
Beti2(a)anthracene1
Beji20{b)fltjoranlhert$1
Benzo{k)fluoranthene1
Bfmzo(ghl)perytene
BenZo(a)pyrene1
Crwysene1
D!benz(a,h)anthracene:1
Fluoranthene
Fluorena
tndeno(1 ,2,3-ed)pyt@ne1
2-Methytnaphthalena . 1
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total PAHs2
Bfa^P potency estimate .
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Pentachtofophenol, ppb
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
Metals
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
_BH
Before
Treatment
52
3.1
6.3
ND(I.O)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND0.0)
ND(1.Q)
ND (1,0)
ND (1.0)
12
8.6
ND (1,0)
ND (2.0)
1.1
11
8.8
121
NDC2.3V
18
6.1
360
110
191
ND (20.0)
610
1,190
5.0
After
Vendor A
Treatment
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
3,2
ND(1.0)'
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
- ND(1,0)~
ND(1.Q1
ND(1.0)
ND (1.0)
2.8
NRd-0)
ND(1,0)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
2.4
.33.
NDf^S'i
1.3J
ND (2.0)
240
25
155
45.5
186
52.4
10.8
After
Vendor C
Treatment
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND (5,0)
Nb (5,0)
Mb (1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1,0)
ND(1.0)
NDd.O)
ND(1.Q)
ND (2.0)
ND(LO)
ND(1.0)
ND fl 0>
ND (28)
NO (2 8^
ND(10)
ND (2.0)
ND(1.0)
26
64.4
ND (20.0)
62.0
441
5.9
Chanae. Percent8
As Analyzed
Vendor A
>-96
>-35
-49
NC
NC
MC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-77
>-88
NC
NC
>-9.1
>-90
-73
-72.
NC
-93
>-67
-33
-78
-18.8
NC
-69.5
-95.6
NA
Vendor C
>-96
>-35
>-84
NC''
''' NC
NC
NC
NC '
NC
' ' ' NC
>-91
>-88,
NC
NC
>-9.0
>-90
>-88
>-77.
NC
>-44
>-67
>-99
-77
-66.3
NC
-89.8
-62.9
NA
Adjusted for Dilution
Vendor A
>-96
>-26
, -42
NcT
NC
NC
MC
NC'
NC'
NO
-73
>-87
NC
NC
NC
>-90
-69
..-69.
" NC
-92
>-62
-23
-75
-66.8
NC
-64.9
-94.9
NA
Vendor C
>-95
>-22
>-81
NC
NC"
NC
,'NC
-NO'
' NC
NC
>-90
>-86 ,
NC
NC"
NC
>-89
>-86
>r72.
NC5
>-33
>-60
>-99
-73
-59.5
NC
-87.8
-55.5
NA
* Percent change stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
I Used In calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a]
, For nondetected results, the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
TCDD-TEQ by l-TEF/89 [EPA, 1989a] reported in parts per quadrillion (ppq)
J * Estimated value, detected above method detection limit but below reporting limit
NA * Not applicable
NC * Not calculated
ND a Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
Shaded rows contain only ND and NC designations.
B-4
-------
Table B.2-2. Selected SPLP Results - MCB Solidification Treatment
Concentration in SPLP Leachate
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyfene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
BenzQ^nuoranthenfr1
Benzo(|«}fiuoT9nlhenef
Benzo(ghl)peryle5e
Bertzo^pyrerte1
Chrysene1
Dibertz(arh)anthracene'(
Fluoranthene
FJuorene \"_
lndeno(1 ^.s-cdjpyrene*
2-Meihylnaphtha.tene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Total PAHs2
BfalP potency estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazole
DibenzofuraFi
Pentachlorophenol, ppb
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
Metals, ppb
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
DH
Before
Treatment
47
ND(10)
7.1
6,6
ND (25)
NO £5)
ND(5,Q) "
ND (5.0)
6,7
ND (5.0)
63
NO(S.O)
ND (5.0)
, ND(tO)
ND (5.0)
ND(5.0)
63
300
14
5.7 J
ND(10)
13,000
9,800
189
27.0
211
579
6.8
After
Vendor A
Treatment
2.3
ND (2.0)
5.6
ND(1.0)
ND (5.0)
ND(S.O)
ND (10)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND (1,0)
3.9
ND(1.0)
ND (1,0)
ND (2fO)
ND(1.0)
1.6
3.5
38.9
ND (2.8)
.7,6.J.
ND (2.0)
870
9.7
21.4
32.8
121
ND (50.0)
11.3
After Vendor
C Treatment
ND (2.0)
ND (ZO)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5,0)
ND(10)
ND(I.O)
ND(1,0)
ND (1 .0)
ND(1.0)
ND (1,0)
ND (10)
ND(2.0)
ND (10)
. ND(IO)
1.3
28.3
ND (2 8)
NO (.10)
ND (2S)
ND(1.0)
11
ND (20.0)
26.0
27.2
ND (50.0)
11.2
Percent Change"
As Analyzed Adjusted for Dilution
Vendor A Vendor C Vendor A Vendor C
-95
NC
-21
>-85
NC
NC
NC
NC
>-85
NC
-94
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-94
-87 .
>-80
+33
NC
-93
>-99
-88.7
+21.5
-42.7
>-91.4
NA
>-95
NC
>-85
>-84
NC
NC ,
NC
NC
>-85
NC
>-98
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-98
-91
>-80
NC
NC
>-99
>-99
>-89.4
-3.70
-87.1
>-913
NA
-94
NC
-9.3
>-83
NC
NC
NC
NC,
>-83
NC
-93
' NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-94
-85
>-77
+53
NC
-92
>-99
-87.0
+39.7
-34.1
>-90.1
NA
>-94
NC
>-83
>-81
NC
NC
NC
NC
>-82
NC
>-98
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-97
-89
>-76
NC
NC
>-99
>-99
>-87.3
+15.6
-84.5
>-89.6
NA
1 Percent change stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
2 Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
3 For nondetected results, the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
TCDD-TEQ by l-TEF/89 [EPA, 1989a] reported in ppq.
J = Estimated value, detected above method detection limit but below reporting limit
NA = Not applicable
NC = Not calculated
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
Shaded rows contain only ND and NC designations.
B-5
-------
Table B.3-1. Average Concentration ofSVOCs in Treatment Soil
Parameter Initial Concentration5
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo{b)fluoranthene1'2
Benz-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
NC
NC
>-99
>-99
NC
>-99
>-99
NC
NC
>-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
>-99
nrsmthono
Total PAHs does not Include benzo(k)fluorenthene and 2-methylnaphthalene. For nondetected results, the detection limit has been
. used for calculating total PAHs.
B(a)P potency estimates were calculated using the relative potency factor for benzo(b)fluoranthene, which is higher than the factor for
_ benzo(k)fluoranthene. This results in conservative B(a)P potency estimates.
g Average value based on six sets of temporally related samples (waste feed and treated residual).
Percent change Is stated as a decrease (-) or increase (+).
NR » Not reported
NC - Not calculated
Shaded rows contain only contain only NR and NC designations.
B.4 Incineration
B.4.1 Case Study - Broderick Wood
Products Superfund Site
BackgroundA/Vaste Description: The Broderick
Wood Products (BWP) Superfund site is a
closed wood treating plant located near Denver,
CO that has ceased operation. Two types of
waste materials were present at the BWP site.
