Landfarming of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Mineral Oil Contaminated Sediments

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Landfarming of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Mineral Oil Contaminated Sediments Chapter .. Introduction Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments 1 Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments Promotor: Prof. Dr. Ir. W.H. Rulkens Hoogleraar Milieutechnologie Wageningen Universiteit Copromotoren: Prof. Dr. H.J.P. Eijsackers Hoogleraar Natuurbeheer in relatie tot algemene milieukwaliteit Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Dr. R.C. Sims Hoogleraar Biological & Irrigation Engineering Utah State University Promotiecommissie: Prof. Dr. Barbara Maliszewska-Kordybach Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, Poland Prof. Dr. R.N.J. Comans Wageningen Universiteit Prof. Dr. P.C. de Ruiter Universiteit Utrecht Dr. A.M. Breure RIVM, Bilthoven 2 Chapter .. Introduction Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments Joop Harmsen Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor op gezag van de rector magnificus van Wageningen Universiteit, Prof. Dr. Ir. L. Speelman, in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 22 november 2004 des namiddags te vier uur in de Aula 3 Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments CIP-gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag Author: Harmsen, J. Title: Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments PhD-Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 344 pp. - With ref. - With summary in Dutch ISBN 90-8504-112-0 4 Abstract Abstract Harmsen, J. Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 344 pages. Key words: landfarming, sediment, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mineral oil, biodegradation, bioavailability, risks, target value, intensive, passive. Due to the necessity of continuous dredging activities in the Netherlands, there is an enormous amount of contaminated sediments generated. These sediments require an efficient treatment procedure to reduce contaminant levels at low costs and with reasonable spatial demands. Landfarming offers a good solution for sediments contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and mineral oil. Sediments become aerobic during landfarming, which enables aerobic organisms to biodegrade the contaminants. Two main principles and types of landfarming are distinguished: (1) Intensive landfarming, in which processes are optimised using active management activities to reduce contaminants to residual concentrations as quickly as possible and (2) Passive landfarming, consisting of minimal management activities that are used when rapid bioremediation is not necessary, but residual concentrations of contaminants must be reduced. PAHs and mineral oil are strongly ad- or absorbed by the organic matter in the sediment. Biodegradation of these contaminants in landfarmed sediment is shown to be a slow process and often high levels of residual concentrations are left. It is therefore important to understand limiting conditions for biodegradation. Limiting conditions that are discussed and mathematical described include (1) desorption and diffusion of the contaminant within soil aggregates to a place with active micro- organisms, (2) presence of active micro-organisms, and (3) aeration of the dredged sediment. The concept of bioavailability and its use to predict biodegradation and the risks during landfarming are also extensively discussed. Landfarming of dredged sediment has been applied from 1990 onwards on the landfarm Kreekraksluizen in the Netherlands. From these long-term experiments it was possible to recognise fast, slow and very slowly degradable fractions of PAHs. The degradation rate constants of these fractions are derived from the measured data. To fully degrade these three fractions requires, respectively, 1 year, about 7 years, and 30-60 years. Optimisation of the degradation process (dewatering, temperature, aeration and activation of biological activity) only leads to an acceleration of the 5 Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments biodegradation of the fast degradable fraction. Therefore, optimisation of passive landfarming is not effective in most cases. Risks for the retention (ability to adsorb contaminants and to prevent mobilisation) and habitat (optimal functioning of soil living organisms) functions of the landfarmed sediments on Kreekraksluizen have been studied by measuring leaching, application of several bio-assays, and monitoring biological activity in general. Risks for the retention function decreased very rapidly during dewatering. The risk for the habitat function decreased more slowly. Small effects in bio-assays were still measurable after 7 years of treatment. No measurable risks were present in the longest (12 years) treated sediments. As a traditional management practice, slightly polluted sediments from ditches in the rural area of The Netherlands are spread over adjacent land. In experiments on the island of Goeree-Overflakkee, it has been shown that the practise of spreading of thin layers also led to fast, slow and very slow degradation of the PAHs present. The historical practise of spreading had led to a small but stabilised increase, of the PAHs- concentration beside the ditches. This thesis concludes with a description of the application of passive landfarming in real-world situations, as it is combined with nature development, used in construction, and combined with growing of biomass for energy production. The presence and effects of heavy metals are also discussed. 