work plan for bioremediation of fuel contaminated …
TRANSCRIPT
File. 18GD.B.
WORK PLAN FOR BIOREMEDIATION OF FUEL CONTAMINATEDSOILS AT ETELSON MIR FORCE BASE
Prepared for
Armstrong L4boatoxyBr~ook Air orc Base
* ~~~San Antonio, Texas
EA ~ ~ enead ehoogy
Redmtond ahi~o
A's
~~~ A *~~~~~~~~~ 4, ~ ~ ~ ~
I UU '.., 4
~111~~`~,d>s,~~~~* ~~~:> ~ ~ A
00308gel
EA Project No. 11206.11Draft
WORK PLAN FOR BIOREMEDIATION OF FUEL CONTAMINATEDSOILS AT EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared for
Armstrong LaboratoryK) ~~~~~~~Brooks Air Force BaseSan Antonio, Texas
Prepared by
EA Engineering, Science, and TechnologyNorthwest OperationsRedmond, Washington
April 1992
EA Engineefing Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Ease1120611 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediafton
0 o3o 8'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE BACKGROUND 11.1 Purpose 11.2 Site Description 11.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 31.4 Sources of Soils 51.5 Existing Soil Characterization Information 5
1.5.1 Tank 300, UST Soils 61.5.2 Wastewater Treatment Soils 71.5.3 Alpha-Delta Soils 71.5.4 Vehicle Maintenance Soils 8
2. REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 92.1 Soil Bioremediation 9
2.1.1 Landspreading 92.1.2 Landfanning 102.1.3 Cell Bioremediation 10
a 2.2 Predicted Bioremediation Response 11V ~~~2.2.1 Estimated Biodegradation Rates 112.2.2 Volatilization and Air Emissions 132.2.3 Potential For Leachate Migration to Groundwater 14
3. TEST OBJECTIVES 19
4. TREATMENT FACILiTY INSTALL.ATION AN]) STARTUP 204.1 Facility Design 20
4.1.1 Landspreading Facility Design 224.1.2 Landfarming Facility Design 244.1.3 Cell Bioremediation Facility Design 25
4.2 Soil Classification Criteria and Placement Procedures 27
5. TREATMENT FACILIY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCEPROCEDURES 305.1 Operation Procedures 30
5.1.1 Landspreading Operation 305.1.2 Landfarming Operation 305.1.3 Cell Bioremediation Operation and Maintenance 31S ~5.2 Periodic Monitoring 31
EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose11206.11 eaflh-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
5.3 Facility Closure 325.4 Contingency for Operation Failure 32
5.4.1 Contingency for Leachate Production 325.4.2 Failure to Meet Cleanup Standard 335.4.3 Liner Failure 33
6. PARAMETERS TO BE TESTED 34
7. SAMPLING AND MONITORING PLAN 367.1 Sampling Requirements 36
7.1.1 Spreading and Baseline Characterization of Liner Soils 397.1.2 Segregation, Baseline Characterization, and Spreading of
Contaminated Soils 397.1.3 Treatment Monitoring 40
7.1.3.1 Contaminant Reduction and Soil Moisture Monitoring 407.1.3.2 Leachate Migration Monitoring 41
7.1.4 Other Monitoring 427.1.5 Closure Confirmation 42
437.2 Sample Collection, Handling, and Custody 43) ~~~7.2.1 Soil Samples 43
7.2.2 Groundwater Samples 447.3 Quality Assurance Project Plan 44
7.3.1 Data Quality Objectives 457.3.2 Field Sampling QA/QC Procedures 457.3.3 Laboratory QA/QC Procedures 467.3.4 Data Validation 467.3.5 Data Management 47
8. ANALYTICAL METHODS 48
9. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 499.1 Bioremediation Efficiency 499.2 Operational Parameters. 49
10. HEALTH AND SAFETY 50
11. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT 51
12. SCHEDULE ANT) REPORT'S 52(9 ~12.1 Schedule 52
iv£4 Engineering, Science, and Tedcmnologj Eielton Air Force Base11206.11 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediatdon
a 12.2 Reports 52
INERENCES 54
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Sources and Quantities of Soils to be Addressed 5TABLE 2. Summary of Tank 300, UST Soil Analytical Results 6TABLE 3. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Soil Analytical Results 7TABLE 4. Half-Lives for Various Hydrocarbon Compounds 12TABLE 5. Predicted Biodegradation Rates 12TABLE 6. Estimation of Volatilization Rates 14TABLE 7. Water Available for Leaching 15TABLE 8. Estimated Leaching Rates for Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Without Volatilization 17TABLE 9. ADEC Level A Soil Cleanup Levels for Petroleum Contaminated Soils 19TABLE 10. Summary of Treatment Facility Design and Operation 22TABLE 11. Soil Classification Criteria 27
* LE 12. Summary of Parameters to be Tested 35LE 13 Summary of Sampling and Analysis Requirements 37LE 14. Summary of Field and Laboratory Analytical Methods 48
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Project Site Map 2FIGURE 2. Present Configuration of Soil Stockpiles in the Contaminated
Soil Storage Area (CSSA), Eielson AFB, Alaska 4FIGURE 3. Proposed Land Treatment Area, Eielson AFB, Alaska 21FIGURE 4. Schematic Representation of Proposed Landspreading and
Landfarming Facilities, Eielson AFE, Alaska 23FIGURE 5. Schematic Representation of Cell Bioremediation Facility,
Eielson AFB, Alaska 26FIGTJRE 6. Schedule for Eielson AFB Treatability Test 53
V
E4 Engineering, Science, and Technology Efelson Air Force Base11206.11 eaJ'o-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediation
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE BACKGROUND
During 1992, Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) proposes to remnediate up to 19,000 tons offuel contaminated soil through bioremnediation and thermal treatment. This work planfocuses on the bioremediation of up to 15,000 tons of soil containing elevated levels ofpetroleum hydrocarbons. The proposed thermal treatment method is to use the Base powerplant boilers to treat up to 4,000 tons of contaminated soil. The thermal treatmentoperation is described under a separate work plan (EA, in preparation, 1992).
1.1 Purpose
This project is intended to serve two purposes. EAFB has stockpiled contaminated soilswhich need immediate, cost-effective remediation. In addition, there is a future need forthe remediation of fuel contaminated soils on the Base. In particular, several OperableUnits of the EAFB3 CERCLA site have fuel contaminated soil and are in various stages ofthe remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/ES) process. Although the soils that will betreated during this project are not CERCLA soils, EAFB intends for this project to serveas a treatability study under CERC[A so that the technologies can be evaluated as potentialalternatives during the ES stages of the ongoing RI/ES work. The project design includesan evaluation of the performance of alternative applications of bioremediation technologiesto fuel contaminated soils. The evaluation data that is collected will demonstrate the costand effectiveness of these technologies as well as their applicability to contaminated siteson the Base.
1.2 Site Description
The primary activities conducted under this project will be performed adjacent to theAsbestos Landfill (Figure 1). The treatment areas will be located on land that waspreviously used as a part of the main base landfill (LEO3) and is currently the subject ofRI/FS investigations. The landfill is presently covered with a layer of fly ash. Constructionof the land treatment facilities will include placement of a 8 inch - 10 inch layer of clean"buffer" soils between the LF03 surface and the soils to be treated (see Section 4.0). EAFBdecided to construct the treatment facilities on an existing landfill to prevent potentialcontamination of clean areas of the Base that might result from leachate migration from the
E4 Engineering, Science, and Technology Felson Air Force Base11206.11 eaJb-biorpt Work Plan for Bioremnediadion
fam~ntedsoils. As discussed in Section 2.2, leachate migration is not expected to be
rbem. The buffer soil layer will allow leachate migration monitoring to be conductedin soils directly beneath the treatment facilities without concern for how any pre-existing sitecontamination might affect the interpretation of the monitoring results.
The surface topography in the vicinity of the project area is relatively flat. A gravel roadprovides access to the area. Presently, there are stockpiled soils on both the north andsouth sides of the gravel road. LF03 is located on the south side of the road (Figure 2).
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
EAFB is located in the Tanana River Valley, a topographically flat terrain consisting ofriver/stream sediments and fluvioglacial drift deposits. Near-surface soils at Eielson consistof unconsolidated silty sands and gravels, clean sands and gravels, organic silts, and sandysilts and clays. Fine-grained soil horizons (silts and clays) range in thickness from 1 to 8feet, and occur locally within 20 feet of the ground surface (CH2M HUIl, 1991a). No distinctlaterally continuous aquitard horizons have been identified in the unconsolidated deposits
4JJI2M Hill, 1991b). Permafrost reportedly occurs locally in certain areas of the Base
Uttelle, 1991).
Shallow groundwater typically occurs at depths less than 10 feet below the ground surfacein most areas on the Base (HILA, 1989). The horizontal hydraulic gradient generally rangesfrom 3.5 feet per mile to 6 feet per mile (CH2M Hill, 1991b; LILA, 1989), and the regionalgroundwater migration direction is to the north-northwest (HiLA, 1989). Vertical hydraulicgradient data are not currently available.
Hydraulic conductivities of the shallow aquifer near the south end of the flightline(approximately 0.5 miles south of the proposed land treatment area; Figure 1) have beencalculated based on the results of slug withdrawal tests and long-term pumping tests (LILA,1989). The aquifer test data indicate hydraulic donductivities of the order of 5 feet per dayto 1,000 feet per day. This range of values is typical for clean sand and sand and gravelaquifers. Assuming a hydraulic gradient of 5 feet per mile (0.1%) and a soil porosity of40%, this range of hydraulic conductivity values corresponds to groundwater seepagevelocities ranging from 0.01 feet per day to 2.5 feet per day.
3EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206-11 eaft-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
THERMALLY TREATEDSOIL STOCKPIL E('-8,510 tons)
ASBESTOS LANDFILL
BERM
TANK 300, UIST SOILS
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
8ERM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IIT OL
) BERMER
WASTE TREATMENTFACILITY SOILS . .. PREVIOUSLY CHARACTERIZED
ALPHA-DELTA SOILS=D= (TEPH < 100.ppm)
IN ACTlVE
LANDFILLALPHA-DELTA SOILS (F3
150' 75' 0 150' 300'
Figure 2. Present configuration of soil stockpiles in the Contaminated SoilStorage Area (CSSA), Elelson AFB, Alaska.
EBelson Air Force Base aSoil Rernediation Project EA. Engineerig cec 4 adTcnlg
4£4 Engtneeding Science, and Technolog, Elelson Air Force Ease11206.11 eaJb-biorpt Work Plan for Bioremnediazion
t e shallow aquifer beneath the Base is classified as a sole-source aquifer and provides thee with drinking water as well as water for domestic, irrigation, and industrial uses
(CH2M Hill, 1991b).
