Dioxin Soil Cleanup Case Study: A Mixof Conventional Field and NewLaboratory TechniquesKeith Taylor, C.G., P.G.Patrick Cou...
Introduction            Topics to Be Covered Today•   Utility Pole Contamination•   Soil Sampling Methods•   Dioxin Testin...
Utility Pole Contamination      Utility poles treated to prevent decay•   Creosote•   Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)•   P...
Pentachlorophenol• Penta still used as utility pole preservative  today.• 36 million poles with Penta preservative in  use...
Dioxins• Dioxin is an unavoidable byproduct of Penta  manufacturing.• EPA says 2,3,7,8-TCDD (most toxic dioxin)  must be l...
Dioxins• Dioxin cleanup standards vary widely.• Most based on future land use scenarios.• Standards below are not complete...
Site Description• Utility pole storage site in northern New  England since 1984.• Two areas of storage:   • Pole Yard   • ...
Site LayoutPole Yard with Cribs
Previous Work (by others)• Sampling initially focused on Penta, PAHs,  CCA—Penta became primary COC.• 200 tons of Penta-co...
Previous Work (by others)• 34 borings and 66 samples for dioxin later...(Lab costs alone in the $35,000-$60,000 range usin...
Schematic Cross Section                                                          22.2          176    0.7                 ...
Previous Work (by others)                DUST WITH                 DIOXINSoil Pile from Penta Excavation
Previous Work (by others)Do the math--  Overbudget  Project Delays  + Dioxin Extent Unclear  Unhappy Client       New Cons...
Our Sampling• Past iterative approach for characterization too  costly, time-consuming.• 20’ grid tied into structures. Li...
Data Analysis• Contoured surface dioxin levels using Surfer  for a visual understanding of its distribution.• Used grids t...
Results      POLE YARD
ResultsSTUB YARD
Remediation DepthsPOLE YARD               Planned soil removal               boundaries and depths               18 ng/kg ...
RemediationSTUB YARD      Planned soil removal boundaries       and depths 18 ng/kg standard
Remediation• Industrial Standard (18 ng/kg) selected because  4.5 ng/kg would have significantly increased soil  volume.• ...
Confirmatory Samples
Confirmatory Samples
Cost Considerations   Lab Method:       8290    8290      4025M                 Sample       Approach:            Dig More...
Conclusions/Lessons• Get your COCs right the first time.• If Dioxin is a COC, be careful!• Establish grid for characteriza...
Krt umass 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Krt umass 2011

149

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
149
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Krt umass 2011

  1. 1. Dioxin Soil Cleanup Case Study: A Mixof Conventional Field and NewLaboratory TechniquesKeith Taylor, C.G., P.G.Patrick CoughlinSt.Germain CollinsAEHS/UMASS ConferenceOctober 19, 2011
  2. 2. Introduction Topics to Be Covered Today• Utility Pole Contamination• Soil Sampling Methods• Dioxin Testing• How to Fix a “Broken” Field Investigation• Cost Considerations
  3. 3. Utility Pole Contamination Utility poles treated to prevent decay• Creosote• Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)• Pentachlorophenol (usually a diesel fuel solution) “Penta”• Contaminants of concern PAHs, CCA metals,Penta• (And Dioxin)
  4. 4. Pentachlorophenol• Penta still used as utility pole preservative today.• 36 million poles with Penta preservative in use in the US.
  5. 5. Dioxins• Dioxin is an unavoidable byproduct of Penta manufacturing.• EPA says 2,3,7,8-TCDD (most toxic dioxin) must be less than 1 ppb in Penta.• Dioxin typically regulated using the Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF) approach.• Summing the TEF-adjusted concentrations of detected dioxins gives Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) value.
  6. 6. Dioxins• Dioxin cleanup standards vary widely.• Most based on future land use scenarios.• Standards below are not completely comparable (land uses vary).DIOXIN TEQ CLEANUP STANDARDS (NG/KG) ME NH VT MA “Residential” 10 1,000 4.5 20 “Industrial” 31 5,000 18 300 ng/kg (ppt) levels make cross- contamination a serious field concern
  7. 7. Site Description• Utility pole storage site in northern New England since 1984.• Two areas of storage: • Pole Yard • Stub Yard (broken poles)• Both on bare soil.• Thin fill soil on top of irregular bedrock surface.
  8. 8. Site LayoutPole Yard with Cribs
  9. 9. Previous Work (by others)• Sampling initially focused on Penta, PAHs, CCA—Penta became primary COC.• 200 tons of Penta-contaminated soil removed (stored on-site) with clean confirmatory samples.• So far, so good—Penta distribution made sense, easy to remove. But…• Dioxin testing at request of State (oh-oh!).
  10. 10. Previous Work (by others)• 34 borings and 66 samples for dioxin later...(Lab costs alone in the $35,000-$60,000 range using EPA Method 8290)• Widespread exceedences of Residential standard (4.5 ng/kg).• Extent of dioxin contamination still unclear because of: • No control for sample locations, often irregular. • Sample depth intervals inconsistent. • Cross contamination in the field.
  11. 11. Schematic Cross Section 22.2 176 0.7 0.10 Penta Excavation1 1982 ??? ???3 ??? 33.3 2.6 14 ???
  12. 12. Previous Work (by others) DUST WITH DIOXINSoil Pile from Penta Excavation
  13. 13. Previous Work (by others)Do the math-- Overbudget Project Delays + Dioxin Extent Unclear Unhappy Client New Consultant
  14. 14. Our Sampling• Past iterative approach for characterization too costly, time-consuming.• 20’ grid tied into structures. Limited borings filled in gaps for characterization.• Specific depth intervals, separate boreholes to minimize cross-contamination.• 35 samples analyzed using EPA 4025M, 5 dups using EPA 8290.• More on cost savings later.
  15. 15. Data Analysis• Contoured surface dioxin levels using Surfer for a visual understanding of its distribution.• Used grids to select excavation boundaries, depths, and estimate volumes.• Did not worry about exact location of cleanup threshold boundary since confirmatory sampling would be completed.
  16. 16. Results POLE YARD
  17. 17. ResultsSTUB YARD
  18. 18. Remediation DepthsPOLE YARD Planned soil removal boundaries and depths 18 ng/kg standard
  19. 19. RemediationSTUB YARD Planned soil removal boundaries and depths 18 ng/kg standard
  20. 20. Remediation• Industrial Standard (18 ng/kg) selected because 4.5 ng/kg would have significantly increased soil volume.• Estimated 2,286 tons, 2,108 tons actual.• Confirmatory sampling consisted of 3 to 5-grab composites for each 20’ x 20’ grid—62 samples in total.• Both sidewalls and bottom sampled.• Confirmatory sampling showed two areas that required additional excavation
  21. 21. Confirmatory Samples
  22. 22. Confirmatory Samples
  23. 23. Cost Considerations Lab Method: 8290 8290 4025M Sample Approach: Dig More Actual More Add. Site Char. $27,000 $17,000 $13,000 Remediation & Confirmatory $98,000 $85,000 $65,000 Sampling Soil Disposal $150,000 $174,000 $150,000 TOTALS = $275,000 $276,000 $228,000 COST SAVINGS = 18%St.Germain Collins
  24. 24. Conclusions/Lessons• Get your COCs right the first time.• If Dioxin is a COC, be careful!• Establish grid for characterization and confirmatory sampling.• Consistency in sample depths.• Explore new analytical methods.
  1. ¿Le ha llamado la atención una diapositiva en particular?

    Recortar diapositivas es una manera útil de recopilar información importante para consultarla más tarde.

×