DOCSLIB.ORG

Treatment of Petroleum-Contaminated Soil In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Introduction __________________________________ 1 Understanding the Problem______________________ 3 Petroleum _______________________________________________ 3 Movement of Petroleum in Unsaturated Soil _____________________ 6 Climatic Conditions ________________________________________ 7 Treatment Options____________________________14 Excavation and Proper Disposal _____________________________ 14 Incineration _____________________________________________ 15 Thermal Desorption _______________________________________ 16 Soil Washing ____________________________________________ 17 Ex Situ Vapor Extraction ___________________________________ 18 Composting _____________________________________________ 19 Landfarming _____________________________________________ 21 Soil Vapor Extraction ______________________________________ 22 Barometric Pumping ______________________________________ 23 Bioventing ______________________________________________ 24 Summary ___________________________________26 References __________________________________27 Appendix A—Soil Restoration Vendors _________________ 28 Appendix B—Remediation Products Summary ___________ 35 Appendix C—Vendors and Consultants Interviewed ______ 56 ii Introduction he number of sites contaminated report addresses the Tongass and Chu- the appropriate treatment technology (or with hazardous compounds in gach National Forests in Alaska (figures technologies) is a challenge that requires TTrecent years has prompted environ- 1 and 2). These forests are in cold regions knowledge of the science involved and mental engineers to develop new technol- with temperatures dropping as low as some professional judgment. This report ogies and to adapt existing technologies about –2 °C during winter (Valdez wea- is not meant to provide a “cookbook” to treat contaminated groundwater and ther station, data from Alaska Climate method of selecting a technology for soil. Environmental engineers already Research Center, University of Alaska treating contaminated soils. knew how to treat domestic wastewater Fairbanks). They are also wet, receiving and industrial wastewater. Because they more than 500 centimeters of rainfall Because of uncertainties in soil properties, had some control over these processes, annually (Whittier weather station, data the total mass of contaminant released, engineers had a fairly good understanding from Alaska Climate Research Center, the lateral and vertical extent of contami- of the characteristics of the wastes and University of Alaska Fairbanks). Access nation, seasonal fluctuations in the water the technologies that would work best to and utility accessibility are key issues for table, and weather conditions, it is very treat them. Environmental engineers are engineers in these remote national forests. difficult to predict the outcome of a soil now faced with treating soil and ground- treatment technology (Massmann, J.; water contaminated with petroleum This report will provide Forest Service Schock, S.; Johannesen, L. 2000; Barnes products. Engineers usually have less engineers some guidance to help them and McWhorter 2000). The goal of the knowledge of the characteristics of this choose a treatment technology that will design engineer is to choose and design waste. Adding to the new challenges, reduce the level of petroleum contami- the most economical treatment system contaminants in soil and groundwater nation in contaminated soils. Selecting (a treatment system can be made up of are dispersed throughout the media; in other words, the contaminants are not contained as an industrial or domestic waste would be. Environmental engineers have adapted proven technologies and have developed new technologies to reduce contaminants in soil and groundwater ex situ (removed from the original location) and in situ (in place). Ex situ treatment methods incor- porate both chemical and biological pro- cesses. Over the years, experience has shown that ex situ treatment processes can be costly in capital, operations, and maintenance. In situ methods attempt to stabilize or reduce the mass of contam- inants in soil and groundwater using physical, chemical, and biological pro- cesses. In most cases, these treatment methods are more difficult to control than ex situ methods. The complexity of these treatment methods can be attributed to heterogeneities in soil properties. Soil and groundwater contamination is not limited to industrial or urban locations. Contamination can be found in rural and even in remote locations. The U. S. De- partment of Agriculture, Forest Service is now addressing small-volume (less than 400 cubic meters) soil contamination by petroleum products in remote national forest locations where climate, utility access, and accessibility present chal- Figure 1—Approximate boundaries of the Tongass National Forest. Boundaries are shown as lenges to economical restoration. This dotted lines. 1 Introduction such as incineration of contaminated soil, will vary depending on the vendor. Finally, the authors assume that Forest Service engineers have the best infor- mation on costs for such items as labor and equipment rental. Before engineers address any waste treat- ment issue, they must have an under- standing of the waste to be treated and, in the case of contaminated soil, the medium in which the waste exists. This report will provide a brief description of petroleum products and a simple concep- tual model of the movement of petroleum through unsaturated soil. It includes brief descriptions of the climatic conditions in the Tongass and Chugach National For- ests. The report also describes each viable treatment technology and discusses its applicability for treating contaminated soil in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. Treatment technologies addressed in this report are shown in table 1. Table 1—Viable treatment technologies for petroleum-contaminated soils. Figure 2—Approximate boundaries of the Chugach National Forest. Boundaries are shown as Ex situ treatment technologies dotted lines. Excavation and proper disposal Incineration more than one technology) that has a manuscript is not a primer on this design Thermal desorption high probability of attaining the intended approach, the manuscript was written Soil washing goal. Because of the uncertainties listed with this approach in mind. Vapor extraction above, the design engineer may have Composting difficulty achieving the stated goal. For This report discusses several technolo- Landfarming example, if the engineer specifies the use gies that are known to be successful for of landfarming to treat contaminated soil, treating petroleum-contaminated soils in an unseasonably cold summer could in- cold, wet, and remote regions. The docu- hibit the effectiveness of this technique, mented performance of each technology In situ treatment technologies delaying the project’s completion. Design- is a compilation of the experience of dif- ing systems under conditions of uncertain ferent commercial companies and Alaskan Soil vapor extraction variables is not a new problem. Terzaghi engineers specializing in restoration of Barometric pumping (1961) addressed this issue as it applied contaminated soil. Appendix C lists the Bioventing to geotechnical engineering. Others have commercial and engineering companies also investigated this topic (Peck 1969; that provided information for this report. Peck 1980; Dean and Barvenik 1992). The conclusion from decades of working Actual costs for the different technologies on this issue is that “cookbook” design have not been included in this document. Before contaminated soil can be treated, protocols do not work. A method that has Instead, items that need to be included the lateral and vertical extent of the con- been successfully applied in geotechnical in a cost estimate are listed. Including tamination
Load more

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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]