The first type was K001 creosote sludge. Prior
to treatment this highly toxic sludge was
impounded in plastic-lined cells, and comprised
an estimated 3,250 cubic yards of solids and
liquids. The sludges contained "elevated
concentrations" of PCP, PAHs, VOCs, and
PCDDs/PCDFs. The second type of waste was
500 gallons of oil contained in 55-gallon drums
[DeFeo, 1994].
Summary of Study. EPA Region VIII divided
the remediation into two separate job functions.
B-6
-------
The first job, designated as Operable Unit (OU)
1, involved removing the sludges from the
temporary storage cells, liquefying them,
transporting the sludges to a recycling facility to
reclaim the creosote, and incinerating and
dispensing of residues. (Residues from the
recycling process were incinerated due to the
presence of PGP and PCDDs [DeFeo, 1994].)
Performance: The remediation of the wood
preserving waste was conducted by AlliedSignal
Environmental Systems and Services (ES&S).
To liquefy the sludges, a proprietary, mobile
liquefication process (LP) unit, supplied by 7-7,
Inc. of Wooster, OH, was used onsite. The LP's
capacity of up to 100 tons of solidified coal tar
per day, coupled with continuous operation,
enabled completion of the actual processing
within 60 days. Following liquefication, the
creosote sludge was pumped into thirty-six
20,000-gallon railcars and ultimately off-loaded
into a 2-million-gallon work tank at AlliedSignal's
tar products facility. This facility holds a final
Part B RCRA permit for storage and incineration
of hazardous waste.
At the tar products facility, the K001 material
was separated into three fractions: water, coal
tar oil, and unusable solids. The water was
biologically treated to meet the facility's NPDES
wastewater effluent limits and was discharged
with the plant's normal production wastewater.
Recovered coal tar oil was used as a normal
feedstock in plant operations (i.e., used to make
products including refined tars, roofing pitch,
and electrode-binder pitch for the aluminum
industry). The residual solids from the separ-
ation process were managed as K001 waste,
and were incinerated at AlliedSignal's facility to
meet land disposal restriction (LDR) treatment
standards prior to ultimate disposal at an
approved RCRA Subtitle C landfill [DeFeo,
1994].
Cost: The total costs for the entire project,
which was completed within 90 days, amounted
to between $3.1 and $3.2 million. Originally, the
project had been estimated to take 6 to 8
months at a cost of $11 million to incinerate all
the waste material onsite. The cost breakdown
was reported as follows:
• Site preparation — $300,000 (including rail
siding, road construction, etc.)
• Onsite liquefication ,of sludge — $1,000,000
• Transportation to AlliedSignal's facility in
Birmingham, AL — $550,000
• Reclamation of material — $1,300,000.
B.5 Solvent Extraction
B. 5.1 Treatability Study - Bench-Scale
Solvent Extraction for the MCB Site
Background/Waste Description: Soil samples
used in this treatability study were collected at
the MCB Superfund site in Stockton, CA on May
24, 1995. The soil was collected from a pile of
soil that was excavated from the process area,
screened, and homogenized in preparation for
an unrelated treatability test. After collection,
the soil was screened through 14-inch wire cloth
and placed in pails. CF Systems received one
pail of soil.
Particle size analysis indicated that the soil
consisted of silt or clay with 3 percent gravel
and 38 percent sand. However, the soil used in
the particle size analysis may not have been
entirely representative of the soil used in the
treatability study since it was collected from a
pail other than that which was shipped to CF
Systems.
Prior to chemical analysis or treatment, the
untreated soil was screened to 1/4 inch and
homogenized. Results of chemical analyses of
the untreated soil are summarized in Table B.5-
1 to facilitate comparison with the treated soil.
Summary of Study: The treatability study
utilized a bench-scale CF Systems solvent
extraction system to treat soil from the MCB
site. The main components of the bench-scale
system are a heated extraction vessel with a
mixer and a receiver vessel in which the organic
extract is collected.
The CF Systems solvent extraction process
utilizes a liquefied solvent, typically either
propane or dimethyl ether (DME), for extracting
organic contaminants. Both of these solvents
are gases at standard temperature and
pressure but are liquids at the operating
conditions utilized in the solvent extraction
process.
B-7
-------
CF Systems selected DME as the preferred
solvent for treating the MCB soil. The soil was
treated in seven batches of approximately 1 kg
each. The treatment of each batch consisted of
two extraction stages. Each extraction stage
used 1.5 L of DME, resulting in a solvent-to-soil
ratio of approximately 1:1, on a weight basis.
The solvent and soil mixture was mechanically
agitated for 25 minutes during each extraction
stage, with a target extraction temperature of
120°F.
The organic extract collected during the solvent
extraction treatability study material was treated
by BCD in subsequent BCD treatability studies.
Performance: Treatability study results are
summarized in Table B.5-1. Percent reductions
for SVOCs ranged from 67.6 percent to 98.5
percent. The B(a)P potency estimate for the
treated soil was at least 82.4 percent lower than
for the untreated soil. The TCDD-TEQ for the
treated soil was 95.9 percent lower than for the
untreated soil.
Cost: No cost estimate was developed for this
treatability study.
Sources:
SAIC. Wood Preserving Sites Treatability
Study-Solvent Extraction. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C5-001, Work Assignment 0-
03, Technical Directive F, and Work Assign-
ment 1-04, Technical Directive B. March 1997b.
IT Corporation. Description of Materials Tests.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0108.
B.6 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
(BCD)
B. 6.1 Treatability Study - Treatment
of Soil from the MCB Superfund
Site
Backgrounds/Waste Description: The soil used
in this treatability study was collected from the
Process Tank Area of the MCB site in Stockton,
CA. This soil was contaminated with creosote
compounds, PCP, PCDDs/PCDFs, and metals.
Summary of Study: This study evaluates a two-
stage TD/BCD process. In the first stage, soil is
placed in a TD/BCD reactor which is intended to
remove the organic contaminants from the soil,
with some simultaneous dechlorination and
decomposition of the organics. In the second
stage, the desorbed organics are condensed,
collected, and then placed in a liquid BCD
reactor.
Prior to the treatability study, the soil was
screened through a 2-mm sieve. The first stage
of treatment was conducted in a 1-L Hastelloy
C metal reactor. The materials placed in the
reactor were 200 g of soil, 30 g sodium
bicarbonate, and 250 g of clean sand (to
improve mixing). These materials were heated
to 400°C, then allowed to react for 8 hours at
400 to 408°C with continuous mixing and a
continuous flow of nitrogen. Materials that
volatilized from the soil were condensed and
collected. The residuals from the process were
453.46 g of solid residue, 18.17 g oil/organic
condensate, and 28.65 g aqueous condensate.
The condensate contained nearly all of the
chlorophenols and PCDDs/PCDFs that were not
destroyed during treatment.
