NCD980602163_19970625_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Criteria for Technology Screening, 1995-OCR

• Complete illlM 1 IIWd/or 2 for additional services. • C ......... 3,lllld4a&b. • Mil ,-.... and llddrea on the rever• of thia form so that we can I U10 wish tci receive' the following services (for an extra fee): ,_ ... ea,d to you. • Attach .,_ faMI to the front of the mailplece, or on the back if apace ~ not permit. 1. D Addr ..... •s AddrNS • Write "Reun Receipt Requnted'' on the meHpiece below tha article number 2. 0 Restricted Delivery • TM Return "-ipt FN wlH provide you the lignature of the parson delive tonthlldateof eater for fee. 3. Article Addr111ed to: 4a. Article Number PAULINE ~D ECO 106 ROBINSON STREET ASHLAND VA 23005 P 233 870 035 D Insured □coo 0 Return R~lpt for of Delivery r--•• Addresa (Only if requ•ted cl fee 18 paid) PS Form , November 1990 * u.s. GPO: 11181-211-oee DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
Date: 6128195 Time: 13:10:42
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
Professional Waste Management Consultants
106 Robinson Street Ashland, Virginia 23005
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM VIA FACSIMILE
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
PAULINE EWALD -ECO
VENDOR SELECTION CRITERIA
JUNE 28, 1995
[phone]
ECO received a certified letter on June 24, 1995, containing a draft document dated
only June 1995, and entitled Technology Screening :Remediation of the Warren
County PCB Landfill. As requested and promised we have reviewed that information
and provide the following comments:
1. This document clearly addresses only technology screening, when the appropriate
issue was the preparation of selection criteria for procuring a BCD vendor to
perform a pilot study at the site. The full Working Group has formally voted on at
least two occasions to prioritize and move ahead with BCD as the preferred
remedial technology, and this document does nothing to further that goal, or to
enable the State to finalize a Request For Proposal (RFP) that is prerequisite to
implementing a pilot study.
2. The information provided in this draft memo is merely a restatement of EPA's
Feasibility Study (FS) screening criteria. Again, in numerous instances before the
assembled Working Group, and in conversations with the Co-Chairs, I have
indicated that allocating time, resources and effort to an FS, or FS type screening
would result in an undue, and unnecessary delay in implementing both the pilot
study and the ultimate remediation, which should not be countenanced in light of
the serious dioxin contamination of ground and surface waters at several locations
on the site.
Page 1 of5
f~.: 'PAl,"l.l~ EWALD ECO Date: 6128195 Time: 13:11:48
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP MEMO
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE2
The FS process is time and resources intensive, and often after months of time and
money expended yields a preferred remedial technology that commonsense and
experience dictated from the outset. This is so widely recognized to be the case that
even EPA has adopted a Presumptive Remedy policy, whereby sites with a well
understood list of identified contaminants (as is the case with the PCB landfill) will be
tracked towards the appropriate, previously demonstrated technologies in lieu of a full
FS (See, Directive 9355.0-47FS / EPA 540-F-93-047 / PB 93-963345 September
1993).
Furthermore, we seriously question the technology screening and weighting criteria
presented. In our view, Community Acceptability rather than being a single criteria
among many should be considered a threshold determinant. This means that
technologies that are not acceptable to the Warren County residents would be
immediately dropped from further evaluation and consideration.
Additionally, in the provided draft document, all criteria are given equal weighting or
decision making consideration. This is inappropriate in that criteria such as extent of
prior experience, projected duration and estimated cost, are certainly much less
important in real world consequences than criteria such as long term effectiveness
and potential generation of residuals. Again, even EPA recognizes this fact, and
weights cost as a factor only where there is a very wide (magnitudes of order)
discrepancy in projected costs between technologies (See, Guidance For Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, October 1988).
The criteria are also problematic in that they fail to discuss or distinguish the
differences between innovative technologies that have been pilot tested under the
auspices and oversight of EPA versus those that have been performed and the results
reported privately. Obviously, this is not merely a semantic distinction, in that the
incentive for both vendors and responsible parties at waste sites in demonstrating that
a particular technology is effective may influence the reporting of results in a way that
does not provide a comprehensive or accurate picture of technology performance.
This risk is minimized where a standardized protocol in being instituted and where
confirmatory and oversight work is being provided. The draft report is inconsistent
this point, describing and rating some technologies that have been performed only in
private situations, on a par or higher than technologies that have sustained the scrutiny
of EPA and been adjudged effective.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
Page 2 of 5
F~·: PAUliN_E EWALD ECO Date: 6128195 Time: 13:12:56
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP MEMO
JUllE 28, 1995
PAGE3
We noted with particular interest that incineration was given the highest rating of 4
( demonstrated ability to remove 99% of toxic constituents) under the long term
effectiveness criteria. Extensive research and involvement on sites by ECO has not
yielded the same conclusion. In fact incinerators can only meet required performance
standards through manipulation of the testing and data reporting process. The
99.9999% destruction efficiency cited for incineration is also incorrect, in that even
incinerator operators concede that the six nines (99.9999) benchmark represents the
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of these units. This means that the
contribution of pollution removing portions of the process which only physically
remove, but do not destroy or immobilize the wastes are counted into the performance
rating for these units, even though they generate residuals that very often contain large
concentrations of metals and halogenated substance such as dioxins and furans. This
draft technology screening makes the same critical error that industry prepared
evaluations suffer from, specifically in unfairly comparing the "reported" Destruction
Removal Efficiency (DRE) of incineration versus the Destruction only Efficiency
(DE) of non-thermal processes.
Subtle, but crucial nuances like that detailed above are another compelling reason why
the Working Group should abandon the attempt to perform an FS, or to adopt an FS-
like report that is unduly brief, and which fails to thoroughly investigate remedial
alternatives rather than merely restating conventional positions, information and
ratings that have been presented in other feasibility evaluations.
3. The draft report is not inclusive of all technologies appropriate for consideration
at this site.
4. The draft report contains several typographical errors.
ENVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
Page 3 of 5
Fmff!: PAUpNE EWALD ECO Date: 61'28195 Time: 13:13:58
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP AfEMO
J UNE 28, 1995
PAGE4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ECO strongly and more urgently repeats our recommendation of past meetings and
memos, that Working Group move immediately forward in completing Vendor
Selection Criteria that is absolutely required prior to the preparation of an RFP, and
selection of a vendor to perform a pilot study at the site. To allow further delays, or
intervening issues and individuals to prevent this from occurring is irresponsible given
the documented threat at the site.
The original criteria presented in a document dated April 11, 1995 and /or a more
simplified version of that criteria which accompanied EC O's last memo on this
subject, should be promptly fmalized and formally adopted by the Working Group,
along with directions to the State to move quickly forward in preparing an RFP for the
BCD pilot study.
We would also recommend that any additional, formal inquiry into technologies be
tabled in favor of an informal updating process that will not cause further delays in
this site remediation. ECO has been privileged to be involved with the remediation of
the largest PCB Superfund site in the nation, and has participated in presentations,
demonstrations, and bench testing of numerous non-thermal treatments relevant to
PCBs and dioxins. In addition, ECO recently collaborated on an innovative
technology roundtable sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, and attended by major
innovative technology vendors. Although many of the new technologies currently
available appear to have future promise which we would be happy to detail and
discuss with the Working Group or individual members, none are as well documented
or suitable to on-site conditions as the BCD already recommended as a preference.
Finally, we would not recommend that this community offer to become a test location
for a full scale bioremediation pilot study. Such highly experimental treatment is
inappropriate to a site where documented surface and groundwater contamination
already exists, and where there is a potential pathway for human exposure to highly
toxic dioxin and furan family of chemicals.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
Page 4 of 5
Fror;i: PAl!rnlE EWALD ECO Date: 6l'l8l95 Tlme: 13:15:03
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP MEMO
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE5
We reiterate that the Working Group must come to a decision on whether to abide by
past votes and move forward with the selection of a BCD vendor, and pilot study, or
whether to become mired in an endless inquiry into criteria and technologies. One
path leads towards a safe, effective detoxification of a landfill that the community
perceives as an economic and social blight, and now, as a potential threat to human
health and the environment. The other path is strewn with meaningless paperwork,
documents, and redtape that will strangle this site remediation in delay. ECO stands at
this juncture as a signpost towards an immediate and uncompromised clean up, and we
are prepared and willing to assist the Working Group down that road should such a
remediation remain your goal.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
Page 5 of5
State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Division Directors
Regional Office Managers
Program Mangers
Steve Levi~
June 23, 1995
SUBJECT: July 18 Departmental Staff Meeting
As discussed at our meeting last week, the July Departmental Staff Meeting will be devoted to a
presentation and discussion of a department-wide effort to improve the quality of our operations.
We would like to incorporate into the presentation examples of "best practices" or "successes"
currently in operation in DEHNR, as well as "successes" in similar programs in other states.
Please confer with your staff and colleagues to identify these kinds of quality practices and
submit a brief description of the practice, program or function to your Assistant Secretary no
later than July 5, 1995.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
cc: Executive Staff
P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 · Telephone 919-73J;4984
Arl Equal Opportlrity Affirmative Action Employ81' 60'1. recycled/lO'l. post-consun81' paper
DRAFT MODIFICATION OF HOPE TAYLOR'S CRITERIA OF JUNE 20, 1995
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING: REMEDIATION OF THE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
DRAFT REPORT, JULY 11, 1995 (Modification to the July 5, 1995 draft)
Community Acceptability
Community acceptability will be a separate criterion for technology screening and serve as a
threshold for final acceptance or rejection of proposed technology for full scale implementation.
Community acceptability determinations will be made after Pilot Scale Projects are completed
and consideration of all information and data provided by these projects.
The working group will propose a community acceptability determination based on consideration
of four factors: 1 -Community perceived risk offered by four factors; 2 -Potential for harm to
human health; 3 -Actual or potential environmental releases or emissions; 4 -Consideration of
impact or property values. The proposed determination will be presented to the Warren County
citizens in a public forum for review and input . After consideration of community input the
working group will make a final community acceptance determination.
Technology Screening Criteria
1) Extent of prior experience with this technology on soils at similar sites. (Rating based on
the number of sites with PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils which have completed pilot or full-
scale projects with this technology: 4 -more than five sites; 3 -three to five sites; 2 -one to two
sites; 1 -no sites using this technology.)
2) Short term safety and effectiveness. Includes potential for worker and community
exposure due to planned and unplanned releases ( excavation, gaseous emissions, solvents) during
operation. (Rating: 4 -in situ and well -contained process or "closed loop" with essentially no
chance of releases; 3 -technology demonstrates very low release levels within regulatory limits;
2 -some releases documented with technical improvements currently available; 1 -uncontrolled
release possible.)
3) Long term effectiveness. Reduction of toxicity or volume of toxic contaminates.
(Rating: 4 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminates to at least 99% removal level; 3 -
demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminates to at least 95% removal level, or to reduce volume
of contaminated soils less than 30% of original volume as part of a "treatment train", with greater
than 95% removal from remaining fraction; 2 -ability to detoxify or concentrate contaminates to
90% level or to higher levels under limited conditions; 1 -technology generally not effective on
contaminates and under conditions at the Warren County Landfill.)
..
4) Generation of residuals and ability to handle on-site. (Rating: 4 -no residuals or
completely treatable on-site; 3 -small volume of residuals, predominantly treatable on-site, 2 -
moderate volume of residuals, mostly treatable on site at added expense; 1 -large volume of
incompletely detoxified residuals.)
5) Projected duration of full-scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -less than six months; 3 -six
months to one year; 2 -one to two years; 1 -longer than two years.)
6) Availability of pilot scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -available to start immediately; 3 -
available to start within three months; 2 -available within six months; 1 -longer than six months
or unknown.)
7) Implementability of this technology at Warren County PCB Landfill. Number of vendors
available, technical impediments, extent of infrastructure requirements. (Rating: 4 -more than
three vendors available, no major technical problems anticipated, system largely self-contained;
3 -two to three vendors, technical problems are soluble with minimal expense and time, few
unique requirements for infrastructure support; 2 -one vendor available, technical problems may
delay or increase costs up to 25%; significant unique infrastructure support needed for this
technology; 1 -no vendors available, major technical problems, infrastructure requirements too
expensive or unobtainable at this site.)
8) Estimated cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil treatment. (Rating: the projected cost
range will be given and the mid-point of that range will be rated as 4 -less than $100 cubic yard;
3 -$100 to $300 per cubic yard; 2 - $300 to $500 per cubic yard; 1 -greater than $500 per cubic
yard.)
Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1590 Jack Clement Road
Stem, NC 27581
June 30, 1995
Mr. Bill Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
NC-DEHNR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Meyer,
As I mentioned to you earlier, I became familiar with passive sampling methods
for PCBs as a result of hearing a presentation at the A TSDR International Congress
on Hazardous Waste in Atlanta earlier this month. In discussion with the authors
of this study, which used passive sampling devices to increase sensitivity of
detection of PCB's by analytical chemistry as well as a bioassay for TCDD toxic
equivalents, I learned that a similar method had been in longer use for water
monitoring. This method, which uses semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs),
would seem to be readily implementable in the monitoring wells around the PCB
landfill and would almost certainly increase the sensitivity of detection of PCBs over
current conventional monitoring well sampling methods.
The sampling devices and extraction method have been commercialized, which
would make a sampling effort somewhat more expensive than I had thought, but
would give increased assurances of reproducibility. CIA Laboratories has sent me a
large package of materials concerning the SPMDs and, after reviewing it, I have
asked that the same materials be sent to you for your consideration. Based on the
prices quoted for materials, extraction and analysis, I estimate that a twice annual
sampling (in duplicate) of 6 monitoring wells would cost about $17,000.00, or
somewhat less if the PCB analyses were split between the state and a commercial lab.
I hope that this information will be of use in the PCB landfill monitoring
program and will be glad to make it available to other members of the Joint
Working Group as desired. Enclosed is the abstract on soil monitoring, as well.
borilned from ENVlllONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. VoL !1. 1993
Copyright © 1993 by the AmericaD Chemic&! Society and reorinted by permisaion o{ th~ COffric.ht ow11er.
Upl~Contalning Semipermeable Membrane Devices for Monitoring Organic
Contaminants in Water
Jamee N. Huddna. "•f GarTUN K. ManuwNra.; Jlmmte D. Petty,t Donald Mackay,i and Jon A. Lebor
NallcN! Fishain Con1aminant Resean::tl Center. U.S. Fish and WIidiife Service, 4'200 New Haven Rom.
