:2*lMIVFile: 18G

44do 1;z4

Project No. 11206.11- - a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Draft)

REMEDIATION OF FUEL-CONTAMINATED SOIL

* ~~~STOCKPILES, EIELSON MIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA

THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

Volume 1: Project Description

r ~~~~~~~~~~~Prepared for

Arnstrong LaboratoryBrooks Air Force Base

San Antonio, Texas

Prepared by

EA Engineering, Science and Technology- ~Northwest Operations

Redmond, Washington

20 January 1992

Project No. 11206.11

(Draft)

REMEDIATION OF FUEL-CONTAMINATED SOILSTOCKPILES, EIELSON MIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA

THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

Volume 1: Pmoject Description

Prepared for

Armstrong LaboratoryBrooks, Air Force Base

San Antonio, Texas

Prepared by

EA Engineering, Science, and TechnologyNorthwest OperationsRedmond, Washington

20 January 1992

Michael P. Ramey, P.E. Robert C. Leet, Ph.D.Project Manager Geologist

EA Engineehing, Science, and Technology i Eielson Air Force Base11206. 11 therdesp.rpi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

S ~~~2. SIT'E DESCRIPTION 3- . ~~~2.1 Contaminated Soil Storage Area 3

2.1.1 Physical Description 3

2.1.2 History32.2 Sources of Fuel-Contaminated Soil Stockpiles 4

2.2.1 Stockpile #1: Tank 300 Soils and UST Soils 42.2.2 Stockpiles #2 and #3: Dining Hall Soils 52.2.3 Stockpile #5: Waste Treatment Soils 62.2.4 Stockpile #6: Alpha-Delta Soils 6

3. PRE-TREATMENT CHARACTERIZATION OF STOCKPILES 83.1 Soil Sampling 8

3.1.1 General Sampling Procedures 83.1.2 Stockpiles #1-3 9IE:. ~~~~3.13 Stockpile #5 9a ~~~~~314Stockpile #6 10

3.1.4.1 Pre-Treatment Sampling 13.1.4.2 Stockpile Segregation 103.1.4.3 Selection of Field Screening Criteria 113.1.4.4 Confirmational Sampling of Untreated Soils 13

3.2 Quantitative Chemistry Analyses 143.2.1 General Analytical Procedures 14

3.2.1.1 Stockpiles #1-3 143.2.1.2 Stockpile #5 143.2.1.3 Stockpile #6 15

3.2.2 Analytical Results 153.2.2.1 Stockpiles #1-3 153.2.2.2 Stockpile #5 173.2.2.3 Stockpile #6 17

LA4 Engineering Science, and Technology ui Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

~~ 4. THERMAL DESORFTI1ON TREATMENT OF STOCKPILES4.1 Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU) Subcontractor Selection Process 19

4.1.1 Cycle 1 194.1.2 Cycle 2 204.1.3 Cycle 3 21

4.2 Description of Treatment Technology 214.2.1 Rotary Kiln - Primary Treatment 224.2.4 Off-Gas Afterburner -- Secondary Treatment 22

4.3 On-Site Operations 224.3.1 General 22

4.3.1.1 Schedule 224.3.1.2 Coordination and Supervision of Field Operations -23

4.3.2 Staging Area 244.3.3 Preparation and Handling of Contaminated Soils 244.3.4 Handling of Treated Soils 25

4.4 Soil Stockpiles Treated 25

5. POST-TREATMENT CONFIRMATIONAL SAMPLING AND FINAL STATUSOF2TREATED SOILS 25.1 Sampling Scheme 27

5.1.1 Sampling Frequency 275.12 SmleNmbrn System 28

5.2GenralSampling Procedures 25.3 uanitaiveChemistry Analyses 3

~~~~~I531.eea Analytical Procedures 35.3.2 Cleanup Criteria 35.3.3 Analytical Results 31

5.4 Final Status of Treated Soils 32

~~ ~ 6. CONCLUSIONS 33

~~ ~ REFERENCES R-1

FIGURES AND TABLES

PHOTOGRAPHS

E4 Engineening, Science, and Technology iv Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 tizerdesp.rpt

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 1991, 8,510 tons of fuel-contaminated soils at Eielson Air Force Base wereremediated on-site using a mobile thermal desorption treatment unit. The soils had

accumulated at various construction sites on the Base between 1987 and 1991, and werebeing temporarily stored in the Contaminated Soil Storage Area (CSSA) on the Baseawaiting treatment. At the request of Armstrong Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base,Texas, BA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) performed pre- and post-

I'" ~~treatment sampling of the soils and provided field supervision and coordination of soilprocessing operations. The rotary kiln thermal desorption. unit was owned and operated byCleanSoils Inc. of New Brighton, Minnesota, under subcontract to EA. By processing soils24 hours per day, the remediation of 8,510 tons of soil was accomplished in 15 days, at acost of $100 per ton.

Pre-treatment sampling of the contaminated soils indicated that the contamination wasprimarily diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons with concentrations up to 17,000 mg/kg.Hydrocarbon concentrations in the soils were reduced to less than 100 mg/kg by the thermaltreatment process. Off-gases resulting from the treatment process were destroyed by an off-gas afterburner operating at 1,2000 - 1,4000 F. Remaining hydrocarbon concentrations in theremediated soils are less than Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's(ADEC's) most stringent (Level A) cleanup level for soils containing diesel-range petroleumhydrocarbons (100 mg/kg). The remnediated soils were stockpiled in the asbestos landfilladjacent to the CSSA.

In addition to remtediating 8,510 tons of fuel-contaminated soils, EA used field screening ofsoil organic vapor concentrations and analytical testing to identify 4,050 tons of stockpiledsoils in the CSSA that did not require treatment, because hydrocarbon concentrations inthese soils were already less than the ADEC Level A cleanup level for diesel-rangehydrocarbons. A front-end loader was used to segregate these soils from contaminated soilswithin the same stockpile before the contaminated soils were treated. Results of subsequentanalytical testing confirmed that the segregated soils would not require treatment. Thesegregated soils were stockpiled in an area separate from the contaminated soil stockpilesremaining in the CSSA.

£4 Engineering. Science, and Technology v Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp~rpt

1. INTRODUCHON

During the period 27 July to 5 November 1991, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology,Inc. (EA), EA Remediation Technologies, Inc., and its subcontractors collectedcharacterization samples and remediated 8,510 tons of fuel-contaminated soils utilizing amobile rotary kiln thermal desorption unit at Bielson Air Force Base, Alaska. In addition,EA identified and separated out from the fuiel-contaminated soil stockpiles approximately4,000 tons of soils that did not require treatment, because petroleum hydrocarbonconcentrations in these soils were less than Alaska state regulatory cleanup levels. Thissummary report describes the sources of the fuel-contamiinated soils and the scope,methodologies, and final results of the 1991 Eielson Soil Thermal Treatment Project.

The work outlined in this report was performed under Contract #F33615-89-D-4002, WorkOrder #0011 with Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. This documentconstitutes the Technical Report for Stage 1, Phase 3, Sequence 4 of Work Order #0011.Previous documents submitted under this contract include the Thermal Treatment WorkPlan and associated addendums (EA, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c), the Site Safety and Health Plans(EA, 1991d, 1991e), the Pre-Treatment Testing Data Summary Report and associateSaddendurns (EA, 1991t 1991g), and the Site Supervisor's Manual (EA, 1991h). WO

Five different fuiel-contamninated soil stockpiles located in the Contaminated Soil StorageArea on the Base were sampled in order to characterize petroleum hydrocarbonconcentrations within the piles. The stockpiles consisted of soils that were excavated fromvarious fuel storage and distribution facilities at Eielson between 1987 and 1991. Theanalytical results of the sampling were used for two purposes: 1) to document soilcontaminant types and concentrations so that treatment process parameters could beoptimized, and 2) to identify soils which would not require treatment because contaminantconcentrations were already less than Alaska state regulatory cleanup levels.

Soils which contained petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations less than Alaska cleanuplevels were segregated and stockpiled separately from the soils to be treated. Soils whichcontained petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations greater than Alaska cleanup levels weretreated by thermal desorption and off-gas incineration to destroy hydrocarbons. The thermaldesorption unit was owned and operated on site by CleanSoils Inc. of New Brighton,Minnesota, who was a subcontractor to EA. EA provided on-site construction managemenfto ensure that the work was being conducted in accordance with the Thermal Treate nW

EA Engineeting. Science, and Technology 1 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

Work Plan and the Site Safety and Health Plan. BA also sampled the treated soils forlaboratory analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, to ensure that project cleanupgoals were being met.

The primary cleanup goal of the Soil Thermal Treatment Project was to reduce diesel-rangepetroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in contaminated soils to less than 100 mg/kg(Alaska's most stringent [level A] cleanup level for diesel-range hydrocarbons; ADEC, 1991).Treated soils were analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) by EPAMethod 418.1 to assess compliance with the primary cleanup criterion. If any sample(s) ofa treated soil batch failed to pass the primary cleanup crierion, one of the failed sampleswas re-analyzed for diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8015 Modifiedand also for aromatic volatile organics (BTEX) by EPA Method 8020.- If the results of theoriginal analysis indicated that TRPH concentrations were less than 2,000 mg/kg, and theresults of the re-analysis indicated that diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbon concentrationswere less than 100 mg/kg, total BTEX concentrations were less than 10 mg/kg, and benzeneconcentrations were less than 0.5 mg/kg, then the treated soils represented by the samplewere considered to be successfully remediated.

After post-treatment analytical testing confirmed that the treated soils were successfullyremnediated, tie remediated soils were stockpiled in the asbestos landfill adjacent to theContaminated Soil Storage Area for unrestricted use.

EA Engineering Science, and Technology 2 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp~rpt

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

q ~~2.1 Contaminated Soil Storage Area

A ~~2.1.1 Physical Description

q ~All the work described in this report was conducted in the Contaminated Soil Storage Area(CSSA) on Eielson Air Force Base (Figure 1). Other Base facilities located near the CSSAinclude a used-asphalt storage area, a fire training area, a ground assault training area, and

a restricted-access asbestos landfill (Figure 2).

U ~~The surface topography of the CSSA is flat. A gravel road provides access to the CSSA.To the south of the road there is an inactive landfill overlaid with a thin cover of fly ashq ~~(Figure 2). A single stockpile enclosure is built. on the top surface of the landfill (EnclosureD; Figure 3). To the north of the road there are several more stockpile enclosuresU ~~(Enclosures A-C) built on a cleared area of unpaved dirt and scrub.

" ~~2.1.2 History

Construction of the CSSA was begun in the spring of 1990, when Fielson environmentalU ~~planners determined that a temporary storage location was needed for fuel-contaminatedsoils that were accumulating at various construction sites on the Base (B. Koenen, personal

- communication, 1991). The first stockpile enclosure constructed was Enclosure A (Figure3). Contaminated soils from the vicinity of the Tank 300 bulk storage tank (see Figure 1)q ~~were moved into this enclosure during the summer of 1990 to form Stockpile #1.

" ~~Stockpile Enclosure B (Figure 3) was constructed during the spring of 1991. This enclosurewas constructed to provide temporary storage for contaminated soils that were excavatedduring construction of the new Dining Hall Facility (see Figure 1). Enclosure B containedm ~~three stockpiles: #2, #3, and #4. Stockpiles #2 and #3 were associated with the DiningHall ecvto.Soils in Stockpile #4 originated from the Alpha-Delta jet refueling

U ~~complex (see Figure 1).

S ~~Stockpile Enclosures C and D (Figure 3) were constructed during the summer and fall of1991. Enclosure C was constructed to store contaminated soils (Stockpile #5) that wereexcavated during removal of an underground heating-fuiel tank near the Waste Treatment

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 3 Eielson Air Force BaseU ~ ~~11206.11 therdesp~rpt

' ~~Facility Building (see Figure 1). Enclosure D was constructed to store contaminated soilsq ~~(Stockpile #7) from the Vehicle Maintenance Facility on the Base. In addition, some ofthe soils from the Alpha-Delta complex were stored on the south side of the road nearEnclosure D (Stockpile #6).