6 Abstract Contents Abstract 5 Preface 6 1 General introduction 6 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 Development of landfarming 6 1.2.1 From waste treatment to soil treatment 6 1.2.2 Landfarming of sediments 6 1.2.3 Impact of target values 6 1.3 Developments in research 6 1.4 Application of landfarming 6 1.4.1 Biodegradable contaminants 6 1.4.2 Heavy metals 6 1.5 Aim and scope of this thesis 6 1.6 Outline of this thesis 6 2 Processes in a landfarm 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Presence of the contaminant 6 2.2.1 Equilibrium approaches 6 2.2.2 Non-equilibrium sorption 6 2.2.3 Influence of adsorption sites 6 2.3 Presence of micro-organisms 6 2.3.1 Degrading Organisms 6 2.3.2 Acclimation time 6 2.3.3 Threshold value of contaminants 6 2.3.4 Distribution of organisms in sediment and soil 6 2.3.5 Effect of temperature on activity 6 2.4 Presence of oxygen 6 2.4.1 Basic parameters of sediments 6 2.4.2 Volume changes of sediment during dewatering and ripening 6 2.4.3 Air filled pore volume in the sediment profile 6 2.4.4 Oxygen in aggregates 6 2.5 Modelling of processes in a landfarm 6 2.5.1 Description of the aeration model 6 2.5.2 Results of the aeration model 6 2.6 Conclusions 6 2.7 List of symbols 6 7 Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments 3 Chemical measures of bioavailability 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2 Definition of bioavailability 6 3.2.1 Conceptual definition of bioavailability 6 3.2.2 Operational definition of bioavailability 6 3.2.3 Definition of bioavailability in this thesis 6 3.3 Present use of chemical methods for bioavailability 6 3.3.1 Nutrients 6 3.3.2 Heavy metals 6 3.4 Requirements for chemical methods for measurement of bioavailability of organic contaminants 6 3.4.1 Measurement of total concentration of organic contaminants 6 3.4.2 Established methods for measurement of bioavailability of organic contaminants 6 3.4.3 Promising new chemical methods for measurement of bioavailability of organic contaminants 6 3.5 Chemical methods used in this thesis to establish bioavailability 6 3.5.1 Availability of PAHs 6 3.5.2 Availability of mineral oil, 6 3.6 Discussion and conclusions 6 3.6.1 Implementation of bioavailability 6 3.6.2 Bioavailability; definition and tools used in this thesis 6 4 Degradation and desorption of PAHs in sediments: kinetic approach 6 4.1 Introduction 6 4.2 Materials and methods 6 4.2.1 Degradation experiments (field) 6 4.2.2 Desorption experiments (laboratorium) 6 4.2.3 Calculation of rate constants 6 4.3 Results 6 4.3.1 Degradation of PAHs 6 4.3.2 Desorption of PAHs 6 4.3.3 Decomposition of organic matter 6 4.4 Discussion 6 4.4.1 Degradation and desorption 6 4.4.2 Degradation of PAHs and organic matter 6 4.5 Conclusions 6 5 Degradation of mineral oil in landfarmed sediments 6 5.1 Introduction 6 5.2 Materials and methods 6 5.3 Results and discussion 6 5.3.1 Composition of mineral oil in sediments 6 5.3.2 Degradation of mineral oil 6 5.3.3 Prediction of the degradation curve 6 5.4 Conclusions 6 8 Abstract 6 Effects of optimisation of landfarm treatment of sediments on bioremediation 6 6.1 Introduction 6 6.1.1 Optimisation on a landfarm 6 6.1.2 Dewatering 6 6.1.3 Forced aeration and higher temperature 6 6.1.4 Adding of substrate containing active fungi 6 6.1.5 Activation of microbiological activity in soil by vegetation 6 6.2 Materials and methods 6 6.2.1 Origin of the sediments and applied optimisation methods 6 6.2.2 Dewatering 6 6.2.3 Forced aeration and higher temperature 6 6.2.4 Adding of substrate containing active fungi 6 6.2.5 Activation of microbiological activity in soil by vegetation 6 6.2.6 Measurement of the fraction available for fast degradation 6 6.3 Results and discussion 6 6.3.1 Optimisation of landfarming versus passive landfarming 6 6.3.2 Effect of dewatering 6 6.3.3 Effect of forced aeration and higher temperature 6 6.3.4 Effect of adding of substrate containing active fungi 6 6.3.5 Activation
Recommended publications
  • Aerobic Biodegradation of Oily Wastes a Field Guidance Book for Federal On-Scene Coordinators Version 1.0, October 2003