CounbiL Missouri 85201. Pesticide Registra1ion Office. Gatamae, PeradeniyL Sri Lanka. and
~ of Chemlcai En;inNlilig and ~ Chemin y, Univwsity of Toronto, Toronto. Omari0. Canida MSS 1A4
A semipermeable membrane device <SPMD> is described
for puaift m-situ monitoring of organ.ic conraminen"I in
ncer. The device comiete of I thin film of neuual lipid
(molecular mau reaerally ~600 Da>, such u triolein.
eDClaeed in thin-welled layflat tubincmade of low-demity
polyethylene or another nonporous polymer. Mathema-
tical mode1a are developed for the device and titted to
coacezmuian data from 2.2' .S.S' -t.trecblorobiphenyt &Dd
plwwlthrene flow-through uposuns and diuipatioo
ai,erimmts. Model ectirn•i. of the averqe CODCeDtra-
tiom of tat chemicals in laboratory t%pOIUre water
differed from the meuured concentrat:iom by <2-fold,
indicacmr that it may be f euible to UM the deviat to
determine average concen traaona of organic co11ramin•n ts
in natural waters.
[ntroduaion
Puaive air monitors or dosimeters have gained wide
accept&Dee ior determining time-weighted concentrations
of orpnicchemic:als in air ( 1,2), with several types available
commercially. Only recently have anempts been made to
applytheume principle to the WMITT!•.nt of co,,rarnin•nts
in aquatic syswna. Hue.kins et el. (3) developed a lipid-
containinr semipermeable membrane device (SPMD) for
puaive. iD-titu monitoring of aquatic CO"tarnin•nr-1. and
Lebo et al. (4) and Prest et el. (5) have used the device in
different environmental settiop. Alao, Sodergren (6),
Johmon (7), Huie= et &L (8), and McEacb•r"t et el. (9)
haft reported on aolvent-bued puaive monitors of various
deaigm for sequestering contaminenrs from aqueous
mmft'Dfflerd&
The principle underlying the SPMD puaive stmpler ii
illmt:ratedioFigure L TheSPMD consiauofthio-walled.
layflat polyethylene (PE) tubinc u ahowo m Ficun 1 or tamnc of other noopolar dense polymers (e.g.. po~
pyieneorpiama-treated eilicone>. which cypicailycontaim
a thin film or small-diameter plug of a large molecwar
mae C~ Da) neutral lipid. such u trioieio. HOWWftr,
parifiedlipid utractedfrom an aquatic orpnism and lipid.-
lib orpnic fluids or solvents can a1ao be used m SPMDs.
PolymmcfilrneauitahleioruseinSPMDaancornmonly
referred to u nonporous or deme. even thoup t:am:um~
cavities with diameters up to about lOA an formed by
random thermal moaom oi polymer cheim (10-12) which
permit diffusional-jump transfer (11) of organic contem•
imnt.a. HOft'lef, due to the enremely small and dymmic
DGUre of transport corridors in moat nonporous mem-
branes. permean, molec:ules are considered to be '"solu•
• Co,...,..dinc author.
I U.S. F"iala and Wildlife Semce.
I Pemc:ida ~ Office.
I u~ of Tonmt.o.
001~•2'88S04.00/0 ,c 1913 "-CN1Nm1 SI--,
bilized• by the polymer (11, lZ). Becauae the aou-
sectional diameters of many enviraamanw COJ'ltamio•ota
(l3) •pproach the maximum lia of the cavicies in
nonporous membranes. it is likelydlatanalyiaa AMOC:i•tad
with aqueous particulates and diaomci arpnic carbo~
such u humic acids. cannot acc:ea the SP?tlD lipid. This me limitation sugests that only dillolved orpnica md
pouibly those tramierred from • aondiuolved oq&Dic
liquid phue in direct contact widl the SPMD membrane
would be concentraied.
The use of pure triolein u the 19quesieriDI .media for
SPMDa bu several •dvantqes. Chiou (14) demomu•ted
that. for a wide varietY of orpmc compound.a. 1 close
correlation emts between their equilibrium triolein-water
part.it.ion coefficients (Ksw) and their respective equilib-
rium octanol-water partition coefficients <Kow). Thus. &
compound's Ksw should closely approzimata its Kow,
which is often well-documented. Since Kow vaJues are
large for hydrophobic organic C01'Umin•nr_,. the capacitY
of triolein-containing SPMDs for these co11ramin•ots ia
correspondingly large.
Relatively low molec:ularweighi.noopolarsolftlltl such
u huane also have been used as aequestering phases in
puaive membrane samplers (6-9), but their bich mem-
brane solubility and permeability result in diffuane loues
into the surrounding water. This phenomenon may a.I.so
retard &nalyte uptake rates for SPMD~ becauae chemicals
must diffuH apina, an outward !Olveot tluz. and con-
centraaon polarizaaon (12) may occur u or mar the-
membrane exterior surface. This complication ie •beent
wben molecules of the concent:rmne media are LOo large
to appreciably diffuse through tbe polymer.
Use of polar nonporous membranes such u cellulose
reduces o, elimineteS solvent laael to the 1uno1mding
environment (6, 7), but a corrlSl)OIYiinc Teduc1.io11 in the
uptake rates of nonpoJar &nalytes c:aD be Ul)eCted. Gray
and Spaci• (15) compared lipid~ PE SPMD1 to
buane-filled cellulose dialysil hap (6) and found that
lincime and trifiuralin concenaacion faaaa w.re much
higher in the PE SPMDa.
Hw:Jcim " el. (3. 16) snowed tha, &nalyies can be
quantitatively recovered from the lipid phue of intact
SPMDs by organic solven, dialysis with very little lipid
carryover. In most cases. hoW9"1a'. direct analysis (e.g.,
injection into a gas chromatograph) of dialyzues from
lipid-containinc SPMDs or aliquots from sol99Dt-con•
taining SPMDs can only be used for sc:reeninc purposes.
This is because additional cleanup and fractionaaon of
complex COl'lt.emin•nt mi.nuns ere usuallynecemry prior
to quantitation.
Io this paper, we report the further development of the
lipid-con~ SPMD anci ouwne much of the essential
er-an. ScL r.,...._ vo.. rr. No. 12. 1m 2u1
-------------·-·····-
T..._
.
COMPOOND SYMBOL DIMENSIONS IA>
--...◄""'-1..-rtJI lracWI ..
Triolcin . ....
-~ ~!7 ~!J
~ rC, '-_, 11.6 1.,
:..:· .5 .5' • T'Cll ~~ 11.6 JI.Ii
EXPLODED VIEW or
MEMBRANE-LIPID SANDW1CH
,._..1. Oneot ffllllY poulCle contlglnllana of~ SPM)s. The eJCOkl,ded 'View ot1t'9 ma111tiiwi1 llpihftw1o••wldliltdl .__
Ill....,._ 111a1Dane nnaoart 00111CICU lhat prwwnr li;riftCanr 101■-ot ~ ID lhl 11,dOIWI_. 'fWC a1DW l,IIIIWIIOII of....., Wl¥19
mdeCIW
theory describ~ ita performance u well u that of similar
devices. R..ulta obtained from laboratory expoaures and
a field deployment are examined to elucidate the dmce's
potential a an in-situ environmental monitor for aqueoua
com.amiData.
TMorecical Section
The ui,locied membrm"pid sandwich of .an SPMD
in Figun l can be uNd to conceptualize and model
cm1taminm emaction from the water into the endowi
lipid. A•uming t.hat the chemic:a1 concentration iD the
water ii comtaDtand that then ii no aignificant resiatance
to diffuaioD in the lipid (i.e.. rapid mixing oc:cun). the
steady-tt&U auz <F> of an analyie into the dmce ia
controlled by the sum of the resistances to mua tnmfer
in the membrane and the water boundary layer. Then at
comtant temperature, F (c/h) caD be given by the maa-
tZ'aDSfer equaaon (l 7):
F • DACCw, -Cvs)I Y • .lti,ACC"WO -C~) •
.lr.,A<Cw -C,n) • V9 dC,ldt Cl)
wbere Dia the diffusivity or permeability (iD thia cue) of
the analyta in the membrane (m.Z/b), A is the membrane
surface area <ml!, Y is the membrane thickness (m), ~ is
the membrane maaa-tranafer coefficient CMTC) or DIY'in
mlb..k.ia the water boundary layer MTC, Vs is the YOiume
of lipid or soivent uaed for the aequeatering media (mJ),
ZAN &!wal, Sd. T8CINIQI.. VOi. 27. No. 12. 1"3
tis time (h), Cwo and CMI an analyta conceni:ratiom (JI
mJ) at the ouier and inner surfaces« die membrusa. Cw
and Cwt an analyte coacentniiom in the balk water and
at the interface or iD the waier boimdvy !aye. Uld Cs ia
the analyte concentration in the lipid or 10lffnt (Jjm-1).
A strict treatment of SPMD aptab would include the
capacity of the membrane to dileom cJmniol• but thia
iDuoducee wmecenery complaity.
If equih"brium partition coeffici..,.. an deftud tor the
membrane and aequeetariDc phae K .. <CwsJC&), tor the
membrane and wat.er K.,,, <CvdCwu.andfartb1 eo1ffnt
and waier Ksw. the iDterfKia1 wc:raaom can be
eliminated and
F • .lt,.A(C,.KMW -C,J!,_ • Vs dC~dl (2)
•ben Jc. ia the ovvall MTC and ia ameuanolnaiaw:lce
to mua inmfer u ahown by
1Jlc0 • 11", + K,,.J/c.., (3)
To derive eq 3. one aaum• independent. Uld additive
resiatances for the membrane lJ .. md the water layer
KMW/lc.. For triolein-contaminc PE SPMDa. it ia aaa-
pected that the membrane resistance cmmo.11 the uptake
of ma.t cont11min11m, JO Jc.,ahouJd beappramn8t41yequal
to~ Hc,we,rer. to avoid m•kmr IIJl • priori ..ampt;ion.
we UM the genera! upreaicm Jc. The conmbucion of the
water boundary layer can be teSted by daiermiDinc if
SPMD uptake is futer when the ..ur boundary layer ia
th.inned by stirring. I! there ia no incnae iD U1)W8 rate,
it ia likely th.at the principal resistance to mass transfer
resides in tbe membrane. because the flux thro~ a
diffusional layer varies inversely with thickness (11.12).
Equation 3 is essentially the •two-resistance'" or '"tw-o-
film'" approach discussed by Flynn and Yalkowslr;y (10),
who showed that the resistance could switch to the water
layer wb.en tbe KMW of a chemical is very large.
Equation 2 can be integrated to give
C5 a CwK~ KMS(l -e:z:p<-~~t/ V 5)) •
C,.K,w<l -up<-.it,.t» (4)
wb.ere Jc.,AK,a/Vs is~. an overall uptake rate comtant
(Jrl). The reciprocal of~ is Vs/k.AKMS. a response ame
r (h) for the chemical in the device. These equatiom are
similar to thoM used by Johmon (7), Haueu et aL (8),
and Yuuda (18), who have modeled other membrane
systema.
A connnient method for determining .Ir,. is to meuure
clearance or diuipation oi chemical from the device into
pun water. In this case Cs falls from its initial concen-
tration Cso according to c, • c,o up(-.At,.t) (5)
If delays iD the initial rise of an analyte's concentration
in SPMD lipid are obaervectdue to the time required for
.thecbemic,lto:i,en~te tile membrane. it is preferable
to modify eq 4 to
Cs • CwKsw[ l -e:z:p(-.lr00-tK!dS<t -to>/ V5) l (6)
wb.ere t0 is the positive intercept of the model on the time
uis. In short-term exposures where SPMD uptake is
esaentially linear. then to corresponds to lag time.
Three SPMD sampling scenari01 are poeaible. depending
on the pb.yaicochemical properties of the contarnin•nr. and
the duration of the e%po8ure. Each scenario is represented
by one or more regions (linear. curvilinear. and asymptotic)
of analyte uptake described by eq 4. When the group
.lcoAKwst/V, ia small (i.e .• « l) or when Cs/Cw« Ksw, eq
4 reduces to
C9 • C,.K~~t/Vs • CwRws (7)
In this linear uptake mietica region where t « r or Jc,.: «
l. the concentration Cs is conaoiled by how much chemical
the sampler encounters. The group KMWJ&..At represents
the total volume of water extracted. and K MWJl.,A repre-
sent.a tbe SPMD sampling rate (m~/h). Thus. the ratio
Rws of the total water sampled Kwwll.,At to the sequ ..
terinc media volume Vs mediates Cs in this region. It
Rws ia known (usually from cahmation with controlled
laborat.ory apoeures>. Cs can be uaed to deduce Cw. The
value of Ksw for a co,:itarnin•DT. is immaterial provided
Cs/C• «Ksw, or Kaw» Rws-In practice. SPMD e%pOIUr9
tuna of up to about 0.5-r can be treated as linear uptake
kinetics.
When the group Jt.,AKMStlVs in eq 4 is large or R..JKsw
ii near unity, or t » r, the e%l)Onentia.l term becomes
oegligible IDd
(8)
Thia is tbe region in which Cs reaches equilibrium with
Cw. and by definition the ratio Rws becomes identical to
Ksv,. I! Ksw ia mown. the water concentration Cw can
then be determined from Cs.
In the intermeciiate or curved region. the effective
sampling rate oi an SPMD is declining u the device
approaches saturation. Here Ksw and Rws are similar in.
magnitude. and both must be lmown or estimated if Cw
is to be inferred from Cs valua far one point in time..
When multiple values of C~ are measured through time
and Ksw is mown. Cw can often be derived by fittinr eqs
4 or 6 to the data. However. the aumber of estimated
paramecers. e.g .. Cw and~. should pnerally be no mont
than half the number of Cs values.
To afirstappPO:rim•tion.Rws isafanction of tbeumpler
design (type of sequeswmc media and membrue prop-
erties> and the chemical mucture ol the analyte, wbereaa
Ksw ia a fuDctioD of the cbernical and the sequ..wing
media. When Ksw valu• become ftr'Y larp. the uptake
rate conatanta .e. are apected to fall and the Cim• to
equilibrium will be greater. Thia PMJlOIUDOD baa been
obeened in polymeric membrane permeabiliiy UO, l9)
and bioconc:ent:ratioll studies (20. %1) and may be due to
iDc:reued reswances <11.11.J to diffmian in both the water
layer and the membrane.
The key point about SPMD upmur11 is that aalyte
Cs may npnMDt any on.e of the tbne pouible np,m o!
the uptake cune, depenclin.g on the compound'• x .. and
Rws values. Repnilesa of the recion. Cs ia paerally
expected to respond proportionally to Cw, i.e.. at trace-
environmental levels the absolute c:aacentration Cw plays
no role in determining which repoa applies. To avoid
misinterpretation. it is important to know which SPMD
sampling scenario •pplies for specmc corn•min•ma and
exposure periods.
~p,rizMn.tal Section
Preparation of SPMDa for flow.through apt.ab and
diuipation studies wu similar to tbat desc:zibed earlier
(3, 22, 23). Differences between this study ud the
previously reported studies are • follows: Only 99 %
triolein (Cl•l.ci.s-9) from Sigma Chemical Co.. St. Louis.
