Table 2-1. Summary of the climate and site conditions for eleven RTDF trial locations. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Site |
||||||||||
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
|
units |
CA |
OH |
AK |
AK |
AK |
NY |
KS |
RI |
MO |
AR |
IN |
Mean annual precipitation |
inches |
23 |
41 |
4.5 |
14.2 |
109 |
43 |
33 |
46 |
37 |
53 |
45 |
Growing season length |
days |
270 |
175 |
up to 56 |
100 |
180 |
175 |
180 |
196 |
175 |
180 |
175 |
Average last frost |
|
none |
15-Apr |
early July |
1-May |
1-Apr |
27-Apr |
15-Apr |
13-Apr |
26-Apr |
16-Apr |
15-Apr |
Average first frost |
|
none |
15-Oct |
anytime |
1-Sep |
15-Oct |
19-Oct |
15-Oct |
27-Oct |
16-Oct |
22-Oct |
15-Oct |
Depth to groundwater |
feet |
2 - 6 |
50 - 95 |
1 - 3 |
3 - 4 |
< 0.7 |
1 - 8 |
|
10 |
25 - 45 |
|
3 |
Contaminant Source |
|
crude oils, API separator sludge |
slop oil, API separator sludge |
refined products -- arctic diesel, MOGAS, JP-5 |
refined products -- arctic grade diesel, jet fuel |
refined products -- motor oil, diesel |
former manufactured gas plant |
motor pool wastes |
refined products -- No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oils |
refined products (PRS1, PRS6) and refinery waste |
crude oil |
former manufactured gas plant |
Depth of contamination |
feet |
up to 12 |
2.5 |
3 - 5 |
3 + |
unknown |
20 |
2 |
< 2 |
up to 15 |
|
2 to 6 |
Table 2-2. Summary of the experimental design details for eleven RTDF sites. |
|||||||||||
|
Site |
||||||||||
Site Code |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
State |
CA |
OH |
AK |
AK |
AK |
NY |
KS |
RI |
MO |
AR |
IN |
Treatments |
standard mix |
standard mix |
standard mix w/ fertilizer |
standard mix w/ fertilizer |
standard mix w/ fertilizer |
standard mix |
standard mix |
|
|
standard mix |
willow/poplar |
|
native grasses |
hackberry |
standard mix no fertilizer |
standard mix no fertilizer |
standard mix no fertilizer |
willow/poplar |
switchgrass |
|
|
bermudagrass/fescue |
|
|
|
willow/poplar |
unvegetated w/ fertilizer |
unvegetated w/ fertilizer |
unvegetated w/ fertilizer |
volunteer revegetation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
unvegetated |
unvegetated |
unvegetated no fertilizer |
unvegetated no fertilizer |
unvegetated no fertilizer |
unvegetated |
unvegetated |
|
|
unvegetated |
unvegetated |
Experimental Design |
RCBD |
RCBD |
Factorial |
Factorial |
Factorial |
RCBD |
RCBD |
|
|
RCBD |
RCBD |
Replications |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
4 |
9 |
Experimental Plot Size |
25' x 30' |
35' x 35' |
8' x 14' |
15' x 25' |
7' x 14' |
20' x 20' |
20' x 20' |
|
|
400 sq. ft. |
24' x 24' |
Planting Date |
12/3/98 |
4/23/99 |
6/23/99 |
9/2/98 |
9/4/98 |
6/6/99 |
9/15/99 |
spring 2000 |
spring 2000 |
10/15/99 |
May-99 |
Sampling Dates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time 0 |
12/3/98 |
4/21/99 |
6/23/99 |
6/20/98 |
8/20/98 |
6/23/99 |
9/12/99 |
|
|
10/15/99 |
May-99 |
Time 1 |
6/2/99 |
1A -- 10/27/99 |
9/14/99 |
1A -- 7/20/99 |
1A -- 6/2/99 |
11/11/99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1B -- 9/28/99 |
1B -- 11/29/99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cores per plot |
8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
|
|
9 for shallow |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 for deep |
|
Sampling Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shallow |
0 - 15 cm |
0 - 15 cm |
15 - 18 cm |
15 - 20 cm |
5 - 10 cm |
0 - 20 cm |
0 - 15 cm |
|
|
0 - 15 cm |
0 - 60 cm |
Deep |
15 - 45 cm |
15 - 75 cm |
28 - 35 cm |
30 - 35 cm |
15 - 20 cm |
20 - 40 cm |
15 - 45 cm |
|
|
15 - 45 cm |
60 - 120 cm |
|
|
75 - 120 cm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 - 180 cm |
Fertilization: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetated plots |
yes |
yes |
both |
both |
both |
no |
yes |
|
|
yes |
yes |
Unvegetated plots |
no |
no |
both |
both |
both |
no |
no |
|
|
no |
no |
Weeding method on control |
glyphosate |
hand spading surface soil |
none |
hand weeding |