1.4 Sources of Soils
The sources of soils to be addressed during this project include soils excavated from theTank 300 area, various underground storage tank (UST) sites, the Alpha-Delta jet refuelingcomplex, the Wastewater Treatment Facility, and the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Thesoils are stored adjacent to the Asbestos Landfill; the present configuration of the soils isshown in Figure 2. The sources and quantities of soils to be addressed are summarized inTable 1.
Table 1. Sources and Quantities of Soils to be Addressed
source ] Quantity (tans)
Tank 300 site, UST sites 750
Wastewater Treatment Facility 3,850
Alpha-Delta Complex 19,050
Vehicle Maintenance Facility 2,400
1.5 Existing Soil Characterization Information
Limited characterization of the soils to be treated is available from soil sampling conductedin 1989 and 1991. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA) sampled the Tank300/UST soils, Wastewater Treatment soils, and Alpha-Delta soils in conjunction with thethermal treatment demonstration test conducted in the fall of 1991. The thermal treatmentdemonstration test and soil analytical results are fully described in the draft thermaltreatment summary report (EA, 1992). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and CH2M Hillsampled the Vehicle Maintenance soils in 1989 and 1991, respectively. The available soilcharacterization information is summarized below.
5EA Engzneeding Science, and Technology Lielison.Air Force Ease1120611 eaJb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioreniediation
1.5.1 Tank 300. UST Soils
The Tank 300 and UST soils:- (Figure 2) were sampled in 1991 for pre-treatmentcharacterization with the expectation that they would be thermally treated during the fall1991 demonstration test. However, the soils were not treated because the analytical resultssuggested that contamination levels in the soils may be below regulatory cleanup levels (EA,1992). These soils will be more thoroughly characterized during this study to determine iftreatment is necessary.
A total of 7 discrete soil samples representing the approximately 750 tons of Tank 300/USTsoils currently stockpiled in the vicinity of LF03 were analyzed in August 1991 for totalvolatile petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TVPH-G), total extractable petroleumhydrocarbons as diesel (TEPII-D), and total extractable hydrocarbons as petroleumn oil(TEPH-O) by EPA Method 8015 Modified. In addition, 4 of the 7 samples were analyzedfor benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8020 and for thetoxicity characteristic (TC) list metals by the EPA toxicity characteristic leaching procedure(TCLP). The 1991 analytical results for the Tank 300 and UST soils are summarized in
Table 2. ~Table 2. Summary of Tank 300, UST Soil Analytical Results
____________~No. of
Analyte Samples Concentration Range____________ Analyzed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TVPH-G 7 Non-detectable (ND) - 15 mg/kg
TEPH-D 7 ND - 70 mgj/kg
TEPH-O 7 28 mg/kg -970 mg/kg
Benzene 4 ND - 0.032 mg/kg
Total BTEX 4 0.00S mg/kg 0.542 mg/kg
TCLP Barium 4 0.32 mg/I - 1.47 mg/i
TCLP Lead 4 0.3 mg/I
TCLP Mercury 4 0.0003 mg/I
Sourc: EA, 1992
6E4 Engineering Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Bose11206.11 eaj'o-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediadion
ewater Tratmnt Snils
limited pre-treatment characterization sampling of the Wastewater Treatment soils wasconducted in October 1991. The near surface soils of the stockpile were first screened withan organic vapor analyzer (OVA) to give an indication of the range of total organic vapor(TOV) concentrations present in these soils. Samples were then selected from areas of thestockpile which had relatively high TOV concentrations, to obtain a preliminary estimateof maximum hydrocarbon concentrations likely to be encountered in the stockpile.
Eight discrete soil samples collected from 1-2 feet depth (one sample per 560 tons) weresubmitted for analysis for TEPH-D by EPA Method 8100 Modified and BTEX by EPAMethod 8020. The 1991 analytical results for the wastewater treatment soils aresummarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Soil AnalyticalResults
Analyte ~No. of
Analyte Samples Concentration RangeAnalyzed
TEPH-D3 8 170 mg/kg - 7,900 mg/kg
Benzene 8 ND)
Total BTEX 8 0.49 mg/kg - 81.87 mg/kg
Sourc: PA, 192
1.5.3 Alpha-Delta Soils
The Alpha-Delta soils stockpiled in individual 100-cubic yard piles on LF03 (Figure 2) havebeen previously characterized. EA collected one discrete soil sample from 1-2 feet depthin each 100-yard pile in October 1991 and submitted the samples for analysis for TEPH-Dby EPA Method 8100 Modified. A total of 27 samples were submitted for analysis. TEPH-D was detected in 5 of the samples, at concentrations ranging from 26 mg/kg to 41 mg/kg
7£4 Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eafb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biores'nediatfon
(EA, 1992). EAFB intends to use these soils as part of the buffer soil layer between the
existing surface of LF03 and the soils to be treated (see Section 4.0).
The Alpha-Delta soils stockpiled in the bermed enclosure to the north of the gravel road(Figure 2) have not been previously characterized. The main contamination present in thesesoils is reportedly JP-4 jet fuel.
1.5.4 Vehicle Maintenance Soils
The Vehicle Maintenance soils were partially characterized during a foundation studyconducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) in March 1989 (USCOE, 1989),and during a subsequent site investigation conducted by CH2M Hill in January 1991 (CH2MHill, 199 la). Soil boring samples were collected from 3.5 feet to 15 feet below surface gradeat 18 locations in the area of the proposed vehicle maintenance facility addition. Thesamples were analyzed for a variety of hydrocarbon compounds, pesticides, PCBs, herbicides,and metals.
One sample collected from 5 feet depth during the COE foundation study reportedlycontained 20,000 mg/kg TPH as jet fuel and up to 250 mg/kg total sernivolatiles andpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PA~s). Selected other samples from the soil boringsreportedly contained low levels of TPH as gasoline, diesel, and/or oil; volatile organics;sernivolatile organics; and organochlorine pesticides. However, other than the one samplethat contained 20,000 mg/kg TPH as jet fuel, none of the samples contained contaminantsat concentrations exceeding regulatory promulgated standards.
8EA Engineering. ScieceIC and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eafb-bioarpt Work Flan for Bioremnediation
2. REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
2.1 Soil Bioremediation
Land treatment is a bioremediation process in which contaminated soils are excavated andspread in a relatively thin layer to enhance aeration, volatilization, biodegradation, andphotolysis. Petroleum-contaminated soils can typically be remnediated within three monthsto two years by using land treatment technologies. Generally, petroleum products can beapplied to land treatment facilities in quantities up to 5 percent by weight of the soil (RoyF. Weston, 1988).
For this bioremediation project, three types of land treatment will be evaluated:landspreading, two variations of landfarming, and cell bioremnediation for a total of fourtreatment methods. The basic principles and objectives of each treatment method aresimilar. The methods differ in how initial contaminant concentrations and applied soilamendments are initially set and maintained for the duration of the remediation, and howthe treatment facilities are constructed. Three treatment facilities will be constructed. The
Aretypes of treatment facilities are described below. Sections 4.0 and 5.0 describe specificWwty designs and operation procedures.
2.1.1 Landspreading
Landspreading involves spreading of contaminated soils in a thin (8 inch) uniform layer on Aan unlined soil surface. Once the soil is spread, contaminants undergo natural degradationwithout any enhancement. It is strictly a passive treatment system. Construction of the \ ilkfacility will be limited to initial grading to remove surface debris and laying down a layerof clean soil on top of the natural soil to act as a buffer layer.
Landspreading is well suited for large volumes of low to moderately-contaminated soil,particularly in situations where volatilization is the primary mechanism for contaminantremoval and large areas of land are available. However, higher initial contaminantconcentrations may extend the required time to achieve target cleanup levels by anunacceptable amount, and the contaminated soils may be deficient in nutrients to promotea sufficient rate of biological activity.
9EA Engineeflng, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eajbi-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
)2.1.2 Landfarming
Landfarming is similar to landspreading except that the applied soil layer is managed toenhance optimum microorganism growth conditions. This results in an increased rate ofcontaminant degradation and shorter time to achieve target cleanup levels. Managementincludes application of commercial fertilizer (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) to providenutrients for microbial growth, irrigation to maintain optimum soil moisture content, andtilling to aerate the soil and mix the contaminants with the native microorganisms. Thesemicroorganism growth enhancements allow for increased depth of soil in the landfarmingunit (e.g., up to 12 inches). Fertilizer application rates are dependent on initial soil nutrientlevels, and watering rates are a function of natural precipitation. Landfarming is initiallymore expensive than landspreading because of the increased maintenance activity andmaterial costs. However, the increased expense is often offset longer term by cost savingsrelated to the higher rate of biodegradation achieveable with landfarming.
2.1.3 Cell Biorernediation
Cell bioremediation is similar to landfarming in terms of microorganisms and operationalaparameters, but the facility design includes an impermeable liner system to prevent leachateWmigration. This type of land treatment is designed to accommodate higher concentrationwastes and situations where contamination of underlying soils by leachate is a concern. Allother operational parameters, including soil amending, watering, and tilling, are identicalto landfarming.
Construction costs for the cell bioremediation facility are substantially greater thanlandfarming. However, cell bioremediation provides a nearly totally effective safeguardagainst migration of contaminants to underlying soil and groundwater. Therefore, this landtreatment method is appropriate for soils containing highly mobile contaminants in highconcentrations. la addition, the lined facility will be available for re-use following thepresent study for treating and/or storing contaminated soils. Thus, rather than being a one-tune cost item associated with the present study, the lined facility will remain valuable toEAFB in the future.
:j
10EA Engineering Science, and Technology Lielson Air Force Base1120611 eaflb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremcdi ahon
. Predicted Bioremediation Response
Dominant processes in soil bioremediation include biodegradation and volatilization. Toprovide for a preliminary estimate of bioremediation response, and to determine the riskof leachate generation, the rates of biodegradation and volatilization were estimated usingliterature references and simple predictive models. Leachate generation is a concernbecause certain chemical constituents of petroleum are highly mobile in groundwater (e.g.,benzene). It would be undesirable for chemical constituents from the landspreading orlandfarming operations to leach and transport to underlying soils and groundwater.
The following evaluations indicate that biodegradation and volatilization rates are rapidenough, and rain percolation rates slow enough, to conclude that contaminant migration tounderlying native soils and groundwater will either not occur or, if abnormally high rainfallis present, will occur at low concentrations that are below required cleanup levels.
2.2.1 Estimated Biodegradation Rates
Bioremnediation of a soil contaminated with organic chemicals is accomplished through the~degradation of specific organic constituents. Although the ultimate products of aerobic
ifetabolism are carbon dioxide and water, constituents typically transform to simplerintermediate products that are generally less toxic than the parent compounds.
