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