MO. wu used in SPMDs. Each PE SPMD wu 2.54 cm
wide by 4S. 7 cm long (appro::cmately 200 cm1 suriace area
iD contact with water) and contained o.5 mL or 0.455 I (25
•C) of triolein configured u a thin film. Low-demiiy PE
layfiat tubing used for SPMDa ,... purcbaNd from
Brentwood P!astics,Inc..Brentwood.MO. Loi No.12184,
a general purpose clear tubing, wa used in 2.2' .S.5' •
tetrachlorobiphenyl (TCB) uptake and disaipation ieata.
Thia lot was considered untreated by the mmufacwrer
but did contain 0.1 % w/w of eruamude. a slip uidiUve.
Wall tbickn_, of this iubinc ranpd from 72 to 76.2 ,.m.
Lot No. 18387, a No. !MO (untreated PE. no erucamide or
other additives> c:iear tubing, waa UNd for pheumbrene
uptake and diuipation studies. The wall tbic:lmeee of this
lot ranged from 83.8 to 88.9 l&DI. The intended wall
thickn-for both of theee PE tubiDC lots wu 76.2 ~
Ramon! of pot.ential analytical interferences from non-
poroua memtnne. and lipids used in SPMDa wu dil-
cuaed earlier (3).
Preparation and deployment of SPMDs uaed in field
upoeures are described by Lebo et aL (4). Howeft?. 1 I
of triolein and loi No. 18387 PE tubmcwere used !or these
SPMDs. The water temperature darm( the 21-d field
exposure averqed appromnately 21 •c.
Both C14Cl-2.2',S.5'-TCB <>99~ purity, 14.2 mCi/
mmol), a polychlorinated biphenyi (PCB). and [14C']-9-
pbenanthrene <>98% pumy, 19.4 mCiimmo0. a mociel
poiyaromatic hydrocarbon <P AH). were purch.ued from
Siem& Chemical Co.. St. Louis. MO. Autorac:iiography,
er--. Set. TeclWII.. Val. XT. No. 12, 1"3 2U1
.,.
Tabla L S.leclad Proi,enin oC T"t Com~cnmda
mmpoUDd
phmaDduae z: J.Y -cacn-
dalorobq,bmyi
178
292
bo:s c:ilmemiom-<Al
laDeth bna~ d-,tA
11.6
11.6
7.9
8.6
3.2
6.5
HiOeobabilitY"
l,ic/L>
1000
30
lorX-1
5.0 s.a
• Smallest bas (rel zn c:ilmwiom that the molec:ui• <minimized -.,v coafisancioa) will ft& imo. caJmlac.ed Ulinc Alcbemy IL • Croee.
sec:mialciia.maer:uieNCODdlartee' dimeneioa • HiO 10lu.bilicyoip~ud1Z .5.5' -~bqmmytfroauw28ud3.r~N!y.
• 1-0cruoi-..c.er pen:iuon coeificiac from refs 28 ud 3. • PE ~-partmOD cnefficicic '~ pamioa ooefftcia~
Tula IL E-rim■tioa oC Anne-Au.1,-ie Waa.r CoDCmluuiH Ueiac ,14 6 for SP~ flow•TJarNcla EQ.eve Da&a
Ul)OeUl'I watar CDDCI watar CIIIDCII ..W dUfmima
usa1yta
~
time <ll> meuunci <lllllJ •cimar,e UIIIL> mefflci.-'.Jrf1I> X•inri up& (b)
U' J.5' .taera,.
~
(H04
()-672
~338
~338
0.78
5.48
0.90
9.60
• A& n.udJ 1Caca. difl'uamiy ii equiniuc to Jr.Y or Pl K.,,..
just prior to stWiy initiation. wu used to confirm that the
purity of these test chemicals was >95 % • Details of the
.susic exposure system have been reported elsewhere (3),
and key upectS of the flow-through systema are as follows.
Radiolabeled test chemicals were diaaolved in nanograde
ac:etoDe, and the appropriate amounta of stock solution
wen delivered into aquaria water by Micromedic pumpa.
Foriy~ight SPMDa per aquarium were suapended ver•
tic:ally from 30.5-cm-diameter stainlesa steel rings whoee
cmaums were the input points of exposure water. Each
aquarium contained 30 L of water, and the volume wu
exch•ng.-d every 30 min. Test chemical stock bottles were
amber giua and light was maintained at• minim•! lr,el
to nduce the potential for photolysis. Concentration■ of
ts chemicals in e%p08ure system water were determined
weekly or more often by liquid scintillation counting of
hame enracra of water samples. These result.a were
conmmed by c:apillazy gu chromatography (GC) analyu
of mected samples. Electron cai,ture and pbotoinniuricm
GC detec:ton were used for 2.2' ,5.5' -TCB and pbenan-
thrme. respectively.
Omi-pation studies were conducted in l•L beakers (one
SPMD per beaker) with a compleu. volume excb•np of
wm.ted water in <S min. Erpoeures to determine the
roieoi aqueouadiffuaicmal layers were amdw:ted iD eichi
O~g;lua jan <aealed with aluminum foil-lined lids) which
wtnpartially■ubmerged in a con.stan'°temperaturewater
bllh. Each apoeure chamber contained one SPMD and
800 mL of water, and all chambers wen doeed with ~ l
>£Cal (C14l-2..2' ,5,5' -TCB. Half of the test cont.amen were
m■iar,aineci under turbulent condition■ with mqnetic
smnrs, whereu the other ha1f were kept quiescent. At
tbe end of the 24-h e%pOlure. SPMD, and waters W9nt
amiyzed aa described earlier. All aforementioned studiee
wae conducted in deep-well water of known quality (3)
at -18 •c.
Curve fittinlwu performed with SigmaPlot4.l (Jandel
Scimtific. Corte Madera, CA). Thia software uses the
Marquardt-Levenberg leut-squares ~rithm. Several
eqaationa were also fitted to SPMD data using the Gauu-
Newton method in the statistical analysis system <SAS
Imlitute. Cary, NC).
2-Enwal. Sd. TeawiL. VOi. 'Z7, No. 12. 1993
(U3
us a.as
1.39
z.64,C 10-U
~,c 10-U
8.UX~
7.82X 10-U
0
0
lU
u
'0--~---:---~-------1
:
I l ..
I
' o·--_,_ _ _,; __ ..;... _ _,.;. __ ..;..._ .....
:J 1 00 %00 JOO 400 • 500 500
flmo (h) ,..._2. Placoteqe fllllldtaSPMDdlllllfl'Offlaflow,,,ft'OUQIIGDOIU'9
(504 llt ID 0.71 n;IL cd llNI••••--~ ~ SPt.C)t ..,...
analyzadaleac:11_,.dme.anderrcrO..(natlflOWIIWIWlaTl&lar
Ruwt,
The reeulta of the laboratory f1ow-tbrouch stadia an
shown iD Fl;ures 2~. Tables I and II ■ummum the
propertieeof th.e tesicbemical■ and tb■ panmwcendumd
from experimental results. Aa apeet.ed. the cmtrall
cliffuamty of pb.emutbrene through thaSPMD membnne
and the water layer wu 2.9-4.3 times creatar t!wl that of
the PCB. Both test cbemical• have bichKsw 'ltiU.. with
2.2' .S.5'-TCB having a Kaw four times larger t!wl that of
pbenantbrene. F"igures 2 and 3 show that pbenut.bnne
it apparently in a linear kinetic regioD up to about 200 h.
after wbich the aiope tend, to fall. suaestinc may into
the intermediau. or curved region. Hc,wenr, equiharium
it not reacbed even at 672 h (28 d). Became pheuantbnne
uptake en.ended into the cur,ed region (Rws a:: 0.5 Ksw
or> 0.698T), a good fit of eqe 4 and 6 to the data wu
anticipated. Aa abown in Table IL model ( eq 6) estimates
of pbenanthrene concenaaiiom <C•> iD expoeure water
are ciON to the meuured values.
~co .,
I JtMec-~ • 1.MXIO
I I £OO r ! -i I .. 0 '
JOO l i ~ -'
• I ~
-200
~ 0 u
100
200 400 600 500
Tlme (h)
..... J. Platoleq StlaadtaSPM>dlUa tram a~...,_..
111211, ta ua no11-o, ~ FtU ,...._ SP1i01 ...
.,._ateactlaafflDletma.anderrarDar'l(notSIOWII..._......,
lllft lYfflllCill ,wo, _,. anoant o.~1 Ila.a.
,o ~ .. i Rauo C•-~ • :l.ZU:10 I -I 1 .. I j ' ~ jQ I
.. j l ---20
2 0
--10
01 '----~_..;_------0 :0 1 00 1 SO :?CO 250 JOO 350 600
nme (11)
,....._ Platoteq e tlaadta SPM>dalll tram a ~ouan...,...
(338111to0.t,¢at2.Z.U-TC8.Fcu~SPM>a_..~
ll w:n _,_ drne, and error !aS IWOiWWWIC ~ •• 110 .._
The PCB uptake data plotted in Flgurea 4 and S show
lmear kiDetic cmmol throughout the 336-h GpOS1U9L
Then ii mdence of a delay iD amlyte uptake by SPMD
lipid.i.e..tbacurvedoea not pm through theorigjit beca,-
of the time required for membrane penetration. Specif-
ically. tba z:r .S.5'-TCB t. valuea or lq ti.ma from eq 6
were 10.S h <0.9 nctL> and 9.3 h <9.6 agtL). Nn agnifican~
t. valuena obaerndforp.bmanthrene uptake. Althouch
2.Z .S.5'-TCB CODCeDtrationa in SPMDa did Dot reach the
curved region of ui,taka. estimates of 2.2' .S.5'-TCB COD•
cenuatiom in watu uaing eq 6 (Table ll) were still c:ioae
to meuured valuea.
Analyaia of varianca auociated with titting eq 6 to
pbenanthrene and 2.2' ,5.5' -TCB erpoaun data revealed
thu deviation from regresaion wu not significant (P >
0.05) and Ri vaiues rmced from 0.95 to 0.97. All incorrect
solution bued on a local minimum is pouible. but th.ii
type of error is unlikely becauae of the similarity of the
estimates of two concenintiona and the cloae approxi•
~oo ,-------:-----:--~---
.. . ~ JOO i--
i I
I
0 .__......;. ________ .,;..__,i, ______ __
0 50 100 150 200 ~ l00 J,O 400
Time (II)
,._.._ Plaloteq 8 IIIIICStDSPlol)data.,..,.aftow.lW'ouaf\UDOU9
(338h)tot.ln;ll.o12.Z .5.5'•TCa.FfM,...-SPliCl ... ■llllyzad
aeac:f'l..,....,._anden"Of'asCnallflOWII..._ .... ..,,
sym,aa) ,_.,, .... ~cir I •■&
mation of the meuured C,,s. In tba cue of the 2.!' .5.5' •
TCB Ul)Olures Rws « Kn. indictringtbataliDarmodel
(eq 7) should provide an improwed fit for thlN data.
However. little difference wu obeened m the ftriance
uaoc:iated with fitting the uponeniial and lizutar mociela
to the PCB data.
The upec:ted fundamental liDearity of reapame <i.e..
Cs/ Cw independent of CODCeDtmioa) iaobeerffcl for both
test cbemicala with the phenantbnme ratio of Ct/C-.p at
500 h. being 46 and 53 L/ r for water coacmmuiom of 0. 76
and 5."8 DI/ L. .respectively. Th. cm1e1pnndinr ~DOI for
SPMD1 upoeed to 0.9 and 9.6 nc/L of 2.2' .5.5'-TCB at
336 h are 39 and 35.
Using eq 4. the overall rue coDIWltl for uptake .I&. or
1/.,. are ~0.002 Jrl for phenanthnme azid ~0.0003-0.0004
Jrl for 2.2' .S.5'-TCB. Eatimata ol ~ an probably more
reliable when bued on the diaail!IGOD rate of a chemical
from SPMD1 into clean .t1owmc watar. A~ of 0.0014 h·1
wu derived by titting eq 5 to phenantbnne dilaipation
data (F"scur-e 6).
Ezperimenu investiptinc the role of~ diffu,
sicma1 layer■ m contaminani apeue sboftd that. t.ho
amount of PCB uaoci■ied with the mem.brw in the
turbulent tnatment inaaaed by ~28" <La.. SPMD
membranes m stirred c:omamen ccmtained U50 • 10 q1,
[N • 41 venua 110: 10 nctr [N • 4) foraimilarDODltirnd.
~). However. no sicnificant, ttifferm iD PCB
coucenauiona iD them~ lipid (i.e.. 370
s 20 and 380 s 10 D.J/r for stirred and nonmrred.
respecaveiy) wu obaenedforthatwoSPMDtreeanmQ.
F"utld Studiu
Lipid-contain.inc SPMDa have been UMd sw:ceafully
in several envtroa.m.mtal settinp (3-ol. and their ability
to conceuinte tnce leveJa of peniateDC (PCBa. dioxin•.
etc.) and biodegradable orpnic contamin■ntl <e-c-. PA.Ha
and pyrethroid insecticides) hu been demomcrated. Also.
Prest et al. (5) compared the dmces to freshwater bivaives
(Corbicula flumuuta) for env1ronmental contaminant:
mcmitorin,e in the Saaammto and San Joaquin delta. In
e,-. Sa. T.,.._ Vd. 'D. Nit. 12. 111:1 ZAIS
,· -
T I RAY •-• 1.37ZXIO
_,
; ~
~T
I -;. ! I ' l I
I l ;; ' J ~ 5 ;..
I 5
~ 0 u ..
l i.....----------------------0 100 200 JOO &00 500 600
Time (h)
,.._. I. Plot of eq 5 Ila.cs to~ dlasll)atlOft da1a trom
5PMCspiacedlftunconlllfflNtadflowWIQwe1S. Therangea'Cll_,,M
SPIil .,.._ • anown far ..en~ ame.
$PW DI
-Ui
Sl'N
-(Tl D1
It
POND
a.AN
Sl'ND
J1
•
A • : I :L. I
I
A •
A
i
II %11
. ,c
L
I
.
,,
C
• MIN
0
;!
.~
I
I
0
,a KI '. I I -
.I I I . , ,o KI
.. ,.
,.... 7. Owonatoc,_,,. at cu1ftad dllltyzaw trcm 1WO SPl,C)a __..~far 504 h In a lfflal W!1an -..n (IDO n.-rar
magenc.larldan SPMJ frafflaCDn1rC11ocns•1t111Ndona~ ean.n... n,, ct, c.w (baaam ncei. l..oel9d pa1ca: (Al
,~-.(B}tluarw. ,., 1~(lfflamlll-•dl.<Cl IA'•••ow-. (D) ~ (E) pyrw. (F) benz{•l•••www•.