Degradation of most organic compounds is' soil systems is typically described by monitoringtheir disappearance mn a soil through time. The first order decay model is widely used todescribe the temporal decay of organic compounds because of its effectiveness in describingobserved results as will as its inherent simplicity (Sims et al., 1989). This model is describedby the equation dC/dt =-kC where C is the contaminant concentration (mass/mass) and kis the first order rate constant (1/time). The rate constant k is independent of theconcentration of the constituent and therefore the results of different studies can becompared. The rate constant can also be stated as the half-life of the constituent which isthe time required to reduce the initial concentration by 50 percent. It is calculated ast1f= 0.693/k, where t1,2 is the hall-life. Half-lives published in the literature for varioushydrocarbon compounds are listed in Table 4. The predicted biodegradation rates andestimated time required to meet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation(ADEC) Level A cleanup levels (using maximum contaminant concentrations expected in
V land treatment facilities and published half-lives) are listed in Table 5.
EA Eigineerlng Science, and Technology Elelson Air Force Base1120611 eafb-bioapt Work Plan for Bioremediafion
Table 4. Half-lives for VariousHydrocarbon Compounds'
Compound Half-Life (days)_
Toluene 5.8-635
p-Xylene 8.6-10.2
C12 to C25 11-45Alkanes
Naphthalene 13-34
BTE)Q 6.2
'rPH2 23
PAH L 14-74e
'Source: Kostecki and Calabres (1990)2Results of field experiment under amended soil
conditions'Source: Sims et at, (1989)
Table S. Predicted Biodegradation Rates
Predicted Biodegradation Rates
Intial' Conc. Target LevelCompound HafLe (mg/kg) J (mg/kg) J Elapsed Days
BTEX ~~6.2 20 (landspread) 10 6__________ 100 (landfarm) 10 21
TEPH-D 23 300 (Iandspread) 100 37__________ 1,000 (landfarm) 100 77
'Maximum initial concentration expected in landsprcadl and landfarm units based on soil placement criteria listed inTable 11, Section 4.2
Assuming site soil conditions are favorable, these data indicate that BTEX compounds willbiodegrade to ADEC Level A cleanup levels in approximately 6-21 days. Whenvolatilization is included (see below), the observed decrease in concentrations will be morerapid. TEPH-D compounds in the landspreading and landfarming facilities will requireapproximately 37-77 days to achieve cleanup levels.
12EA Engineering, Science, and Tech nology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajbi-bioapt Work Plan for Biorernediation
A~~k2 BIVolatiiain ad Air Emission
Placement of soils in landspreading or landfarniing units will initially result in volatilizationof a large percentage of the highly volatile compounds present in the soil. Volatilizationrates depend on specific physical properties and can be calculated using simplified modelingequations that are contained in the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (U.S. EPA,1988). For cases where contaminated soils are placed directly on surface soils, such as inlandfarming, the equation presented by Thiobodeaux and Hwang (1982) as modified byFarino et al. (1983) is used to predict hydrocarbon volatilization rates. This equationincorporates the diffusion coefficient, partitioning coefficient, Henry's Law constant, grosssoil contaminant concentrations, and other data to predict average volatization rates fromexposed soil. Retardation factors are calculated using compound-specific partitioncoefficients to determine fractions of chemicals in the dissolved and solid phases.
Available data were used to calculate an estimated short-term emission rate for evaluationof exposure potential, and to determine how quickly volatile compounds will volatilize fromthe landfarm layer. Compounds evaluated include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and,lenes. Values for chemical properties were obtained from U.S. EPA (1988) and U.S. EPA
86). Benzene was assumed to have an initial concentration in the landfarm. soils of 14g'/kg, and the assumed initial concentrations of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes werechosen such that the total BTEX concentration would equal 100 mg/kg. These are themaximum benzene and total BTEX concentrations that will be placed in the unlinedtreatment facilities (see Table 10, Section 4.1). The ratios of individual BTEX constituentconcentrations are consistent with the characterization samples collected for the thermaltreatment demonstration test (EA, 1992). The analysis assumed a soil thickness of 12 incheswhich was not tilled over the volatilization period, an air-filled soil porosity of 20 percent,and an average air temperature of 150 C. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table6.
13EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorenmediaoion
Table 6. Estimation of Volatilization Rates
Estimated Tune AverageInitial Contaminant for Complete Emission
Concentration Partitioning Volatilization RateChemical (mg/kg) Liquid Soil (days) (g/min/acre)
_____________ ~~~~~Phase Phase
Benzene 1 .7 .23 3 0.44
Toluene 21 .36 .64 6 4.5
Ethylbenzene 7 .20 .80 18 0.51
Xylenes 71 .15 .85 14 6.4
The analysis of volatization rates indicates that BTEX compounds will volatilize rapidlyduring the first few weeks of the landfarming operation. Because tilling of landfarmed soilwill occur on a bi-weekly basis, volatilization rates will most likely be higher.
Ground-level atmospheric concentrations of these substances can be predicted using a)dispersion equation that predicts concentrations in the centerline of a plume directly
downwind from a ground-level source (U.S. EPA, 1988). Using average emission rates fromTable 6, a mean wind speed of 2.3 rn/s (5 mph), and an atmospheric stability class of ClassC, it was predicted that concentrations of benzene will be less than 3.2 x i0' mg/rn3 (i.e.,<0.001 ppm, assuming 1 ppm = 3.25 mg/rn; NIOSH, 1990) at all downwind distancesgreater than 500 meters from the land treatment facilities. Concentrations of the othervolatile constituents are predicted to be less than 4.6 x 10.2 mg/rn3 (< 0.01 ppm) at distancesgreater than 500 meters from the land treatment facilities. Therefore, air emissions shouldnot be a problem. Air monitoring will be performed during initial placement of the soilsas required by the Health and Safety Plan for the project (EA, in preparation, 1992).
2.2.3 Potential For Leachate Migration to Groundwater
Compounds that do not volatilize or biodegrade rapidly have the potential to leach from thelandfarm or landspread layer into underlying soils and groundwater. For this to occur,rainfall and other applied water must be input to the soil at a rate that is greater than thenatural evaporation rate. However, because compounds heavier than BTEX have anincreasing tendency to adsorb to soil particles, movement of contaminants through saturated
K)and unsaturated soils will be retarded relative to the actual pore water velocity.
14E4 Engineering Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eaJb-bio-rpt Work Plan for Bioruinediation
Simatic data for Interior Alaska were obtained to estimate soil evaporation rates andOonthly rainfall for the Fairbanks area. Assuming that rainfall rates are relatively constant
over the month, the water available for leaching is equal to the difference betweenprecipitation and evaporation (neglecting the field capacity of the soil). Monthly rainfallrecords for EAFB for the period 1947 - 1991 were used to calculate mean monthlyprecipitation. In addition to average rainfall conditions, a worst-case scenario in which thecumulative 3-month (May - July) rainfall has a recurrence interval of 10 years (i.e., a one-rn-ten year extreme precipitation event) was also considered. The evaporation rate wasassumed to be 50 percent of the average lake evaporation rate, as calculated from aNational Weather Service nomograph (Linsley et al., 1975) and climatic data (USDC, 1969).This is based on the assumptions that saturated soil evaporates at a rate equal to a freewater surface, and that the soil is 50 percent saturated. Again, a 12-inch soil layer isassumed, and the soil field capacity is assumed to be 12 percent (typical for sandy soils).The precipitation and evaporation data used in the analysis are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Water Available for Leaching
Rainfall (inches) Soil Net Water Availability
Month _ _______ ______ ______ Evaporation (inches)Month Average Extreme' (ice) Average Extreme
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Rainfall Rainfall
May 0.73 1.2 1.8 -1.1 -0.6
June 1.7 2.6 2.3 -0.6 0.3
July 2.4 1 3.6 1.8 0.6 iS1.
'Ten-year extreme rainfall event (or the combined 3-month period May - July, based on EAFB weather station records(1947 - 1991)
Table 7 indicates that evaporation exceeds average precipitation during May and June, andexceeds extreme precipitation during May. According to the values in Table 7, no leachingwould occur in May under either average or extreme rainfall conditions. June precipitationmust be greater than 135 percent of normal (i.e., 2.3 inches) before leachate generation ispossible, assuming the soil is at field capacity. If the soil is instead assumed to initially benear 50 percent of field capacity, as is likely, an additional 0.4 inch of water can be absorbedby the soil under extreme rainfall and conditions before leaching occurs. Leaching is*refore predicted to be very unlikely in June.
15EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Eloremnediation
IThe potential for leaching in July, when rainfall exceeds soil evaporation, can be determidnedby estimating water-phase concentrations from the partition coefficient, and rainwaterinfiltration velocity from empirical equations. Three different representative petroleumcompounds were evaluated: benzene, with an assumed partition coefficient of 4 = 83 1/kg(U.S. EPA, 1986); ethylbenzene, with an assumed partition coefficient of K4=1,100 1/kg(U.S. EPA, 1986); and a C10 alkane, with an assumed partition coefficient of 4= 10,0001/kg (Lyman et al., 1990). These partition coefficients represent the range of soil sorptioncapacities for typical JP-4 constituents. Other assumptions include soil organic carboncontent f. = 0.001, a soil density p = 1.5, and a soil porosity n =0.4 (typical values for sandysoils such as those at EAFIB). With these assumptions, the retardation factor (Rf1= 1 + ~p/n) ranges from 1.3 for benzene to 38 for C10-alkane; these retardation factors correspondto liquid phase mass partitioning (Rr-1) of approximately 77 percent for benzene and 3percent for C1O alkane.
The rate of transport of the dissolved phase from the landfarm layer to underlying soils isgoverned by the pore water velocity, which is equal to the percolation rate (excessprecipitation) divided by the volumetric moisture content of the unsaturated zone. Thevolumetric moisture content is estimated using an empirical relationship (U.S. EPA, 1988).Using the assumptions listed above and the calculated pore water velocity, the depth ofpercolation in underlying soils and the resulting average soil contamninant concentrations canbe estimated. Table 8 summarizes the assumptions and results of the analysis.