    Aerobic Biodegradation of Oily Wastes A Field Guidance Book For Federal On-scene Coordinators Version 1.0, October 2003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 South Central Response and Prevention Branch EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This field guidance document was produced specifically as an aid for Federal On-scene Coordinators (FOSC) in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6. It is intentionally limited in scope to best serve the requirements of the Region 6 Oil Program. Typically, Oil Program projects are completed quickly and efficiently and often do not require more than half a year to complete. Because of the nature of the Oil program, only aerobic land treatment was considered. Ongoing consultation with state and local officials during the land treatment process is assumed and essential to success. The level of detail provided in this field guide may be less than required for each project, but is sufficient to adequately diagnose technical problems should they occur. The writers of this field guide are aware that the users come from a variety of backgrounds and possess a wide range of field experience. In an attempt to develop a tool that may be used easily by both experienced and less-experienced users, minimum information is provided and an extensive bibliography section including web sites is included. Once the users have read and become familiar with the field guide, small shaded boxes or tables adjacent to a “pumpjack” icon help in locating key points throughout the document. This field guide consists of three parts complemented by appendices. The first part provides information to help evaluate the nature of the environment where land treatment is considered and a summary of the existing regulations and policies in Region 6.
    [Show full text]
  • MVLWB Guidelines for Developing a Waste Management Plan
    MVLWB Guidelines for Developing a Waste Management Plan March 31, 2011 MVLWB MVLWB Contents Definitions anD AcronyMs ...................................................................................................6 1.0 INTRODUCtion ......................................................................................................................8 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................8 1.2 authority .............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 How these Guidelines Were Developed .......................................................................... 8 1.4 application .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Monitoring and Performance Measurement for these Guidelines ............................... 9 1.6 structure of this Document ................................................................................................. 9 2.0 Waste Management Planning ............................................................................................9 2.1 Waste Management Hierarchy ......................................................................................... 9 2.2 Logistical Considerations ................................................................................................ 11 3.0 Developing a Waste Management Plan..........................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Operating Procedure for Landfarming Petroleum- Contaminated Soils
    Standard Operating Procedure for Landfarming Petroleum- Contaminated Soils SOP WST-2017-02 State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Version 1 July 6, 2017 SOP for Landfarming Petroleum-Contaminated Soils EDMS Number: 2016BAF25 2 Table of Contents 1 Title and Approval Page .............................................................................................................. 1 2 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 Procedures .................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Applicability/Scope ............................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Summary of Procedure .......................................................................................................... 3 3.4 Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.4.1 DEQ’s Petroleum Storage Tank Definition ................................................................. 3 3.4.2 Federal Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Definitions ........................................ 3 3.4.3 Petroleum-Contaminated Soils ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
    ERDC/EL TR-02-37 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Federal Integrated Biotreatment Research Consortium (FIBRC): Flask to Field Initiative Jeffrey W. Talley, Rakesh Bajpai, Richard Conway, October 2002 Daniel E. Averett, Jeffrey L. Davis, Deborah R. Felt, Catherine C. Nestler, editors l Laboratory a Environment Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, pub- lication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Strategic Environmental Research ERDC/EL TR-02-37 and Development Program October 2002 Federal Integrated Biotreatment Research Consortium (FIBRC): Flask to Field Initiative Edited by Jeffrey W. Talley Jeffrey L. Davis Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Geological Sciences U.S. Army Engineer Research and University of Notre Dame Development Center 156 Fitzpatrick Hall 3909 Halls Ferry Road Notre Dame, IN 46556 Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Rakesh Bajpai Deborah R. Felt, Catherine C. Nestler W2028 Engineering Building East Applied Research Associates, Inc. University of Missouri-Columbia 119 Monument Place Columbia, MO 65211 Vicksburg, MS 39180 Richard Conway 612 Linden Road Charleston, WV 25314-1116 Daniel E. Averett Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Belvoir 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria, VA 22-386015 Final report Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 Under Project CU-720 Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................v Summary ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Petroleum-Contaminated Soil In