2.2 Sources of Fuel-Contaminated Soil Stockpiles

The 1991 Thermal Treatment Project focused on five fuel-contaminated soil stockpiles inq ~~the CSSA: Stockpiles #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6. Stockpiles #4 (Alpha-Delta soils) and #7(Vehicle Maintenance soils) were not addressed in this project. T'he five stockpiles andW ~~their sources are individually described belo w.

2.2.1 Stockpile #1: Tank 300 Soils and UST Soils

q ~~Stockpile #1 was the first stockpile formed in the CSSA. The pile filled the majority ofq ~~Enclosure A (Figure 3) and consisted of approximately 2,700 cubic yards (4,050 tons) of soil(note: the original estimate of 4,300 cubic yards given in the Thermal Treatment Work Plan. ~~[EA, 1991a] is incorrect). The soils constituting Stockpile #1 were well graded sands withcobble gravels. The thickness of the pile varied from less than 1 foot near the enclosureaccess ramp to as much as 7 feet near the east end of the enclosure. The pile wasq ~~uncovered.

q ~~The majority of the contaminated soils in Stockpile #1 reportedly originated from a 1987release of jet fuel (JP-4) from a leak in the Tank 300 bulk fuel storage tank (Figure 1; B.q ~~Koenen, personal communication, 1991). After the tank leak was detected and repaired,contaminated soils were excavated from around the tank and were stockpiled adjacent tothe tank. There are no records of any soil sampling being conducted in the vicinity of Tankq ~~300 following the release.

q ~~During the period 1987-1990, the Tank 300 area became the temporary storage location forfuel-contaminated soils from various other construction sites on the Base. Much of theq ~~contaminated soil originated from the removal of nine underground storage tanks (USTs)on the Base in 1990. Eielson personnel directed the removal of contamtdinated soils fromthe UST sites using field sareening instruments and analytical testing results (Keiling, 1991).However, there are no available records of the product types stored in the USTs or of the

quantities of contaminated soils removed from the sites. In addition, there may have been

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 4 Eielson Air Force Ease-q ~~~11206.11 therdesp.rpe

other contaminated soils stored in the Tank 300 area (B. Koenen, personal communication,1991); however, there are no records identifying their sources or indicating the quantitiesof soils involved.

U ~~During the summer of 1990, all soils stockpiled in the area of the Tank 300 bulk fuel storagetank were moved to Stockpile Enclosure A. A small-scale thermal treatment test of theseI ~soils was conducted by Environmental Systems, Inc. (ESI) during the summer of 1990.Approximately 185 cubic yards of soil were successfully remediated. Two samples wereI ~~collected from the stockpile prior to treatment and tested for TRPH concentrations by EPAMethod 418.1 (ESI, 1990). The analytical results indicated TRPH levels of about 6,000mg/kg. There was no further characterization of the soils within Stockpile #1 prior to EA'sJuly 1991 sampling of the stockpile.

I ~~2.2.2 Stockpiles #2 and #3: Dining Hall Soils

I ~Stockpiles #2 and #3 consisted of a total of approximately 1,440 cubic yards offuel-contaminated soils that were encountered during the excavation for the foundation ofI ~the new Dining Hall Facility in spring 1991 (Figure 1). The contaminated soils were astockpiled at the west end of Enclosure B (Figure 3). The soils constituting Stockpiles #2Wand #3 were silty sands with pebble and cobble gravels.

Stockpile #2 consisted of approximately 1,300 cubic yards (1,950 tons) of soils, and had beenI ~~previously characterized with both field screening and laboratory analyses as containingpetroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations as high as 30,000 mg/kg. The stockpile was1 ~~approximately 5.5 feet high and was covered with polyethylene sheeting.

Stockpile #3 consisted of approximately 140 cubic yards (210 tons) of soils that reportedlyhad petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations as high as 30,000 mg/kg. Pesticides were initiallysuspected to also be present in the soils, based on preliminary interpretations of3 ~~field-screening (Photovac gas chromatograph) data collected by a previous consultant.However, laboratory tests (EPA Method 8080) indicated that these compounds were notpresent (B. Koenen, personal communication, 1991). Stockpile #3 was approximately 4.5I ~~feet high and was covered with polyethylene sheeting.

EA Engineering Science, and Technology 5 Eielson Air Force EaseI ~ ~11206. 11 therdesp~rpt

' ~~2.2.3 Stockpile #5: Waste Treatment Soils

N ~~Stockpile #5 was created in August 1991 from soils excavated during removal of aheating-fuel UST near the Waste Treatment Facility Building (Figure 1). The stockpileJI ~consisted of approximately 3,000 cubic yards (4,500 tons) of soils and completely filledStockpile Enclosure C (Figure 3). The soils constituting Stockpile #5 were sands withq ~~pebble gravels. The stockpile was sloped towards the gravel road, and ranged from amaximum thickness of 15 feet at the north end to a minimum thickness of 2 feet at theq ~~south end. The stockpile was covered with polyethylene sheeting.

The Waste Treatment soils were removed from the vicinity of an UST which stored heatingN ~~fuel for the Waste 'Treatment Facility Building. During excavation and~ removal of theheating-fuel tank in August 1991, petroleum-stained soils were discovered in the subsurface.N ~~Because of the proximity of the observed soil staining to the heating-fuel UST, the suspectedcontaminant was heating fuel (B. Koenen., personal communication, 1991). Eielsonpersonnel directed the removal of contaminated soils from the subsurface using field

screening with a photoionization detector and visual observation of soil staining. The. ~~contaminated soils were subsequently stockpiled in Enclosure C of the CSSA..

Analytical testing of soil samples collected from borings drilled near the heating-fuel USTq ~~in December 1990 indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soils atconcentrations as high as 20,000 mg/kg (TRPH by EPA Method 418.1; Army Corps ofN ~~Engineers, 1991). A sewer line was mistakenly severed by heavy equipment duringexcavation of the Waste Treatment soils. The soils therefore also contained a small quantityof raw sewage.

2.2.4 Stockpile #6: Alp2ha-Delta Soils

Approximately 17,000 cubic yards of soil were excavated in September 1991 in connectionN ~~with repaving operations at the Alpha-Delta (AD) jet refueling complex (Figure 1). Anestimated 12,700 cubic yards (19,050 tons) were stockpiled in Enclosure B (Stockpile #4,N ~~Figure 3). The remaining 4,300 cubic yards (6,450 tons) were initially stockpiled on thesouth side of the gravel access road (Stockpile #6) due to a lack of storage space in

p ~~Enclosure B. The soils of Stockpile #6 were sands and gravels. Most of Stockpile #6 wasleveled and compacted by heavy equipment, leaving only a 10-foot-wide margin ofuncompacted soils around the perimeter of the pile. The stockpile was uncovered.

E4 Engineering, Science, and Technology 6 Efelson Air Force EaseN4 1120611 fherdesp.rpt

U ~~The Alpha-Delta soils wer e excavated in September 1991 from the AD jet refuelingcomplex, in connection with surface paving operations. Geotechnlical investigationsconducted prior to the paving operations indicated that petroleum hydrocarbon odors andstaining were present locally in the subsurface soils of the AD complex. The suspectedW ~~source of the observed soil staining was the underground fuel distribution system beneaththe complex (the system handles JP-4 fuel; B. Koenen, personal communication, 1991).

When the subsurface soils of the AD complex were exposed, the spotty distribution of soilstaining noted during the geotechnical investigations was confirmed. Some soils of the ADq ~~complex showed no evidenc e of hydrocarbon staining, while others showed typical signs ofstaining (e.g., hydrocarbon-like odors, discoloration; B. Koenen, personal communication,ft ~1991). In the areas where hydrocarbon staining and odors were observed, -over-excavationwas performed in an effort to remove as much stained soil as possible. All excavated soilsq ~~from the AID complex were continually trucked to the CSSA. Mixing of individual truckloadof soil was reportedly kept to a minimum during the formation of Stockpile #6, by dumpingeach new load of soil on the unoccupied grade-level surface adjacent to the previously /dumped load (B. Koenen, personal communication, 1991).

N VE nierngSine n ecnlg ilonArFreBsN~~~12611teds~p

3. PRE-TREATMENT CHARACTERIZATION OF STOCKPILES

3.1 Soil Sampling

3.1.1 General Sampling Procedures

N ~~Samples were collected from the soil stockpiles by first digging a test pit at least one footN ~~deep in the designated sampling location using a shovel, post-hole digger, hand auger, orpower auger. Soils exposed at the bottom of the pit were then immediately screened witha Foxboro Model 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA - flame ionization detector) or anq ~~HNU Organic Vapor Meter (OVM - photoionization detector). The OVA and OVM fieldscreening instrumnents provide a quantitative measure of total organic vapor (TOV)N ~~concentrations in air. The instruments respond to a broad range of organic vapors (not allrelating to petroleum hydrocarbons), and cannot differentiate between specific organic

* ~~compounds.

O ~~The field screening result (TOV concentration) was logged in field notes, and then a samplewas collected from the bottom or bottom sidewalls of the test pit by pushing (eithermanually or with a slide hammer) a 2-inch diameter, 6-inch long pre-cleaned brass sampleq ~~tube directly into undisturbed soils. The ends of the brass tube were immediately coveredwith a layer of aluminum foil and capped with tightly-fitting plastic end caps, then sealedU ~~with Teflon tape. The brass tubes were labeled with the sample number, sampling depth,site location, and the date and time of sample collection. All sampling data were logged infield notes by the sampling team. The samples were then sealed in separate "zip-lock"

q ~~plastic bags and placed in a cooler containing ice, for delivery to the analytical laboratory.Before moving to the next sampling location, all tools used for digging and sampling wereN ~~scrubbed with a solution of Alconox detergent and water and then rinsed with distilledwater to prevent cross-contamination of samples.

A chain-of-custody (COG) record was filled out for each set of samples submitted to thern ~~analytical laboratory. The COG record listed, for each sample, the sampling date and time,the sampling location, and the specific analytical methods requested. The sample cooler was

~~ ~packed with ice and taped shut for air-freight shipment to the laboratory. Custody sealswere placed over the cooler lid to prevent unnoticed tampering during transit. Sampleswere maintained at a temperature of 40 C during shipment to the laboratory.

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 8 Eielson Air Force Base<4 ~~~11206. 11 therdesp~rpt

S ~3.1.2 Stockpiles #1-3 (Tank 300 & UST Soils. Dining Hall Soils')

U ~~Stockpiles #1, #2, and #3 were initially sampled during the period 27 July - 30 July 1991.The sampling locations on each stockpile were determined using a systematic random[1 ~approach. A grid pattern was placed over each stockpile as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Thegrid cells were numbered consecutively, and each cell was divided into four quadrants

* ~~labeled A through D.

One discrete soil sample was collected from each grid cell, from the approximate center ofa randomly chosen quadrant of the cell. The sampling depth cycled sequentially between2 feet, 3 feet, and 4 feet below the stockpile surface. The sequentially-determined samplingdepth was altered as necessary to accommodate both variable stockpile thickness and largecobbles in the test pits.

Twenty-eight samples and three field duplicates were collected from Stockpile #1 in July;q ~~nine samples and one field duplicate were collected from Stockpile #2, and four sampleswere collected from Stockpile #3. Each sample (and field duplicate) was assigned a uniqueidentification number. The sample ID number consisted of the stockpile designation (SP1,aSP2, or SP3) followed by the grid cell number, followed by the cell quadrant (A, B, C, orWD), followed by the sampling depth in feet. Field duplicates were designated as such by theq ~~letter "R" (for "reference" laboratory) appended to the ID number.

W ~~Three additional samples were collected from grid cell #19 of Stockpile #1 on 14September 1991. Analytical results (EPA Method 8240) for the sample collected from cellI~~ #19 in July 1991 (sample SP1.19B32) indicated that benzene was present at a concentrationof 21 mg/kg (see Section 3.2.2). The three additional samples were collected in order totest for benzene concentrations using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureN ~~(TCLP). The samples were obtained from a depth of one foot in cell #19, quadrant B. Thesamples were labeled using the same numbering scheme as before, except that the lettersU 5~'," "S2,11 and 'T were appended to the ID numbers to distinguish these samples from theJuly samples collected from cell #19.

