Stabilization of Metals andPropellants in Soils from

the Former Sunflower ArmyAmmunition Plan

Stabilization of Metals andPropellants in Soils from

the Former Sunflower ArmyAmmunition Plan

Paul R. Lear, Ph.D and Keith Walker Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure

Judith Meier, US ACOE

Traditional ParadigmTraditional Paradigm

F Wastes contaminated with semi-volatile organicshave traditionally treated via thermal treatmenttechnologies

F Public and regulatory acceptance of thermaltreatment has declined

F Alternative remedial technologies (bioremediation,soil vapor extraction, chemical oxidation, and soilwashing) do not have the same level of destructionas thermal treatment technologies

F Wastes contaminated with semi-volatile organicshave traditionally treated via thermal treatmenttechnologies

F Public and regulatory acceptance of thermaltreatment has declined

F Alternative remedial technologies (bioremediation,soil vapor extraction, chemical oxidation, and soilwashing) do not have the same level of destructionas thermal treatment technologies

Stabilization of Organics as aRemedial AlternativeStabilization of Organics as aRemedial Alternative

F The traditional alternative remedialtechnologies leave residual levels of organicsafter treatment

F The residual levels may be unacceptable orrequire containment of the treated material

F Stabilization, or chemical fixation, can beacceptable since the organics are immobilizedin the treated material, limiting their impact tohuman health and the environment

F The traditional alternative remedialtechnologies leave residual levels of organicsafter treatment

F The residual levels may be unacceptable orrequire containment of the treated material

F Stabilization, or chemical fixation, can beacceptable since the organics are immobilizedin the treated material, limiting their impact tohuman health and the environment

Propellant Production at SFAAPPropellant Production at SFAAP

F N-5 propellant (amixture ofnitroglycerine,nitrocellulose,diethylphthalate, 2-dinitrophenylamine,lead 2- ethylhexoate,lead salicylate, andcandelilla wax) wasproduced at amunitions plant

F N-5 propellant (amixture ofnitroglycerine,nitrocellulose,diethylphthalate, 2-dinitrophenylamine,lead 2- ethylhexoate,lead salicylate, andcandelilla wax) wasproduced at amunitions plant

Propellant Production at SFAAPPropellant Production at SFAAP

F The N-5 was rolled intosheets and extrudedinto solid propellantgrains

F The N-5 was rolled intosheets and extrudedinto solid propellantgrains

Propellant Production at SFAAPPropellant Production at SFAAP

F Production plantwashdown water,containing N-5propellant paste andchips weredischarged intoditches and settlingponds

F Production plantwashdown water,containing N-5propellant paste andchips weredischarged intoditches and settlingponds

Corrective Measure at SFAAPCorrective Measure at SFAAP

F Building Foundation Area, Ditchand Settling Pond soils werecontaminated with lead,nitroglycerine, and nitrocellulose– Could be reactive if

concentrations of propellantare high

F Kansas DPH and Region VIIagreed to a stabilized materialwhich was not RCRAcharacteristically hazardous forreactivity and leached less than0.75 mg/L lead

F Building Foundation Area, Ditchand Settling Pond soils werecontaminated with lead,nitroglycerine, and nitrocellulose– Could be reactive if

concentrations of propellantare high

F Kansas DPH and Region VIIagreed to a stabilized materialwhich was not RCRAcharacteristically hazardous forreactivity and leached less than0.75 mg/L lead

Stabilization Treatment BasisStabilization Treatment Basis

F Treatability Results - Ditch SoilF Treatability Results - Ditch Soil

Untreated Soil Treated Soil Parameter

Total (mg/kg)

TCLP (ug/L)

Total (mg/kg)

TCLP (ug/L)

Lead 1,300 8,600 1,060 <200

Nitroglycerin 65.2 2 192 <1

Nitrocellulose 2,410 55 1,670 <1

Stabilization Treatment BasisStabilization Treatment Basis

F Treatability Results - Pond SedimentF Treatability Results - Pond Sediment

Untreated Soil Treated Soil Parameter

Total (mg/kg)

TCLP (ug/L)

Total (mg/kg)

TCLP (ug/L)

Lead 834 9,520 874 <200

Nitroglycerin 251 5 222 <1

Nitrocellulose 3,850 94 3,470 <1

ExcavationExcavation

F Production oriented inUplands building FoundationAreas

F Surgical excavation in ditchesand ponds

F Production oriented inUplands building FoundationAreas

F Surgical excavation in ditchesand ponds

ExcavationExcavation

F Procedures were in place to identify and mitigate risksfrom propellant and UXO

F Propellant was encountered though concentration notsufficient for detonation

F Procedures were in place to identify and mitigate risksfrom propellant and UXO

F Propellant was encountered though concentration notsufficient for detonation

Stabilization Treatment PFDStabilization Treatment PFD

ScreeningScreening

F Excavated material had tobe screened due to:

– Nature and extent ofcohesive fines

– Moisture content

F Excavated material had tobe screened due to:

– Nature and extent ofcohesive fines

– Moisture content

StabilizationStabilization

F Screened material wastransferred to a pugmill

F Reagent usage wascontrolled by PLC

F Water was added by spraybars within pugmill

F Treatment rate of 160tons/hr average

F Screened material wastransferred to a pugmill

F Reagent usage wascontrolled by PLC

F Water was added by spraybars within pugmill

F Treatment rate of 160tons/hr average

StockpileStockpile

F Treated material wasstockpiled awaitingconfirmation testing

– Only 3 daypiles (3%)required retreatment

F Treated material hauled off-site for use as daily coverat a municipal landfill

F Treated material wasstockpiled awaitingconfirmation testing

– Only 3 daypiles (3%)required retreatment

F Treated material hauled off-site for use as daily coverat a municipal landfill

SummarySummary

F 46,000 tons of soil was excavated– 22,000 tons for Building Foundation Areas– 19,000 tons from drainage ditches– 5,000 tons from settling ponds

F Excavated soil was screened, then treated at a rateof 160 tons per hour using conventionalstabilization equipment

F Treated soil was stockpiled and analyzed for LDRsand UTS prior to off-site disposal as landfill dailycover

F Coordinated project management allowed fast-trackfrom design to execution

F 46,000 tons of soil was excavated– 22,000 tons for Building Foundation Areas– 19,000 tons from drainage ditches– 5,000 tons from settling ponds

F Excavated soil was screened, then treated at a rateof 160 tons per hour using conventionalstabilization equipment

F Treated soil was stockpiled and analyzed for LDRsand UTS prior to off-site disposal as landfill dailycover

F Coordinated project management allowed fast-trackfrom design to execution