B-8
-------
Table B.5-1. Selected Results for the CF Systems MCB Treatability Study
Concentration in Soil,
Dry Weight Basis
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
AcenapFtthyletie
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perytene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dib$nz(a,"hTantr7racene1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
fndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
24/iethyinaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
B(a)P potency estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
TCDD-TEQ, ppq3
Before Treatment
95,700
ND (16,600)
66,500
77,000
62,100
52,200
ND (16,600)
38,900
94,700
ND (16,600)
306,000
21,300
ND (16,600)
NO (16,600)
NO (16,600)
95,300
406,000
1,415,000
<71.700
ND (16,600)
ND (16,600)
1,490,000
' '''ND (53,1 oo)
29,200,000
After Treatment
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
5,430
6,89.0.
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
ND (5,430)
6,260
94,600
ND (12.500)
ND (5,430)
ND (5.430)
72,400
NO (1?,2QG)
1,190,000
Change in Soil
Concentration in Concentration,
Organic Extract Percent4
2,330,000
NO (333,000)
1,920,000
2,000,000
1,780,000
1,350,000
ND (333TOQO)
847,000
2,210,000
NO (333,000)
6,910,000
580,000
WD (333,000) '
NO (333,000)
ND (333,000)
2,870,000
9,300,000
34,000,000
<1. 610,000
373,000
367,000
12,900,000
NO (1,070,000}
470,000,000
>-94.3
NO
>-91.8
>-92.9
>-91.2
>-89.5
MC'
>-86.0
>-94.2
NO *';
-98.2
-67.7
NC
'NO
NC
>-94.3
-98.5
-93
-82.6
NC
MC
-95.1
NO
-95.9
Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a].
For nondetected results, the detection limit has been used for calculating total PAHs.
. TCDD-TEQ by l-TER/89 [EPA, 1989a]. Results are reported in ppq.
Percent change is shown as decrease (-) or increase (+).
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
NC = Not calculated
Shaded rows contain only ND and NC designations.
B-9
-------
In the second stage of the study, the
condensate was treated using liquid-phase
BCD. The liquid-phase BCD treatability study
consisted of batch treatment in a 500-mL glass
reactor with heating mantles and a mixer. The
materials placed in the reactor were 17.35 g of
organic condensate, 71.55 g of LW-110 oil,
21.50 g of LW-104 oil, 30 g of sodium
hydroxide, and 2 g of a proprietary solid
catalyst. These materials were allowed to react
at 320°C to 340°C for 5 hours.
Performance: Results for the first stage of
treatment (solid-phase TD/BCD) are
summarized in Table B.6-1. The removals of
the various PCDD/PCDF congeners from the
soil ranged from 93.6 percent to greater than
99.9 percent. Further examination of the
results indicates that some of the PCDD/PCDF
removed from the soil was collected in the
condensate, and some of the PCDD/PCDF
was destroyed. General conclusions regarding
the fate of specific congeners can be made by
comparing their total quantities in the untreated
soil and condensate (since the quantities in the
treated soil are so low). The total quantity of
TCDFs, TCDDs, and PGDDs increased during
treatment; the total quantity of each of the
other congeners decreased during treatment.
This indicates that TCDFs, TCDD, and PCDDs
were formed by the dechlorination of the more
highly chlorinated PCDD/PCDF compounds.
The results of the second stage of treatment
(liquid-phase BCD) are presented in Table B.6-
2. The concentration of OCDD was reduced by
greater than 99.9 percent to 0.127 ppb; the
concentrations of all other PCDD/PCDF
congeners were reduced to below detection
limits. The concentration of PCP was also
reduced to below its detection limit.
Cost: Estimated treatment costs were not
presented for this treatability study.
Source;
Tiernan, T.O. Bench-Scale BCD Treatability
Tests on Contaminated Soils from a Wood-
Preserving Site, the McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co. Facility in Stockton, California.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Wright State University under EPA
Contract Number 68-CO-0003. September 20,
1994.
B. 6.2 Treatability Study - BCD for the
MCB Site
Background/Waste Description: The organic
material treated during the BCD treatability
study was produced by a solvent extraction
treatability study conducted by CF Systems at
the University of Idaho in Moscow, ID. The
extract consisted of two phases: an organic
phase and an aqueous phase. The organic
material was reserved for the BCD treatability
study and contained numerous chlorinated
compounds, including chlorinated phenols,
PCDDs, and PCDFs. The aqueous material
was not analyzed or subjected to BCD
treatment, but was retained for possible
analysis at a later date.
Summary of Study: The apparatus used for the
BCD treatability study tests includes the
following components:
• A three-neck round-bottom glass reaction
flask
• Two separate heating mantles for the top
and bottom of the reaction flask, with a
thermocouple and digital temperature read-
out for each of the mantles
• A water-cooled condenser and a recycling
receiver fitted with a three-way stopcock for
collecting, removing, or recycling condens-
able components that evolve from the
reactor during heating
• A blade-type stirrer driven by a variable-
speed motor; the stirrer shaft enters the
center opening of the reaction flask through
a lubricant-free Teflon Trubore bearing.
• A stainless steel-encased thermocouple
and digital readout for monitoring the
temperature of the reaction mixture
• An activated carbon trap which is attached
to the exit of the condenser for trapping of
any noncondensable components volatil-
zed from the reaction flask
B-10
-------
0)
.£ -
5 cc?^
cu CO o
III
O
•o
0} CD
O O)
_cu jg
"5 CO
°«
..2 ~
CO O)
S-i
•U 3
c3
„
CO
cu
|
'o
CO
•o
0)
13
CD
'c
Z)
Concentration
si
O CD
Hc§
c
.g
c
O5
O)
X
o
o
o_
Ol O
ol o
Qj O
o"
CO
CM
O
°1 fc
in"
o"
Q
z
o
a I
Q
Z
0
o
Q] o"
04 CM
o
m"
a 1
11 *
8 §
S: H
3*
CO
co'
1
2,313,000,000
o
o
in
o
o
S"
CO
T~
0
o
o
o"
in
o
m
CM
CO
Q
Q
1—
l9
o>
Cp
A
O
O
o
o"
o
o
fe
CM
0
O
CO
*
o
o
Q
Z
o
CO
o.
Q
o
0
o
o"
o
in"
o>
o
o
of
T—
CO
u.
Q
Q.
1
co
O>
A
0
O
O
o"
o
0
•*"
CO
o
o
CO
of
CO
o"
s
o"
Q
z
sr
CM
S-
Q
o
0
o
o"
o
0>_
V"
§
O)
O)
A
1,984,000,000
0
o
0_
'•
o"
0
T-
o"
T-
Q
Z
Jo"
CO
Q
Z
459,000,000
o
o
co_
O)
&
a
o
X
X
"co
o
O) O>
en oj
A A
s s
° S-
o §
§ o.
St" ">
S CM
in"
||
V- T-
C3
s s
CO CO
Ci. rC
Q *"
Z
CJ CO
JZ- ^
O ^
Z
o o
0 0
o o
o" o"
o o
0 0
00" T-~
O CO
co" co"
o §
s °-
& CO
OO r\|
co ;.--
x. a
Q Q
o o
O- O-
X X
Is s
|2 £
05
o>
A
o
o
o
o"
§
o>
CO
CM
I*^"
O3
in"
o"
o
of
CM,
D
z
CM
T—
Q
z
3,505,000,000
o
o
0_
5
LL
Q
O
O
O)
0)
A
O
0
O
o"
O
o
R
in
co"
o
o
o_
0
CO
o
o
o
of
co
o
CM
36,785,000,000
§
o
o"
Q
Q
O
O
O)
0)
O)
X
o
4 °
Q| CD
^ S
I °
-§i S1
™ Q
Z
1
O
o
o
Xll °
ol o
Q) in
1 CO
co"
ol N.