U ~~3.1.3 Stockpile #5 (Waste Treatment Soils)

W~~Eight samples were collected from Stockpile #5 on 17 October 1991. The samples wereacollected from 1.5-2.0 feet depth at the locations shown in Figure 6. The samples had toW

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 9 Ejelson Air Force BaseU ~~~11206.11 therdesp~rpt

% *~be collected from -the steep flanks of the stockpile because a 3-4 inch frost layer armoredthe more level areas of the stockpile against digging. Before samples were collected, TOVq ~~concentrations in the near-surface soils were measured by the sampling team using an OVA.Samples were then collected from areas of the stockpile which had relatively high TOV

I ~concentrations, to obtain an estimate of maximum hydrocarbon concentrations within thestockpile. The samples were numbered HOSP.1 through HOSP.8.

q ~~3.1.4 Stockpile #6 (Alpha-Delta Soils)

q ~~3.1.4.1 Pre-Treatment Sampling Fifteen pre-treatment s amples were collected from theuncompacted margin of Stockpile #6 on 15 October 199 1. The samples were collected fromq ~~1.5-2.0 feet depth at the locations shown in Figure 7. Samples could not be collected fromthe central area of the stockpile due to the presence of an impenetrable 3-4 inch frost layer.For reasons described below, the samples were collected from areas of the stockpile margin

where field screening with an OVM detected soil TOV concentrations in the range 1-100q p~1/I. The samples were numbered ADSP.1 through ADSP.15.

* ~~3.1.4.2 Stockpile Segrenation Based on field observations made during excavation of the ADsoils in September, Eielson environmental planners suspected that some of the stockpiledsoils contained petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations greater than ADEC cleanupq ~~levels. However, field observations also indicated that a significant portion of the AD soilswere likely not contaminated, and would thus not require treatment. Therefore, to ensureq ~~that the contaminated AD soils in Stockpile #6 were properly treated and to minimize costsincurred by treating "clean" soils unnecessarily, Eielson AFB requested that EA attempt toW ~~identify and separate out the contaminated AD soils in Stockpile #6.

EA and Eielson environmental planners worked together to devise a plan that wouldq ~~accomplish this task in a timely manner, and at the same time provide high resolution withinthe soil pile. The plan entailed using earth moving equipment in conjunction with fieldscreening of soil TOV concentrations to segregate the Stockpile #6 soils into three separate

piles. One of the piles would contain soils with the lowest concentrations of organic vapors,q ~~and would constitute the soil pile most likely to be "clean" according to ADEC cleanupstandards. A second pile would contain soils with the highest organic vapor concentrationsand would constitute the AID soils to be treated by thermal desorption. The third pile would

~~ ~contain soils with intermediate organic vapor concentrations and could thus contain some"clean" soils and some contaminated soils requiring treatment.

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 10 Eielson Air Force Easeq ~~11206.11 therdesp~rpt

W ~~According to this plan, the stockpile segregation would be accomplished in a timely manner abecause laboratory analysis of soil samples would not be necessary to perform the task, andW

N ~~an large front-end loader would be used to move soils. High resolution within the soil pile

would be achieved by field screening each 5-cubic-yard bucket of soils moved by the

to ~~front-end loader. The "clean" and "intermediate" soil piles would be sampled for laboratory

analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. Any soils in the "clean" or "intermediate"

fl ~stockpiles found to contain diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations greater

than 100 mg/kg would be treated with the rest of the fuel-contaminated soils.

' ~~3.1.4.3 Selection of Field Screening Criteria An important goal in segregating the Stockpilern ~~#6 soils was to maximize the likelihood that soils placed in the "contaminated" pile were

truly contaminated and would require treatment, and that soils placed in. the "clean" pile

were truly clean according to ADEC cleanup standards. This goal would best be achieved

if the field screening criteria used to segregate the soils were based on a known correlation

between field screening data and laboratory analytical data. Since JP-4 jet fuel is composed

largely of diesel-range compounds (Pacific Northwest Environmental Laboratory,

unpublished reference standard data), a useful correlation would be one between the totalconcentration of diesel-range hydrocarbons in a soil sample and the TOV concentration of

the sample.

q ~~Analytical and field screening data obtained in July 1991 from the sampling of Stockpile # 1,

Enclosure A (See Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2.1) were examined for the existence such a

W ~~correlation. The main contaminant present in Stockpile #1 was JP-4 jet fuel. Of the

twenty-eight samples and three field duplicates collected from Stockpile #1, twenty-two

contained detectable levels of diesel-range hydrocarbons. The concentrations of total

q ~ ~extractable petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TEPH-D) and the corresponding TOV

concentrations for the samples from Stockpile #1 are listed in Table 1.

The data of Table 1 were used to produce Figure 8(a). This figure shows soil TEPH-D

concentrations plotted against TOV concentrations for the twenty-two samples from

Stockpile # 1 in which TEPH-D was detected. With the exception of five outliers, the data

suggest the existence of a power law relationship between the plotted variables. A simple

linear regression on the July 1991 data (excluding the five outliers) results in a coefficientof determination (r2) of 0.76, indicating a strong correlation between the variables.

U ~~According to the regression model in Figure 8(a) a TEPH-D concentration of 100 mg/kg

corresponds to a TOV concentration of approximately 15 ul/l.

ELA Engineeiing, Science, and Technology 11 Eielson Air Force BaseN ~ ~~11206.11 therdesp.rpt

q~ ~Tepyia hrceitc ftesn adgvlsiscmrsn tcpl 1wr' Theila t physca characteristics of the sand and gravel soils comprising Stockpile #1.T were

for the existence of an analogous correlation between field screening data and analytical

data from Stockpile #6, fifteen pre-treatment soil samples were collected from the

uncompacted margin of Stockpile #6 on 15 October 1991. The samples were collected from

areas where field sacrening with an OVM detected soil TOV concentrations in the range

q ~~1-100,uI/I, with the expectation (based on the Stockpile #1 data) that if a correlation werefound, the 100 mg/kg ADEC level A diesel cleanup level would correspond to a TOV

concentration in this range. The sampling locations are shown in Figure 7. Samples were

collected in accordance with the procedures described in. Section 3.1.1.

The fifteen pre-treatment soil samples from Stockpile #6 were shipped, under chain of

custody at 40 C to Columbia Analytical Services in Anchorage, Alaska, for analysis forq ~~TEPH-D by EPA Method 8100 Modified. In addition, five of the samples were analyzed

for total volatile petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TVPH-G) by EPA Method 8015

Modified, and six of the samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and

xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8020. The field screening data and analytical results for. ~~the pre-treatment samples from Stockpile #6 are given in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that TEPH-D was detected in eight of the fifteen pre-treatment samples.

q ~~TVPH-G was detected in two of the samples (maximum concentration = 16 mg/kg).

Benzene was not detected in any samples, although trace amounts of other BTEX

q ~~compounds were detected in three samples.

When the analytical results (detectable TEPH-D) for the pre-treatment AD samples areEl ~ ~plotted against the field screening data, five of the eight data points conform to theq ~~correlation found among the July 1991 Stockpile #1 data (Figure 8(b)). Based on this result

the two sample sets (pre-treatment AD samples, Stockpile #1 samples) were considered to

be equally relevant for selecting field screening criteria to segregate Stockpile #6.

q ~~Figure 9(a) shows the distribution of samples in the two data sets as a function of TEPH-D

concentration (• 100 mg/kg or > 100 mg/kg) and TOV concentration. Samples which had

non-detectable levels of TEPH-D were included in this plot if the method reporting limitfor the sample was < 100 mg/kg. A cursory inspection of Figure 9(a) reveals that most of

the samples that were "clean" (i.e., TEPH-D s5 100 mg/kg) had TOV concentrations less

than 20,ul/l, while most of the samples that were "contaminated" (TEPH-D > 100 mg/kg)

m L~~~A Engineering, Science, and Technology 12 Eielson Air Force Base1120611 therdesp~rpt

had TOV concentrations gr eater than 20 ul/l. If 20 p1,1 were selected as a "cutoff' TOVconcentration for the purpose of classifying these soils as "clean't or 'contaminated," then

q ~~three (16%) of the "contaminated" samples would be misclassified as "clean," and five (20%)of the "clean" samples would be mis-classified as "contaminated." Figure 9(b) shows howthese percentages change as a function of possible cutoff TOV concentrations that might beselected.

" ~~As was noted earlier, an important goal in segregating the Stockpile #6 soils was to11minimze the amount of "clean"'soils that would be treated unnecessarily, while at the sameq ~~maximizing the amount of "contaminated" soils receiving treatment. Put in another way, thern ~goal was to minimize the total amount of soils classified incorrectly as a result of fieldscreening. In Figure 9(b) the total amount of soils classified incorrectly is represented(curve "C') as the sum of the fractions of "clean" and "contaminated" soils that would bemiisclassified if the cutoff TOV concentrations shown on the abscissa were used to segregateq ~~the soils represented in Figure 9(a). This sum is minimized in the cutoff TOV range 10-70q ~~ul/l, with the absolute minimum occurring at 20,p1/I (Figure 9b).

q ~~Based on the preceding discussion and the data depicted in Figures 8 and 9, cutoff TOV aconcentrations of 20 p1ll and 50 p0ll were selected to segregate Stockpile #6. The stockpileWwas segregated during the period 19-24 October. Soils screened with an OVA at 20,p1/Iq ~~TOV or lower were placed in the "clean" soil pile, soils screened at 21-50 iulll TOV wereplaced in the "intermediate" pile, and soils screened at 51lp1/I TOV or greater were placedq ~~in the "contaminated" pile.

q ~~The "contaminated" soil pile (-2,400 tons) occupied the south end of Stockpile EnclosureD until it was treated the week of 28 October 1991. The "clean" and "intermediate" soilpiles occupy the area south of the gravel road near Enclosure D; these piles consist of aq ~~total of twenty-seven sub-piles containing 100 cubic yards (150 tons) of soil each. The finalconfiguration of the "clean" AD soil pile (-2,700 tons) and the "intermediate" AD soil pileq ~~(- 1,350 tons) at the completion of the 1991 Soil Thermal Treatment Project is shown inFigure 13.

q ~~3.1.4.4 Confirmnational Sampling of Untreated Soils Confirmational samples were collectedfrom the "clean" and "intermediate" AD soil piles on 25 October 1991 to confirm thatq ~~petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the piles were below ADEC cleanup levels. Based aon discussions with ADEC personnel (R. Markey, personal communication, 1991), the piles V

EA Engineerin& Science, and Technology 13 Eielson Air Force Baseq ~~~1120611 therdesp.rpt

Y ~~were sampled at a frequency of one discrete sample per 100 cubic yards of soil (i.e., onesample per sub-pile) for a total of twenty-seven samples. The analytical results for theseI ~~twenty-seven confirmational samples are discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.

I ~3.2 Quantitative Chemistry Analyses

3.2.1 General Analyical Procedures

I ~3.2.1.1 Stockspiles #1-3 (Tank 300 & UST Soils. Dining Hall Soils) Pre-treatment soilsamples from Stockpiles #1, #2, and #3 were shipped to Pacific Northwest EnvironmentalI ~~Laboratories, Inc. (PNELI), Redmond, Washington for analysis for organic and inorganiccompounds. In addition, four field duplicate QA samples were shipped to ColumbiaAnalytical Services (CAS), Kelso, Washington, as a check of the reproducibility of PNELI'sI ~~analytical results.

I ~~The soils in Stockpiles #1-3 were the least well characterized of al the fuel-contaminatedsoils to be treated. For this reason, the samples from these stockpiles were analyzed for a. ~~variety of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and commonly associated constituents (e.g.metals, chlorinated solvents). All the samples and field duplicates collected in July 1991from Stockpiles # 1-3 (forty-five samples total) were analyzed for total extractable petroleumI ~hydrocarbons as diesel (TEPH-D) and as petroleum oil (TEPH-O) by EPA Method 8015Modified. Seventy-three percent of the samples were analyzed for TVPH-G by EPAI ~Method 8015 Modified. Forty-seven percent of the samples were analyzed for BTEX byEPA Method 8020, for halogenated volatile organics by EPA Method 8010 or 8240, and forarsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver by the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP -- EPA Method 1311).