(Cl~ (Hlbenm{bl•andbenZD{kj~--.and(Obanzo.
l•lpyra1e.
thil work. we deployed two side-by-side SPMDa (21-d
erpoaure) u part of a field validation study (4) in a
midwatern urban stream potentially ca"tarnin•wi with
P AHs. Figure 7 shows the cloae similarity of P AH
chromato(raml (replicates 1 and 2) generated from the
purified dialyzates of the field-deployed SPMDa and
illumates the reproducibility of the method. Baaed on
meaaured values of Cs and Rws. the estimated aqueous
concentration of phenanthrene in the field erpoaure was
0.071 l'i/L.
ZAN e.--sea. r--. vo&. xr. No. 12. 1993
Discw.sion
The SPMDs were shown to respond linearly relative to
test chemical concentrations in water (i.e-. both KMWJc.A
and O'lerail Jc.. are independent of analyte concentration).
with Ul)tue lines or rate consunta that varied u expected
withKsw. For highly bydrophobicc:hemicaJa <Ksw > 106) ..
. ueumiDf biofouling of the exterior membrane surface can.
be conuoiled (22). uptake by SPMDa should atill be in the
linear kinetic region at 14 d. For cbernicala baYins aKaw
of about 20 000 or leu. equihorium ahould be approached
durinc longer erpoaures (~ d> bec:eUH .._ucwattVs or
lc,.t will be relatively luge and up<-Jc..:> will bt small.
In this study. SPMD performance appeand to ba
edequataly described by eq 4. For both tNt compou.nda.
the P'OUl> J&.AKMWI Vs or Jc..Ksw lies in the rmce of 100-
200 Jrl durinc the UJ)Olurt tima ahown in Tabla IL The
implication i.a that. for each hour of upoaun. the lipid in.
the dmce effectively removed • chemical from a volume
of water some 100-200 times it.a own volume. Actually.
the dmce's canurnin•ar. removal rate ii aipiftcantly
hip.er. because the PE membrane ii abom 3 tim• the
mat of th• lipid and meuured Kws valua ranpd from
abouc 0.1 to 0.3 (3). Thus. ii orpnic aolvac diaJysia U6)
i.a u■ed to recover CO"tarnia•n~ from inw:i SPMDI. the
rn.asa of analyies detected in SP?dns refiect.1 concenaa•
tioas in both the lipid and membrane pbues. Lebo et al.
(4) reported that Cs values can be determined from the
total analyte mass in a SP!\ID dialyute (Mo) by
(9)
when .\Is and MM are the weights of the sequesiering
media and the membrane, respectively •
Earlier work (10) with a high free.volume membran•
showed that. whenK MW is veey large. membrmeneiltence
becomes negligible. switching rate control to the water
diffusional layer. In general. membrane conuol of SPMD
samplinc rate is desirable because the variance IIIC>Ciated
with intrinsic properties of the device and similar can•
t:Z"olled-releue membrane 5}'ltema ahould i>e amaller tlwi
that uaociateci with systems controlled by utrimic
boundary layers <3. ll). Other SPMD rwarch (3). the
common uae of thin PE films for increuinc resiaiaDce to
ma■■ aamferin conaolled-releaaemembramlYRtml (11),
and a nmew by Lloyd and Meluch (19) on polymeric
rnembnna permeability sugesi that PE SPMDt should
maintain membrme control of the uptake racee of moat.
high Kow analytes. In this siudy. the lack of a aicnificant
incrwe in Cs during turbulent thinning flf the SPMD
aqueoua diffusional layer indicates that. for th• PCB
conpner tested. resi.atance to mat tramfer tbroagh the
membrane (1/k,J wu the race-limitinc step in uptake.
~. it is poaible thac a Kvw region aila for some
cbemicala ;,n whichmm-tramferresistance in w aqueous
layer m:eeda thac of the PE membrane phue. More
SPMD uptake data are needed for a variecy of chemicals
with a range of Ksw and KMW values before • definite
conclusion can be reached on the reiacive mqnicw:ie of
the various MTCa and resiataDces.
Both temperature and bioioulinc of membraDe aurfaces
am affectSPMD aamPlinc rates. Huc.lcina etal. (19) found
that weekly dipping (submersing for ~ 15 min) of SPMDs
in Senaqua ( didecyidimethyl•rnrnonin.m chloride I reduced
biofoui.ing and enhanad pbenanthrene uptake relative to
UDtnated SPMDs. The use of a permeability reference
\. standard (Le.. a noninterfering [analytically} compound
with moderate SPMD !up.city added to the sequestering
media just prior to deployment) wu also •unested for an
in-situ estimation of ltu to correct for the potential effects
of biofoulin( and changes in temperature. Manuweera
(24) eumined the role of temperature (18-30 •C) in PE
SPMD permeability (P') or DKMW (the key variable in
SPMD samplinJ rate) and found that phenanthrene's P
inc:reaed u e%J)ec:ted from 18 to 24 •c but appeared to
deviate from an Arrhenius relatiomhip of temperacun
and permeability beyond 24 •c.
Huckins et al. (3) and Johmon (7) have pointed oat·a
number of similarities between the uptake of COJtttminents
by puam aamplera and the bioconcentration of the ume
compounds in aquatic: orpniams Earlier work (25) also
indicated that the permeation of 110nelec:trolytes through
bioloeic:al membranes and nonporous polymeric sheets
reprelllltedsimilar phenomena. Mackay and Hughes (20)
developed wreral equations. usin( the fugacity approach.
to describe the uptake and depuration of orpn.ic con•
temin•nta by fish. Their model wu also a version olthe
two-film model with resiaiancea in a water pb.ue and an
orpnic: phaae in series. Th .. co11t1min1nt uptake
resisttnces are e%J)resaed u fiah-spec:ific transport times
1'0 &nd -r.whichcombine withKow to model the clearmce
raie camt&Dt .it, such that
1/lt: =-r0 + K0,..r. (10)
As showu earlier. the analogous term to .lri is the overall
uptake rate constant ku which can be shown to be
l/k11 • V5/ kpKMSA + V.J{sw/k..,,..\ (11)
The group VsJ k,;(MSA is thus an organic-phase tra.mport
time 1'.,. and V sKswl k.A is analogous to Kowr-i.e.. Kow
is analocous to Ksw and VsJk..A ia analogous tor_ the
water-traDlpOrt time.
An attractive long-term goal ia to establish l/ lea values
or 1'0 and r.Kow values for various contarnin•nrs and fiah
species and compare these values to SPMD l/ltu values
for the same corternin•n~ This would enable the eati-
mationof the uptake of acofltarnin•nt byfishfromSPMD
datt.
Application.
When viewed in light of SPMD theory and prac:tic:a. the
· dmc:a ha M'Y9ral advanteget over conventionaleampliq.
(i) Ir Cw varies (u is likely in aquatic system.a), tha the
device will respond to an averqe value. ll)ecifically the
uerapftlue which bu prevailed ovv apprmimateJythe
moat recent respome time r. In most environmental
~ r abould be of sufficient mqniiude to emure
retem:ioa of concentrated lipophilic residues from epiaodic
cantammation eventa.
(ii) Thedmce samples the •avaiJahla" ortrulydislolnd
chemical not the total concentration oi chemical. because
theememely small breadth of the nonporous membrane's
aansportcorridors limits the molec:ular size of~
The former is of pr;mary importance when ua ing
corttamin•n~ to%icity or bioconcentration potential in
waters with bigh and variable concentraaon.s of sorbin(
materials. The device appears to offer the same a<ivantaces
as •~acity sen.sing" (26) or sparging sysiems in which
the chemical concentration in water is inierred from that
in eir bubbled through an aqueous phate.
(iii) If a COD ta rnin•nt's Ksw is large. a high coacentration
(Cs) in SPMDs can be achieved, which generally enables
more accuraie analytical determinationa IDd may be of
sufficient mus for bioindicator iesu. Thia concentration
enhancement feature is increasingly important u effozu
such u the •U.S. EPA Great Lakes Wat.er Quality
Initiative" are taken to reduce levels of some hydrophobic
contemin•n~ to <0.1 Dg/L. Analyaia oi compound, u
this ultra-trace-level requires 10phinicated aamplinc,
emaction. and quality control procedUNt which an
beyond the capability of mmtlaborat.ori11. The pouibility
thus emerges that conr.amin•nrtmay be regulated at levels
in war.er that cannot be meuured byconvmtionalmet.boda.
The uee oi an in-situ concentntinc dmce ol the iype
described here appears to offer a feaible aoludoa co c!m
problem.
(iv) Because uptake and diuipation an mediaieci by
pmive-partitioninc proce1111. the concemratiom of en•
vironment.elly labile C01"tamin•ahl (especially biodqrad-
able compounda) in SPMDt should be more npneeatatiV9
of actual equeoua upoaun levela than raidue CODCID•
trationa in biomonitoring organism&.
Conclu.sions
Although lipid-containing SPMDs have been shown to
be useful tools for the detection of organic co.nttminen~~
in water, their ability to func:tion u quantitati'fe moni•
toring devices bu yet to be fully demonstrated. Thia worlc
wu conducted to contribute toWard the UH of SPMDs for
the estimation oi average concentraciona of diaolved
orpnic contamin•nr.s in water and ultimately for the
predic:tion of coutamin•n~ uptake by aquatic orpmllDL
Ac.itnowlcdgmcnu
We are grateful for the technical uaistance and advice
of V. Gibeon and R. Clark durinJ ell phuee of this work.
Also. we appreciate the contribution of J. Zajicek in the
depioyment. cleanup. dataredw:tion.and~pneracion
of SPMDs expoeed to an urban saeem. The uliltance
of J. Meadows in the anaiysja of water wmpl•, G.
T~e in the GC conmmation of phenanthnna and
2.2' .S.S' • TCB residues. and M. Ellersiec:k in natisticaJ
anaiysie of SPMD data sett i.l gratefully tdmowledged..
F'uwly, we thank Harry Pr9st for encourapment. Prof.
H. Y uuda for i.naichtt on polymer permubility, and M.
Barron for many helpful sugpstiou.
Author S111tp.u.d BeciaUT Numben: 2.2' .5.5'•TCB,
35693; phenant.hrene, 85--01-8.
l.ila-atun Cited
(1) Uadarhill. D. W.: FieciaY, C. E. AnGL Chas. ltlL 63.1011.
<2> Powt•. W. K. Am. lAb 191Z.14. 80.
(3) Huckiu. J. N.: Tu.barpa. M. W.; ~ G. K.
CJacmo.piacn 1990. 20. 533.
(4) Lebo. J. A.:. Zaiicak. J. L; Hucma. J. N.: Pc,, J. D.;
Peterman. P.H. Cn.moapiwn 1"2. ZS. 69'1.
<5l Prat. H. F.: Jazman. W. M.: Burm. S. A.; Weiamuller. T.;
Man:m. ~ Hucana. J. N. O,.mo,phaw 1m. 2.5.1811.
16l S6derirm, A. Environ. Sci. Ttd&not. 1911. 21. 855.
(7) Johuoa.. G. D • .Erwiron. Sci. T«ianot. 1991. 2$, 1897.
18) Ha.eu, J. P.; Force. M.; ~. H. Abiaaca of Paperr.
198th Meeaq of the Ammcan Chemical Sociecy, Miami
Beach. FL; American Chemical Socecy: W u.hiDciaD. DC.
1989: ENVR 180.
19) Mc:Eachren. L 5.; Fish. C. I..; Haaett. J. P. Abstracu of
~ 201n Meetiz11 of the Amanc:aD Clwmcat Socie')',
E,Moaft. Set. TeclWICIL. Va&. %7. Na. 12. 1113 2UI
Atwita. GA:Americ:an Chemical Society: W uhincton.DC,
1991: ENVR 86.
ClOl Flyma. G. L.; Y alkowsky, S. H.J. Phann. Sa. 1972. 61, 838.
(ll} Camyn. J., Ed. Polymcl' Pmrsnbilur, Eltmer Applied
Sc8DC8 Publiahen Ltd: New York. 1985: p 383.
(12} Hwur. S. T.; Kammermeyer, K.. Ed. M•mbra,..• in
Scr,armionr. Robert E. Kriepr Publiahiac Com.. Inc.:
Malabar, FL. 1975; p 559.
(13) Opperhaizea. A: Velde. E.W.; Gobu. F. A. P. C; Liem. D.
A. K.; St.ND. J.M. D. CMmoaph,uw 1915.14, 1871.
(14) Chioa. C. T. Enuiron. Sa. TccilnoL 1915. 19, 57.
(15l Gray, M. ~ Spacie. A. 12th MN=c ol the Soc:iecy o!
Ezmronmencal TcmcolocYud Chemiluy,EMAP S..ioa
1991: Poatar No. 272.
n&> Hudi:im. J. N.; Tuberpa. M. W.; Lebo. J. A.;, GaJa. R. W.;
Sc:hwutz. T. R. J. A.uoc:. Off. AIMIL CMm. 1990, 73. 290.
n7l Sharwood. T. K.: Pidord. R. L.; Wilb. C. R. Eda. Jlua
Tronafr: McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York. 1975.
(18) Yuada. H.J. Poly,Mr Sa. 1911, 5 (Pm A-1). 2952.
(19) Lloyd. D. R.; Melw:h. T. B. Absaacu of Papen: 187th
M..cmg o{ the Americ:u Chemical Sociect', Dmaima o{
Polymeric Mat.ari&la Sciaac:e and Encin--. American
Cheical Sociacr. W aa.biqima. DC. 1984; pp 41-79.
(20) Mackay, D.; Huch-, A. L .EIIIIVOIL Sci.. Tcdulol. 191&. 18,
CL
~ Es-. Sd. T'ecflnOL. VOL '1:1. No. 12, 1993
(21) Comiell.D. W.~of XcnooioticCompound.r,
CRC Pre.. lDc: Boca RalOD FL. 1990: p 219.
(22) Hw:i:ma. J. N.; Madowa. J. C.: Mmuw.ra. G. K.; Lebo,
J. A. 12tb MNcmc of the Sociecy of EDYU'OIU!Wlcal
Tomoloa md Chemiac7, EMAP Seaion. 1991. Poet.er
No. 315..
(23> Hw:i:ma. J. N.; Gihlaa. V. L.; Lebo. J. A.; Mullftel'a. G.
K.; Gale. R. w. Abltract, of Prlpas. 200th MNtiq o{ the
Amencu Chemical $oc:iecy, WIWDlt,OD, DC: Amvic:u
Cbamical Soc:iacr. Wuhmctaa, DC. 1990: ENVR 29.
(24) MmUWNn. G. K. Ph.D. ~ tJainnii,, o! Mia-
lGUri. Cohunbi&. MO,~
(25) Lieb. W. R.; Staia.. W. D. Ntlllln lHI. 224, 240.