16EA Engineering, Scienc4 and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediation
Tal . Estimated Leaching Rates for Petroleum Hydrocarbons Without Volatilization
Calculated Concentration in Underlying Soil (mg/kg)Cu ulative Percolation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Depth in Underlying Average Rainfall Conditions Extreme Rainfall ConditionsSoils (inches)' _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
Month Zinfl'I¶ JRairfaml Benzne J benzene alkane Benzene benzene alkan
Initial4
Conc. --- 1.0 7.0 1,000 1.0 7.0 1,000
May, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
June 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,IJuly 1.1 7A4 1.68 -3.2 65 0.85 1.6 33 _
Includes effects of precipitation, soil evaporation, and an initial soil moisture content equal to 50% of fieldcapacity.2 Assumes average monthly precipitation as recorded in EAF13 weather logs (1947-1991)3Assumes a May-July extreme precipitation event with a 10-year recurrence interval.Maximum concentration in contaminated soils (mg/kg) at beginning of treatment. C10-alikane is assumed to
be representative of TPH Concentration.Asms15 treatment days in May (15 May start date)
jsue
The analysis of percolation indicates that under both normal and extreme (one-in-ten year)rainfall conditions, water will not pass through the 8-10 inch buffer layer during theanticipated landspread/landfarm treatment period (the buffer layer is placed beneath thetreatment soils; see Section 4.2 for landfarm. design).
Downward migration of contaminants is highly dependent on the compound-specificpartition coefficients. For highly mobile constituents such as benzene, transport is veryeffective and initially results in elevated concentrations within the upper portion of thebuffer layer. As more rainfall percolates, concentrations are gradually diluted. However,as demonstrated in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, these compounds will volatilize or biodegradewithin the May - July treatment period, before leachate breaks through the clean bufferlayer. If leachate should pass through the buffer layer into native soils sometime after theend of the treatment period, contaminants in the leachate will have been reduced tonegligible concentrations.
rhydrocarbon compounds (such as C10 alkane) that do not readily volatilize or rapidly>-degrade, very little mass will be leached out of the ]andfarm layer because of the high
17EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206 11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediat ion
soil sorptive capacity of these compounds. High rainfall rates do not appreciably increasethe leaching rates. Based on the preceding analysis, heavy compounds that do leach to the0buffer soils are predicted to result in buffer-soil contaminant concentrations that are wellbelow target cleanup levels.
In sumimary, when considering the combined processes of biodegradation, volatilization, andpercolation, the risk of contaminants leaching to underlying native soils is predicted to below. Most petroleum compounds are predicted to degrade to less than target cleanup levelswithin 11 weeks, and complete volatilization of BTEX compounds is predicted to occurwithin 18 days. Although BTEX compounds have a high leaching potential, percolation ofrainfall to underlying soils is very unlikely during the first six weeks of treatment (May -
June). Concentrations of these compounds in the contaminated soils will probably droprapidly, from volatilization and biodegradation, after initial soil spreading and before rainfallhas a chance to percolate to underlying soils. Other heavier compounds that do not rapidlyvolatilize or biodegrade are highly adso~ptive to soils and are therefore expected to have
~~ lcd-i C'very low leaching rates. Any I~ Ingtrnnsxyg s~oiils will most likely be confined to thebuffer layer at concentrations below the target cleanup levels.
18EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease1120611 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
3. TEST OBJECTIVES
The treatability test was designed to evaluate landspreading, landfarming, and cellbioremediation, technologies that may effectively remediate hydrocarbon contaminated soilsat Eielson AFB. The objective of the test is to develop and document the technologies andtechniques that can effectively remediate the hydrocarbon contaminated soils to ADECcleanup guidelines. The ADEC guidelines to be used in this study will be the Level A (moststringent) cleanup levels. These cleanup levels are listed in Table 9. Elelson AEB intendsto use this treatability test and other evaluations to identify and demonstrate the feasibilityof cost-effective methods for remediating hydrocarbon contaminated soils at the Base.
Table 9. ADEC Level A Soil Cleanup Levelsfor Petroleum Contaminated Soils
Compound Cleanup Level_________ (mg/kg)
TVPH-G 50
TEPH-D 100
Benzene 0.1
BTEX 10
19£-4 Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
4. TREATMENT FACILITY INSTALLATION AND STARTUP
The treatability test entails the construction of three separate land treatment facilities. Thefollowing sections describe the location, design, permitting, construction, soil segregation,and startup plans for the treatability test.
4.1 Facility Design
The proposed land treatment area is shown in Figure 3. The treatment facilities forlandspreading and landfarming will not be lined since these facilities are designed to treatsoils with less than 1,000 mg/kg TEPH-D (see Section 4.3). Soils with greater contaminantconcentrations will be treated in the lined cell bioremediation facility. The landspread andlandfarm. facilities will have an 8-10 inch clean soil buffer layer beneath the contaminatedsoils, to provide both protection of native soils and groundwater and an uncontaminated soillayer in which to sample for leachate migration. The buffer soils will be tested monthly forsigns of leaching (see Section 7). If leaching is detected in the buffer soils, the contingencyplan described in Section 5.4 will be implemented to protect the native soils andgroundwater from contamination.
The treatment facility designs are summarized in Table 10. Details of the designconsiderations for each of the three facilities are described below. The operationalprocedures are presented in Section 5.
20E4 Engineering. Science, and Teciznology Eielso'n Air Force Base112061 iieaj-bio.rpt Woik Plan for Bioremnediation
W V/C~~WODS ASBESTOS ILAND FILL I
E ERMEDftKIEENCLOSURES &
WOODSA1A4 iF~~~i '~~(ALTERNATELOCATION)
F-LANDSPREADING
CONTAMINATED A-3 TACI(TYSOIL STORAGEAREA (CSSA)
/ ~~FACIU rr
CELL BIOREMEDIAT10N
PROPOSED GONWOODS LAND TREATMENT ASSAULT TRAINING
~~ AREA (FTO9)
USED ASPHALT
STORAGE AREA
+Proposed groundwater 300' 150' 0 300' 600'monitoring well I I III
Figure 3. Proposed land treatment area,Elelson AFB, Alaska.
21E4 Engjneeding. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 eajb-bio~rpr Work Plan for Biorernediation
Table 10. Summary of Treatment Facility Design and Operation0
Landspread I Landfarm 1Cell HioremediationItem Facility Facility JFacility
Soil Contaminant Levels:
TVPH-G 50-150 mg/kg 50-500 mg/kg 500-2,500 mg/kg
TEPH-D 100-300 mg/kg 100-1,000 mg/kg 1,000-5,000 mg/kg
Benzene 0.1-0.5 mg/kg 0.1-1.0 mg/kg 1.0-5.0 mg/kg
BTEX 10-20 mg/kg 10-100 mg/kg 100-250 mg/kg
Facility Design:
Treatment volume 3,000 tons 7,000 tons 5,000 tons(2,000 yd3) (4,700 yd3) (3,300 yd3)
Treatment depth 8 inches 12 inches 18 inches............................. ...... .......... . ............. .... .................. .......-.....-.....-...... ~.....-... ...
Buffer/liner system 8 inch soil buffer 8 inch soil buffer single HOPE liner iithgravel bed, leachate
collection.. ....................... ... .-. ..... .. ....... ..-....-.-- - -- --- . -.--...-.........-...... ,..-.......-....
Number of units 1 2 (T, TE) 1
Total area 2 acres 3 acres 1.5 acres
Facility Operation:
Tilling no biweekly biweeklyNutrient application no yes yes
(as needed, (as needed)TE unit only)
Watering no yes yes(as needed, (as needed)
__________________ ~~~ ~~~TE unit only) _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4.1.1 Landspreading Facility Design
A schematic of the landspreading (and landfarming) facility design is shown in Figure 4.The landspreading facility is designed to treat approximately 3,000 tons of low-levelcontaminated soil. Soils with concentrations of TEPH-D between 100 mg/kg and 300mg/kg will be selected for landspreading.
22EA Engineeding Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Ease11206.11 eajb-bio.rpt Work Plan for Bioremediaaon
Landspreading 1-2 acres* ~~Facility
(passive remediotion)
A A'Corner stakes ~Low-level contaminated soils
delineatingars
Landspreading 1-2 acresFacility TI
(periodic tilling) Low-level Moderate-levelcontaminated coontaminatedsails soilsLA__ _A'
Landspreoding 1-2 acres. ~~Facility TE(periodic tilling, irrigation.
possible utrient ddition)Moderate-levelpossibe nutrent adition)contaminated
A ~~~soils A
Reoresentative cross-section of tandsoreading & landfarmina facilities,
A Al,
8" - 10" Layer of clean soil Existing soil surface
Figure 4. Schematic representation of proposed landspreading andlandfarmin g facilities, Ejelson AFB, Alaska.
Elelson Air Force Base NSoil Remedlation Project EAEn rfneen, Science, and Technology
23EA Engineering, science, andi Technology Elelson Air Force Base11206.11 eafoi-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
The landspreading facility is shown on Figure 3 as area A-i. The soil will be thin spreadto a depth of approximately eight inches, and will cover approximately 2 acres.
The existing soil surface in area A-i will be cleared and compacted prior to soil placement.Subsequently, the 8-10 inch clean soil buffe r will be placed on the prepared surface. Theclean soils will be monitored monthly for leachate migration. Monitoring procedures andcontingency plans for detection of leachate migration are described in Sections 7.1.3 and 5.4,respectively.
After the landspreading facility is prepared in area A-i, contaminated soil will be removedfrom storage and spread on top of the buffer soils using placement criteria described inSection 4.3. After placement of the contaminated soils in the facility, the soils will be tilledwith a 24-inch disk or equivalent equipment to produce 4-6 inch furrows. The constructionof furrows will maximize oxygen transfer to the soil by loosening the soil and increasing itsexposed surface area.
After the completion of the landspreading treatability test, soils meeting cleanup goals willbe used for on-site fill or cover, If the soils do not achieve dleanup goals by the end of thefirst summer, the test results will be evaluated. Accordingly, the landspreading test may beextended for a second summer or the soils may be added to one of the other treatmentfacilities to accelerate contamination reduction.
4.1.2 Landfanning Facility Design
The landfarming facility is designed to treat 7,000 tons of low to moderately contaminatedsoil in two facilities (Figure 4). As detailed in Section 4.3, soil with concentrations ofTEPH-D between 100 mg/kg and 1,000 mg/kg will be selected for landfanning.
The landfarming facilities will cover two areas that will each treat approximately 3,500 tonsof soil. The landfarrning facilities will be constructed in the same manner as the land-spreading facility. However, the contaminated soil to be landfarmed will be spread to anaverage depth of 12 inches. After placing the soils in both landfarntng facilities, the soilswill be tilled on a biweekly schedule. The tilling will continue until remediation iscompleted to cleanup goals or until the ambient air temperature is consistently below 35degrees F.