I ~~The analytical results for the July 1991 samples indicated that benzene was present in gridcell #19 of Stockpile #1 at concentrations up to 21 mg/kg (see Section 3.2.2.1). Therefore,I ~~the three samples collected from grid cell #19 on 14 September 1991 were analyzed forbenzene by both EPA Method 8240 and the TCLP.

I ~~3.2.1.2 Stockpile #5 (Waste Treatment Soils) Pre-treatment soil samples from Stockpile #5were sent to CAS, Anchorage, Alaska, for analysis. Prior analytical testing indicated thatthe Waste Treatment soils were contaminated primarily with heating fuel (Army Corps ofEngineers, 1991). Heating fuels used at Eielson AFB are generally a form of diesel, or have

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 14 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

a fornulation which is very similar to that of diesel. Consequently, the Waste Treatment asamples were analyzed for TEPH-D by EPA Method 8100 Modified and for BTEX by EPAWI ~Method 8020.

I ~~3.2.1.3 Stockpile #6 (Alp~ha-Delta Soils)

q ~Pre-Treatment Samples

I ~~The fifteen pre-treatment soil samples collected from Stockpile #6 on 15 October 1991 weresent to CAS, Anchorage, Alaska, for analysis. The samples were analyzed for TEPH-D by

EPA Method 8100 Modified. In addition, five of the samples were analyzed for TVPH-Gby EPA Method 8015 Modified, and six of the samples were analyzed for BTEX by EPA

Method 8020.

Untreated Soil Samples

I ~~The analytical results for the pre-treatment AD samples (see Section 3.2.2.3) indicated thatthe fuel contamination in the samples was primarily diesel-range hydrocarbons.a

I ~Gasoline-range hydrocarbons and BTEX were either not present or were present in only Wtrace amounts. Therefore, the samples of the untreated AD soil piles (twenty-seven samplesU ~total) were analyzed for TEPH-D by EPA Method 8100 Modified. The analytical results

were compared to the ADEC level A cleanup level of 100 mg/kg (diesel-rangehydrocarbons) to assess compliance of the untreated AD soils with Alaska state regulations.

The sample analyses were performed by GAS, Anchorage, Alaska.

I ~~3.2.2 Analytical Results

q ~~3.2.2.1 Stockpiles #1-3 (Tank 300 & UST Soils. Dining Hall Soils) The analytical resultsfor the samples from Stockpiles #1-3 are summarized in Table 3; laboratory analytical

reports are contained in Appendix A, Volume 2. Diesel-range hydrocarbons were detected

in seventy-eight percent of the samples. The highest TEPH-D concentration detected was17,000 mg/kg. The mean concentration of detectable TEPH-D in the samples from

Stockpile #1 was 480 mg/kg; the mean concentration in samples from Stockpile #2 wasI ~~2,600 mg/kg, and the mean concentration in samples from Stockpile #3 was 980 mg/kg.

E4 Engineering. Science, and Technology 15 Eielson Air Force Base3 ~~11206.11 therdespirpt

' ~~Concentrations of TVPH-G in the samples from Stockpiles #1-3 ranged from non-detectable! ~~to 3,500 mg/kg. Fifty-six percent of the samples in which TVPH-G was detected hadconcentrations less than 50 mg/kg, and seventy-two percent had concentrations less than 100h ~~mg/kg.

Concentrations of TEPHFVO in the samples ranged from non-detectable to 16,000 mg/kg.W ~~The mean concentration of detectable TEPH-O in the samples from Stockpile #1 was 1,500mg/kg. TEPH-O was detected in only three of the ten samples from Stockpile #2, at a

L ~~maximum concentration of 88 mg/kg. Only one sample from Stockpile #3 contained! ~~detectable TEPH-O (72 mg/kg).

m ~~PNELI indicated in its analytical report (PNELI 3403; Appendix A, Volume 2) that totalpetroleum hydrocarbons in the samples were quantitated by boiling-point range only, and

that due to the presence of weathered products and more than one product, positive

identification of the petroleum products was not possible. PNEHI did, however, suggestpossible product matches for the hydrocarbons detected in the samples. Jet fuel was

suggested as a possible match for 13 of the samples from Stockpile #1. Other possibleS ~~product matches suggested by PNELI for samples from Stockpile #1 included hydraulicfluid, motor oil, fuel oil, and gasoline.

Aromatic volatile hydrocarbons were detected in some of the July 1991 samples that wereanalyzed by EPA Methods 8020 and 8240. Benzene was measured in one sample at aft ~concentration of 21 mg/kg (sample SP1.19B32). Gasoline was suggested as a possibleproduct match for this sample. The rest of the samples analyzed by EPA 8020 or 8240 had

benzene concentrations less than 1.8 mg/kg.

~~ ~ Analysis of the three samples collected on 14 September from grid cell # 19 of Stockpile #1

indicated a maximum benzene concentration of 76 mg/kg (EPA Method 8240). Analysis

of the same samples by the TCLP indicated a maximum leachate benzene concentration ofW ~~2.3 mg/I.

Acetone and methylene chloride were detected in some of the samples that were analyzedU ~~by EPA Method 8240. Acetone was measured at concentrations up to 3.6 mg/kg, and)~~~ methylene chloride was measured at concentrations up to 0.18 mg/kg. Neither of thesecompounds appear on the EPA Toxicity Characteristic constituent list (40 CFR 261.24) used

to identify RCRA-controlled hazardous wastes.

EA4 Engineering, Science, and Technology 16 Eielson Air Force BaseU ~ ~~11206.11 therdesp~rpt

I ~Concentrations of metals were analyzed using the TCLP. The leachate from some of the asamples contained barium (up to 1.47 mg/I), lead (up to 0.3 mg/I), and mercury (up toWI ~0.0003 mg/I). As noted in PNELI's analytical report (PNELI 3403; Appendix A, Volume2), barium was detected in the preparation blank for the samples. Therefore, some of the

W ~~barium concentrations may be attributable to the laboratory preparation process and not tothe actual presence of barium in the samples themselves.

I ~~3.2.2.2 Stockpile #5 (Waste Treatment Soils) The analytical results for the samplesI ~~collected from Stockpile #5 are summarized in Table 4; laboratory analytical reports arecontained in Appendix B, Volume 2. Diesel-range hydrocarbons were detected in all eightq ~of the samples. The highest T`EPH-D concentration detected was 7,900 mg/kg; the mean

concentration was 3,200 mg/kg. BTEX compounds were also detected in all the samples.Of the BTEX compounds present, xylenes were present at the highest concentrations -- upto 76 mg/kg. Ethylbenzene was the next most concentrated compound (5.0 mg/kg

maximum concentration). Benzene was not detected in any of the samples.

q ~~3.2.2.3 Stockpile #6 (Alpha-Delta Soils)

Pre-Treatment Samples

q ~~The analytical and field-screening results for the fifteen pre-treatment AD soil samples are

summarized in Table 2; laboratory analytical reports are contained in Appendix C, Volume2. The pre-treatment Al) samples were collected prior to segregation of the soils into

"contaminated," "clean," and "intermedjate" piles. Diesel-range hydrocarbons were detectedq ~~in eight of the samples. The maximum TEPH-D concentration detected was 490 mg/kg; the

mean detectable TEPH-D concentration was 130 mg/kg. As described in Section 3.1.4.3,the pre-treatment samples were deliberately chosen from areas of Stockpile #6 that had! ~~TOV concentrations less than or equal to 100 MI/I. Field screening of Stockpile #6 priorto sample collection indicated that TOV concentrations higher than 100,p1/1 were present

in the AD soils. Therefore, the values of 490 mg/kg for the maximum TEPH-Dconcentration and 130 mg/kg for the mean TEPH-D concentration probably do not

accurately reflect the true maximum and mean concentrations that existed in the

contaminated soils of Stockpile #6 prior to treatment.

q ~TVPH-G was detected in two of the five samples analyzed for this parameter. Theaq ~maximum TVPH-G concentration detected was 16 mg/kg. Trace amounts of BTEXV

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 17 Ejelson Air Force Baseq ~~11206.11 therdesp.rpt

U. ~compounds were detected in three of the six samples analyzed by EPA Method 8020;

benzene, however, was not detected in any of the samples.

Untreated Soil Samples

The analytical results for the twenty-seven samples collected from the untreated AD soil

* ~piles segregated from Stockpile #6 are summarized in Table 5; laboratory analytical reports

are contained in Appendix C, Volume 2. Diesel-range hydrocarbons were not detected in

any of the samples from the "clean" AD soil piles. Diesel-range hydrocarbons were detectedI ~in five samples from the "intermediate" soil piles, at concentrations ranging from 26 mg/kgto 41 mg/kg.

I~ ~E niern.Sine n ehoo 8EesnArFreBsI~ ~~10.1deds~p

4. THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT OF STOCKPILES

4.1 Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU) Subcontractor Selection Process

The selection process for the TD)U went through three cycles in 1991. Cycle 1 occurred- ~~ t during the process of preparing our cost estimate as required to be awarded the work

assigrnment under our Armstrong Laboratory (AL) Air Force contract. The second cycle,

Cycle 2 occurred as required by our Statement of Work (SOW) for the procurement of theTDU for the Stage 1, Phase 3 trial burn. Cycle 3 was added to the work assignment whenCycle 2 resulted in no viable subcontractor. The activities of these cycles are discussed in

more detail in the following paragraphs.

4.1.1 Cycle I

This cycle commenced with the AL provision of a draft SOW and ended with the

authorization by AL to proceed. Time wise, this cycle covered 1 June to 1 July, 1991. ALprovided to EA a list of three TDU companies that had provided an estimate to BielsonAFB before EA became involved. EA designed a limited inquiry specification and providesthis with a request for a budgetary estimate to the three contractors. This request stipulates

A ~~~that a response did not obligate BA or the Air Force to consider them further.

The nature of the specification and subsequent inquiries during this period were to firm up

the other needs of these suppliers in terms of support utilities and to provide a basis forEA's cost estimates. In addition, interviews were held in person with two of the suppliersin order to assess how much credibility to give to their estimates and their equipment. BAalso gained from these contacts an understanding of the potential operational characteristicswhich allowed EA to design and have accepted by Elelson AFB the two stage SOW

variation for the three phases that had been stipulated in the original order.

Other significant events that occurred during this period were:

e The A.DEC stated that they would not require a high temperature primary thermal10 4 ~ ~~~process, and that they would and have already permitted several low temperature

devices for use in Alaska.

EA4 Engineering, Science, and Technology 19 Eielson Air Force Base11206. 11 therdesp~rpt

* The ADEC stated that no special air permit was required, but the device must* ~~~control particulate and carbon dioxide emissions. ADEC also stated that because

carbon dioxide accumulates in winter in the Fairbanks area (due to inversionlayers), winter operation would often not be allowed.

*EFielson AFB would not require operation through the winter, but felt thatoperation would be possible to I November.

4.1.2 Cycle 2

Cycle 2 began with AL issuing authorization to proceed on 8 July, and ended on 28 August1991. The first step in this cycle was to conduct the Kickoff Meeting on-9 July and establish

that Eielson AFB would accept the low temperature primary rotary kiln equipment withafterburner and to establish what other selection criteria would be required by the AirForce.

The low temperature primary system operation was accepted. Eielson AFB also stated that

they would enter into a cooperative mode to do everything possible to help us reach ourgoal of destruction of as much petroleum contaminated soil as possible in the summerseason of 1991 and that a second stage for additional processing could occur in 1992.

Other criteria established were:

* The TDU must have an existing permift with ADEC.

* It was desired that EA use an Alaska firm, if possible, in order to meet our tightschedule and the economic needs of the State.