E| CM.
"o
c
o
0.
2
£
o
!
CD
Q.
B-11
-------
\W "^>
Ǥ,
181
Sl£
.S.S"-tT
J= = S
O Q i±
W
is
P H
|cn
I T>
at.
C= ra
.<» f
o
O
I
I
o
o
O
t
ra
<§
1
Concent
Quan
I
CO
CO
o> en
co° co'
? X
CO
co'
c?
CD
co'
2
G)
Q)
CO
CO*
2
I--:
co'
?
eo
m-
in
-
in
3
Q
T^ JO.
Q Q
S S. SZ. C. oo
Q Q Q Q "~
o
. o"
o
D C3
-
- o"
- o"
- o"
.
- 2
CD « CD CD CD CD *— '
°- o, °- o, 5- p. 01
''
- CM
-
- CM
oo
T-205
in T. w
-* ° «
o
00
in
o
2'x-
^i.
-------
• A motor-driven syringe pump that can be
used to inject liquid materials into the
reaction flask at an adjustable, controlled
rate.
Three preliminary treatability studies using
three separate formulations of reagents were
conducted. After the preliminary studies were
complete, one of the three formulations was
selected for the final treatability study based on
PCP analytical results and observations made
during the studies. The reaction product from
the selected formulation was then analyzed for
PCDDs, PCDFs, SVOCs, and chlorophenols.
All of the treatability studies followed the same
general procedure, except that two different
protocols were used to add an aliquot of the
organic phase to the system. The protocol
selected for the addition of the organic phase
depended on the catalyst being used. In all
cases, the reagents were added to the reaction
flask, then the flask was fitted into the
remainder of the system. During the final test
and the third preliminary test, the aliquot of the
organic phase was placed in the reaction flask
at the same time as the other reagents. During
small amount of LW-110 oil, which was
injected into the reaction flask in order to rinse
the injection system.
During all of the treatability studies, the
reaction mixture was stirred continuously as it
was heated to the reaction temperature. The
stirrer was operated at 125 rpm. After the
reaction temperature was reached, mixing and
heating continued for the specified time at
reaction temperature. During the reaction
period, organic components were collected in
the receiver and slowly recycled back into the
reaction flask. After the specified reaction time,
the reaction mixture was cooled to ambient
temperature. Six 1-g aliquots of the cooled
reaction product were then collected and
analyzed for SVOCs/chlorophenols (including
PCP) and for PCDDs/PCDFs.
Performance: Table B.6-3 presents selected
analytical results from the organic extract and
from the reaction product collected after the
treatability study. The TCDD-TEQ and PCP
concentrations for the reaction product were
greater than 99.9 percent lower than for the
organic extract. Concentrations of nonhalogen-
Table B.6-3. Selected Results for the BCD Treatability Study at the MCB Site
Parameter
Concentration in
Organic Extract
Concentration in
Reaction Product
Percent
Change (%)2
Other SVOCs, ppb
Pentachlorophenol
TCDD-TEQ. DDd1
12,900,000
<470.000
ND (20)
ND (9.96)
>-99.9
>-99.9
TCDD-TEQ by l-TEF/89 [EPA,1989a], reported in ppq.
Percent change is shown as an increase (+) or decrease (-).
ND = Not detected at the reporting limit stated in parentheses.
the first and second preliminary treatability
studies, the other reagents were heated (in the
reaction flask) to the reaction temperature
before the aliquot of the organic phase was
added to the mixture. When the organic phase
was added after heating began, the aliquot of
the organic phase was injected into the
reaction flask by a motor-driven syringe pump.
When the motor-driven syringe pump was
used, it was subsequently recharged with a
ated compounds, such as PAHs, were also
measured. However, an evaluation of the
nonhalogenated compounds as a group
indicated that all apparent reductions were due
to analytical variability or dilution inherent in the
BCD process. A detailed analysis of the PAH
results (not presented here) indicated that BCD
treatment had no significant effect on the
nonhalogenated compounds.
B-13
-------
Cost: No cost estimate was developed for this
treatability study.
Source:
SAIC. Wood Preserving Sites Treatability
Study Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination. Pre-
pared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-C5-0001.
Work Assignment 0-03, Technical Directive F,
and Work Assignment 1-04, Technical Direc-
tive B. March 1997c.
B.7 Bioremediation
B.7.1 Treatability Study - ACW Site Solid-
Phase Bioremediation
Background/Waste Description: Bench-scale
treatability studies were conducted on
composite samples of contaminated surface
soils and sediments from the ACW site located
in Pensacola, FL. ACW is an abandoned
wood-preserving facility which used creosote
from 1902 to 1950 and a mixture of creosote,
PCP, and CCA from 1950 until its closure in
1981. Surface soil and the shallow
groundwater aquifer has been contaminated
due to improper disposal of creosote-
contaminated waste. There is also contamin-
ation in the form of PCP and other chemicals
associated with its use (i.e., chlorinated
dioxins).
Summary of Study: Solid-phase bioremediation
of contaminated surface soils and sediments
were carried out in specially designed "land-
farming chambers." Landfarming chambers
were specially designed as contained systems
by placing large, porcelain Buchner funnels
inside inverted vacuum chambers. Funnels
were seated on top of 250-mL beakers to
collect leachate, if any. An upstream, in-line
carbon trap was used as the control for
extraneous organics. About 3 kg of surface
soils or sediments was placed in each of two
Buchner funnels lined with Whatman No. 1
filter paper. Two treatments were established
for each type of material: (1) unamended and
(2) supplementation with aqueous inorganic
nutrient solutions. At the time of loading, 50 ml_
of sterile, modified Bushnell-Haas (MBH)
medium (1,000 mg/L K2HPO4, KH2PO4, and
(NH4)2NO3; 200 mg/L FeCI3; pH adjusted to
7.1) was added to the chambers and mixed
well using a small trowel. The unamended
surface soils and sediments received 50 ml of
sterile distilled water prior to mixing. Solid
materials were mixed weekly and moisture was
maintained at 8 to 12 percent using either
water or nutrient solution. All of the cells were
maintained at 23°C + 3°C.
Performance: Samples were obtained from
the chambers initially and after 1,2,4, 8, and
12 weeks of incubation and analyzed for PCP
and 42 targeted creosote constituents. Results
of chemical analyses are presented in Tables
B.7-1 and B.7-2. Data reported are the average
of duplicate values.
Table B.7-1 presents the results for un-
amended and nutrient-amended contaminated
surface soils. Volatilization of creosote/PCP
from surface soils during the 12 weeks of
treatment was less than 0.1 percent of the total
weight present, and no losses .due to leaching
or sorption were observed. The rate and extent
of biodegradation was stimulated by the
addition of inorganic nutrients.
Table B.7-2 presents data for the amended
and nutrient-amended contaminated sedi-
ments. Volatilization was greater with sediment
than with surface soil. While greater than 50
percent of the PCP was biodegraded from the
surface soil, no biodegradation of PCP was
evident with the sediment. Between weeks 8
and 12, a large amount of naphthalene and
other more readily biodegradable compounds
were biodegraded. This activity occurred only
after the creosote phenolics, absent from
inorganic supplements, were extensively de-
graded. In contrast to contaminated surface
soils, the addition of inorganic nutrients to
sediments did not significantly improve the rate
of biodegradation.