24EA Engineering Science4 and Technology Eie lion Air Force Ease1120611 eajb-bio.rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
#e soil placed in the landfarming facility T will be tilled only. The soil placed inWandfarming facility area TE will have water and commercial fertilizer added as necessary
to maintain optimum water content and nutrient ratios for enhanced bioremediation. Thecontractor will add water to the soil as necessary to maintain the soil moisture atapproximately 50 percent of field capacity. The soils will be analyzed for total organiccarbon and nutrient levels before placement in the landfarm. Nitrogen and phosphorus willbe added to the soil to achieve an optimum carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus ratio forbiodegradation. The target C:N:P ratio for the project is initially set at 100 parts carbon to10 parts nitrogen to 1 pant phosphorus, but may be modified during final design. Fertilizerswill be added as necessary during the test to maintain nutrient levels.
After the completion of the landfarming treatability test~ soils meeting cleanup goals will beused for on-site fill or cover, If the soils do not achieve clean up goals by the end of thefirst summer, the test results will be evaluated. Accordingly, the test may be extended fora second summer. At the completion of the test, soils that have not achieved the cleanupgoals will be removed. These contaminated soils will either be returned to storage ormoved to another location for further remediation or disposal.
'.3 Cell Bioremiediation Facility Design
A schematic of the cell bioremediation facility is shown in Figure 5. The cellbioremediation facility is designed to treat 5,000 tons of highly contaminated soil in a linedcell. The hydrocarbon concentration of the soils will range from 1,000 mg/kg TEPH-D to5,000 mg/kg TEPH-D as detailed in Section 4.3. T1he cell bioremediation treatability testis designed to treat the soil in two batches over two summers. Soils wAill be placed in thelined facility in two 9-inch layers. Accordingly, the cell bioremediation facility will occupyapproximately 1.5 acres.
The treatment cell shown in Figure 5 provides for leachate containment with a singlesynthetic liner and collection sump. The liner-will meet or exceed ADEC guidelines forsynthetic liners for cell bioremediation facilities as specified in ADEC (1991). Any waterthat collects in the sump will be recycled to maintain optimum moisture content of the soilin the cell.
A gravel bed containing drainage piping will be laid at the bottom of the lined cell, to.- vide efficient moisture drainage and protection of the liner. Soil to be treated will then
25EA Engineering Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Base11206411 eajb-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremediafion
BER grade grd
B IEKI gradeL A 4' perforatedJ pipe 0.2% grade
10.5% __________ ~~drainage trench
0.5% grade ~~~~0.3% grade\ _________g - 6' perforated
Leachate collection sump
Cell Bioremediation- Plan ViewNOT TO SCALE
4' to 6r T Junction
4" Perforated pipe 6" Perforated pipe40 mul HDPE liner
A ~~~~~~~~~A'
o 4 6~~~0 mul Textured
Clean backfill in drain trench Thra bondbetween liners
Existing soil surface
Cross Section A-A'NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5. Schematic representation of cell bioremediation) ~~~~~~facility, Eielson AFB, Alaska.
Eielaon Air Force BassSoil Remedation Project E. nier~ing, Science, and Technology
OpintI~.-R.n.W
26EA Ensieefin& Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
placed in the cell to a total depth of 18 inches. The soil in the cell bioremediation
Wdility will be tilled and maintained in the same manner as the soil in landfanning facility
TE, including the application of water and nutrients.
After completion of the cell bioremediation treatability test, the clean soils will be removed.Soils meeting cleanup goals will be used for on-site fill or cover at Eielson AFB. Any soilsthat have not achieved cleanup goals will be retained for further treatment.
4.2 Soil Classification Criteria and Placement Procedures
Soils will be segregated and placed in the landspreading, landfarming, and cellbioremediation treatment facilities according to measured petroleum hydrocarbonconcentrations in the soils. Pre-treatment field screening and analytical testing will be usedto classify the extent of soil contamination as follows: a) none/trace; b) low; c) moderate;d) high; or e) very high. The criteria that will be used to classify the soils are listed inTable 11.
Table 11. Soil Classification Criteria
FieldScreening Analytical CriteriaCriteria
Soil1Classification Total Organic
Vapors TVPH-G TEPH-D Benzene BTEX____________~ ~ (11d/I) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Mg/kg) (mg/kg)
None/trace' c50 •550 •5100 •0.1 •10
LOW 50o7AZ 5 < 150 !r3OO sos. •920
Moderate 200-600 •' 500 • 1,000 •lfl •100
High 600-1000 •2,500 •55,000 •5.0 •250
V. High >1l00 >2,500 >5,000 >5.0 > 250
'The analytical criteria for the "none/trace" classification are equal to ADEC's most stringent(Level A) cleanup levels.
Note: Initial soil classification and placement will be based on field screening criteria. Final soilclassfication and placement will be based on analytical criteria only. For soils to be classified as"none/trace," "low," "moderate,* or "high," all four analytical criteria must be satisfied. For soilsto be classified as "very high," only one of the four analytical criteria needs to be satisfied.
27EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Base11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
Soils will be field-screened in 5-cubic-yard parcels during stockpile segregation using aFoxboro Century 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). The field screening criteria shownin Table 11 will be used for "real time" preliminary classification and placement of the soils.On the basis of field screening, the soils will be placed as follows:
* Soils classified as "none/trace" will be placed in 100-cubic-yard piles in aremote area of the treatment site for subsequent confirmational sampling
* Soils classified as "low" will be placed in 200-yard piles in both thelandspreading facility and landfarming facility T (soils will be divided equallyamong the two facilities)
* Soils classified as "moderate" will be placed in 200-yard piles in landfarmingfacilities T and TE (soils will be divided equally among the two facilities)
* Soils classified as "high" will be placed in 500-yard piles in the lined facility
) *~ Soils classified as "very high" will be placed in 500-yard piles in the existingbermed stockpile enclosures for possible incineration treatment
Immediately after stockpile segregation and preliminary placement of the soils, eachindividual soil pile will be sampled for laboratory analysis of TVPH-G, TEPH-D, andBTEX. All the soil samples except those collected from the "none/trace" piles will consistof two discrete samples composited in the laboratory. The samples collected from the"none/trace" piles will be discrete samples intended to verify compliance with ADEC's. moststringent (Level A) cleanup guidelines. Samples from the "low," "moderate," and "high" piles(i.e., from the piles placed in the treatment facilities) will be analyzed within 48 hours ofcollection to minimize delay in treatment startup.
Before the soils in the treatment facilities are spread, the analytical results will be reviewedto determine if any of the soils were classified incorrectly on the basis of field screening.Any soil piles found to contain more extensive contamination than indicated by the fieldscreening will be moved to the appropriate treatment area (or stockpiling area as specifiedabove) before the soils are spread.
28EA Engineering Scien ce, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediadon
ailsoils classified as "very high" on the basis of analytical testing will be stockpiled in theUrxisting bermed enclosures for possible incineration in the Base boilers (a separate work
plan for the soil incineration demonstration test is currently in preparation). The remainingsoils requiring treatment will be spread in the land treatment facilities after all soils havebeen moved to the proper locations. Soils will be spread by leveling and spreading out theindividual soil piles to the designed thicknesses (see Section 4.2).
Ri-weekly tilling of soils in the landfarming and lined facilities will begin the same week thesoils are spread. Irrigation of soils in the TE landfarming and lined facilities will begin noearlier than 30 days after the soils have been spread. This will allow for significantvolatilization of the lighter-end fuel constituents such as BTEX before irrigation begins (seeSection 2.2), thus reducing the potential for leaching. Further details of normal treatmentfacility operations are discussed in Section 5.
t4
29E4 Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease11206.11 eajb-bioarpt Work Plan for Biorernediation
.5. TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
The operation and maintenance procedures for the treatment facilities are presented in thefollowing sections. No maintenance is anticipated except for contingency repair of the linerin the lined facility as discussed in Section 5.4.3 below. Since other maintenance is notanticipated, a separate maintenance section has not been included.
5.1 Operation Procedures
5.1.1 Landspreading Operation
The landspreading is designed to be a passive operation. Accordingly, the operation willbe limited to periodic visual inspections to verify that vehicles are not driving over andcompacting the treatment soils, and that the facility is still intact. Monitoring plans for thefacility are presented in Sections 5.2 and 7.1.3.
5.1.2 Landfarming Operation
ae landfarming will be conducted in two areas. Operation of landfarming facility T, to beWnstructed in area A-2 (Figure 3), will involve periodic tilling only. Landfarming facility
'if will be constructed in area A-3. In addition to periodic tilling, operation of facility TEwill involve enhancement of soil moisture and nutrients as necessary to maintain optimalconditions for biodegradation.
The landfanning treatment areas will be tilled hi-weekly with equipment designed to turnover the soil. The tilling is designed to provide oxygen to a depth of 12".
Weather data and field soil conditions will be monitored weekly to determine if water mustbe added to facility TE to maintain optimal soil moisture content. If water must be added,the application rate, land speed, and coverage, area of the water truck will be adjusted asnecessary to deliver not more than 1/4 inch of water to the soil in one pass. If moremoisture is required, a subsequent watering will be conducted after completely watering thetest area with the initial 1/4 inch of water.
9.30
E4 Engineering Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioreme di adon
)Commercial fertilizers will be added to the soil in the TE facility prior to the first wateringevent. Areas A-2 and A-3 will be visually inspected periodically to verify that vehicles arenot driving over and compacting the treatment soils.
5.1.3 Cell Biorernediation Oeration and Maintenance
Cell bioremnediation operations in area A-4 will be very similar to the landfarxningoperations planned for area A-3. Tilling, visual inspections, moisture maintenance andnutrient addition are identical to the procedures listed for landfarrning facility TE.
Additionally, cell bioremediation will include excess moisture recovery. Area A-4 will belined with a flexible membrane liner to collect any excess moisture (Figure 5). The excessmoisture will drain to a large sumnp adjacent to the cell. The water will be recovered fromthe sump and re-applied to the soil. Moisture control of the cell bioremnediation mayinclude the removal of ice and snow in the spring.
The cell biorernediation treatability test is designed to treat two layers in the cell during two)summers. After the first layer achieves cleanup goals remnediated soil will be removed. Thea
tilling, moisture maintenance, and nutrient addition will continue on the second layer untilVremediation is complete or the treatability test is concluded.
5.2 Periodic Monitoring
Operation and maintenance of the facilities will include periodic testing, monitoring, andevaluation of the progress of the remedial technologies. Monitoring will be conducted ontreatment soils, underlying clean soils, and groundwater. The specific sampling and testingprocedures for the monitoring plan are described in Section 7.
Evaluation of the monitoring data will include regular assessments of the progress of thebioremnediation tests. Based on the evaluation,- operational procedures may be altered forone or more of the technology tests to improve remedial progress.
Test data will also be assessed for potential conditions that may require implementation ofthe contingency plans (Section 5.4).