A Request for Quotation (RFQ) was issued on 21 August 1991 to four firms (including twoAlaska firms), with the proposals due by 27 August. A job walk for the proposers was heldon 23 August 1991 by personnel at Eielson AFB. The response to the RFQ was three no-

0 ~~bids and one bid that was unresponsive. A meeting was held at Eielson AFB on 29 August

to discuss these results and to plan the fuiture of the program. In that meeting, Eielson AFBdirected EA to try a second round (Cycle 3) of proposal requests in the hopes of identifyinga TDU contractor that could get equipment in place in time to allow the processing of 8,500tons by 1 November. Eielson AFB also decided in this meeting that contracting with a firm

F-A Engineeding, Science, and Technology 20 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

that would be successful and complete the processing on schedule would take priority ov*using an Alaska contractor, especially in light of the fact that the two Alaska firms did not

respond to the REQ issued in this phase.

4.1.3 Cycle 3

EA undertook this extra effort on 29 August and continued until the successful placing of

a contract on 23 September. The first action in this cycle was to interview one of the no-bidAlaska firms to see if there was anything that could be done to ensure a response from them

- in Cycle 3. The second step was to move effectively and aggressively to identify additional

potential proposers.

The Request for Proposal for this cycle of the effort was issued on 4 September 1991 to tenprospective proposers, including two of those that were solicited in Cycles 1 and 2.Proposals were received on 12 through 16 September 1991 and evaluations were conducteduntil 19 September, when a short list recommendation was made to Ejelson AFB in atelephone conference. The result of that conference was that EA was authorized tocomplete the procurement process and make the final selection providing that the final priawas within the budgets established in Cycle 1.W

On 19 September EA sent out Best and Final Offer requests to the two finalists.Negotiations continued until 23 September 1991 when the award was made and a contractwas signed with CleanSoils Inc. of New Brighton, Mfinnesota. EA and its subcontractor

consultant on thermal treatment systems, Focus Environmental, were satisfied with theperformance specifications of the CleanSoils TDU and the quality, financial strength, andcommitment of the company to successfully process 8,500 tons of petroleum-contaminatedsoil by 1 November 1991.

4.2 Description of Treatment Technology

Hydrocarbons were removed from contaminated soils and destroyed by two fundamental

treatment processes: thermal desorption and off-gas incineration. These two treatmentfunctions were served by two main components of the CleanSoils Inc. mobile TDU: a rotarykiln and an off-gas afterburner. The following sections describe the main functional

a: ~~components of the CleanSoils TDU in the context of the two fundamental treatme*processes.

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 21 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 thzerdesp.ipt

4.2.1 Rotary Kiln -- Primary Treatment The primary treatment component of the TDU wasa propane-fired rotary kiln ("Drum" in Figure 10). Soils were fed into the rotary kiln by avariable-speed conveyer belt equipped with a microprocessor-controlled weigh scale. Theproject-specific soil feed rate ranged from 20 to 30 tons per hour. Soils were heated to atemperature of 500' - 6500 F in the rotary kiln; typical residence time of soils in the rotary

kiln was 5-8 minutes. Vaporization of hydrocarbons adsorbed to the soil particles wasoptimized by varying the conveyer belt speed, kiln rotation rate, burner rate, and air-flowrate.

The kiln interior is connected via negative-pressure piping to a bag house that traps airborneparticulates (Figure 10). The bag house was maintained at a temperature of 4000 F toprevent condensation of the volatilized hydrocarbons. After treatment, the soils exited therotary kiln through an air lock and were physically recombined with the bag-houseparticulate material before b eing discharged from the loadout hopper. The volatilizedhydrocarbons passed though the bag house and were destroyed by combustion in the off-gasafterburner.

4.2.4 Off-Gas Afterburner - Secondary Treatment Volatilized hydrocarbons desorbed fromtreated soil particles were evacuated from the rotary kiln via a vacuum venting systemnthatmaintained a negative pressure within the kiln and bag house. The hydrocarbon-containingoff-gases were delivered to a propane-fired afterburner operating at a temperature of 1,2000-K ~~~1,400 0F (Figure 10). Here the hydrocarbons were combusted and carbon monoxide (GO)was partially oxidized to carbon dioxide (GO2). Afterburner emissions were monitored forCO concentrations in accordance with the conditions of the ADEC air quality permit issuedto CleanSoils, and were released to the atmosphere though a 29-foot vertical stack.

v~~r. 4.3 On-Site Operations

4.3.1 General

4.3.1.1 Schedule A Field Operations Manager from EA arrived in Fairbanks on 8 Octoberto prepare the job site and rent necessary field equipment from local suppliers. Thesubcontractor equipment and crew arrived at the job site on the evening of 14 October.After three days of equipment setup, soil processing was begun on the afternoon of 18October. Soil processing continued 24 hours per day for the next 14 days. At thecompletion of soil processing on 1 November, 8,510 tons of contaminated soil had been

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 22 Eielson Air Force Ease11206.11 tlierdesp.rpt

treated. The subcontractor equipment and personnel left Fairbanks on 4 November. TheaEA Field Manager accompanied Captain Cal Wilkins of Bielson AFB on a finaleWwalk-through of the site on 5 November; on 6 November the BA Field Manager leftFairbanks.

4.3.1.2 Coordination and Supervision of Field Operations All on-site operations wereoverseen and coordinated by the EA Field Operations Manager, who reported directly tothe BA project manager. During the soil processing phase of the Thermal TreatmentProject (18 October - 1 November), two additional workers from BA rotated shifts with theField Manager to provide 24-hour supervision of field operations. The main function of thefield supervisor was to provide quality assurance during the soil treatment phase of theproject. The field supervisor operated out of a trailer located across the road fromStockpile Enclosure B (Figure 11). The specific duties of the field supervisor were outlinedin the Site Supervisor's Manual (EA, 1991h) which was kept in the trailer. All site activitieswere recorded by the field supervisor in a field operations daily log book.

The EA field supervisor had several basic duties. One of the main duties was to monitorand provide direction to the subcontractor's soil processing operation to ensure that soilswere being treated in accordance with procedures specified in the Work Plan and in theWSubcontractor Service Order Agreement. This included monitoring and supervising thematerials handling procedures and health and safety practices of all on-site personnel, andensuring that devices used to monitor the rate of soil processing were calibrated on a

4. -. ~regular basis.

The field supervisor served as the Site Safety and Health Supervisor for on-site personnel.In addition to other responsibilities described in the Site Safety and Health Plan (EA,1991e), the Site Safety and Health Supervisor was responsible for periodic monitoring of

total organic vapor concentrations and dust levels in the breathing zones of all workers.When TOV or dust concentrations exceeded threshold levels defined in the Safety andHealth Plan, the field supervisor recommended that site workers wear air-purifyingrespirators.

The other primary duty of the field supervisor was to collect confirmational samples of thetreated soils, and to direct the subcontractor's handling of the treated soils. Section 4.3.4describes the handling of the treated soils; Section 5 describes the post-treatment

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 23 Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 tIherdesp.rpt

confirmational sampling scheme, general sampling procedures, and quantitative chemistryanalyses/results.

Captain Cal Wilkins was the field supervisor for the Eielson AFB Environmental PlanningGroup. Captain Wilkins reported to Mr. Brent Koenen, the Eielson AFB project manager.

4.3.2 Staging Area

The configuration of the thermal treatment staging area is shown in Figure 11. The thermaldesorption unit was set up between Stockpile Enclosure 'A and the gravel road. Treatedsoils were temporarily stockpiled between Enclosure A and the asbestos landfill whileconfirmational samples were being analyzed. Portable generator fights were used to light

2 ~~the soil processing area after dusk.4

The EA field supervisor trailer was equipped with a generator for electricity, a propaneheater, a telephone, and a FAX machine. Analytical results for the confirmational sampleswere faxed to the trailer and to the EA project manager within 24 hours of sample receiptat the laboratory (See Section 5).

4.3.3 Preparation and Handling of Contaminated Soils

The thermal desorption unit was designed to handle soil particles less than or equal to twoinches in diameter. Consequently, the contaminated soils had to be screened to remove thelarger-sized rocks and gravels prior to being fed into the rotary kiln. A portable 4-inchvibrating screen unit was used to separate out gravels larger than four inches. The soils thusscreened were loaded into the feed hopper of the TDU. Gravels between two and fourinches in size were then separated out of the soils by a 2-inch screen attached to the TDU.

The portable vibrating screen unit was initially set up in Stockpile Enclosure B to screen theDining Hall soils (Stockpiles #2 and #3) since these soils were treated first. The unit wassubsequently moved into Stockpile Enclosure A for pre-treatment screening of soils inStockpiles #1, #5, and #6. Dedicated front-end loaders were used to load contaminatedsoils into the vibrating screen unit and the feed hopper of the TDU. The gravels screenedfrom the contaminated soils were stockpiled inside Enclosures A and B. Other than thispre-treatment screening, the contaminated soils required no additional preparation prior totreatment.

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology 24 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 Ltherdesp.rpt

Tteated soils were dumped in a pile by a conveyer belt exiting the loadout hopper. The

soils were continuously -transferred from the loadout hopper pile to the treated soil

temporary storage area (Figure 11) by a dedicated front-end loader. Separate stockpiles of

treated soils were created for each 8-hour shift. Each shift pile was marked with a wooden

stake upon which was written the date, shift number, and sequential pile number.

Confirmational samples were collected from each shift pile by EA field supervisors. The

samples were analyzed for TRPH concentrations within 72 hours of sample collection. Shift

piles satisfying the cleanup criteria as indicated by the analytical results (see Section 5.3.2)

were moved to the remediated soil stockpile in the asbestos landfill. Details of the

confirmational sampling procedures, cleanup criteria, analytical methods and results, and

final status of the treated soils are given in Section 5.

4.4 Soil Stockpiles Treated

Stockpiles #2 and #3 (Dining Hall soils) were treated first. All soils in these stockpile 0

were treated (1,950 tons from Stockpile #2 and 210 tons from Stockpile #3).

Stockpile #1 (Tank 300 and UST soil) was treated next. All soils in this stockpile were

treated except for the soils in cells #8, 16, 20, and 25-28 (see Figure 4), for a total of 3,305

tons treated. The soils in cells #8, 16, 20, and 25-28 were not treated because the results

of the July 1991 pre-treatnment sampling (Table 3) indicated that the soils may already satisfy

ADEC cleanup standards. Also, soils in cell #19 were initially withheld from treatment

because pre-treatment TCLP analyses of soil samples from this cell (see Section 3.2.2.1)

indicated that benzene concentrations were greater than the allowable concentration under

EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Rule (0.5 mg/I). However, laboratory analysis of the soil

sample collected from cell #19 in July 1991 indicated that gasoline was a possible match for

the petroleum product detected in the sample (see laboratory narrative for PNELI 3403 in

'Appendix A, Volume 2). Based on the available evidence (laboratory data and generator

knowledge) that the cell #19 soils were generated from the cleanup of a leaking gasoline

UST, ADEC authorized treatment of the soils on 29 October 1991 (E. Armstrong, personal

communication, 1991). The untreated soils in cells #20 and 25-28 were moved into

E£4 Engineei'ing. Science, and Technology 25 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesprqn

E ~~~Stockpile Enclosure D to allow access to the other stockpiled soils; cells #8 and #16 remainW ~~~in Enclosure A (Figure 13).

Stockpile, #6 (Alpha-Delta soil) was treated next. All the "contaminated" soils temporarily

placed in Enclosure D as a result of the Stockpile #6 segregation (2,400 tons) were treated.

Finally, 645 tons of soil from Stockpile #5 (Waste Treatment soils) were treated. The bulk

of Stockpile #5 was not treated; these soils remain stockpiled in Enclosure C.

'U ~~Soils beneath the fuel-contaminated stockpiles were not sampled. Thus it not known

whether there is any residual hydrocarbon contamination in the areas where the stockpiles- ~~~previously existed.