(26) Spn,wa. J. W.; Shiu. W. Y.; Mackay, D.; Scbroeder. W. H.;
RmNll. R. W.; Goba. P.A. P. C. Enoiron. TuicoL. CMm.
1991, 10. 9.
(%7) Radacii.~I•mr +ayk.H.;Kemnn a.~-wa lffl, U. 596. .
(28) Aquatic Fau Proaa Dota(or~ Priotuy ~
U.S. Eaff"O!UD•tel Procac:am.Apacy. Omc. o!Rwardl
aDd~mem-tJ.S.Gowuaa.wmPrim:ia(Oa!cc Wub-
iqtoa. DC. 1982; EPA .U0,4-31-01'-
lucaiocd to,,...,.. Fcort111ry 23, 199.1. Rnucd mcsnu.,cripr
rweiHa Jury 23, 1993. Acc.pUd Au,u,I 3, 1993. •
• Abmacrpvbliebed iaAdoculaACS AbeCNCa,Ocrober l. 1993.
; ! !
'
' i I l
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1995 3:30 -5:00 PM BREAKOUT SESSION 24
~~ r ~o--l.(J ~As~~ CY/, 'PU3 ~ Rapident-efGhemic-al {:ontamination U
and Determination ofToxicity Equivalents at a Hazardous Waste Site
· 9tD:J-~l/ & -Z--"3'-/3
Whitney E. Mashburn, KevinA.Johnson, CarolP Weisskopf, Food and Environmental Quality
Lab, Washington State University, Richland, Washington, and Richard L. Dickerson, The
Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology, Clemson Ut,ersity, Pendleton, South
Carolina ~ _ "\ L~ 'P.t1J~\'n. S 3 Jl-1.J g~-J
U . . . hni N G,..;~6 d."P;-J,-l. ~~ '1 L---d --6 ~err smg a new morutonng tee que, contammant ur: ens are assesscu at h 1JaL.aJ ous waste site
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs ). lbis approach employs a sampling technique that allows for
chemical characterization without the costly and time-consuming collection and transportation of large
samples from the field to the laboratory. This approach also allows determination of toxicity equivalents
without the use of living organisms. Soil extracts are obtained from a passive sampling device (PSD)
constructed of a polymeric membrane containing C 18 sorbent that measures the bioavailable chemical
contaminants. PSDs are deployed in the soil, retrieved from the field, and then eluted in the laboratory.
Extracts are used for quantitation and for determination of chemical identity, concentration, and biologic
significance. An enzyme-induction assay is used to assess toxicity equivalents of the environmental samples.
The H4IIE rat hepatoma cell line was dosed with differing concentrations of PCB Aroclor 1254 to establish
a dose-response relationship based on the induction of Cytochrome P-450 by measuring the EROD/PROD
activity. Cells were then dosed with serial dilutions of PSD extracts to determine toxicity equivalents. Overall,
the soil and PSD extracts yieldedsimilarresults. However, PSDs increase bothanalvtic and biolol!ic sensitivity
without the necessity of a clean-up step.
NOTES
-¥NT BY:Kfnko 's Copies
--• --.>
6-20-95 ;11:13PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;# 2/17
Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1S90 Jack Clement Road
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Hope Taylor
Stem, NC 27S81
TO: Co-Chairs of the Warren County-NC PCB Landfill Joint Working Group
All members of the-Vendor Selection Criteria subcommittee
This submission of a draft Technology Screening Report includes a brief
introduction to the methods used for screening, a description and evaluation of
each technology considered and, finally, some general recommendations on
technology selection to the Joint Working Group.
I hope that this draft report will be useful to the Joint Working Group and its
subcommittee as an overview of technologies available and their advantages and
disadvantages for use at the PCB landfill. Unfortunately, I will be unable to atte.nd
the June 22 meeting, due to a prior committrnent. However, I will be available to
answer any questions that I can about these technologies on June 21, from 4:30-6:30
PM at 919-684-2217, and again on June 22 from 1:00-3:00 PM at the same number.
If there is a consensus that finalizing this report would be he]pful to the process of
expediting an RFP and other actions necessary to get pilot studies underway, I will be
glad to do so. Please select a near-term date (I would suggest a week or less from the
June 22nd meeting) by which all interested members of the Working Group can
send me comments (including increased weighting for such criteria as 1 and 4?) and
assessments of community acceptability for each technology. (Phone: [phone],
Teusdays, Thursdays and Fridays, or fax: [phone]) I will incorporate this
information and submit a final report within four working days.
Best wishes,
.. ~t.1'11 01;1\ITIKO S LOp1es
. OT11~R A£EA BRANCH OFFICES
ASHEVILLE
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
17 Bryson St.
Asheville. NC 28803
QIAPELHILL
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
J 14 W~t Franklin St.
Chapt!I Hill, NC 27516
CHARLOTI'E I -MIDTOWN
'fd: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
GOI ~outh Kings Dr.
Cha.rloue, NC 28204
CHA.RLOTl'E Il • SOUI'H PARK
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
4722 Sharon Rd., Suite G
Charlotte. NC 28210
CHARI.Orr£ m -UNIVERSITI"
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
8215 University City J\lvc.J.
Charlotte, NC 28213
GREENSBORO
Tl':!: [phone]
FAX: (910) 27~2927
'101 South Tate Sl.
Greensboro, NC 27403
GREENVILLE
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]')
321 E.;ls1 Tenth St.
Greenville. NC 27834
R.ALEIGH I
Td: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
2316-106 Hillsborough St.
Raleigh, NC 27607
. RALEIGHU
Tel: [phone]
I-AX: [phone]
4112-132 Plcas:int Valley Rd.
Raleigh. NC 27612
RAI.EIGH m
Tel: [phone]
I-AX: [phone]
908 Sprini~tidci C:ommons Drive
R:Jl~igh, NC 27609
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
Td: [phone]
· . FAX: (919) 40S-Hl39
P,1rk \Vest Crossing Shopping Ctr.
4900 NC I lwy 55. Suite 40-1
Durham, NC 2771.~
WINSTON-SALEM
1·~1: (910) 722-661 I
FA.X: [phone]
232 s. Stratford Rd.
Thruw:1y Shopping Ctr.
Winston-SJl~m. NC 27103
n1nKo s uurnam 1~ ~l~ fl□ ~OU□iff l f ll
Durham I. J kinko•s·
the copy center
610 Ninth Street
Durham, North Carolina 27705
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
. . . .:.T UALL. 20 1 c; r ~
l¼X#: 7/S""..,. 3/LOS Date: :P?J (tfJ!t,
To: 'B; ti t-1, f,e/. Ca~ cluu· v:s 1 XJ..b ~~Mm; tt~ G
Company. /U Q_ _ ;;; «/t{ D :r .,Jl,,_,
Tclephon~ )33 ?:~~
From: ~ L"-yf~
Company: ____________________ _
Telephone: _ ........ h_o _f .... 'f_-~;;i.-JC.?:__,l..._7~----------
You should have received f 7 .pages (including this cover sheet).
Please call [phone] if this transmission is not complete.
INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS:
\
\
RATES:
LOCAL & TOll FR£E FAX NUMBERS
Each Page .............................................. : ......... $1.00
DOMES11C TRANSMISSION NON•I.OCAL
Each Page ........................................................ $2.00
INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSIONS
First Page ......................................................... $9.95
Each Additional Page ...................................... $2.00
All RECEPTIONS
Each Page ........................................................ $1.00
SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description
Slurry phase methods involve biodegradation conditions similar to those
described in In-Situ Biodegradation, with the exception that the contaminated soils
are maintained in a suspended state in a solution of water and nutrients by a stirring
apparatus. Slurry phase treatment has been tried in-situ in river bottom sediments
with limited success•, but is usually carried out in stirred tanks after excavation of
soi15. This is the most frequently used method of bioremediation of PCB's (eight
sites), and shows some evidence of success at two sites, as indicated by its selection as
a full-scale remedyS. There is evidence at one site that dioxins are causing
interference with biodegradations.
Suggestions for technolo,sy-specific vendor selection criteria: bench scale treatability
studies must be performed by potential vendor before consideration for
performance of pilot study.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$160 3
Summary scor~ (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
. SENT BY:Kinko's Copies 6-20-95 :11:15PM Kinko's Durham 1➔ 919 715 3605:# 8(17
CONTROLLED SOLJD.PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENf
Description
In the controlled solid-phase method of biodegradation, soils are excavated and
layered with soil amendments (nutrients, emulsifiers, etc.) in a large, shallow
containment with leachate collection systems and controlled moisture and
temperature6. The present landfill configuration would not be suitable and would
require construction of a new and larger containment area. Further, this method is
intended primarily for aerobic degradation, which has not been successful in
remediating PCB contaminated sites.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 1
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 2
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 1
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$200 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 15
SOIL WASHING
Description
Soils are washed and scrubbed in a water-based solvent to remove contaminants
from the coarser particles in the soil and separated according to particle size. Present
saturation of landfill soils will help washing, but waste water will need treatment.
Chlorinated semi-volatile organic compounds are adsorbed primarily to the clay and
silt particles ("fines") and to the surfaces of the coarser sand and gravel particles7.
This method can reduce the volume of contaminated soils requiring detoxification
by concentrating contamination in the separated clay and silt fraction of the soil.
The coarse fraction can be used for backfill if decontaminated to target levels.
Soil washing could be used as part of a treatment train for detoxification of the
concentrated PCB's, potentially providing substantial savings in treatment costs.
One possible treatment train would include thermal desorption contaminants from
the separated soil fines, followed by dechlorination by BCD or another process.
Some thermal desorber designs are known to have problems with caking of high
clay/ silt soils, however, lowering the effectiveness of the treatment.
Suggestions for technolo~·§pecific vendor §election criteria: a) demonstrated ability
to remove contaminants from coarse fraction to target levels; b) suitable texture of
"fines" fraction produced for further detoxification treatments; c) experience of
vendor in coordinating volume reduction by soil washing with detoxification.
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation
7. Availability of pilot-scale study
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$280
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32
Rating
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
26
SENT BY:Klnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;#10/17
DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLA TE)
Description
Soils are mixed with an alkaline polyethylene glycol (I<PEG is the potassium
version) and heated in a batch reaction vessels. The PEG molecules replace the
chlorines on PCB's and dioxins to produce bi-phenyl compounds which are not
regulated as toxic by CERCLA, and probably more biodegradable in soils, but whose
toxicity has not been studied in detail. Waste water can be tTeated on-site by
conventional or innovative methods to remove any remaining organics before
release. Soil treatment is generally quite effective in reducing concentrations of
PCB's and dioxins to target levels. Treated soil is sometimes described as having a
texture similar to quicksand, unsuitable for backfilling on site.
This is generally a "stand-alone" technology, but could be used on soil "fines"
obtained from a soil washing step, for example, or on the oil condensate from
thermal desorption, containing concentrated contaminants.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) ability to control or
improve soil texture following treatment; b) willingness of vendor to test for toxicity
of reaction products.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
I. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Sharl term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $280-$700 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 24
:St:NI tn:KtnKo s LOptes ~1nKo s uurnam i7 ~l~ 110 ~DUO i~ll /11
DEHALOGENATION (BCD)
Description
Base Catalyzed Dechlorination was developed in EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and uses a somewhat simpler chemical process than the
APEG/KPEG type dechlorination8. Soils are treated initially wi!f. thermal
desorption in the presence of sodium bicarbonate at about 6500 F ~o partially
dechlorinate PCB's and dioxins and volatilize them from the soil9. These
contaminants are recovered by an oil scrubber in the vapor recovery system and are
concentrated in oil for later treatment with stronger reagents in a liquid tank reactor,
again at about 65()0. Removal of PCBs and dioxins from soils an~ dechlorination of
these contaminants in oil have been quite successful in pilot andibench scale
studies9,to. Air releases of dioxins have occurred in one test, from the thermal
desorber part of the system, due to insufficient air controls. I
A closely related technology is the Soil-Tech ATP thermal desorber process,
which operates a unique flow system with internal BCD. The temperature of soil is
gradually increased, with a combustion final step after dechlo~ation, vaporization
and recovery of organic contaminants, which may require further detoxification.
The ATP process has been extensively tested and used on one full-scale remediation.
Sugiestions fQT t~nolQi)'-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered air
controls; b) willingness to analyze reaction products for toxicity
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
Rating
2 Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume . 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $150-$350 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 26
~ENT BY:Ktnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 360~:#121/lJ
SOL VENT EXTRACTION
Description
Solvent extraction is used to separate contaminants from soils and sediments,
reducing the volume which requires further treatment to detoxify. Organic solvents
have been used successfully for removal of PCB's in the past, but can leave trace ·
levels in treated soils. Less toxic, water-based solvents arc now available from
several vendors and have removed PCB's to target levels with few residuals at all
but one site. One possible treatment train would be extraction of PCB's and other
toxic halogenated organic compound from soil with a water-based extraction
process., followed by dechlorination (APEG/I<PEG if in water, extraction into organic
solvent or oil for treatment with BCD type process). This type of treatment train is
currently in operation at one site.
Suggestions for technolo~-spedfic vendor selection criteria: a) toxicity of solvent
system; b) compatability of extract with further detoxification methods; c)
compatablity of solvent with soil characteristics
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$560 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
'o-zu-uu ill·llrm' r..lilKO S UUl"llilID l-, ulu flu uouu ,ff 1u11,
LOW TEMPERA'IURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Low temperature thermal desorbers are designed to heat soils with mixing at
temperatures of 200-60()oF in order to volatilize organic material and remove it from
contaminated soils. Several flow designs are available, most operating in very low
oxygen or anaerobic conditions. All thermal desorbers require treatment of off-gases
to remove particulates and recover contaminants for further detoxification, such as
dechlorination, and are considered a volume reduction methodl 1. A large number
of vendors offer thermal desorption services and equipmentt2. Limited data
indicate that temperatures below SSOoF may not be effective in removal of PCB's
and dioxins from soilst3, and that higher temperature desorbers are more reliable
for such compounds. High water content soils require dewatering to make removal
cost effective.
Suggestions for technologx-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) compatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxification method.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short lerm safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$280 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
· SENT _BY=Kinko's Copies 6-20-95 :11:17PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 :#lf/17
IDGH TEMPERATURE TiiERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Similar to low temperature desorption, except performed at 600-lOOOoF to .
volatilize more semi-volatile organic compoundsl 1 in order to remove them from
contaminated soils. High temperature desorption is often used in a treatment train
with dechlorination or incineration. Currently available BCD systems operate the
initial desorber step in this range, as it appears to be more successful in removal of
highly chlorinated aromatic compounds, such as PCBs13. High water content soils
require dewatering to make removal cost effective.
The Soil-Tech ATP process, described under the BCD technology, is a thermal
desorption process which operates with soil passing through chambers at gradually
increasing temperatures up to about 1200oF, and some degree of dechlorination
occuring within the desorber.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) rompatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxifica lion method.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of, contaminated soil: $150-$450 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
.· SENT BY:Klnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:17PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#15/17
INCINERATION
Description .