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology & Development Program 7100 Engineering September 2002 0271-2801-MTDC David L. Barnes University of Alaska Fairbanks Shawna R. Laderach University of Alaska Fairbanks Charles Showers Program Leader USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program Missoula, MT 9E92G49—HazMat Toolkit September 2002 The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has developed this information for the guidance of its employees, its contractors, and its cooperating Federal and State agencies, and is not responsible for the interpretation or use of this information by anyone except its own employees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this document is for the information and convenience of the reader, and does not constitute an endorsement by the Department of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices (Bmps) for Soils Treatment Technologies
    United States Solid Waste and Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA530-R-97-007 Agency (5303W) May 1997 Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Soils Treatment Technologies Suggested Operational Guidelines to Prevent Cross- Media Transfer of Contaminants During Cleanup Activities Reproduced on Paper that Contains at least 20% Post Consumer Fiber DISCLAIMER This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to provide guidance in preventing cross-media transfer of contaminants during implementation of soils treatment technologies. EPA does not make any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report. EPA does not assume any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report. Reference to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report does not represent or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by EPA of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service. In addition, the policies set out in this document are not final agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice. PREFACE This document has been prepared by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • UFGS 02 54 19.13 Bioremediation Using Landfarming
    ************************************************************************** USACE / NAVFAC / AFCEC / NASA UFGS-02 54 19.13 (February 2021) ------------------------------------ Preparing Activity: USACE Superseding without Revision UFGS-02 54 20 (February 2010) UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS References are in agreement with UMRL dated July 2021 ************************************************************************** SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SECTION 02 54 19.13 BIOREMEDIATION USING LANDFARMING 02/21 PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 1.1.1 Bench-Scale Testing 1.1.2 Field Demonstration 1.1.3 Contaminated Soils Treatment Unit Price 1.1.4 Oversize Materials from Contaminated Areas 1.2 REFERENCES 1.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 1.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1.4.1 Landfarming Treatment Cell 1.4.1.1 Treatment Cell Sizing 1.4.1.2 Porous Drainage Layer 1.4.1.3 Leachate Controls and Collection 1.4.1.4 Geomembrane and Clay Liners 1.4.2 Contact Water Management System and Design Storm 1.4.2.1 Perimeter Berms 1.4.2.2 Storage Volume 1.4.2.3 Reuse, Treatment, and Disposal 1.4.3 Irrigation Equipment 1.4.4 Weather Cover 1.4.5 Stockpiles 1.4.6 Other Work Area Surfaces 1.4.7 Accuracy of Measurement Equipment 1.5 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1.5.1 Treatment Criteria and Criteria for Reuse of Treated Soil 1.5.1.1 Treatment Criteria for Soil 1.5.1.2 Criteria for Reuse of Treated Soil 1.5.1.3 Particle Size Criteria for Treated Soil 1.5.2 Treatment Criteria for Contact Water 1.5.3 Treatment Criteria for Other Waste 1.6 LANDFARMING
    [Show full text]
  • Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites
    EPA/600/R-92/182 October 1992 CONTAMINANTS AND REMEDIAL OPTIONS AT WOOD PRESERVING SITES Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. Edison, New Jersey 08837 Contract No. 68-C9-0033 Work Assignment 2-R013 Mary K. Stinson Technical Support Branch Superfund Technology Demonstration Division Edison, New Jersey 08837 RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CINCINNATI, OHIO 45219 02 Q& Printed on Recycied Paper - NOTICE The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under contract 68-C9-0033to Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii FOREWORD Today’s rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural resources to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions. The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wasteyater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related activities.
    [Show full text]