E4 Engineerinzgi Science, and Technology 2Beidson Air Force Base

1)206.11 therdesp.rpt

5. POST-TREATMENT CONFIRMATIONAL SAMPLING AND FINAL STATUS OFTREATED SOILS

5.1 Sampling Scheme

5.1.1 Sampling Frequency

A total of eighty-three confirmational samples were collected from the 8,510 tons of soils

treated. In addition, seven field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of approximately

one duplicate sample for every twelve confirmational samvples. The field duplicates were

submitted to a reference laboratory as a quality assurance check of the analytical results

reported by the primary laboratory.

For the first six days of soil processing (18-23 October 1991), one discrete confirmational

sample of treated soil was collected per 8-hour shift, in accordance with the Thermal

Treatment Work Plan (EA, 1991a). The soil processing rate varied within each 8-hour shift

and between shifts as a result of temporary equipment malfuinctions, materials handling

difficulties, etc. The average rate of soil treatment during the first six days waa

approximately 21 tons per hour. The sampling frequency during the first six days of theW

operation was thus approximately one sample per 170 tons of treated soils. One pile of

treated soil was generated each 8-hour shift, thus each sample represented a single treated

soil pile.

The rate of soil treatment during the first six days was about 1.7 times the rate that was

originally anticipated in the Work Plan. Consequently, although the one sample per 8-hour

shift sampling frequency was consistent with the Work Plan, the amount of soils that one

sample represented was about 1.7 times the amount originally anticipated.

On 23 October 1991 Ed Armstrong of ADEC visited the site to observe the thermal

treatment operation. He requested that the sampling frequency be increased to one discrete

sample per 100 tons of treated soil, so that the sampling frequency (samples per ton) would

be consistent with original expectations of the soil treatment rate. In response to ADEC's

request, the sampling frequency was increased starting 24 October to one sample per 100

tons. Also in response to ADEC's request, on 25 October ten additional samples were

collected from the 2,700 tons of soil treated during the first six days, at the locations showa

in Figure 12. This raised the number of confirmational samples collected from the first*

£4 Enzgineering, Science, and Technology 27 Eielson Air Force Base

11206.11 therdesp.rpf

2,700 tons of treated soils to a total of twenty-six. Each of the ten additional samplescollected on 25 October consisted of a composite of five discrete samples collected from agrid at each sampling location as shown in Figure 12. Samples were composited in theanalytical laboratory.

5.1.2 Sample Numbering-System

Each confinnational sample was assigned a unique identification number. The samplenumbering system changed a few times over the course of the treatment operation. Thefirst five samples collected were identified with a number composed of four character fields,as shown in the following example:

91 - 10 - 19 - 2

year month date shift#

The next twelve samples were identified with a number composed of five fields, as shownin the following example:

91 - 10 - 20 - 6 -2

year month date pile # shift#

The pile number used in this version of the sample ID number is the sequential pilenumber. Pile #1 was generated during the first (and only) shift of the first day of soiltreatment (18 October). Subsequent piles were numbered sequentially: pile #2 wasgenerated during the first shift of the second day of soil treatment, pile #3 was generatedduring the second shift of the second day of soil treatment, etc.

All but eighteen of the remaining sixty-six confirmational samples were identified with anumber composed of four fields, as shown in the following example:

911025 - 22 - 3 - 1

) III Iyr., mno., date pile # shift# sequential

sample #from pile

EA Engineering Science, and Technology 28 EBelson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

Ten of the eighteen remaining samples that did not conform to this numbering system wer*the samples collected on 25 October from the first 2,700 tons of soils treated. Thesesamples were numbered 1025PB-1 through 1025PB-10. The other eight remaining sampleswere identified with a number composed of either two or three fields, as shown in thefollowing examples:

2 Fields: 911027 - 27

I Iyr., Mo., date pile#

3 Fields: 911027 - 28 - 2

I I 1yr., mo., date pile # sequential

sample #from pile

The absolute rate of soil processing varied within shifts and between shifts, thus the treatedsoil piles were not all the same size. Consequently, equal numbers of samples were not*collected from all the treated soil piles. Those soil piles that consisted of 100 tons of treateW

soil or less were only sampled once; samples from these piles were labeled with a 2-fieldnumber similar to that shown in the preceding example. The number of samples collected

each day from each pile of treated soil is listed in the summary table of analytical results

for the confirmational samples (Table 6).

The field duplicate QA samples were assigned unique MI numbers based on the systemdescribed above. The QA sample numbers identified, at a minimum, the sample collectiondate and the pile number. The letter "R" was used as the last character of the QA sample

numbers, to indicate that these samples were to be sent to a reference laboratory.

5.2 General Sampling Procedures

Confirmational samples of treated soils were collected by EA field supervisors. CleanNitrile gloves were worn at all times by EA personnel during sample collection. Sampleswere collected from a randomly chosen location near the top of the shift pile. Samples wereobtained by first scraping off the top six to eight inches of soil from the sampling location.The soils thus exposed were then transfer-red by hand into a laboratory-supplied, wide-mouto

EA4 Engineering, Science, and Technology 29 Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 thierdesp.rpt

glass sample jar. The jar was completely filled and the soils were compacted to minimize

void space. The sample jar was then immediately sealed with a Teflon-lined screw-on lid,

0' ~~and the sample was labeled with the site location, date, time, sampler's initials, and a uniquesample ID number.

Samples were packed in coolers containing ice, and the coolers were taped shut for delivery

to the analytical laboratory. Custody seals were placed over the cooler lids to prevent

unnoticed tampering. A chain-of-custody record listing individual samples, sampling data,

and requested analyses accompanied each cooler sent to the analytical laboratory. The

samples were shipped to the laboratory at 40 C.

5.3 Quantitative Chemistry Analyses

5.3.1 General Analyical Procedures

& ~~All the post-treatment confirmational samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbon

concentrations by Columbia Analytical Services (CAS), Anchorage, Alaska. To expedite

transfer of remediated soils into the asbestos landfill area, the samples were analyzed and

results reported to the EA field personnel and project manager within 24 hours of samplereceipt at the laboratory. The field duplicate QA samples were analyzed by Sound

Analytical Services (SAS), Tacoma, Washington.

The thermal treatment process was expected to be most effective in removing the lighter

(i.e. gasoline-range) hydrocarbons from the contaminated soils since these compounds are

the most volatile. Any residual hydrocarbons remaining in the soils after treatment were

expected to be diesel-range or heavier compounds. Consequently, EPA Method 418.1

Samlesnot meeting the primary cleanup criterion for TRPH (see below) were alsop ~ ~~naye by EPA Method 8015 Modified (TEPH-D) and EPA Method 8020 (B3TEX).

5.3.2 Cleanup Criteria

A treated soil pile was considered successfully remediated if all samples from the pile had

TRPH concentrations of 100 mg/kg or less. This is AIJEC's most stringent (level A)

cleanup level for diesel-range hydrocarbons. Remnediated soil piles meeting this cleanup

criterion were transferred to the remnediated soil stockpile in the asbestos landfill enclosure.

£4 Engineering Science, and Technology 30 Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 £herdesp.rpt

If any samples from a treated soil pile did not pass the 100 mg/kg TRPH criterion after@initial testing by EPA Method 418.1, one of the samples was re-analyzed by EPA Method

8015 Modified to determine concentrations of diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons (TEPH-D). One sample from each pile failing the initial cleanup criterion was also re-analyzed byEPA Method 8020 to determine concentrations of aromatic volatile organics (BTEX). Thesecondary criteria for demonstration of successful soil remediation then became: 1) TEPH-Dconcentration less than 100 mg/kg; 2) total BTEX concentration less than 10 mg/kg; and

3) benzene concentration less than 0.5 mg/kg. A fourth condition that needed to be metin order for the secondary cleanup criteria to be satisfied was that the TRPH concentration

determined by EPA Method 418.1 was less than 2,000 mg/kg.

The above-described procedure for assessin~g compliance of soil piles- failing the primarycleanup criterion (100 mg/kg TRPH) represents a departure from the procedure outlinedin the Work Plan. The original plan was to automatically reprocess any soils failing the 100mg/kg criterion without any additional characterization of the residual contamination, and

to then analyze the reprocessed soils a second time by EPA Method 418.1. If the soilspassed the 100 mg/kg criterion alter the second processing, they would be moved to theasbestos landfill. If the reprocessed soils did not pass they would be returned to one of thestockpile enclosures, and a sample of the soil would be analyzed by EPA Method 801WModified to characterize the residual hydrocarbon contamination.

Mr. Ed Armstrong of ADEC was informed of the intended modifications to this originalplan on 29 October 1991. Mr. Armstrong approved the modified plan on 30 October 1991,

on the condition that the failed soils be analyzed for BTEX in addition to diesel-range4 ~~hydrocarbons as described above (E. Armstrong, personal communication, 1991).

5.3.3 Analytical Results

The analytical results for the post-treatment confirmational samples and the QA field

duplicates are summarized in Table 6; laboratory analytical reports are contained inAppendix D, Volume 2. Seventy-eight percent of the confirmational samples passed theprimary cleanup criterion of less than 100 mg/kg TRPH. The confirmational samples that

failed the primary criterion passed all of the secondary cleanup criteria. No soils werereprocessed.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 31 Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 thzerdesp.rpt