Incineration is a very high temperature method (1/ffi() to 2,2()()oF) designed to
desttoy organic rontaminants either as a single--step method applied to
contaminated soils, or as the final step in a treatment train where thermal
desorption or another method has removed organic contaminants from soils.
Several vendors offer a conventional rotary kiln design, with an afterburner and an
air pollution control system. Newer designs include a circulating fluidized bed for
more even combustion, or infrared combustion at slightly lower temperatures. Air
emissions controls are extremely critical for incineration systems, as much higher
volumes of oxygen-containing off gases flow through the combustion chamber than
are required for thermal desorbers. Properly operated systems for incineration of
PCBs and dioxins meet the 99.9999% destruction require~ent for these compounds.
Combustion conditions can be maintained more uniformly if waste stream is
uniform and readily combustible, such as organics recovered from the oil scrubber
of a thermal desorption unit.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) critically engineered
air pollution controls; b) compatability of optimal incinerator waste stream with
output from soil removal technology if used in treatment train.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Comnu1~ty Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume · 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$730 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
SENT BY:Klnko's Coples ; 6-20-95 ;11:18FM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;#16/17
REFERENCES
1. Abramowicz, D. A, 1990. "Aerobic and Anaerobic Biodegradation of PCBs: A
Review", Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Vol. 10, pp. 241-251.
2. Evans, B. S.; Dudley, C. A. and I<lasson, K. T., 1995. "Sequential Anaerobic-
Aerobic Biodegradation of PCB's in Soil Slurry Reactors", Applied Biotechnolos;y
and Bioengineering. in press.
3. Unterman, R et al, 1988. "Biological Approaches for Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Degradation", in Environmental Biotechnology (Omenn, G., ed.) pp. 253-269.
4. Harkness, M. R. et al, 1993. "In Situ Stimulation of Aerobic PCB Biodegradation
in Hudson River Sediments". Science, Vol. 259, pp. 503-507.
5. 11Bioremediation in the Field". USEPA office of Solid Wasle and Emergency
Removal, 1994. EPA/540/N-94/501.
6. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEP A and the DOD Environmental
Technology Transfer Committee, 1994 EPA/542/8-94/13.
7. Soil Washing/Soil Flushing, Volume 3 of the engineering guide series
"Innovative Site Remediation Technology" USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/8-93/012.
8. Chemical Treatment, Volume 2 of engineering guide series "Innovative Sile
Remediation Technology11 USEPA, 1994. EPA/542/B-94/004.
9. Timberlake, D., 1995. "Evaluation of Base-Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD)
Process for New York/New Jersey harbor Sediment Decontamination", Abstract,
RREL Research Symposium, 1995.
10. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Technology
Profile§, Seventh Edition. USEPA, 1994 EPA/540/R-94/526.
11. Thermal Desowtion. Volume 6 of the series "Innovative Site Remediation
Technology". USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/B-93/011.
12. VISI1T 3.0, USEPA, 1994. DOS-compatible database.
13. Alperin, E. S. and Fox, R. D., 1993. "Soils, Removal of Toxics11 in Volume 51 of
the Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design, (Mcketta, J. and Weismantel,
G, eds.) Marcel Dekker.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, Sixth Edition. USEP A,
1994. EPA/542/R-94/005.
..Jl...J'1 UI •n11111.u ::, 1..UJ-llt'::. ' U LU UU , .I. .L • J.Vl 1,.1 , ,, , u.n.u .:, uu1 uaw J. ·
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Joint Working Group consider the possible advantages, both technical
and economic, of a 0treatment train" for remediation of landfill soil. (Base
Catalyzed Dechlorination, as currently implemented, is already an example of a
treatment train: thermal desorption followed by BCD in a liquid tank reactor. This
report describes other technologies, such as soil washing or solvent extraction,
whcih could remove PCB's and other halogenated contaminants from the soil-or
concentrate them in a smaller soil fraction-and make them available for
detoxification with a dehalogenation technology).
2. That the Working Group arrange to contract with pilot study vendors for all
innovative technologies being considered for inclusion in a treatment train. Except
for incineration, all of the technologies discussed in this report are considered
innovative by EPA, but have been demonstrated sufficiently to be considered for full
scale remediation at sites where they can be pilot-tested for effectiveness.
Incineration, on the other hand, is considered a conventional method, and has
been so widely used that a pilot sludy would not generally be recommended, but
could still be used as a "back-up" method if a BCD pilot were not successful. With
the data that we have in hand for BCD's effectiveness on PCB's and dioxins,
however, there is good reason for optimism regarding the outcome of a pilot study
at the Warren County site. The other principle alternative to BCD for detoxification
is a glycolate dehalogenation process, such as APEG, somewhat more expensive and
sometimes yielding solids that are not structurally stable enough for on-site
backfilling.
3. That the Div. of Solid Waste Manage continue to share research-scale samples of
the landfill contents for bioremediation studies wherever this does not compromise
the safety of groundwater or interfere with any pilot studies or other remedial work
at the landfill. Based on results to date on pilot to full scale in-situ or ex-situ
bioremediation projects involving PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils and sediments,
I do not feel that incurring substantial state expense for a pilot study, with the
expectation of rapid (less than 1 year) and effective detoxification, is merited at this
site.
Assistance to the research community, which could benefit all persons and
ecosystems impacted by PCB contamination, might even include an on-site pilot
study of in-situ or slurry phase bioremediation, provided that a) it is acceptable to
the community, b) it does not interfere in any way with contracted pilot studies or
any other remediation activities at the site and c) the NC DS"W'M and an
independent environmental engineer retained by the Working Group determine
that the design for the bioremediation pilot is sufficienUy contained to prevent any
releases to air, surface soil, ground or surface waters. If the bioremediation pilot
study is oompleted within the time allotted for contracted pilot studies and
demonstrates effective detoxification of landfill contents as judged by the same
criteria as other methods, it should then be re-evaluated for full-scale remediation,
dependent on community acceptance.
SENT BY:Kinko's Copi es 6-20-95 ;11 :14PM Kinko's Durham 1~
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING: REMEDIATION OF THE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
DRAFI' REPORT, JUNE 1995
Screening Criteria
919 715 3605 ;# 3/17
At the June 1 meeting of the PCB Landfill Joint Working Group, proposed
screening criteria to be applied to potential remedial technologies for the landfill
were presented, along with a "short list" of technologies which met three minimal
criteria. Remedial technologies were retained for more detailed evaluation if they:
a) were considered potentially effective against halogenated semi-volatile organic
compounds in soil, b) did not involve high pressure, temperature or other stresses
which could effect the integrity of the landfill liners, and c) are considered in EPA
documents to be at the "full scale" level of development.
Comments were received from members of the criteria development
subcommittee by June 12 and discussed by phone, with special emphasis on reaching
a consensus on the meaning and use of criterion 1) Community Acceptability.
While this report will not evaluate technologies for that particular criterion, it was
an opportunity to clarify and define this parameter for later evaluation by
community members of the Joint Working Group.
One overall comment which had been received in response to the April 11 draft
criteria submitted to the subcommittee was that the technology should be approved
by EPA and the state of North Carolina. The technologies considered in this report
have all been sufficiently tested at the pilot scale to merit consideration by EPA for
full scale remediation at CERCLA hazardous waste sites. One of them, incineration,
is considered "conventional" for PCB lrealments, as it has been applied numerous
times to similar sites. The other nine are considered "innovative" and have widely
differing degrees of experience with actual soil clean-ups. Several, including BCD,
have only been used on a pilot scale, with no full-scale results yet available. Because
of the strong commitment to detoxification of the landfill, some technologies
should be considered only as part of a "treatment train", as they are only designed to
reduce the volume in which the contaminants are contained.
As a result of these comments and discussions and the availability of data in
technical documents obtained by June 15, the following criteria and methods of
evaluating them will be used:
1) Community Acceptability. It is my understanding that all subcommittee
members agree that this criterion shall be a subjective measure of the community's
overall perception of a technology, after having the opportunity to read a
descriptio~ and evaluation of the technology as well as to ask questions of technical
advisors. ~ The community's assessment of acceptability will be prominantly --
SENT BY:K1nko's Copi es 6-20-95 ;11:14PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;# 4/17
3
included with any distribution of this technology screening information and will be
extremely important in selection of actual pilot study and full remediation vendors.
(Suggested ratings: 4 -outstanding; 3 -satisfactory; 2 -marginally acceptable; 1 -
unacceptable)
2) Extent of prior experience with this technology on soils at similar sites. (Rating
based on the number of sites with PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils which have
completed pilot or full-scale projects with this technology: 4 -more than five sites; 3 -
three to five sites; 2-one to two sites; 1 -no sites using this technology.)
3) Short term safety and effectiveness. Includes potential for worker and
commrmity exposure due to planned and unplanned releases (excavation, gaseous
emissions1 solvents) during operation. (Rating: 4 -in situ and well-contained
process m: "closed loop" with essentially no chance of releases; 3 -technology
demonstrates very low release levels within regulatory limits; 2 -some releases
documented with technical improvements currently available; 1 -uncontrolled
releases possible.)
4) Long term effectiveness. Reduction of toxicity or volwne of toxic contaminants.
(Rating: 4 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 99% removal
level; 3 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 95% removal
level, QI. to reduce volume of contaminated soils to less than 30 % of original
volume as part of a "treatment train", with greater than 95% removal from
remaining fraction; 2 -ability to detoxify or concentrate contaminants to 90% level
or to higher levels under limited conditions; 1 ~ technology generally not effective
on contaminants and under conditions at the Warren County Landfill.)
5) Generation of residuals and ability to handle on-site. (Rating: 4 -no residuals or
completely treatable on-site; 3 -small volume of residuals, predominanlly treatable
on-site; 2 ~ moderate volume of residuals, moslly treatable on site at added expense;
1 -large volume of incompletely detoxified residuals.)
6) Projected duration of full-scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -less than six months; 3 -
six months to one year; 2 -one to two years; 1 -longer than two years.)
7) Availability of pilot scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -available to start immediately; 3 -
available to start within three months; 2 -available within six months; 1 -longer
than six months or unknown.)
8) Implementability of this technology at Warrl!n County PCB Landfill. Number of
vendors available1 technical impediments, extent of infrastructure requirements.
(Rating: 4 -more than three vendors available, no major technical problems
anticipated, system largely self-contained; 3 -two to three vendors, technical
problems are soluble with minimal expense and time, few unique requirements for
SENT BY :Kinko's Cople s 6-2 0-95 ;11:15PM Kinko's Du r ham 1~ 919 715 3605;# 5/17
infrastructure support; 2 -one vendor available, technical problems may delay or
increase costs up to 25%; significant unique infrastructure support needed for this
technology; 1 -no vendors available, major technical problems, infrastructure
requirements too expensive or unobtainable at this site.)
9) Estimated cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil treated. (Rating: the projected
cost range will be given and the mid-point of that range will be rated as 4 -less than
$100 per cubic yard; 3 -$100 to $300 per cubic yard; 2 -$300-$500 per cubic yard; 1 -
greater than $500 per cubic yard.)
Technologies Evaluated
1) In situ biodegradation
2) Slurry phase biological treatment
3) Controlled solid-phase biological treatment
4) Soil washing
5) Dehalogenation (glycolate)
6) Dehalogenation (BCD)
7) Solvent extraction
8) Low temperature thermal desorption
9) High temperature thermal desorption
10) Incineration
For each technology, a general description, any suggestions for technology-specific
vendor selection criteria, a numerical evaluation of criteria 2 through 9 and a
swnmary rating (not including Community Acceptability) will be given. The report
concludes with some general recommendations based on these ratings and other
infomation obtained during the data search for this screening. Please note that
Thermally Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction, though included in the June 1 list of
technologies to be evaluated, has since been eliminated from this list. Upon closer
examination of the technology, it appears that temperatures approximating those
used in thermal desorption (300~1000°F) would be required for successful removal of
semi-volatiles such as PCB's, making this in-situ technology potentially damaging
to the landfill containment.
SENT BY :K1nko's Cop le s 6-2 0-95 ;11 :15PM Kinko's Du r ham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;# 6/17
IN-SITU BIODEGRADA TION
Description
Generally, native micro-organisms (bacteria and fungi) which are already present
at a contaminated site and able to metabolize one or more of the toxic contaminants
are provided with nutrients via injections of groundwater, and other conditions
modified to speed up their growth, thus shortening the thne required to detoxify the
contaminants. This technology does not involve excavation, minimizing exposure
to soils, dust and air emissions. If successful in speeding up metabolism of toxic
compounds to less toxic products, this is one of the least expensive technologies.
In the case of PCB's, until recently considered considered "refractory" to
bioremediation, it is now known that the first metabolic step in detoxification must
be removal of the chlorine atoms from the aromatic rings under mearobic
conditions1,2. The aerobic conditions usually applied in bioremediation encouraged
the growth of organisms which could not complete the detoxification until the
anearobic dechlorination is nearly complete. Although important progress has been
made recently in understanding degradation of PCB's in sediments3.4, and there is
evidence of natural dechlorination occuring at the Warren County site
(correspondence to S. Rogers, DSWM from J. Jones, EPA and F. Mondello, G. E.),
bioremediation of PCB's has generally been judged incomplete and/or too slow to be
practical for full-scale remediations.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 4
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicit~ or volume 1
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 4
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 3
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 2
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $20~$100 4
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 22
SENT BY :KJnko's Copi es 6-20-35 ;11:15PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 313 715 3605:# 7/17
SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description
Slurry phase methods involve biodegradation conditions similar to those
described in In-Situ Biodegradation, with the exception that the conlaminated soils
are maintained in a suspended state in a solution of water and nutrients by a stirring
apparatus. Slurry phase treatment has been tried in-situ in river bottom sediments
with limited success4, but is usually carried out in stirred tanks after excavation of
sons. This is the most frequently used method of bioremediation of PCB's (eight
sites), and shows some evidence of success at two sites, as indicated by its selection as
a full-scale remedy5. There is evidence at one site that dioxins are causing
interference with biodegradations.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: bench scale treatability
studies must be performed by potential vendor before consideration for
performance of pilot study.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$160 3
Summary scor~ (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
SENT BY :Kinko's Copi es 6-20-95 ;11:15PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 :# 8/17
CONTROLLED SOLID-PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description
In the controlled solid-phase method of biodegradation, soils are excavated and
layered with soil amendments (nutrients, emulsifiers, etc.) in a large, shallow
containment with leachate collection systems and controlled moisture and
temperalure6. The present landfill configuration would not be suitable and would
require construction of a new and larger containment area. Further, this method is
intended primarily for aerobic degradation, which has not been successful in
remediating PCB contaminated sites.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 1
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 2
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 1
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$200 3
Summary fi~Qr~ (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 15
SENT BY :Kinko's Copi es 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;# 9/17
SOILWASHJNG
Description
Soils are washed and scrubbed in a water-based solvent to remove contaminants
from the coarser particles in the soil and separated according to particle size. Present
saturation of landfill soils will help washing; but waste water will need treatment.