B-14
-------
Table B.7-1. Bench-Scale Solid-Phase Bioremediation of ACW Contaminated Surface Soils
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b/l<)flupranthene
Benzo(k)fluorarithene
Ben2o(o;hi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Bfa'lP potency estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorophenol
Solid-Phase Bioremediation of Contaminated
Surface Soils from ACW: Unamended
Initial
Concentration
7,100
5,200
9,600
11,900
.37,600.
NR
NR"
28,100
38,000
NR
34,700
3,100
9,900
700
1,000
11,200
49,400
248,000
NC
23,500
6,700
88.400
Final Percent
Concentration Chanae2
1,100 -85
3,200 -38
4,000 -58
8,400 -29
36,600 -2.7
NR NC
''NR NO
21,200 -25
17,800 -5.3
NR NC
20,400 -41
ND ~100b
9,700 -1.7
ND ~100b
600 -40
7,200 -36
23,200 -53
153,000 -38
NC NC
4,700 -80
400 -94
24.800 -72
Solid-Phase Bioremediation of Contaminated
Surface Soils from ACW: Nutrient-Amended
Initial
Concentration
7,100
5,200
9,600
11,900
37,600
NR
NR
28,100
38,000
NR
34,700
3,100
9,900
700
1,000
11,200
49,400
248,000
NC
23,500
6,700
88.400
Final
Concentration
1,200
2,800
1,100
10,600
27,100
NR
NR
15,900
.15,400
NR
15,200
ND
8,100
ND
400
4,800
18,400
121,000
NC
3,300
300
39.700
Percent
Chanae2
-83
-46
-89
-11
-?8.
NC
NO
-43
-59
NC.
-56
--1003
-18
~-1003
-60
-57
-63
-51
'NC'
-86
-96
-55
1 Total PAHs does not include benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene. Since detection limits were not provided
for nondetected results, a value of zero was used in the calculation of total PAHs.
A i civ»&in vi mi i ye i<0 SJMV»»II a<0 a VJ^SWH^WNSI* \-j wi «u i 11 iwi ^«i*)«* \ /*
Detection limits were not presented for these compounds. The percent change is, therefore, considered to approach -100.
NR = Not reported
NC = Not calculated
Shaded rows contain only ND and NC designations.
B-15
-------
Table B.7-2. Bench-Scale Solid-Phase Bioremediation ofACW Contaminated Sediments
Solid-Phase Bioremediation of Contaminated
Sediments from ACW: Unamended
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indenotl^.S-cdJpyrene
2-Mothylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrena
Total PAHs1
8fa5P potency estimate
Other SVOCs ppb
Carbazole
Difaenzofuran
Pentachloroohenol
Initial
Concentration
1,367,700
49,400
3,037,100
171,200
139,600
NR
82,200
481,200
NR
1,628,700
1,792,100
22,600
1,452,300
3.924,500
4,433,800
1,015,900
..19,600,000
NC
1,730,600
1,264,500
107.900
Final
Concentration
1,043,100
33,500
2,484,400
148,700
115,200
NR" : ,
61,200
382,200
NR
1,093,000
1,428,900
18,000
891,000
615,000
3,566,300
775,600
12,700,000
NC '" "
966,700
867,200
130.300
Percent
Chanae2
-24
-32
:18
-13
-.1.7. ,
" .N£_
-26
-21
NC
-33
-20
-20
-39
-84
-20
-24
-35
"'NO"' "
-44
-31
+21
Solid-Phase Bioremediation of Contaminated
Sediments from ACW: Nutrient-Amended
Initial
Concentration
1,367,700
49,400
3,037,100
171,200
139,600
NR
82,200
481,200
NR
1,629,000
1,792,100
22,600
1,452,300
3,911,200
4,433,800
1,015,900
19,600,000
NC
1,730,600
1.264,500
107.900
Final
Concentration
962,600
33,300
2,235,600
92,800
117,200
NR
59,600
330,800
NR'
1,277,600
1,312,800
15,800
361,600
126,800
3,350,200
772,000
11,000,000
NC
964,300
973,500
97,400
Percent
-30
-33
-26
-46
-16
NC
-27
-31
NC
-22
-27
-30
-75
-97
-24
-24
-44
NC
-44
-23
-9.8
2 Total PAHs does not Include benzo(ghi)perylene and dibenz(a,h)anthraoene
Percent change Is shown as a decrease (-) or an Increase (+).
NR = Not reported
NR = Not reported
NC * Not calculated
Shaded rows contain only NR and NC deslgnatloi
>ns.
B-16
-------
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Lessons Learned: While landfarming may be
useful for the treatment of materials contamin-
ated with more readily biodegradable
compounds, these data suggest that solid-
phase bioremediation is of limited usefulness
for restoration of creosote- and PCP-contamin-
ated materials present,at the ACW site.
Mueller, J.G., S. Lantz, B. Blattmann, P.
Chapman. "Bench-Scale Evaluation of
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes for
the Remediation of Pentachlorophenol- and
Creosote-Contaminated Materials: Solid-Phase
Bioremediation". Environmental Science
Technology, Vol. 25, No. 6., 1991.
B.7.2 Treatability Study - Laramie Tie Plant
Bioremediation
Background/Waste Description: Samples of
contaminated soil were collected from the Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Laramie Tie Plant Site
in Laramie, WY for a series of pilot tests.
Railroad tie treating operations began in 1886.
Operations continued on an intermittent basis
until the facility closed in 1983. The primary
wood-preserving agent used, and the primary
contaminant of concern, is creosote. PCP was
also, used, but in much smaller quantities. Most
of the contamination at the site is in the form of
a 6.5-million-gallon DNAPL layer which is
located at the base of a highly permeable
alluvial deposit. The layer is at an approximate
depth of 10 feet and covers an area of
approximately 90 acres. Initial concentrations of
PAHs are presented in Table B.7-3.
Summary of Study: A series of bench-scale
and field pilot tests were performed at the
Laramie Tie Plant Site to evaluate several
bioremediation treatment options. Each test
used two soil types: 1) sands and gravels; and
2) clays and silts. Soil core samples collected
before and after treatment were analyzed for
PAHs.
Performance: Cleanup levels achieved using
the various bioremediation approaches are
summarized in Table B.7-3. Results are given
for the sum of 2-3 ring PAHs and the sum of 4-6
ring PAHs. Treatment times varied for each
treatment approach.
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Lessons Learned: It may be possible to achieve
low cleanup levels in soils of high permeability
in reasonable time periods. To achieve similar
levels in soils of lower but still moderate
permeability such as fine sands will require
'extended treatment time. Some soils will
receive little or no treatment (e.g., stringers of
silts and clays, which make up about 5 percent
by volume of the contaminated alluvium at the
site) in full-scale bioremediation.
Keith R. Piontek, T. Simpkin. Factors Challeng-
ng the Practicability of In Situ Bioremediation at
a Wood Preserving Site. For Presentation at the
85th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Kansas City,
MO, June 21-26, 1992.