Inthree of the four field duplicates for which corresponding confirmational. samples had'detectable TRPH, the duplicate results were within sixteen percent of the sample results.WI Th~Ie fourth duplicate had results that were within seventy-seven percent of the sample

* ~~~results. In all cases the field duplicate results agreed with the confirmational sample resultswith regard to compliance with the primary cleanup criterion (i.e., samples that passed theprimary cleanup criterion had corresponding duplicates that also passed the criterion, and' ~~~samples that failed the primary cleanup criterion had corresponding duplicates that alsofailed).

fl ~~5.4 Final Status of Treated Soils

EU ~~All the remediated soils were stockpiled in the asbestos landfill enclosure (Figure 13). Thelarge rocks and gravels that were screened from the contaminated soils prior to treatmentwere stockpiled in Enclosures A and B.

a ~~~E niernSine n ehoo 2EesnArFreBsU ~~~~12611teds~p

6. CONCLUSIONS

Thermal desorption proved to be an effective treatment method for reducing petroleumhydrocarbon concentrations in stockpiled fuiel-contamninated soils at Eielson Air Force Base.Initial contaminant levels of up to 17,000 mg/kg TEPH as diesel, 16,000 mg/kg TEPH aspetroleum oil, and 3,500 mg/kg TVPH as gasoline were reduced to less than 100 mg/kgTEPH as diesel and less than 2,000 mg/kg TRPH. Total BTEX concentrations inpost-treatment samples with TRPH levels greater than 100 mg/kg were reduced to less than10 mg/kg, and benzene concentrations were reduced to less than 0.5 mg/kg. The finalhydrocarbon concentrations in the treated soils are less than ADEC's most stringent (levelA) cleanup levels for soils contaminated with diesel-range and residual-range petroleum

hydrocarbons.

The total amount of contaminated soil treated by thermal desorption was 8,510 tons. Soils

were processed 24 hours per day for a total of 14.3 days, giving an average treatment rateof 595 tons per day. The total cost of treating the soils (excluding EA project supervision,management, pre- and post-treatment sampling, reporting, etc.) was $100 per ton. Thisincludes all subcontractor costs of mobilization, site preparation, equipment set-up, and soiprocessing. w

The thermal treatment operation generally followed the procedures and schedule outlinedin the Work Plan. Minor equipment malfunctions and complications associated withoperating the thermal treatment unit in cold (-10o F to +30' F) weather added 1-2 days tothe planned duration of the treatment phase. Fugitive dust was difficult to control duringtransport of treated soils from the loadout hopper to the treated soil temporary storage area,

as the soils exiting the rotary kiln were exceptionally dry and fluffy, similar to ash. On 4November 1991 ADEC issued a warning letter to CleanSoils Inc. stating that dust emissions

observed at the job site were out of compliance with the conditions of the air permit issued

to them.

The thermal desorption treatment was successful in remediating soils on a short schedule,

thereby fireeing up valuable space in the Contaminated Soil Storage Area. Whenconsidering future cleanup options for petroleum contaminated soils, the data generated bythis project should be used to compare thermal desorption against other remedialalternatives, particularly when time is not the primary factor limiting the technology,selection. Sand and gravel soils such as those found in the near-surface at Eielson AEB areW*

£4 Engineering. Science, and Technology 33 Eielson Air Force BaseS ~ ~~~~11206. 11 therdesp.rpt

welsuited to a variety of treatment technologies. To the extent possible, available~4ecnoloies houl beexplored and compared with regard to cost/time efficiencies and

-~ ~oire effctivnessbefre conunencing future treatment programs. Additional full-scale

~ *ad/orbenc-scae tetingof various remedial technologies under field conditions typicalof hos atElesonwil gnerate valuable data for conducting feasibility comparisons specific

to the Eielson AFB site.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 34 Eielson Air Force Ease1120611 therdesp-rpt

REFERENCES

4 ~Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 1991. Guidance for Storage,Remediation, and Disposal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils.

Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Trip Report and Chemical Data Report -- Upgrade

Sewage Treatment Plant, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (4 March 1991).

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991a. Thermal Treatment Work Plan for

Stockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force Base (24 July 1991).

BA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991b. Thermal Treatment Work Plan forStockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska: Addendum 1 (4

October 1991).

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991c. Thermal Treatment Work Plan forStockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska: Addendum 2 ( 2 aOctober 1991).V

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991id. Site Safety and Health Plan forPre-Treatment Sampling of Stockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force

Base, Alaska (18 July 1991).

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991e. Site Safety and Health Plan for

Field Screening, Sampling, and Thermal Treatment of Stockpiled Fuel-ContaminatedSoils at Eielson Air Force Base (14 October 1991).

'EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1991if Pre-Treatment Confirmational

Testing of Stockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soils at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska: Data

Summary Report (13 September 1991).

EA Engineering, Science and Technology (EA), 199 1g. Addendum I to Data SummaryReport for Pre-Treatment Confirmational Testing of Stockpiled Fuel-Contaminated Soilsat Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (27 October 1991).

R- 1

E4 Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose11206.11 Llierdesp.rpe

EA Engineering, Science and Technology (EA), 1991h. Ejelson Air Force Base Thermal

~'4r Desorption Soil Treatment Project Site Supervisor's Manual (22 October 1991).

CEnviromnental Systems, Inc. (ESI), 1990. Site Remediation Report (30 August 1990).

Keiling, 1991. Letter to P. McGee, ADEC: Environmental Remedial Projects andProcedures for 1990 (undated).

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Ed Armstrong, Environmental Engineer, ADEC, personal communication with Mike Ramney,EA, 29 October 1991.

Brent Koenen, Chief of Environmental Planning, Eielson AFB, personal communicationwith Mike Ramey, EA, May - October 1991.

Rielle Markey, Environmental Field Officer, ADEC, personal communication with Robert

L~eet, EA, 15 October 1991.

R-2EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp~rpt

I

FIGURES AND TABLES

+ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

E4 Engineering Science, and Technology Ejelson AFB11206.11 therdesp.rpt

I, . ~~~~~~~ Is I~~I . Q I I I4I

ii- ~~~~~~~~~~~ .- III &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fi O - o

rj p "" co

A r . I' iI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~E'

sF p. wfl.~~~~~~~~' ,.~~~ It I *~~~~~' p pll

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ittw 4>w~~~~~r.. &-... , 'rot' >~~~~til

NIS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

4 I~~4-

F a ulty~~~~~~~~~r i~ Ii t

-N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

ODS ~~~~ASBESTOS IWOODS ~~~~LANDFILL

BERMED STOCKPILE ENCLOSURES

WOODS I I ~~~~~~INACTIVELANDFILL

CON TAMI NATEDSOIL STORAGEAREA

USED ASPHALTSTORAGE AREA

300' 150' 0 300' 600'

Ficure 2. Land use in vicinity of Contaminated Soil Storage Area,

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

Elelson Air Force Base0nn Tha....i TrannOn*n Prn~iat4 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

ASBESTOS LAkNDFILL

4 ~~~~ENCLOSURE A

A ST SOILS)-

STOCKPILE #7(VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SOILS)

ENCLOSURE C

(WASTE --- l-~~~~~~~~~:ENCLOSURE 0TREATMENT SOILS) SOKi.

(ALPHA-DELTA...TCKESOILS) /

ENCLOSURE B

STOCKPILE t,2 ~~~(ALPHA-DELTA SOILS)(DINING HA OLS)

(DINING HAL SOILS)

iSO' 75' 0 150' 300

Figure 3.Configuration of soil stocko;'es in the Contaminated Soil StorageArea on 15 October 199X, prior to thermal treatment.

Eelelon Air Force Base g~-SiI.ThrrniTrnnstumnsn Prn-isct _AEgneigScience, and Technology

0 1 ~~~3-Foot8 c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Earthon/Gfov.I

Soil Samplng Location Jul 1916 -

Elelsan Ah' ForcecBas- .. - . -. .A ETA Enaineerine, Science an~~~Rod Tcnl

Eorthen/Grovei

Stcckpiie #2

-1- -4 -7-

9 I D I

-2- -Stockpile f3

- IS' I S' 2' 4'

0Soil sampling location, JUly' 1991. I I

Fioure 5. Soil sampling !ocato-ns on Stockpiles #2 and # (Dining hall soils)

EBelson Air Force Bas- ~~~~~~a cearn %rience and Technology

ASBESTOS LANDFILL

STZCKPIL-E#

STVOCKPILE

HOSP. *'~TO CA i E__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

HOSP.41

HOSp.~ HOSP. <

STOCKPILE KPI#2

STOCKILE #

Soil scmpling location 1"50' 75' 9 1 5 0, 300'

Figure c. snmpiing 'ecaticns cn. Etcp e45'st Treo "en cs.ccbrt9

Eielaon Air Force BaseICnil Tharmal Trnatmnnt Proiect EA Enginee ~na Science, and Technolog0y

-~~~~~ ~ASBESTOS LANDFILL

I - .- - ~~~~STOCCKPILE #

EM1 TCKPILE

AOSP.7

< ~~~~~~~ADSP.8 CO ACE0

STO PIL* AQSP.1O AOSP.9 MARGIN

STOCKP!L- 2 ADSPTOCPWE .t 3

/ I ADSP.SP51

ADSP.2 ADSPAS

STOCKP!LE #2

1 50' 7 5' 0 150' 300'Soil sampling ocation I

Ficure -- Soil sar.np!:nng o-catiens cn czkpi~e #6 ~Acc acce 99:.

Eielson Air Force BaseSoil Therrnsl Treatment Project - A Engineerng Science, and Tecnncicgv

10000

3000

C) rr~~~~~~~~~~ogy .4AO0rM + 3S462E10002

±:300

C)

Q)

w 30ir-

10

1 10 100 1,000

TOV Concentration (ul/I)

(a)

10000* - StockpIle# I sarnples

A - Alpha Detta sarnples

3000

E 1000 h-.ooc~34a~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 .6(7pit sd

0

*~300

a)

8 100

00

A~~~~.

10010 ,0

TOV Concentration (ul/I)

(b)

Figure 8. Concentration of extractable petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TEPH-D)plotted against total organic vapor (TOV) concentration in soil samplesfrom fuel-contaminated soil stockpiles, Elelson Air Force Base. (a) Datafrom Stockpile #1, July 1991. (b) Same as (a), with data from Stockpile #6(October 1991) superimposed.

10

~ TPH- 10pmcean)

8 mP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H-C> 100 ~ppm ("cont~aminated)j

0~

E

.0

t0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0

t -~~~~~~~~~~~~Yco - ~ -- '

0) 0 U) 0N ul

TOV concentration (ul/l)

(a)

A .- CIOef samples mrsnlasfied as ontziunatod' C J e0)C) ~~~B .- COOmainatod smnples mis-ciasdi ascleajr

0.8 -- uoc~vsnd0

minimum --

'7n 0.6 - (20 P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m) . ...... ....... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..... . . . . . . . . .

CL0.4 - ~ . .. ~.*~o .

E ~ACi)

o0 0.2-

LL-- - - - - -

0

1 0 30 100 300 1000

Cutoff TOV Concentration (ul/l)

(b)

Figure 9. Distribution of soil samples from Stockpile #1 and Stockpile #6as a function of TEPH-D and TOV concentrations. (a) Number ofsamples in specified TOV concentration ranges. (b) Fraction ofsamples classified incorrectly as a function of cutoff TOV concentration;the number of mis-classified samples is minimized at a cutoff TOVof 20 Wl/.

FAO

z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c.

]D~~~~~~o o

Q)4c

00

0 (U~~~ CO%

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 - 2<C

)~~~~~~CL C~~~~~~~~L

z Oo~~~~~c

Lu ~ ~ Ii I

ASBESTOS LANDFILL

TIREATED SOIL ~-TEEDSITEMP ORARY RATETDSISTORAGE ARE 9TEMPORARY

- ---- ~~~STORAGE AREALO1-ADOUT HOPPERTHERMALDESORPTION UNIT SCKIE#

sTOCKPWE AFTERBURNER STACK

0

4-INCH VIBRATING SCREEN UNIT

STOCKPILESTCKIL #

K . ~~~~~~~-d

STOCKPILE#

AFIELD SUPERVISOR'S TRAILER

STOCKPILE #3

150' 75' 0 1 50 300'

Ficure 1'1. Ocnficuraticn thermal treatment staging 'nrea. supervisor's trialer.treated soil tempcrary stcr~oe area, and s-o: stcckpi~es 'it start ofthermal treatm-ent &-n '8 'cetber '99s.

Eieleon Air Force BaseSoil Thermal Treatment Prolect EAEgiering Science, and Technolog

1025PS I ~~SOILS TREATED1025P8- ~~~DURING FIRST

18-23 OCTOBER)* '~~-2,700 tons)

~plargemnent showing *2P-5iscrete sampling 1025PB-3

pattern at each02P-location.105B5 02P9

ASBESTOS LANDFILL

QTREATED SOIL TRATD OITEMPORARY TRAEDSISTORAGE AREA L TEMPORARY

- ~~~~~STORAGE AREA

DESORPTION UNIT~4-INCH VIBRATING SCREEN UNIT

STOCKPILE #7

STOCKPILE #2

FIELD SUPERVISOR'S TRAILER

150' 75' 0 150' 300'a Soil sampling location I I I - ----- I---------

reaure 12. suppiemental soil sampling :oca~t~cns on stockpile of soils treated drn is

six days of thermal treatment operation; samples collected 25 Cjctober 11991.

Eielson Air Farce BaseO~il Tknnnl Trn~atrnent Proiect EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

V ~~~~~~~REMEDIATED SOILSTOCKPILE

('-8,510 tons)

ASBESTOS LANDFILL

STOCKPILE #1 SOILS

STOCKPILE #7 SOILS('-2.400 tons)

"INTERMEDIATE" ALPHAazc~~ D-ELTA SUB-PILESrnaz ~ (~,30tos

4' ~STOCKPILE #5('-3,855 tons) 4

or"CLEAN" ALPHA DELTA

~CsrCI SUB-PILESI.... wo~~~~~~~~~~m= ('-2,700 tons)

STOCKPILE #4('-19,050 tons)

150' 75' 0 150' 300' SFigure 13. Final configuration of ci stockpiles remaining in the Contaminated Soil

Storage Area at the completion of the Thermal Treatment Projiect on2 November 1991.

Elelson Air Farce Base- - - - ~- - .EA Enqineerinq. Science, and Technology

Table 1. Concentrations of total organic vapors (TOV) and total extractable petroleum hydrocarbonsas diesel (TEPH-fi) in pre-tr-eatment soil samples from Stockpile #1 (Tank 300, UST soils),Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; samples collected 27-30 July 1991. See Figure 3 for location

of Stockpile #1; laboratory analytical reports are contained In Appendix A, Volume 2.

TOV Concentration *TEPH-D b

Sample (al /1) (mrg/kg)...