31LA Engjneeding Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose11206411 eaJ'b-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
Facility Closure
Soils in the treatment facilities will be removed at the completion of the treatability tests.The soils will be removed from each test facility as soon as the soil achieves the cleanupgoals as demonstrated by closure sampling. If any soils do not achieve cleanup goals, thesoils will either be placed in temporary storage or transferred to other treatment facilities.
The treatment facilities will be dismantled when they are no longer needed by EAFB. Forthe landfarming and landspreading facilities, removal of the buffer soils will complete thedismantling of the facilities. The cell bioremediation facility will have a gravel bed, drainpipe, and a synthetic liner that must be removed. After all treatment facilities have beendismantled, the land treatment site will be filled and graded as necessary to match originalground contours.
5.4 Contingency for Operation Failure
jotentialioperational failure of the treatability study includes the following three items:
* excessive leachate production;
* failure to achieve cleanup goals during the test period;
* liner damage.
These potential failure conditions and associated contingency plans are discussed in thefollowing sections. EPA and ADEC staff will be notified and consulted before taking anycontingency action.
5.4.1 Contingency for Leachate Production
The proposed treatment facilities are designed to contain any leachate production within theclean buffer soils. Rainfall, weather conditions, and soil moisture will be closely monitoredduring the treatability study to anticipate the production of leachate.
32EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease11206.11 eaj'o-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
The response to leachate production will depend on contaminant levels in underlying soilsaffected by leachate. Actions may include increased tilling, particularly after precipitationevents to increase evaporation. If more drastic action is required, the soil may be removedand placed in temporary storage in a bermed enclosure of the CSSA.
5.4.2 Failure to Meet Cleanup Standard
It is possible that cleanup goals will not be achieved during the test. The soils in thetreatment facilities will be monitored monthly. If monitoring indicates that remediation isnot maltdng substantial progress, the treatment processes will be re-evaluated. Treatmentprocedures may be modified to increase remediation progress.
If any area has not achieved cleanup goals by the end of the designed test period, treatmentprocesses will be reevaluatedIhie test may be extended for another sumnme~j modified basedon success of other remedial techniques, or returned to storage pending further treatment,option evaluation.
j)5.4.3 Liner Failure
The flexible membrane liner is designed exceed ADEC and manufacturer's requirementsfor its intended use. Consequently, failure is not anticipated except from accidental physicaldamage.
If the liner is damaged during installation or operation, the damaged area will be isolated,cleaned, and repaired. Additional liner material will be kept at the site to provide materialfor patching.
33£4 Engineering Science, and Technologj Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediadon
. ab~c12. Summary of Parameters to be Tested
Media Contaminant Operational ParametersParameters'
Contaminated Soils- initial Characterization TOV Total Kjeldalhl Nitrogen
TEPH-D Ortho P hasph ateTVPH-G Mirobial activity (fertility)
BTEX ~~~~goLture contentHydraulic conductivityTotal*organc carbon
- Monitoring TEPH-D Moisture contentTVPH-G
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _B T E X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Buffer Soils- Initial Characterization TEPH-D Hydraulic conductivity
BTEX
- Monitoring TEPH-D (none)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _B T E X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Groundwater- niia CarctriatonBTEX_ .................. (!R) .. .....
- Monitoring BTEX (none)
Other-Initial Characterization _ irg La - ~Monitoring (none) Daily Temperature2
W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daily Precipitation2
___ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ ___I EvaporationRate 2
TEPH-D - Total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (quantified as diesel)TVPH-G - Total volative petroleum hydrocarbons (quantified as gasoline)BTEX - Total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenesTOV - Total organic vapors measured in the field with organic vapor analyzer/meter
'Climatic data will be obtained from the Base weather station.
35EA Ensineedn& Scienc4 and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Ejoremediation
6. PARAMETERS TO BE TESTED
Parameters to be tested during the soil treatability study include contaminant parametersand operational parameters. Contaminant parameters include characterization ofcontaminant concentrations (e.g., petroleum constituents) in soil and groundwater media.Operational parameters include soil nutrients, biological activity, physical properties, andother parameters that affect biodegradation rates or describe physical characteristics of soiland groundwater.
Contaminant and operational parameters to be tested are summarized in Table 12.Parameters are presented either as initial characterization or monitoring in this table. Initialcharacterization refers to tests that are performed prior to placement of the soils in thetreatment facilities. Monitoring refers to tests that are performed once treatment operationsbegin, and continue monthly for chemical analyses. Analytical method references forlaboratory procedures are outlined in Section 8. Specific sampling and analysisrequirements are detailed in Section 7.1.
34EA Engineeding Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediadion
0 ~~~~7. SAMPLING AND MONITORING PLAN
7.1 Sampling Requirements
A summiary of the sampling requirements for the project, including analytical parameters,sampling frequency, and number of samples, is provided in Table 13. Details of thesampling requirements are discussed below. The analytical methods associated with theanalytical parameters shown in Table 13 are summarized in Table 14 (Section 8).
36ELA Engineering Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206211 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
bEJ
0 0 0 B
bo 31~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
U)~ ~~~~~ 0 I-
I-~~~~~~~C
C.0
I~~~~0
... 0 .!I 07Mc 0~~~~0. ~ L
o l.w4- ZS>.~~- - . m b U
1.4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
o C~~~> A u~ waen~ ~ 'C .. 00C svC)~~~~~~-
C ~ ~ ~ C
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
co
.0 ~ 0
a 0 'U~~~400
0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~c
0 to~~~~~~~~.
U, -.
O -. 22
.J -0
toc£o z 80
u tz.4.. 4)
)7.1.1 Spreading an Baseline Characterizaation of Liner Soils l
The buffer soils will be spread directly on native soils. After the contaminated soils havebeen spread, composite samples of the buffer soils will be collected from approximately 2-8inches depth below the buffer soil/contaminated soil interface, according to the proceduresoutlined in Section 7.2. One or more composite samples of the clean buffer soils will besubmitted for each 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils receiving treatment. Eachcomposite sample will consist of two discrete samples collected from random locationswithin a 10-foot diameter circle. The locations of the 10-foot diameter circles will be chosento provide representative spatial coverage, and the center of the circles will be staked toensure that Ieachate monitoring samples are collected from the same area each month (seeSection 7.1.3.2). The buffer soil samples will be analyzed for TEPH and BTEX to providebaseline characterization of fuel hydrocarbon concentrations. Sample compositing will bedone by the laboratory.
7.1.2 Segregation. Baselin Characterization ad Spreading of Contaminated Soils
After the contaminated soils are segregated and placed in individual stockpiles accordingto the criteria outlined in Section 4.3, one or more composite samples will then be collected0from each pile in order to provide baseline characterization of the soils. Each compositesample will consist of two discrete samples collected according to the procedures outlinedin Section 7.2. Sample compositing will be done by the laboratory.
The samples will be analyzed for TVPH-G, TEPH-D, and BTEX; these analyses will beperformed within 48 hours of sample collection to minimize delay in final placement andspreading of soils. Selected samples also will be analyzed for the following operationalparameters so that treatment conditions can be optimized:
* Microbial activity 0 Total organic carbon (TOC)* Hydraulic conductivity S Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)* Moisture content 0 Ortho phosphate* pH
Depending on the analytical results, some soil piles may be moved if the results do notagree with the earlier field screening results (see Section 4.3).
39£4 Engineering, Science, and Technology Elelson Air Force Base11206.11 eajb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
idl.3LTreatmnt nMonlitrin~
Several types of treatment monitoring will be conducted. Petroleum hydrocarbonconcentrations in the treatment soils will be monitored to track contamination reduction asa function of time. Moisture content of the soils in the landfarming-TE and lined facilitieswill be monitored so that watering schedules can be adjusted to maintain optimum soilmoisture conditions (i.e. 50%-100% of field capacity), while at the same time minimizingthe potential for leachate production. Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the cleanbuffer soils of the landspreading and landfarming facilities will be monitored to determinewhether hydrocarbons are leaching from the treatment soils in these facilities. Finally,petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in shallow groundwater at the up-gradient and down-gradient margins of the land treatment area will be monitored to determine whetherdissolved hydrocarbons attributable to the land treatment operations are migrating from thesite. Each of these monitoring tasks is discussed separately below.
7.1.3.1 Contaminant Reduction and Soil Moisture Monitorin2
Contaminated soils will be sampled monthly to monitor hydrocarbon reduction rates. In* ition, soil moisture content will be monitored.>eekly -CIJ..
One composite sample consisting of two discrete samples will be collected from each 500cubic yards of treatment soils for hydrocarbon analysis. Sampling locations will bedetermined by placing a rectangular grid over the treatment soils, with each grid celldelineating 500 cubic yards of soil. The center of each grid cell will then be marked witha numbered stake, and the two discrete samples will be collected from random locationswithin a 10-foot diameter circle centered at the stake. Each month, samples will becollected from random locations within the same 10-foot circles. Samples will be collectedin accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 7.2.
The samples will be composited in the laboratory. Each composite sample will be analyzedfor up to three parameters: 1) TEPH-D, 2) TVPH-G, and 3) BTEX. The actual analysesperformed will depend upon whether a given parameter was detected at levels above theADEC Level A cleanup level for that parameter in the previous month's sampling (seeTable 9, Section 3). Soil samples will only be tested for those parameters which exceededthe ADEC Level A cleanup levels in the previous month's sampling. Monthly monitoring
40E4 Engineefng& Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eaj/b-bio.rpt Work Plan for Bioremtediatdon
results will be compared against the baseline characterization and previous months' data todetermine contamination reduction rates.
7.1.3.2 Leachate Migration Monitoring
Leachate migration monitoring will be conducted by periodically sampling and analyzingboth the clean buffer soils and shallow groundwater beneath the treatment area for fuelhydrocarbons. Buffer soils in the landspreading and landfarming facilities will be sampledmonthly during May - September for the duration of soil treatment in these facilities.Shallow groundwater at the up-gradient and down-gradient margins of the land treatmentsite also will be sampled monthly during May - September for the duration of the project.These two leachate monitoring strategies are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Baseline characterization sampling of the buffer soils will be conducted at the start of soiltreatment as described in Section 7. 1. 1. Thereafter, buffer soils within 8 inches of the buffersoil/contaminated soil interface will be sampled monthly to monitor for leaching of fuelhydrocarbons from the treatment soils. One composite sample of buffer soils consisting oftwo discrete samples will be collected for each 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils inthe landspreading/landfarming facilities. Monthly samples will be collected from randomlocations within the same 10-foot diameter circles from which the baseline characterizationsamples were obtained. Sample collection procedures are outlined in Section 7.2.