B.7.3 Treatability Study - Pilot-Scale Bio-
remediation at an Unidentified Site
Background/Waste Description: Samples of
creosote-contaminated soil were collected from
an unidentified site for treatment in a pilot-scale
bioremediation plot simulating land treatment.
Summary of Study: The study involved the use
of a 12-foot by 50-foot pilot-scale bioremed-
iation plot to treat creosote-contaminated soil
for an approximate 57-week period. This study
evaluated the capability of soil biodegradation
under optimal environmental conditions (e.g.,
pH, temperature, nutrients) without the aid of
supplemental organics or surfactants.
B-17
-------
Table £.7-3. Laramle Tie Plant Site Treatabtlity Studies Results
Parameter
Treatment Soil Type
Initial
Concentration
Final
Concentration
Percent
Change3
PAHs, ppb
Sum of 2-3 Ring
Sum of 4-6 Ring
Sum of 2-3 Ring
Sum of 4-6 Ring
Sum of 2-3 Ring
Sum of 4-6 Ring
Sum of 2-3 Ring
Sum of 4-6 Ring
Subsurface
Bioreclamation
after Oil
Recovery''
Subsurface
Bioreclamation
after Oil
Recovery"
Subsurface
Bioreclamation
after Oil
Recovery and
Soil Flushing0
Subsurface
Bioreclamation
after Oil
Recovery and
Soil Flushing0
Surface
Bioreclamation
(land
treatment)"
Surface
Bioreclamation
(land
treatment)*1
Slurry Batch
Treatment of
Surface Soils8
Slurry Batch
Treatment of
Surface Soils*
Sand and 1,100,000 - 2,000,000
Gravel
4,000-14,000 -98.7 to-99.8
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Clay and
Silt
Clay and
Silt
370,000-540,000 40,000-140,000 -62.1 to-92.6
400,000
180,000
2,000 - 20,000 -95.0 to -99.5
2,000 -14,000 -92.2 to -98.9
1,500,000 - 2,000,000 50,000 - 150,000 -90.0 to -97.5
900,000 - 1,200,000 180,000 - 300,000 -66.7 to -85.0
Clay and 1,500,000 - 1,900,000
Silt
Clay and 1,300,000 -1,900,000
Silt
45,000 - 60,000
170,000-200,000
-96.0 to -97.6
-84.6 to-91.1
. Percent change is shown as an increase (+) or decrease (-).
206 days of treatment
d 210 days of treatment
450 days of treatment
68 days of treatment
B-18
-------
Contaminated soil was applied so that the
initial benzene extractable content was about
4 percent by dry weight. Agricultural manure
equivalent to 10 tons per acre and agricultural
fertilizer equivalent to 2 tons per acre were
initially applied giving a C:N ratio range of 25:1
to 50:1. After about 57 weeks of operation, the
C:N ratio range was 15:1 to 20:1. The soil pH
was maintained between 6 and 7 during the
entire treatment period by initially applying
agricultural lime equivalent to 2 tons per acre.
Soil moisture was maintained at nearly 80
percent of the field capacity and tilling was
performed to a depth of 8 inches bi-weekly.
Triplicate samples were taken at the beginning
and at weeks 5, 20, 31, 35, 42, 46, 51, and 57
during treatment.
The treatment period began September, 1985
and continued through October, 1985.
Operation essentially ceased from November,
1985 through April, 1986 due to cold weather.
Operation resumed in May, 1986 and
continued through October, 1986.
Performance: Table B.7-4 presents a
summary of the pilot-scale test plot results.
PAHs were grouped according to the number
of aromatic rings a particular compound
comprises. Overall, PAHs were reduced by
approximately 97 percent. In general, the
extent of biodegradation decreased progress-
ively for contaminant groups with higher ring
numbers.
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Lessons Learned: The observation of decreas-
ing effectiveness with increasing ring number
can be partially explained by the fact that the
PAH aqueous solubilities decrease and the
affinity for desorption from solids decreases as
molecular weights (i.e. ring number) increase.
The data in this study begin to support the
premise that coal-tar related PAHs must first
desorb from the solid matrix and exist in
aqueous solution in order to degrade in soil
systems.
Source:
Smith, J.R., D. Nakles, D. Sherman, E.
Neuhauser, R. Loehr, D. Erickson.
Environmental Fate Mechanisms Influencing
Biological Degradation of Coal-Tar Derived
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil
Systems. Proceedings Third International
Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous
Waste Management, September 10-13, 1989,
Pittsburgh, PA. EPA/600/9-89/072. August
1989.
B. 7.4 Treatability Study - Biotreatment
of Soil and Groundwater from the
ACWand MCB Superfund Sites
Background/Waste Description: The ground-
water and soil used in this treatability study
were collected from the ACW and MCB
Superfund sites, respectively. The groundwater
and soil were primarily contaminated with
PAHs, PCP, and PCDDs/PCDFs.
Summary of Study: The reagent used during
the study was Fenton's Reagent (hydrogen
peroxide and ferrous sulfate) which acts as a
chemical oxidizing agent by generating
hydroxyl radicals. One pretreatment sample of
the ACW water (emulsion) and one
pretreatment sample of the MCB sojl were
collected for analysis. The experimental design
involved setting up five test conditions for each
of the two samples for a total of ten tests. The
test conditions consisted of:
1. Conventional Biological Treatment: Slurry
in nutrient media
2. Fenton's Reagent Treatment: Slurry in
nutrient media with 10 millimolar (mM)
concentration of ferrous ions and 0.5
molar (M) concentration of hydrogen
peroxide.
B-19
-------
Table B.7-4. Results of Pilot-Scale Bioremediation Plot Treatability Study
Parameter
Initial Concentration
Final Concentration
Percent Change3
PAHs, ppb
Sum of 2-3 Ring PAHs5
Sum of 4 Ring PAHs0
Sumof5RingPAHsd
Sum of 6 Ring PAHs*
Total PAHs
2,540,000
374,000
310,000
70,000
6,660,000
6,000
45,000
88,000
37,000
176,000
~-100
-88
-72
-47
-97
Percent change is shown as a decrease (-) or an increase (+).
Napththalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene
Ben2(a)anthracer,e, chrysene, fluoranthene, pyrene
Benzo{b)fluoranlhene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)pery!ene, indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
3. Fenton's Reagent Using Chelated Ferric
Iron: Slurry in nutrient media with 10mM
concentration of chelated ferric iron and
0.5 M concentration of hydrogen peroxide
chelated ferric iron was added or a ferric
iron/EDTA complex in solution.
4. Abiotic control: Slurry in deionized water
and 0.1 percent mercuric chloride.
5. Biotic control: Slurry in deionized water.
A slurry was prepared with 50 ml_ of the ACW
water sample (sludge), 25 g of sterile soil and
25 mL of sterile deionized water for each
treatment condition. The controls were set up
in the same manner. Nutrient amendment was
applied to each treatment by adding
approximately 0.04 g of Restore™ which is a
proprietary blend of nutrients including: 5
percent ammonium chloride, 20 percent
disodium phosphate, 12.5 percent mono-
sodium phosphate, and 12.5 percent sodium
tripolyphosphate. No nutrients were added to
the abiotic or biotic controls. The abiotic control
was established by adding 0.4 g of mercuric
chloride to the treatment vessel. The treat-
ments and the biotic control were placed on a
shaker set at 120 rpm and incubated at 25°C.