SP1.1A4 1 ND(1

SP1.2C2 80 460

SP1.3A3 2 410

SP1.4C4 450 450

SF1.582 25 10

SP1.6A3 550 850

SP1:7A4 1 44

SP1.8C2 10 ND (2)

SP1.9A3 10 N~D (3)

SP1.10D3 30 110

SP1.11D3 900 ND (4)

SP1.12D2 100 130

SP1.13134 550 1000

SP1.14D32 20)0 ND (5

SP1.15133 9 ND (6

SP1.16B34 450 66

SPI.17C2 65 120

SF1. 18A3 100 N 7

SP1.19B2 1000 4900

SP1.20C3 5 N 8

SP1.21B4 1 170

SPI.22B32 20 75

SP1.23C3 35 160

SP1.24A3 150 170

SP1.25A2 10 ND (9

SP1.26A3 3 68

SP1.27A4 8 70

SP1 .28A i 1000 47

EA Engineering. Science, and Technology Eielson Air Force Bose

11206. 11 therdesp.rpt

Table 1. Concentrations of total organic vapors (TOV) and total extractable petroleum hydrocarbonsas diesel (TEPH-D) In pre-treatment soil samples from Stockpile #1 (Tank 300, UST soils),Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; samples collected 27-30 July 1991. See Figure 3 for locationof Stockpile #1; laboratory analytical reports are contained in Appendix A, Volume 2.

TOV Concentration a TEPHD b

Samole ... L 4if.1.. _&nLis)

SP1.4C4R (1)450 260

SP1.11D3R (1)900 330

SP1.19B2R (12) 100O 510

8Measured with a Foxboro Model 128 organic vapor analyzer (OVA - flame ionization detector).b EPA Method 8015M quantitated as diesel.

() Method reporting limit (MRL) = 93 mg/kg.(2) MRL = 96 mg/kg.

3) MRL = 97 mg/kg.4) MRL:= 1800 mg/kg.

(6) MRL = 91 mg/kg.() MRL = 1800 mg/kg.

(8) MRL = 87 mg/kg.

9) MRL = 92 mg/kg.(10) Field duplicate; analysis done by Columbia Analytical Services (CAS), Inc. (all other analyses done by

(11 Feldupicae nlyi oe yCS(1) Field duplicate; analysis done by CAS.

ND: Not detected at or above specified method reporting limit.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Ejelson Air Force Base11206.11 therdesp.rpt

* -La.

t 7 a , O w ON a

4bS ~ ' c o - - 'o

* 31

COW od..dd..N O %I

Os 0\~~~~~ ~ ZO 0%0 0%00%00 %0

- -Ic~~~

U0~~~~~~~~~t

CL l N z N 0

CU d) c 00 I ( N 0

C6 -0' 4)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

co ~ . o T z I Z

04 3z

0 00 0 l

o -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E

De 0 C~~~~~~~ oq' acc '00

0 a~~~~>O

E0Cs -

MW 0

SS I 060 0 ~cI

rwu

-- V~~~~~~~~~

to;-. '~ .

-

VU,

MSU 6 ,~R 45

Cto < '

I o---0- ~~~~~~~~~ i' ~~~~~~~~~~e6~~~~~t

51,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O S

-c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~qK- C- VC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x

'0 N- ' 0 c~~ ~~~~~~~d 4

s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~ ~ -

-oq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

09 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a 0 -. *0 ~ ~~~~~~~ E Q0 - 0

CLQ oCs

a

a- V -- oo.

2 r .. a.. cq

Cs 0JEua

4,-~~~~~~4C

900

0

-5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

C-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

CIO

Lift~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

r _u

-& co~ ~ ~ ~~~o -9

r~

Ca~Icow

co~U

Ii X

s-c -, C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

Vt~~~~~~~~~~~aC

M MI

02~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EGI JE~~~i~ L

Va Cs

a

'S

"'U zz

Cs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S ~ ~ ~

Ul~~~~~

us~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

4w0

got U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

-G 0 M a i a a a~~~~~~~ 0'4ci~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l q0

.0

< 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

oc~~~~~~

.0 .0 0 0

H E C

0.£3~~

- 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~

-- S~~~IEO

V C

A A Im TX Cs~ * V0 43

4¾% m 0 m %

C,; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i C~~~~~~~~~~~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

4)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

a IE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

en-C- E0 o

u= <P 9'1'":'> Z 0-N nN0

0Or a'0 ' %00% aW C q -IC

'0 e 0z 00...

0Om0

4 0C6 4Er-

Eitoa.uw

c c a-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C) W>~~~~~~4

wco 00 *ES

*~~~ ~ Sco 0.

00E o o 0 en Z CoV

* V~~ Table S. Concentrations of total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TEPH-fi) in soilsamples from untreated Alpha Delta (Stockpile #6) sub-piles dlassified as "clean" and"intermediate," Eielson Mir Force Base, Alaska samples collected on 25 October 1991. SeeFigure 11 for sampling locations; laboratory analytical reports contained In Appendix C,

Sampling LocationTEPH-138

______e (sub-nie#p(g/g

ADSP.5 '~~~~~clean" #1 ND

k.ns10 (1'clean' #2 ND

CS-3 '~~~~~cleann #3 ND

CS-4 '~~~~~clean! #4 NDADCS-5 ~~~~~"cleat' #5 ND

ADCS-6 ~~~~~~~clean" #6 ND

ADCS-7 ~~~~~"clean' #7 ND

ADCS-8 '~~~~~~clean' #8 ND

'ADCS-9 '~~~~~clean' #9 ND

,'?LDCS-10 '~~~~clean" #10 ND

-ADCS-11 '~~~~~clean" #11 ND

ADCS-12 ~~~~~clean" #12 ND

ADCS-13 '~~~~~clean' #13 ND

ADCS-14 '~~~~~clean' #14 ND

* -~~ ADCS-15 "cean' #15 ND

~. ADCS-16 "cleat7 #16 ND

ADCS-17 '~~~~~clean' #17 ND

* ~~ADCS-18 'clean' #18 ND

ŽNA ADMSP-1 "intermediate" #1 35

-,ADMSP-2 "intermediate" #2 37* A~~ADMP-3"intermediate" #3 37

4'~AKADMP-4 "intermediate" #4 ND

A SP5 "intermediate" #5 41

AMP-6 "intermediate" #6 ND

~~ADMSP-7 ~~~~"intermediate" #7 26

~,AMSP-8 "intermediate" #8 ND

AMSP-9 "intermediate" #9 ND

EAMethod 8100 Modified quantitated as diesel-, method reporting limit =10 mg/kg.aNtdetected at or above specified method reporting limit.

t~t~e~tratmet samples were used as the confirmational samples for "clean"'sub-piles #1 and #2, since soitese sub-piles came from the uncompacted margin of the original Stockpile #6 sampled previously (see

ed,,Science, and Technology 1 Ejelson Air Force Base

C~~~~~~C

w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C) w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

N c~~~~~c

~~2 . I I) I I I I I

1-0 <* I -~ 0

'Zn

4))

CO~~~~~~~~~~~~,

n~~~~~r

CL

- -~~~0C

- a - -

- 0. ~ or-a~ '0-- o - -. - r- a' - - - 0000 '

Ifl - % t C0 ' t te a ' i e

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

us C~~~~~~~~~~0C

-< C~~~~~~~~~~~~C4C-V -4'4 - - - - - --)

74I 7 7 ) C) 7 ) C) C ) C ) ) C Z) C C ) C )

Pr,

> a )

CL ol4 fl CD CDS..

0 .

4)Cs

oL 0 00

Id-

* -fl < P-S- - - - - - - -~ -3 -o -o - - - - - - -j -n -

.9 0 0' 0' 0' 0' 0 0' 0 O 0' 0' O 0' 0' 0' 0 0' 0' O 0 0

E 00 -'T4o I

V ~('j . . . . . . . . U- . U U U U U . U . .) U .

1 T C ~ ~ ~ C l lClCaC C C l lClClC C

- -U

Ca-I..O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

C .2E ~Cl C Cl Cl ClC C l I l lC

a -Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>0aC

U ~ ~ ~ ~ , a, a Cla,0 C Y - - -e - - -e - -- -e

x IE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

4 ~~~~~~Eo

-4 ~0

if~0 Z 0,,00iO , ii

E- 2;~~J~i ~~> 0

- - - - - - - - - -0 - - - - - a

Cc ~~ 00 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0

C0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

0 -

C- 0- (

- ~~~0 0 ia ,>C 00 0 a 0 i D a I > L

a~ : ~ II IE

C ~ ~ o ,o ,(,a ,a ,c ,a 7 ,a ,c ,a ,5

16~ ~ ~~ I I I I I I I I I I -1

CO

00

-w

Co~~~

CL

-0

- 06

< F-E ZZ Z Z Z

a, a, c, c, c, a, a,(7, a, 0a a' a' a'>>> >> >

S aooooooooooooooo0 zzz zzz

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

in n mC fnN N c c a a'0 N

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

u C6e tIlIf fl' O a -N w 00 00 a, 0 0,- (N4 C j.

'0 a a', c o o

Q0000Q0 0 0 0C000 0 --- -

~0 o, ,--ZZZZoZaZaZaZaZ aZZZZZZaaZZZo' C I

tI

Li, ~~~Iit I I~~~~~~

E -0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~~~3 ~~00 r< ~~~~~~~CdCL.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

--~~~~FC~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

W 4 V

*a ; I Iu 00 CL .2~~~~~V~~~~~~<>

tC -.Ir

Sc~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

- C)

Cd,

c~~~~~~~~ C~ ~~Vci < < 0w

-a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~0

00 Cd- I-~0

Ca £E.2

C,0~

0 a' O'O' C.24

u ~~Cu 0 -0 0 C>~4c~~) -WC .- *

Ca-(A a, Z"'( '3

Po~-z.04

pHoTOGRAPHS

E £4 E nginee flfl& Science, and T ec hnolotYiel

on A F

11206-1) therdesP.TPt

Best Available Copy

Plate I. Tank 300 bulk storage tank.

Plate 2. Measuring total organic vapor CrOV) concentrations in Stockpile #1 soils prior to samnpling.

LA E~nqn tcrlI, Sc uttec, and Tech;:olov Elus on Air Fornt Iuw

11206 /1 r/tcrdn' rpr

Best Available COPY

Plate 3. Digging a test pit in Stockpile #1.

Plate 4. Collecting a soil sample from the test pit using a slide hammer.

EI- Euzginzenn~,~ Science, and Technolokiy Eiefson <1FB

11206, 11 Iherde y rpt

Best Available Copy

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Plate 5. Recording sampling data in field logs; OVA and sample cooler are visible in foreground.

Plate 6. A member of the EA sampling team decontaminates his protective clothing after leaving StockpileEnclosure A.

EAEngineering Science, and Technology Ejelson AFB) 11206.11 therdesp.rpt

Best Available Copy

Plate 7. Measuring total organic vapor ('TOy) concentrations in Stockpile #6 soils prior to sampling.

Plate 8. Screening contaminated soils in Stockpile Enclosure B to remove rocks and gravels larger than 4

inches prior to loading into feed hopper of thermal desorption unit.

EAi E'zghinecnjg Science, and Technolokv Eielsoni < Ff3

11206 /1 therdesp rpt

Best Available COPY

Plate 9. T'hermal desorption unit, showting (left to right) bag house, 2-inch screen, rotary kiln, and loadout

hopper. Pile of screened 2-4 inch gravels is visible at center of photograph; treated soil pile is visible

* ~~~~~~to the right.

l'late I0. Thermal desorption unit, showing treated soil pile in foreground, bag house and afterburner

exhaust stack in background. Scaffolding was erected for sampling afterburner emissions.

F-I Eiigmnecring, Science. and Technology Eiebot -lipr> Bast,

11200, II/ thvircdtjp.rj'(

Best Available Copy

Plate 11. Moving remediated soils from the treated soil temporary storage area to the asbestos Iandflhl.

Plate 12. Fugitive dust emissions from the treated soils were difficult to control due to the extremely da

ash-like nature of the treated soils.

EA Engineeriusg, Science. anl Technoloilv Eielsoni Air Force Base

11206 11 iIert~iLpI.ptI