The buffer soil samples will be composited in the laboratory. Each composite sample willbe analyzed for TEPH-D and BTEX. The monthly analytical results will be comparedagainst the baseline characterization and previous months' data to determine whetherdissolved hydrocarbons are leaching into the buffer soils. If concentrations of TEPH-D,benzene, or total BTEX in any of the buffer soils are found to exceed ADEC's Level Bcleanup levels for these parameters (200 mg/kg, 0.5 mg/kg, and 15 mg/kg, respectively), thebuffer soils will be re-sampled to confirm these results. If non-compliance of the buffer soilsis confirmed, EPA and ADEC will be consulted to decide whether to discontinue thetreatment and transfer the contaminated soils to a lined facility. Additional details ofcontingency plans for operation failure are described in Section 5.4.
Four shallow groundwater monitoring wells will be installed around the land treatment site.One well will be installed along the up-gradient margin of the site, and three wells Wil be
41LA Engineering, Science, and Technology Lie ton Air Force Base1120611 eafb-bio.rpt Work Plan for Biorenmediafion
Stailed along the down-gradient margin. The proposed monitoring well locations areouwn in Figure 3.
The wells will be installed in accordance with EPA guidance for construction of groundwatermonitoring wells. Since groundwater occurs at 5-10 feet below the surface in the area ofLF03 (HLA, 1989), it is anticipated that the wells will be approximately 18 feet deep, withthe 3-18 foot interval being screened. Groundwater samples will be collected from themonitoring wells at the start of the study, to establish baseline groundwater quality anddepth at the site. Thereafter, groundwater samples will be collected from the four wells ona monthly basis during May - September. Sampling will be conducted in accordance withEPA guidelines for groundwater sampling; general groundwater sampling procedures to befollowed are described in Section 7.2.
Groundwater samples will be analyzed for BTEX. Monthly analytical results will becompared against the initial baseline characterization and previous months' data to monitorfor evidence of leachate migration from the land treatment site. A 100 percent or greatericrease in baseline concentrations of at least two of the analytes in any sample will be
terretd a posibe eidecefor leachate migration, and will trigger immediate re-npligofthe oniorin welsIf the 100-percent increase in the concentration of twoalyts i cofiredthegrondwterdata will be interpreted as possible evidence for
leachate migration, and EPA and ADEC will be consulted to decide whether treatmentshould be discontinued.
7.1.4 Other Monitoring
Daily precipitation, temperature, and evaporation (if available) data will be gathered for theduration of the study. These data will be obtained from the Base weather station.
7.1.5 Closure Confirmation
To demonstrate successful remediation of contaminated soils, the treated soils will bediscretely sampled at a density of one sample per 100 cubic yards of soil. Samplingprocedures to be followed are described in Section 7.2. The closure samples will beanalyzed for TVPH-G, TEPH-D, and BTEX. Any sample containing concentrations ofthese analytes which are all less than ADEC's most stringent (Level A) cleanup levels will
42ELA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajb-bioarpt Work Plan for Biorernediation
be considered as confirmation that the 100 cubic yards of soil represented by the samplehave been successfully remediated.
7.2 Sample Collection, Handling, and Custody
The following describes specific sampling procedures for soil and groundwater samples.Samples will be collected in accordance with all applicable guidelines of the ADEC. Theseprocedures will be consistent with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (See Section 7.3).
AUl samples will be assigned a unique identification number. The specific number ofsamples and types of analyses planned are summarized in Table 13.
Compositing of soil samples will be performed in the analytical laboratory. No compositesample shall consist of more than two discrete samples. The composite samples will provideinformation on the average concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons.
7.2.1 Soil Samples
Soil samples will be collected from locations described above in Section 7.1. Soil samplesto be submitted for laboratory analysis will be collected in 2-inch diameter, six-inch longbrass liners, or in glass jars with Teflon-lined plastic caps.
Samples will be collected from soil piles by first digging a sampling pit with a hand auger,post hole digger, or power auger. Soils exposed at the bottom of the sampling pit will bescreened for organic vapor concentrations using an organic vapor analyzer (SID) or meter(PmD). Samples will then be collected from the required depth by forcing a brass samplingtube directly into the undisturbed soil at the bottom of the pit, either manually or using astainless steel drive sampler and slide hammer. The ends of the brass sample tubes will beimmediately covered with a layer of aluminum foil and capped with tightly-fitting plastic endcaps sealed with Teflon tape.
It is possible that the presence of gravel may limit the ability to force sampling tubes intothe soil. Samples may then be collected in glass sample jars by manually loading soil intothe jars until they are completely full, and then sealing the jars with Teflon-lined screw lids.
43£,4 Engineering Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose11206.11 eafb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediation
C edbrass tubes and the sample jars will be securely labeled with the sample number andd ate and time of sample collection. The samples will then be sealed in separate plastic
"zip-lock" plastic bags and immediately placed in coolers containing ice for delivery underchain-of-custody to an analytical laboratory. All sampling data will be logged in field notesby the sampling team.
The brass tubes and the digging and sampling equipment will be decontaminated byscrubbing with an Alconox/water solution and then thoroughly rinsing with distilled water.The sample collection equipment will be decontaminated between sampling locations toprevent cross-contamination.
7.2.2 Groundwater Samples
Groundwater samples will be collected from the monitoring wells according to themonitoring plan outlined in Table 13 and described in Section 7.1.3.2. Prior to sampling,a minimum of three casing volumes will be purged. Purging will continue until fieldmeasurements of pH, temperature, and specific conductance stabilize, indicating stagnantwater has been removed and representative aquifer water has entered the well.
Oroundwater samples for laboratory analysis will be withdrawn using clean stainless steelor disposable polyethylene bailers and emptied into 40-ml VOA vials. No headspace shallremain in the sample bottles. Sample withdrawal will occur immediately after purging. Thesamples will not be filtered. A single duplicate sample will be collected after every tenthnatural sample, and a travel blank will be submitted with each sampling episode.
All sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to each sample collection.Decontamination procedures for sampling equipment will consist of a brush wash in anAlconox/water solution and a distilled water rinse. New sample bottles will be supplied bythe laboratory.
7.3 Quality Assurance Project Plan
A site-wide Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) has been prepared for the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study being conducted at Eielson AFB. The QAPP is contained
inthe RI/FS Site Management Plan (CH2M Hill, 1991c) and is presently a draft document.(4 purpose of this QAPP is to specify the overall procedures and methods for office and
44E A Engineering, Science, and Technnoooy9Eiels on Air Force Base1120611 eaJb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
field documentation of field sampling data, sample handling and custody, record keeping,equipment handling and calibration, laboratory analyses, and data validation that will beconducted during the Eielson AFB Rn/ES.
Unless otherwise stated in this work plan, the bioremnediation treatability study wil followthe requirements of the QAPP for the Eielson AFB RI/FS. Project-specific data qualityobjectives, field sampling QA/OC procedures, laboratory analysis QA/OC procedures, anddata validation procedures for the present treatability study are outlined below.
7.3.1 Data Quality Objectives
Data quality objectives for sample collection and analysis are based on the end use of thedata. The intended use of data obtained during the treatability study is evaluation ofalternatives. As described in the EPA Data Quality Objectives manual (U.S. EPA, 1987), thisincludes use of data to evaluate alternative remedial technologies and develop costestimates. This may involve bench or pilot scale studies to determine if a particular processor material can be effective in mitigating site contamination.
An appropriate analytical level for data used in evaluation of alternatives is Level M1. Thisdesignation is consistent with analytical requirements stated in the Eielson QAPP (CH2MHill, 1991ic). Collection of critical samples, requiring rigorous validation as defined in U.S.EPA (1987), will not be required for assessing remedial technology performance.
7.3.2 Field Sampling QA/OC Procedures
Field quality control (QC) sampling requirements are documented in the QAPP for theEielson AFB RI/FS (CH2M Hill, 1991c). In summary, the following field QC samples willbe required for soil and groundwater samples:
* field duplicate samples, collected and submitted for analysis at a rate ofapproximately 10 percent of all soil samples collected;
* equipment blank, collected and submitted for analysis at a rate of one sampleper day per sampling device;
&9~ ~~~
45EA4 Engineering Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Ease1120611 eajbi-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremediafion
* S ~~travel blank, submitted for analysis at a rate of one per shipping container;and
* container (bottle) blank, submitted for analysis at a rate of one per bottle lot.
OC sample preparation is described in the QAPP.
7.3.3 Laboratory OA/OC Procedures
Laboratory QA/QC procedures will be consistent with the QAPP as appropriate for theanalytical method used. Because the analytical level is defined as Level M, use of ContractLaboratory Program (CLP) analytical procedures for sample analysis is optional and fullCLP documentation is not required.
Soil samples will be sent to one of four analytical laboratories: EA Laboratories ofBaltimore, Maryland; Pacific Northwest Environmental Laboratories of Redmond,Washington; Columbia Analytical Services of Kelso, Washington; or Northern Testing of
)a~rbaflks Alaska. All four laboratories are certified by ADEC and have previouslynemtted their quality assurance/quality control procedures to the State of Alaska.
7.3.4 Data Validation
The project quality control officer or designated personnel will validate analytical data usingapplicable protocol from the current version of Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses (EPA, 1985). The data validationwill consist of review of 10 percent of all raw data and evaluation of QA/QC data providedby the laboratory. Non-CLP methods will be evaluated using Functional Guidelines whereapplicable. Otherwise, non-CLP data will be evaluated for the QA/QC parameters usingprecision and accuracy limits contained in the QAFP and evaluation procedures requiredby the relevant analytical method. A QA/QC sutnmary will be prepared for inclusion in thefinal project technical report. The QA/OC summary will describe the review and theusability of the analytical data based on the QA/OC criteria. These criteria are fullydescribed in the QAPP.
46£4 Engineering, Science, and Technology Elelson Air Force Base1120611 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediatfon
)7.3,5 Data Mana~eement
Management of field and analytical data will follow applicable procedures and formatsspecified in the Eielson AFB Rn/ES QAPP. This includes all activities relating to datacollection, storage, reporting, and transfer.
47E4 Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielton Air Force Base1120611 eajbu-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
8. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Field and laboratory analytical methods and references are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14. Summary of Field and Laboratory Analytical Methods
Medium and AnalysisLocation Analytes Method
Soil - Analytical TEPH-D - Total Extractable Petroleum EPA Method 8100Laboratory Hydrocarbons (quantified as diesel) (Modified)
TVPH-G - Total Volatile Petroleum EPA Method 8015Hydrocarbons (quantified as gasoline) (Modified)
BTEX - Beuzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and EPA Method 8020)xylenes (purgeable aromatics)
Soil pH (1:1 slurry) EPA 150.1
Total organic carbon EPA 41-5.1/9060
Hydraulic conductivity ASTM 2434
Ortlio phosphate EPA 365.3
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen EPA 351.4
Microbial activity (fertility) To be determined
Particle size ASTM D-422
Moisture content ASTM D-2216
Soil - Field Screening TOV - Total Organic Vapors Foxbora Century 128Organic Vapor Analyzer
Moisture content Field probe
Groundwater - Analytical BTEX - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and EPA Method 8020Laboratory xylenes (purgeable aromatics) ____________
Other Temperature Base weather station dataPrecipitation
_____ ____ ____ ____ Evaporation
48EA Engineering Sdienc4 and TechnoloV Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremecdi ation
) ~~~~9. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Analysis and interpretation of data collected during the treatability study will consist ofquantifying treatment efficiencies for each of the bioremnediation treatment tests andevaluating the effect of operational parameters on the calculated efficiencies. These tasksare described below. Other analyses may also be performed to reflect experience with siteconditions and the actual final design and configuration of the treatment facilities.