Chlorinated semi-volatile organic compounds are adsorbed primarily to the day and
silt particles ("fines") and to the surfaces of the coarser sand and gravel particles7.
This method can reduce the volume of contaminated soils requiring detoxification
by concentrating contamination in the separated clay and silt fraction of the soil.
The coarse fraction can be used for backfill if decontaminated to target levels.
Soil washing could be used as part of a treatment train for detoxification of the
concentrated PCB's, potentially providing substantial savings in treatment costs.
One possible treatment train would include thermal desorption contaminants from
the separated soil fines, followed by dechlorination by BCD or another process.
Some thermal desorber designs are known to have problems with caking of high
clay/ silt soils, however, lowering the effectiveness of the treatment.
Suggestions for technolo~-specific vendor selection criterif!: a) demonstrated ability
to remove contaminants from coarse fraction to target levels; b) suitable texture of
"fines" fraction produced for further detoxification treatments; c) experience of
vendor in coordinating volume reduction by soil washing with detoxification.
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation
7. Availability of pilot-scale study
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$280
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32
Rating
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
26
SENT BY :Ktnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 14 919 715 3605 ;#10 /17
DEHALOGENA TION (GL YCOLA TE)
Description
Soils are mixed with an alkaline polyethylene glycol (KPEG is the potassium
version) and heated in a batch reaction vessels. The PEG molecule:; rt!place the
chlorines on PCB's and dioxins to produce bi-phenyl compounds which are not
regulated as toxic by CERCLA, and probably more biodegradable in soils, but whose
toxicity has not been studied in detail. Waste water can be treated on-site by
conventional or innovative methods to remove any remaining organics before
release. Soil treatment is generally quite effective in reducing concentrations of
PCB's and dioxins to target levels. Treated soil is sometimes described as having a
texture similar to quicksand, unsuitable for backfilling on site.
This is generally a "stand-alone0 technology, but could be used on soil "fines"
obtained from a soil washing step, for example, or on the oil condensate from
thermal desorption, containing concentrated contaminants. ·
Suggestion§ for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) ability to control or
improve soil texture following treatment; b) willingness of vendor to test for toxicity
of reaction products.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Shorl term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $280-$700 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 24
SENT BY:Ktnko's Copl es 6-20-95 ;11 :16PM Ktnko's Durham 14 919 715 3605;#11 /17
DEHAL(X;ENATION (BCD)
Description
Base Catalyzed Dechlorination was developed in EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and uses a somewhat simpler chemical process than the
APEG/KPEG type dechlorinations. Soils are treated initially with thermal
desorption in the presence of sodium bicarbonate al about 65Qo F to partially
dechlorinate PCB's and dioxins and volatilize them from the soil9. These
contaminants are recovered by an oil scrubber in the vapor recovery system and are
concentrated in oil for later treatment with stronger reagents in a liquid tank reactor,
again at about 6500. Removal of PCBs and dioxins from soils and dechlorination of
these contaminants in oil have been quite successful in pilot and bench scale
studies9,10, Air releases of dioxins have occurred in one test, from the thermal
desorber part of the system, due to insufficient air controls.
A closely related technology is the Soil-Tech ATP thermal desorber process,
which operates a unique flow system with internal BCD. The temperature of soil is
gradually increased, with a combustion final step after dechlorination, vaporization
and recovery of organic contaminants, which may require further detoxification.
The ATP process has been extensively tested and used on one full-scale remediation.
Sug~estions fQr t~chnoloiy-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered air
controls; b) willingness to analyze reaction products for toxicity
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of t9xicity or volume
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation
7. Availability of pilot-scale study
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $150-$350
Rating
3
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 26
SENT BY :Kinko's Copi es 6-20-9-5 ; 11 : 16PM Klnko's Durham 14 919 715 3605 ;#12/17 ,,
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Description
Solvent extraction is used to separate contaminants from soils and sediments,
reducing the volume which requires further treatment to detoxify. Organic solvents
have been used successfully for removal of PCB's in the past, but can leave trace
levels in treated soils. Less toxic, water-based solvents arc now available from
several vendors and have removed PCB's to target levels with few residuals at all
but one site. One possible treatment train would be extraction of PCB's and other
toxic halogenated organic compound from soil with a water-based extraction
process, followed by dechlorination (APEG/KPEG if in water, extraction into organic
solvent or oil for treatment with BCD type process). This type of treatment train is
currently in operation at one site.
Suggestions for technolo~-specific vendor selection criteria: a) toxicity of solvent
system; b) compatability of extract with further detoxification methods; c)
compatablity of solvent with soil characteristics
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$560 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
SENT BY:Kinko 's Cop ie s 6-2 0-35 ;11:17PM Kinko's Durham 14 313 715 3605 ;#13/17 -
LOW TEMPERA1URE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Low temperature thermal desorbers are designed to heat soils with mixing at
temperatures of 200-600oF in order to volatllize organic material and remove it from
contaminated soils. Several flow designs are. available, most operating in very low
oxygen or anaerobic conditions. All thermal desorbers require treatment of off-gases
to remove particulates and recover contaminants for further detoxification, such as
dechlorination, and are considered a volume reduction methodll. A large number
of vendors offer thermal desorption services and equipmentt2. Limited data
indicate that temperatures below SSOoF may not be effective in removal of PCB's
and dioxins from soilsl3, and that higher temperature desorbers are more reliable
for such compounds. High water content soils require dewatering to make removal
cost effective.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) compatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxification method.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short lerm safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$280 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
SENT BY :K1nko's Cop le s 6-20-95 ;11 :17PM Kinko 's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#14/17 . .
IBGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Similar to low temperature desorption, except performed at 600-lOOQoF to
volatilize more semi•volatile organic compoundsl 1 in order to remove them from
contaminated soils. High temperature desorplion is often used in a treatment train
with dechlorination or incineration. Currently availa.blc BCD systems operate the
initial desorber step in this range, as it appears to be more successful in removal of
highly chlorinated aromatic compounds, such as PCBs13. High water content soils
require dewatering to make removal cost effective.
The Soil-Tech ATP process, described under the BCD technology, is a thermal
desorption process which operates with soil passing through chambers at gradually
increasing temperatures up to about 1200oF, and some degree of dechlorination
occuring within the desorber.
Suggestions for technology-spedfic vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) compatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxification method.
Eyaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of, contaminated soil: $150-$450 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
SENT BY:Kinko's Copl es 6-2 O -95 ; 11 : 1 7PM Klnko 's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#15 /17
INCINERATION
Description
Incineration is a very high temperature method (1,400 to 2,2000F) designed to
destroy organic contaminants either as a single--step method applied to
contaminated soils, or as the final step in a treatment train where thermal
desorption or another method has removed organic contaminants from soils.
Several vendors offer a conventional rotary kiln design, with an afterburner and an
air pollution control system. Newer designs include a circulating fluidized bed for
more even combustion, or infrared combustion at slightly lower temperatures. Air
emissions controls are extremely critical for incineration systems, as much higher
volwnes of oxygen~containing off gases flow through the combustion chamber than
are required for thermal desorbers. Properly operated systems for incineration of
PCBs and dioxins meet the 99.9999% destruction require~ent for these compounds.
Combustion conditions can be maintained more uniformly if waste stream is
uniform and readily combustible, such as organics recovered from the oil scrubber
of a thermal desorption unit.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) critically engineered
air pollution controls; b) compatability of optimal incinerator waste stream with
output from soil removal technology if used in treatment train.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness·, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full~scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$730 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
SENT RY :Kinko's Copi es 6-20-95 ;11:18PM Kinko's Durham 14 919 715 3605 ;#16/17
REFERENCES
1. Abramowicz, D. A, 1990. "Aerobic and Anaerobic Biodegradation of PCBs: A
Review", Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Vol. 10, pp. 241-251.
2. Evans, B. S.; Dudley, C. A. and Klasson, K. T., 1995. "Sequential Anaerobic-
Aerobic Biodegradation of PCB's in ~oil Slurry Reactors", Applied Biotechnolo~y
and Bioengineering, in press.
3. Unterman, R. et al, 1988. "Biological Approaches for Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Degradation", in Environmental Biotechnologx (Omenn, G., ed.) pp. 253-269.
4. Harkness, M. R. et al, 1993. "In Situ Stimulation of Aerobic PCB Biodegradation
in Hudson River Sediments". Science, Vol. 259, pp. 503-507.
5. "Bioremediation in the Field''. USEPA office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Removal, 1994. EPA/540/N-94/501.
6. Remegiation Technolo(;ies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA and the DOD Environmental
Technology Transfer Committee, 1994 EPA/542/B-94/13,
7. Soil Washing/Soil Flushing, Volume 3 of the engineering guide series
"Innovative Site Remediation Technology" USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/B-93/012.
8. Chemical Treatment, Volume 2 of engineering guide series "Innovative Sile
Remediation Technology" USEPA, 1994. EPA/542/B-94/004.
9. Timberlake, D., 1995. "Evaluation of Base-Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD)
Process for New York/New Jersey harbor Sediment Decontamination", Abstract,
RREL Research Symposium, 1995.
10. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Technology
Profile§, Seventh Edition. USEPA, 1994 EPA/540/R-94/526.
11. Thermal Desorption, Volume 6 of the series "Innovative Site Remediation
Technologytl. USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/B-93/011.
12. VISITT 3.0, USEPA, 1994. DOS-compatible database.
13. Alperin, E. 5. and Fox, R. D., 1993. "Soils, Removal of Toxics" in Volume 51 of
the Encyclovedia of Chemical Processing and Design_, (Mcketta, J. and Weisman tel,
G, eds.) Marcel Dekker.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, Sixth Edition. USEPA,
1994. EPA/542/R-94/005.
SENT BY:Kinko's Copi es 6-20-85 ;11 :lBPM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;#17/17
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Joint Working Group consider the possible advantages, both technical
and economic, of a "treatment train" for remediation of landfill soil. (Base
Catalyzed Dechlorination, as currently implemented, is already an example of a
treatment train: thermal desorption followed by BCD in a liquid tank reactor. This
report describes other technologies, such as soil washing or solvent extraction,
whcih could remove PCB's and other halogenated contaminants from the soil--or
concentrate them in a smaller soil fraction-~and make them available for
detoxification with a dehalogenation technology).
2. That the Working Group arrange to contract with pilot study vendors for all
innovative technologies being considered for inclusion in a treatment train. Except
for incineration, all of the technologies discussed in this report are considered
innovative by EPA, but have been demonstrated sufficiently to be considered for full
scale remediation at sites where they can be pilot-tested for effectiveness.
Incineration, on the other hand, is considered a conventional method, and has
been so widely used that a pilot sludy would not generally be recommended, but
could still be used as a "back-up" method if a BCD pilot were not successful. With
the data that we have in hand for BCD's effectiveness on PCB's and dioxins,
however, there is good reason for optimism regarding the outcome of a pilot study
at the Warren County site. The other principle alternative to BCD for detoxification
is a glycolate dehalogenation process, such as APEG, somewhat more expensive and
sometimes yielding solids that are not structurally stable enough for on-site
backfilling.
3. That the Div. of Solid Waste Manage continue to share research-scale samples of
the landfill contents for bioremediation studies wherever this does not compromise
the safety of groundwater or interfere with any pilot studies or other remedial work
at the landfill. Based on results to date on pilot to full scale in-situ or ex-situ
bioremediation projects involving PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils and sediments,
I do not foel that incurring substantial state expense for a pilot study, with the
expectation of rapid (less than 1 year) and effective detoxification, is merited at this
site.
Assistance to the research community, which could benefit all persons and
ecosystems impacted by PCB contamination, might even include an on-site pilot
study of in-situ or slurry phase bioremediation, provided that: a) it is acceptable to
the community, b) it does not interfere in any way with contracted pilot studies or
any other remediation activities at the site and c) the NC DSWM and an
independent environmental engineer retained by the Working Group determine
that the design for the bioremediation pilot is sufficiently contained to prevent any
releases to air, surface soil, ground or surface waters. If the bioremediation pilot
study is completed within the time allotted for contracted pilot studies and
demonstrates effective detoxification of landfill contents as judged by the same
criteria as other methods, it should then be re-evaluated for full-scale remediation,
dependent on community acceptance.
DRAFT/MODIFICATION OF HOPE TAYLOR'S CRITERIA OF JUNE 20, 1995
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING: REMEDIATION OF THE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
DRAFT REPORT, July 5, 1995
1) Community acceptability is to be based on consideration of four factors: 1-community
perceived risk offered by technology; 2 -Potential for harm to human health; 3 -Actual or
potential environmental releases or emissions; 4 -Consideration of impact on property values.
This criterion is a measure of the community's over all perception of technology, after having a
presentation of descriptions and evaluations of the technology as well as ask questions of technical
advisors. The community's assessment of acceptability will be prominently included with any
distribution of this technology screening information and will be extremely important in
selection of actual pilot study and full remediation vendors. (Suggested ratings: 4 -
outstanding, 3 -satisfactory; 2 -marginally acceptable; 1 unacceptable)
2) Extent of prior experience with this technology on soils at similar sites. (Rating
based on the number of sites with PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils which have completed
pilot or full-scale projects with this technology: 4 -more than five sites; 3 three to five
sites; 2-one to two sites; 1 -no sites using this technology.)
3) Short term safety and effectiveness. Includes potential for worker and community
exposure due to planned and unplanned releases (excavation, gaseous emissions, solvents)
during operation. (Rating: 4 -in situ and well-contained process or "closed loop" with
essentially no chance of releases; 3 -technology demonstrates very low release levels
within regulatory limits; 2 -some releases documented with technical improvements
currently available; 1 -uncontrolled release possible.)
4) Long term effectiveness. Reduction of toxicity or volume of toxic contaminants.
(Rating: 4 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 99% removal level;
3 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 95 % removal level, or to
reduce volume of contaminated soils to less than 30 % of original volume as part of a
"treatment train", with greater than 95% removal from remaining fraction; 2 -ability to
detoxify or concentrate contaminants to 90 % level or to higher levels under limited
conditions; 1 -technology generally not effective on contaminants and under conditions
at the Warren County Landfill.)
5) Generation of residuals and ability to handle on-site. (Rating: 4 -no residuals or
completely treatable on-site; 3 -small volume of residuals, predominantly treatable on-site,
2 -moderate volume of residuals, mostly treatable on site at added expense; 1 -large
volume of incompletely detoxified residuals.)
J
6) Projected duration of full-scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -less than six months; 3 six
months to one year; 2 -one to two years; 1 -longer than two years.)