The abiotic control was placed in a refrigerator
at 4°C. The treatments were analyzed for
SVOCs and dioxins/furans at the end of the
study (Day 30).
Performance: Table B.7-5 presents selected
pretreatment and post-treatment analytical
results of the MCB. soil collected prior to and
after the treatability study.
Cost: No cost estimate was developed for this
treatability study.
IT Corporation. Section III (Results of soil
biodegradation tests). Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-C5-0108. 1996b.
B-20
-------
>>
atabilitystu
i§
•g
O)
CO
o
o:
j/)
c
1
tment with t
Q
£
,o
0)
i
"3
o:
Table B.7-5. Selected
"(D
0)
CO
1
0)
O-
nton's and
rric Iron
0) 0)
LL. LL
0)
0)
CO
o c^
l~
CD
a.
Fenton's
V
O)
fg
8
a!
a.
Biological
"c
retreatme
Q.
1
S
<
&
8
o
o"
CO
o
o
0
fe
T
o
o
in
o
o
o
fe
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
1 ^-
m" CM
T—
C$ <=>
1 1
« $
U> ID
i i
11
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
O> CM
§O
O_
h- 1*-
CM O)
i i
§O
0
o" of
in in
O CM
a" I"
0 0
80
°.
CO CO
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene'
o S^
o o
o o
o o
co" co"
CM CM
\ ^
O O
§o
0_
•* co
in up
o o
o o
O 0
CM" -a-"
0 O
o o
0 O
co" of
CM CO
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
•* m
OJ «
i!
in 7
o o
O 0
o o
o>~ co"
T- CO
o o
0 O
o o
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene
<°. CO
o
o o
o o
« 0
co co
CO
«?• T
o
o o
o o
T. o"
{O ^™"
CM
K CO
in co
o
o o
0 O
« o"
CM <*
o
O 0
co" oo
CO
V-
Dibenz(a,h)anthraceni
Fluoranthene
0 CO
0 0
o o
o o
iC oo"
CM CM
CO CM
o o
o o
0 O
co" co"
T- CM
CM O)
in in
o o
o o
o o
co" of
§o
0
O 0
rvT en"
CM CM
"
<=> 0
8 q
m" £
Is- ^p.
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
in t*:
t ,?
o
O o
0 0
oo" o_
CN N.
CO_ CO
^ ^
1 i
1 8
CM in
19 in
1 i"
I" I
£ s
„
Total PAHs
B(a)P potency estimal
B-21
-------
3
s
C
O
,o_
"??
tabllitystu
m
\^
P
"*•«*
§
0)
re
V
o:
jo
c
o
1=
Q>
1
§
S
1
0>
V.
.2
42
"3
m
o:
•2
o
,0
$
ui
5*
1
(D
O)
§
O 5
if Si
c
o
DU
•a
(O £
~c —
li
a) a>
LLU.
O
i
ii
03
H
ro ^
| |s 1
to . l-g'J
Illltl
l§lii|
3 h- a. ii ii -a
O^j CO
< r-
T- M m ZZUj
B-22
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ADDITIONAL TREATABILITY AND CASE STUDIES
-------
-------
C.1 Photolytic Oxidation
C. 1.1 Treatability Study - Ultrox® System
at Wood Processing Facility in
Denver, CO
Background/Waste Description: The Ultrox®
system was employed by Koppers Industries,
Inc., Denver, CO at a wood processing facility.
Summary of Study: The unit, operating since
December 1985, uses UV and ozone to treat
wastewater contaminated with phenol and
pentachlorphenol (PCP). The organic concen-
trations of the influent typically range between
150 to 200 mg/L for phenol and are about 1
,mg/L for PCP. Effluent was tested between
May, 1988 and March, 1989.
Performance: Results of effluent testing are
presented in Table C.1-1. The range of effluent
values is based on 1-day composites taken
May, August, and November, 1988 and March,
1989. Average flows in March 1989 were
reported to be 5,211 gallons per day (gpd), with
a maximum daily flow of 16,047 gallons.
Cosf; The O&M cost for the entire system is
$10.92 per 1,000 gallons of treated wastewater.
This unit cost does not include equipment
costs. The capital cost of the entire treatment
system was $550,000, of which $200,000 was
for the Ultrox® UV radiation/oxidation portion.
The cost estimate also excludes costs
associated with site preparation, permitting and
regulatory compliance, startup, analysis,
effluent disposal, and demobilization.
Source:
Koppers Industries. Personal communication
between Mr. Marvin Miller, P.E., Koppers
Industries, and Dr. Gary Welshans, PRC. 1989.
C.2 Carbon Adsorption
C.2.1 Case Study - Activated Sludge and
Carbon Treatment at an Unidentified
Wood Preserving Site in Canada
Background/Waste Description: Aqueous
effluent containing PCP was treated using
activated sludge and activated carbon from
November 1, 1977 to May 1, 1978 at an
unidentified wood preserving site in Canada.
Summary of Study: The study was divided into
three phases: (1) monitoring of existing full-
scale activated sludge system; (2) activated
sludge treatment followed by pilot-scale filter'
and granular activated carbon treatment in
series; and (3) by-pass of activated sludge
system and treatment of wastewater using oil
separation and flow equalization followed by
activated carbon treatment. Data in this
document are for the second phase only.
The flow rate through the pilot-scale system
(filter followed by granular activated carbon
(GAC) system) was 0.6 m3/day. The pilot-scale
filter was 100 mm in diameter and contained 11
kg of anthracite filter media at a media depth of
1 m. The hydraulic loading for the filter was 76
m3/m2-day. The GAC system consisted of three
carbon columns operated in a series. Each
column was 100 mm in diameter and 3 m high.
Each column contained 6.8 kg of Filtrasorb 400
at a carbon depth of 2.1 m.
Table C.1-1. Koppers Industries Treatment Results Using Ultrox System
Parameter
Initial Concentration
Final Concentration
Percent Change3
Pentachlorophenol, ppb
Phenol, ppb
PH
1,000
150,000-200,000
NR
150-500
38,000-145,000
7.0 -12.2
-50 to -85
-3.3 to -81
NC
Percent change is shown as an increase (+) or decrease (-).
NC = Not Calculated
NR = Not Reported
C-1
-------
Performance: Results of treating effluent
contaminated with PCP using filtration and GAC
in series and using GAC alone are given in
Table C.2-1.
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Source:
Quo, P.H.M, P.J.Z. Fowlie, V.W. Cairns and
B.E. Jank. "Activated Sludge and Activated
Carbon Treatment of a Wood Preserving
Effluent Containing Pentachlorophenol",
Canadian Environmental Protection Service
Report EPS 4-WP-80-2. June 1980.
column packed with 1-inch (2.54 cm) Pall rings.
Water drawn from a source aquifer was
circulated through the column. Nutrients and
oxygen were added to the wastewater before it
entered the column, and the overflow from the
column was returned to the source aquifer. The
retention time for the column was initially three
days, but was decreased to one day.
Acclimated bacteria were introduced to the
system by seeding the column with Pall rings
from another treatment system that was
successfully treating creosote- and penta-
chlorophenol-contaminated wastewaters. Seven
influent and effluent sampling events occurred
during the study.