9.1 Bioremediation Efficiency
As described in Section 2.2.1, degradation of organic compounds is soil is typically describedby monitoring theft disappearance in a soil through time using the first-order decay model[dC/dt=-kC where C is the contaminant concentration (mass/mass) and k is the first orderrate constant (1/timne)]. Periodic treatment monitoring during the course of the field studywill produce time histories of TVPH-G, TEPH-D, and BTEX concentrations in each of thefour treatment facilities. These data will be used to derive rate constants (or half-lives) foreach treatment scheme. The percent contaminant reduction and the time required toachieve target cleanup levels will be calculated. The data will be tabulated and graphed toi ) ustrate contamination reduction over time.
9.2 Operational Parameters
Data for various other parameters, such as climate, physical soil properties, nutrient levels,and soil depth will be collected during the course of the field program. An importantobjective of the project is to determine the effects of these parameters on bioremediationrates. To accomplish this objective, monitoring results (e.g., half-lives or percentcontaminant reduction over the study period) from the treatment tests will be evaluated bycomparing bioremediation efficiencies with variations in operational parameters. The effectsof each operational parameter on bioremediation efficiency Wil be determined. Theseinterpretations will aid in the determination of optimum operational parameters for site-specific soils and contaminants.
49EA Engineeding Science, and Technology Lieton Air Force Base1120611 eafbl-bioapt Work Plan for Bioremneiafion'
0 ~~~~~10. HEALTH AND SAFETY
A site health and safety plan (HSP) for the bioremediation project will be prepared priorto initiation of field activities. The purpose of the HSP is to provide hazard information andsafety guidelines for personnel involved in sampling, handling, and remediation ofcontaminated soils. The HSP developed for the EAFB thermal treatment demonstrationtest (EA, 1991) will be modified as necessary and will be used as the HSP for the
bioremediation project.
Because the passive technology used in bioremnediation is very simple, no special hazardsare 'excpected. Heavy equipment used during the project will be limited to conventionalearthmoving vehicles that will be operated by trained personnel. Chemicals added to thelandfarm. and cell bioremediation facilities will consist of commercial fertilizers which willbe applied and handled according to manufacturer's recommendations. Regular airmonitoring in the breathing zone of site workers will be conducted, and air-purifyingrespirators will be worn as necessary mn accordance with the criteria specified in the HSP.Personal protective equipment equivalent to Level D or C (boots, hardhats, safety glasses,respirators as necessary) should be sufficient for all site operations.
K.~~~~~~~~~~~~~s
EA Engineering Science, and Technology Elelson Air Force Base1120611 eaJb-bio.rpt Work Plan for Biorernediatdon
11. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
The soil treatability study will be conducted in the vicinity of the Asbestos Landfill on Base.With the exception of small quantities of soil that will be collected for laboratory analysis,all contaminated soils will be contained in the bioremnediation treatment facilities. Noresiduals will be generated from these units during the study period. Residuals generatedin the analytical laboratory will be disposed of using standard laboratory procedures.
51EA Engineering Science, and Technology Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 eafo-bio~rpt Work Plan for Biorernediafton
12. SCHEDULE AND REPORTS
12.1 Schedule
The schedule for the bioremediation project is summarized in Figure 6.
This work plan will be submitted for agency review by 21 April 1992. During the period 21April to 15 May 1992, ADEC and EPA Region 10 will review the work plan and providecomments. ADEC approval of the plan is expected by May 15.
Initial field sampling and construction of the treatment facilities will proceed immediatelyafter approval by ADEC. Because of the short summer season, the project must be initiatedby 15 May 1992. Any significant delay beyond this date will result in deferral of the projectuntil 1993.
Any soils that have not reached target cleanup levels by the end of the 1992 field season willbe covered with plastic sheeting and treatment operations will cease for the winter.Treatment operations will resume the following spring/summer, after snow has either
*l Ited or been cleared from the treatment facilities.
All field activities associated with the bioremediation treatability study will be completedby 1 October 1993.
12.2 Reports
Prior to initiation of field activities, a site health and safety plan will be prepared. Twosummary technical reports will be prepared to document the progress and results of thestudy. The first report, to be prepared and submitted after completion of the first fieldseason in 1992, will document field operations, analytical and bioremediation efficiencyresults, and project status. The second summary report, to be prepared and submitted aftercompletion of the second field season in 1993, will document any required permits,contamination characterization results, final treatment facility design and plans, volumes ofmaterials treated, contamination reduction and compliance monitoring results (including aQA/OC sunmmary), and an evaluation of the treatment costs and efficiencies. The summaryreports will also document any significant deviations from this work plan.
52E4 Engineeding, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajb-bioarpt Work Plan for Bioremediation
0~~~~~~~~~~~~IL
0 -~~~ C
0. - pCL L4;-
CD -- A
wogl~w
NZ C, (00ien
CD_ D~ - - - -
IL~~~~~~~~
z w~~~~~~~~~~~~o40~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
% - a)±.., -J r- . -
5 ,z.., 4~~- 4*~*>* od 4 5 c 2
cst - E- CD 0 CO ) - 0-±
CL C fl-
) 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~a C ._ (D_ _ £0
CL O- 0 ~0-O
4 a~~~ am
I ~~0o. 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.L
53~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1EA ngieen& ciecean TehnoovEiesonAi Foce as1120611 eaj~~~~~iorpt Work Plan for Bioremediation~~~~~~~~1
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 1991. Guidance for Storage,Remediation and Disposal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils. 15 March 1991.
CH2M HUI, 1991la. Vehicle Maintenance Shop and Fuel Pipeline Report, Eielson AirForce Base, Alaska. July 1991. Prepared for Battelle Environmental ManagementOperations by CH12M Hill, Anchorage, AK.
CH2M Hill, 1991b. Draft OU-1 and OU-2 Interim Remedial Action Plan. Eielson AirForce Base, AK. 5 December 1991.
CH2M Hill, 1991c. Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Volume 2, SiteManagement Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Prepared for BattelleEnvironmental Management Operations by CH2M Hill, Corvallis, OR.
Clapp, R.B., and G.M. Homnberger. 1978. Empirical Equations for some Soil HydrologicProperties. Water Resources Research. 14:601-604.
EA, 1991. Site Safety and Health Plan for Field Screening, Sampling, and ThermalTreatment of Stockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force Base. EAEngineering, Science, and Technology, Redmond, WA..1992. Remediation of Fuel-Contaminated Soil Stockpiles at Eielson Air Force Base,Thermal Desorption Treatment Summary Report, Volume 1: Project Description. EAEngineering, Science, and Technology, Redmond, WA.
Farino, W., P. Spawn, M. Jasinski, and B. Murphy, 1983. Evaluation and Selection ofModels for Estimating Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, andDisposal Facilities. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSolid Waste, Land Disposal Branch. GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA.
Kostecki, P.T., and EJ. Calabrese, 1990. Petroleum Contaminated Soils, Volume 3. LewisPublishers, Chelsea, Mich.
Linsley, RIG., M.A. Kohler, J.LH. Paulus, 1975. Hydrology for Engineers. McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NI0511), 1990. Pocket Guide toChemical Hazards; June 1990.
Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1988. Remedial Technologies for Leaking Underground StorageTanks. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute and Edison ElectricInstitute by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Concord, CA.
54EA Engineering Science, and Technology Eielscon Air Force Base1120611 eafb-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediation
*Sims, J.L, R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated SurfaceSoils. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Office of Research and Development~ Ada, OK. EPA-600/9-89/073.
Thiobodeaux, UJ., and S.T. Hwang, 1982. Landfarming of Petroleum Wastes - Modelingthe Air Emission Problem. In: Environmental Progress, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Turner, D.B., 1970. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), 1989. Memorandum for CENPA-EN-PM-AF:Add to Vehicle Maintenance, HTW Investigation, Bielson AFB, AK. 7 June 1989.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities, Volume 1,Development Process. EPA 540/G-87/003A, March 1987. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Office of Remedial Response and Office of Waste ProgramsEnforcement, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-88/0O1.
*)U.S. EPA, 1985. Laboratory Data Validation: Functional Guidelines for Evaluating OrganicAnalyses. Prepared for the Hazardous Site Control Division. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Hazardous Site Evaluation, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Superfind Public Health Evaluation Manual. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.EPA/540/1-86/060.
USDC, 1969. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce,Environmental Sciences Services Administration, Environmental Data Service.National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.
55EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base1120611 eajbi-bio~rpt Work Plan for Bioremnediadon
___ �LI
* II X\&\'IJ A j1ILkRI�. If �ii �C'\'-i�i <I; 2'': C
V
27K Cl
II V 1II? - LO
A '-A ,''� - - *1 I C-
F i';� �''' II.A
i-I I t -C
'-4 � ball I'-i-I a
'I-i - I.11 Ji'
4
I, IJ4�I I
it' N' t�rr 4j9t>� t� � 4�uK
N. KI'
I a
'1 � 'I
2 U(vY�.c� ,,yr��'j I-�
II
Ii S'3
I-S
k II I� '/ 6 I _I �if 13
I I#I1 .9
t� IS
-'F 5K
V 'S
-- ��:
K& >.<t�. U
-T ''Ir a
it < %~~~~~~~~~~~~~..-\ '-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A1~~~~~~~~~~ 0LD O
~~~~~~~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~~~V
a~~~ P-5 I~~~~~~~~j ~ ~ ~ ~ 'F * gg*~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~ql~~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 - c
p * p 1>4: (NJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
2 I iii j '1*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L.5 II'~~~~~~~~ 'F ~ C-
'*4 4* . I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i\''~~~~~~~~~~'J&~~~~~~~Lj 'V~~~~~~1
t .4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'A .,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~/,*\ I *' S 4'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
9 P . ovf&Y" 4. H-'- 0-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
A> iP~~~~~~~~~~~~~j-A 7 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 ~~~~~~L
0.~~~~ ~ ~ i.sv /'.A Wco~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b