7) Availability of pilot scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -available to start immediately; 3
available to start within three months; 2 -available within six months; 1 -longer than six
months or unknown.)
8) Implementability of this technology at Warren County PCB Landfill. Number of
vendors available, technical impediments, extent of infrastructure requirements. (Rating:
4 -more than three vendors available, no major technical problems anticipated, system
largely self-contained; 3 -two to three vendors, technical problems are soluble with
minimal expense and time, few unique requirements for infrastructure support; 2 -one
vendor available, technical problems may delay or increase costs up to 25 % ; significant
unique infrastructure support needed for this technology; 1 -no vendors available, major
technical problems, infrastructure requirements too expensive or unobtainable at this site.)
9) Estimated cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil treated. (Rating: the projected
cost range will be given and the mid-point of that range will be rated as 4 -less than $100
cubic yard; 3 -$100 to $300 per cubic yard; 2 -$300-$500 per cubic yard; 1 -$300-$500
per cubic yard; 1 -greater than $500 per cubic yard.)
IJLLLLL .C.Ll11UI\.L:.
Hope C. 11aylor fj rf}
Environmental Technical Assistance ~'r'I) : Qi I/, e
Stem, NC 27581 b -1
1590 Jack Clerent Road LL'1tJRE
~-0.<-/ ~.)
UPDATE ON TECHNOLOGY SCRETING PROCESS JUNE 1, 1995
Screenins Criteria A list of technology scr~ning criteria have been proposed, based
on a merging of the first section of the Aprill 11 draft from DSWM and those criteria
used in an EPA Feasibility Study for a Supl1rfund site remediation. These are:
1. Community acceptibili ty
2. Extent of prior experience with this technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness, poteltial for worker exposure, planned and
unplanned releases.
4. Long term effectiveness-extent of reduTon of toxicity~~ility or volum:)
5. Generation of residuals and degree of on-site management
6. Projected duration of full scale treatmJt from present to completion
7. Availability of pilot scale treatment iJediatel y l.,_ """ 6 .:,.,,-"'\, ~
I
8. Implementability at Warren County sitJ, engineering feasibility, infrastructure
requirements, proximity of vendor equip~ent
I
~-~: :: ::::::::~• :::~:::l::~:r:::::~o::siliese factors on a scale
from 1-4 as follows:
1 = unacceptable
2= marginally or conditionally acceptable
3= satisfactory
4= outstanding
lffjUUI
06 1 02/95 09 :00 FA\ BILLIE EUIORE
2
Technologies selected for further consideration and inclusion in a second round
RFQ would have a total score among the tor1 three and no criteria evaluated as
unacceptable.
In the past week I have reviewed materi ls loaned by Sharon Rogers and Dave
Lown of the Superfund Branch concerning ~echnology screening. Especially helpful
is the 1993 Remediation Technologies Scre~ning Matrix and Reference Guide, the
result of a joint EPA/ Air Force project. Thif is not up to date, of course, most
notably for a technology of recent vintage S1!1ch as BCD. I have requested
information which may improve our overyiew of recent developments from EPA's
Technology Innovation Office and from the SITE program in Cincinnati. The
general format of this 1993 screening is qui~e useful, however, and uses a very
similar list of screening criteria to that pro~osed above, with a semi-quantitative
scale (Better, Average or Worse). /
Working from the list of technologies included in this volume, I have
eliminated from detailed screening all but those which meet the following criteria:
a) listed as effective with halogenated semLvolatile compounds
b) do not involve in-situ pressure or high temperature which could damage the
landfill containment
c) are full-scale technologies
Technologies remaining to be screened in ude:
1) In-situ biodegradation
2) In-situ thermally enhanced semi-volati e extraction
3) Slurry phase biological treatment
4) Controlled solid-phase biological treat ent
5) Soil washing
6) Dehalogenation (glycolate)
7) Dehalogenation (BCD)
8) Solvent Extraction
9) Low temperature. thermal desorption
10) High temperature thermal desorption
11} Incineration
I would propose using all information ~vailable to me by June 9 to screen these
technologies for all criteria other than #1~ Fommunity Acceptability, and then
meeting with all interested members of tHe community before the next Working
Group meeting to describe these technolo~es and assess their acceptability to the
community morder to complete the screl ing processf Q..-, 1'1'~
!41001
· ~<ENr BY,:xerox Te I ecopier 7020 ; 5-25-95 ; 3: 0BPM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔
DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Department of Biochemistry
FACSIMILE TRANSMITIAL
,
J>Gt/1J (: -1)swfi
(location)
16 .-3f.t; 0~
(facsimile no.)
(location)
[phone]
(facsimile no.)
(voice n· .)
COMMENTS: ------------.....--
919 715 3605:# 1
IDuke
I
This document consists of ~ pages including this cover ~heet. If you
have any qu~stions or tr.ms~ problems, call [phone].
. SENT-BY;Xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:09PM BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605:# 2
Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1590 Jack Clement Road
Stem, NC 27581
May 25, 1995
Mr. Bill Meyer, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
NCDEHNR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Meyer,
Thank you very much for your helpful discussions yesterday, as well as the
opportunity to see the landfill and observe preparations for s~pling of monitoring
wells 'With Ms. Rogers. I am currently reviewing technology ~creening information
and will begin contacting prospective pilot study vendors CRFp respondants) for cost
estimates by the end of this week. ,
I
I
In response to your request for a summary of costs of servi~ to be provided,
these are my current rates: I
Technical Services
Clerical/ Administrative
Phone, materials, travel
Personal vehicle use
$45.00 /hour
30.00/hour
At cost
0.25/mile
I would estimate that the work envisioned, including ven or contacts and
selection, monitoring of pilot studies and review of the resul ng data with
recommendations for remediation, would be a maximwn of 00 hours of technical
work and about 20 hours of clerical/ administrative work per quarter. This estimate
could be lowered significantly, depending on the amount of erk the Joint Working
Group chooses to delegate to other technical advisors, inclu ng an environmental
engineer, hydrogeologist and analytical chemist.
SENT, BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:09PM BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605;# 3
Many thanks for the opportunity to become a science advisor to the Joint
Working Group. I expect that we will work together fruitfully to enlarge the
technical and public understanding of the landfill and the proc-esses occuring within
it as we take committed steps toward its detoxification.
Copy to Mr. Henry Lancaster
CV attached
. SENT BY:xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:10PM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔
EDUCATION
Curriculum Vitae
Hope Cathlln Taylor
1590 Jack Clement Rd.
Stem,NC 27581
B. S. (Honors) in Biochemistry, May, 1973
University of Maryland, College Park
919 715 3605;# 4
Graduate coursework at Univ. of Md. and National Institutes of Health
in molecular biology, protein structure and function, urµnunology,
x-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance, rf diation safety
and health physics, 1973-1977 .
I
I •
M. S. P.H. in Environmental Sciences and Engineering, ~y 1993
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (defense com*~eted Dec.
1992) includes coursework in toxicology, xenobiotic miElism,
water quality, risk assessment, neurochemistry, epidemi ogy,
biostatistics, rural health (Thesis title: ''The Role of Gap Junctional
Intereellular Communication in Tumor Promotion and /I elopment
of an In-Vitro Assay for Assessment of Carcinogenic Ri~ Due to
Inhibition of Communication") 1
I
I I
RESEARCH, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY•BASED ~ERIENCE
August, 1994 to present: I
I
I
Temporary Instructor
Chemistry Department
Duke University
Durham, NC 27710 (Dr. Rose D'Silva, Manager, Un~ergrad Labs}
January, 1994 to present: i
i
Technical Advisor (under EPA Technical Assistance Gr*t) to the
CleanWater and Environment Project for Shiloh at the ~oppers
Superfund Site, Morrisville, NC i
January, 1993 through September, 1994:
Community technical assistance (as an independent su~ntractor
with the Environmental Compliance Organization, As~and, Va) to
citizen's groups at Statesville, NC (PCX NPL site), Aber~, NC
(Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps NPL site) and Apollo, PA (Babcock and
Wilcox-Apollo Plant Decommissioning Oversight ProjeJt)
I I
'
SE~T BY;xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:10PM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔
2
February, 1990 through Dea!Jl\ber, 1993:
Informal technical assistance to the Clean Water and Environment
Project for Shiloh (NC) effected by the Koppers NPL Site,
Morrisville, NC, including interpretation of site-related technical
documents, preparation of comments.
August, 1989 to December, 1992:
Graduate student in Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Public
Health School, Univ. of North Carolina-research in 1) g;notoxicity
of disinfection byproducts from treatm~t of Jordan Lak(t reservoir
water, 2) theory development for role of gap junctional i ·
intercellular communication (GJIC) in tumor promotion and
development of an assay system for assessment of risk of
promotional effects due to loss of GJIC
November and December, 1991: r
r
919 715 3605:# 5
Technical assistance to indigenous (Miskito Indian) wo+en in dairy goat
management, Waspam, Nicaragua I
June, 1987 to present:
Associate in Research
Department of Biochemistry
Duke University Medical Center
Durham,NC 27710
I
i
X-ray aystallographic studies of acyl carrier protein, ye.1st alcohol
oxidase and the cell binding domain of human fibronectlf
November, 1985 to May, 1987:
Associate in Research
Department of Anatomy
Dulce University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710
!
i
Biochemical and electron microscopic characterization pf the
· SENT BY;xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:11PM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔
3
extracellular matrix glycoprotein tenascin (hexabrachion protein)
January, 1978 to October, 1985
Consultant in Structural Biochemistry
Ergoda Entroprlses
Route 2., Box t 42-C
Berkeley Springs, WV 25411
With consulting projects in the following laboratories:
Dr. David C. Richardson
Department of Biochemistry, Duke University
(X-ray structural analysis of semf .. syn~etic ribonuclease analogues>
Dr. Irwin M. Chaiken
Laboratory of Chemical Biology, NIAMDDK
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Dr .. Paul J~godzinski
Dept. of Chemistry, West Virginia University, Morgantown
(Laser Raman spectroscopy and other studies of bovine
neurophysins and chicken fetal delta crystallin
May, 1983
Host and organizer for the Mid-Atlantic Macromolecular Structure
Workshop, Berkeley Springs, WV
May, 1977 to October, 1985
919 715 3605:# 6
Organic homesteader, goat farmer, VW mechanic, part-time carpenter and
environmental activist (Mountain Stream Monitors, Panhandle Alliance for
Safe Energy} near Berkeley Springs, WV
October, 1973 to Ap~, 1977:
Research Chemist
Laboratory of Chemical Biology
NIAMDDK, National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD 20205
S;N! BY:xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:11PM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 . I
4
I
I
Purification, physical characterization and ligand bindin~ studies of
bovine neurophysins.
Peptide synthesis, purification and characterization of ri~nuclease
analogues, using spectroscopic, crystallographic: and ehrottjatographic
methods. :
June, 1970 to May, 1973:
Undergraduate Research Assistant
~ent of Chemistry
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
I
Isolation of copper chelating proteins from Chesapeake Bay oyster
Chromatograpy and transesterification of neutral lipids I
Effects of potassium and sodium on efflux of gamma-am/ino-butyric
add from rat brain synaptosomes i
AWARDS
Maryland Academy of Sciences (State Finalist, Westingho\jJ.se Science Talent
Search), 1970 :
Noxell Corporation Senior Fellowship, 1972 i
Phi Kappa Phi, 1973 · . 1
Alpha Chi Sigma Senior Award (Chemistry Honor Soclet}f), Univ. of Maryland,
1973 · :
Equal Bmployment Opportunity Award (for employee ad~ocacy), National
Institutes of •Health, 1977 :
I
l
SiNJ BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5-25-95 3:12PM ; BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605:# 8
s
PUBLICATIONS
1) Chaiken, I. M.; Randolph, R. E. and Taylor, H. C. "Conformational Effects
Associated with the Interaction of Polypeptide Ligands and Neurophysins". Ann.
Ni Y. A,cad. ~ J.lSA, ~ 442, (1975). :
2) Chaiken, I. M. IJ\d Taylor, H. C. "Quantitative Affinity Chromatography and its
Applications ot Studies of Ligand Binding by Semi-synthetic ~bonuclease-S'
Analogues", Peptides: ,hemistzy. filructure iW! Diology. l7QQ Amer. Peptide
Sm,p., Roderich and Meinhoter, Eds., (1975). i
3) Chaiken, I. M. and Taylor, H. C, "Analysis of Riboneclease,fNucleotide
Interactions by Quantitative Affinity Chromatography", .1 ~ Chem .• .2fil., 204,
(1976), . I
I
4) Taylor, H. C. and Chaiken, I. M., "Active Site Ugand Bin~g by an Inactive
Ribonuclease-S Analogue. A Quantitative Affinity Chromatqgraphy Study", 1 Biol.
Chem,. m, 6991, (1977). · :
5) Chaiken, i. M;; Taylor, H. C. and Ammon, H. L., "Crystal :,1"operties of [des 16-20]
Semi•synthetic Sequence Variants of Ribonuclease-S"',.LlliQll Chem .• ~ 5599,
(1977). .
6) Taylor, H. C.; Richardson, D. C.; Richardson, J. S.; Wlodawer, A.; Komorlya, A.
and Chaiken, I. M., "Active Conformation of an Inactive Semi-synthetic
Ribonuclease-S", L Molec. Biol..149, 313, (1981). :
7) Taylor, H C. with the Land Committee 0£ the School Of $vtng, "Ecological Land
Use" (Proposed land use guidelines for community land tru~ts, booklet), School Of
Living publication, (1982). :
8) Taylor, H. C.; Komoriya, A. and Chaiken, I. M., "Crystallographic StructUre of an
Active, Sequence-:Engineered Ribonuclease", ~ liltL Ac~. ~ USA, §2, 6423,
(1985). .
9) Erl~ H. P and Taylor, H. C., ·"Hexabrachion Proteins /in Embryonic Chicken
Tissues and Human Tumors", L Cell Biol.. lM., 1387, (1987). /
10) Taylor, H. C.; Ughtner, V. A.,; Beyer, W. F., Jr.; Mc.Caslli,, D.; Briscoe, G. and
Erickson; H.P., "Biochemic.al and Structural Studies of Ten~dn/Hexabrachion
Proteins", 1 Cellular Diocbem., fl, 71, (1989).
. SENJ BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3!12PM BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605:# 9
6
11) Singer, P.; Ball, L. M.; DiGiano, F.; Miller; K. and Taylor, H. C. ''Treatability
Assessment of Jordan Lake", a report to the Water Resources :Research Institute
(Raleigh, NC), (1992). .
12) Taylor, H. C. and Crawford-Brown, D. J., "Tumor Promodon Risk Assessment:
Desaibing &nQ Quantifying the Role of Gap Junctional Inter~llular
Communication", abstract for poster presented at the ASTD~ International
Congress on th~ Health Effects of Haz.ardous Waste, Atlanta, ~y, 1993.