Table C.2-1. GAC Treatment of a Wood Preserving Effluent
Parameter
Pentachlorophenol,
ppb
Filtration
and GAC
Initial Final
Concentratio Concentration
n
455
20
Percent
Change3
-96
GAC
Initial
Concentratio
n
3,409
Final
Concentratio
n
30
Percent
Change3
-99
Percent change is shown as an increase (+) or decrease (-).
C.3 Bioremediation
C.3.1 Treatability Study - Biological
Treatment of Creosote Contaminated
Groundwater in Montana
Background/Waste Description: A railroad tie
treating plant located in northwestern Montana
was operated for over 80 years until its closure
in 1982. During operation, creosote-contamin-
ated wastewater was discharged to an
abandoned river slough which served as a
surface impoundment. The surface impound-
ment was used as a sedimentation basin for
recovery and reuse of creosote. In order to
evaluate bioremediation as a groundwater treat-
ment alternative, treatment was simulated in a
laboratory study using a submerged fixed-film
column.
Summary of Study: The submerged fixed-film
system had a three-inch (7.6 cm) diameter
Performance: Table C.3-1 summarizes the
average initial and final concentrations for
several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and the benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] potency
estimate. Very high removal efficiencies were
observed for all PAHs. The results of the study
indicate that a pump and treat system using
fixed-film bioremediation may be able to
successfully treat the contaminated
groundwater.
Cost: Costs were not provided with this study.
Coover, J.R., B. Stone, B. Genes. Biological
treatment of Creosote Contaminated
Groundwater in Montana. Joint CSCE-ASCE
National Conference on Environmental
Engineering Vancouver, B.C., July 13-15, 1988.
C-2
-------
Table C.3-1. Removal Rates of PAH Compounds from a Submerged Fixed Film System
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene1
Chrysene1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1
Ftuoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene1
2-(vtethyfnaphtha|ene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs2
B(a)P potency estimate
Initial Final
Concentration3 Concentration3
492,000
230,000
76,000
10,100
4,000
5,700
10,200
8,800
20,500
4,300
72,700
150,000
2,000
NR
3,468,000
294,000
50,000
4,900,000
14,800
24,500
29,400
4,400
400
500
500
1,000
300
1,700
400
2,600
2,900
600
NR
24,100
4,000
3,700
101,000
8,57
Percent
Change4
-93.0
-88.4
-94.2
-95.9
-87.5
-91.1
-89.8
-96.4
-92.0
-90.4
-96.4
-98.7
-69.0
NO
-99.3
-98.7
-92.6
-97.9
-94.2
2 Used in calculation of B(a)P potency estimate [EPA, 1993a]'
3 Total PAHs does not include 2-methylnaphthalene.
4 Average value based on seven sampling events.
Percent change is shown as a decrease (-) or an increase (+).
NR = Not reported
NC = Not calculated
Shaded row contains only NR and NC designations.
C-3
-------
C.3.2 Treatability Study - Biodegradation
of Creosote- and PCP-Contaminated
Groundwater at the American
Creosote Works (ACW) Site
Background/Waste Description: Approximately
400-L of groundwater contaminated with
creosote and pentachlorophenol were taken
from an onsite sampling well at the ACW site,
Pensacola, FL Groundwater was transferred
into 55-gallon steel drums from which five 1-L
samples were collected and sent to a laboratory
for biodegradation studies.
Summary of Study: Fifteen 125-mL Erlenmeyer
flasks received 25 mL of groundwater medium
(GWM) consisting of 12.5 mL of filtered
groundwater from the ACW site and 12.5 mL of
modified Bushnell-Hass medium. In addition,
two 1.0-L Wheaton bottles received 200 mL of
the same GWM. Each flask was inoculated with
1,0 mL of a microbial suspension prepared
using soil from the ACW site. The GWM in the
Wheaton bottles each received 8.0 mL of the
same soil microbial suspension. Duplicate 25-
mL samples were extracted from each Wheaton
bottle and analyzed for the initial contaminant
concentration. Five of the 125-mL flasks
received 2.5 mL of a 37 percent formaldehyde
solution and were used as killed-cell controls.
On Days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 14, the entire contents
from two inoculated flasks and one killed-cell
flask were separately extracted and analyzed
for the presence of creosote constituents.
Performance: Results given in Table C.3-2
show that soil microorganisms indigenous to
the ACW site were able to degrade the majority
of the PCP and 42 creosote contaminants in the
GWM. Lower molecular weight compounds
were degraded to a greater degree than the
higher molecular weight compounds. PCP was
not degraded. The killed-cell flasks showed little
degradation, indicating minimal losses due to
abiotic processes (sorption, volatilization).
Cosf; Costs were not provided with this study.
Mueller, J.G., D. Middaugh, S. Lantz, P.
Chapman. "Biodegradation of Creosote and
Pentachlorophenol in Contaminated
Groundwater: Chemical and Biological
Assessment". Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, pp. 1277-1285. May 1991.
C-4
-------
Table C.3-2. Bioremediation of ACW Contaminated Groundwater
Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater
from ACW Site: Indiaenous Microoraanisms
Parameter
PAHs, ppb
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Behz(a)anthracene
Ben2o(b/k)nuqranthene_
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Ben2a(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
DlbeKz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
BfaVP notencv estimate
Other SVOCs, ppb
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Pentachloroohenol
Initial
Concentration
13,600
600
4,700
2,900
2,900
NR
NR
2,100
2,700
NR
16,200
11,600
1,900
4,700
28,700
32,800
10,400
136,000
NC
2,900
5,500
100
Final
Concentration
1,800
200
500
1,300
1,700
NR
NR
900
1,200
NR
7,600
100
900
ND
ND
ND
4,700
21,000
NC
1,000 .
700
100
Percent
Chanae1
-87
-67
-89
-55
-41
NC
NC
-57
-56
NC
-53
-99
-53
—1002
-1002
-1002
-55
85
NC
-66
-87
0
Bioremediation of Contaminated Groundwater from
ACW Site: Sterile Control
Initial Final
Concentration Concentration
13,600
600
4,700
2,900
2,900
NR
NR
2,100
2,700
NR
16,200
11,600
1,900
4,700
28,700
32,800
10,400
136,000
NC
2,900
5,500
100
11,900
400
3,900
2,700
2,800
NR
NR
2,000
2,400
NR
14,400
9,900
1,800
4,500
25,600
27,700
9,800
a 120,000
NC
3,000
6,100
100
Percent
Chanae1
-13
-33
-17
-6.9
-3.4
NC
NC
-4.8
-11
NC
-11
-15
-5.3
-4.3
-11
-16
-5.8
-12
NC
+3.4
+11
0
2 Percent change is shown as an increase (+) or decrease (-).
Detection limits were not presented for these compounds. The percent change is, therefore,
considered to approach 100.
NR = Not recorded
NC = Not calculated
Shaded rows contain only NR and NC designations.
C-5
wU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHCE:1 997-650-001 /801 64
-------
-------
-------
0)
o o m c
5' CD 3 3
O 3 < »
i*l&
51 3 £
-1 CD «
TJ
I
_ &.
s-o
00 CD
Hi. 3
33 >
CD (Q
CO CD
CD 3
o"
TJ
m
O
CD?
01 "^
O
------- |