none |
glyphosate |
glyphosate |
|
|
glyphosate |
none |
Table 3-1. Time 0 means and standard deviations for TPH by GC/FID for four RTDF sites. Data were adjusted based on the surrogate recovery percentage. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Site |
||||||||||||||
A |
|
B |
|
F |
|
G |
|||||||||
mean |
± |
SD |
|
mean |
± |
SD |
|
mean |
± |
SD |
|
mean |
± |
SD |
|
Depth |
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
mg/kg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shallowa |
45535 |
± |
31225 |
|
13836 |
± |
4444 |
|
1429 |
± |
279 |
|
14704 |
± |
2542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deepb |
57444 |
± |
21383 |
|
12155 |
± |
6414 |
|
649 |
± |
322 |
|
12762 |
± |
2504 |
|
|||||||||||||||
a Shallow depth is 0 - 15 cm for Site A, B, G; and 0 - 20 cm for Site F. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
b Deep corresponds to 15 - 45 cm for Site A, G; 15 - 75 for Site B; and 20 - 40 cm for Site F. |
Table 3-2. Treatment mean concentrations of TPH, hopane, and hopane expressed on an oil weight basis for the Time 0 sampling of four RTDF locations. |
|||||
|
|||||
Site |
Treatment
|
Depth cm |
TPH by mg/kg |
Hopane mg/kg |
Hopane mg/kg oil |
A |
Standard mix |
0 - 15 |
47259 |
6.3 |
174 |
|
Native |
|
38754 |
6.8 |
230 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
50591 |
8.9 |
206 |
A |
Standard mix |
15 - 45 |
64244 |
10.9 |
176 |
|
Native |
|
61413 |
11.4 |
192 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
46676 |
8.6 |
200 |
B |
Standard mix |
0 - 15 |
13674 |
7.0 |
514 |
|
Hackberry |
|
13115 |
7.0 |
552 |
|
Willow/poplar |
|
12810 |
7.6 |
598 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
15745 |
7.1 |
528 |
B |
Standard mix |
15 - 75 |
11392 |
2.9 |
264 |
|
Hackberry |
|
11718 |
2.6 |
245 |
|
Willow/poplar |
|
17811 |
3.9 |
256 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
8101 |
2.5 |
310 |
F |
Standard mix |
0 - 20 |
1336 |
0.07 |
50 |
|
Willow/poplar |
|
1340 |
0.08 |
58 |
|
Volunteer revegetation |
|
1379 |
0.07 |
53 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
1663 |
0.11 |
61 |
F |
Standard mix |
20 - 40 |
821 |
0.16 |
275 |
|
Willow/poplar |
|
575 |
0.07 |
162 |
|
Volunteer revegetation |
|
527 |
0.08 |
156 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
672 |
0.11 |
193 |
G |
Standard mix |
0 - 15 |
16454 |
5.5 |
339 |
|
Native |
|
15487 |
5.8 |
383 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
12921 |
5.0 |
389 |
G |
Standard mix |
15 - 45 |
10556 |
3.9 |
316 |
|
Native |
|
14706 |
4.4 |
306 |
|
Unvegetated |
|
12582 |
3.2 |
280 |
Table 3-3. Multiple comparison of treatment means for TPH, total priority PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents for Site A -- Time 0. Within each group of three treatments, means followed by the same letter are not different by an lsd test with p<0.05. |
|||||
Parameter |
Treatment |
Depth (0-15 cm) |
Depth (15-45 cm) |
||
mean |
|
mean |
|
||
TPH by GC/FID |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
47259 |
a |
64244 |
a |
Native species mix |
38754 |
a |
61413 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
50591 |
a |
46676 |
a |
|
Total Priority PAHs |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
30.9 |
a |
137.2 |
a |
Native species mix |
36.0 |
a |
139.0 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
35.9 |
a |
143.2 |
a |
|
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
4.51 |
a |
15.23 |
a |
Native species mix |
5.62 |
a |
15.01 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
5.14 |
a |
16.48 |
a |
Table 3-4. Multiple comparison of treatment means for TPH, total priority PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents for Site B -- Time 0. Within each group of three treatments, means followed by the same letter are not different by an lsd test with p<0.05. |
|||||
Parameter
|
Treatment
|
Depth |
Depth |
||
mean |
|
mean |
|
||
TPH by GC/FID |
Standard grass mix |
13674 |
a |
11392 |
ab |
|
Willow/poplar |
12810 |
a |
17811 |
a |
|
Hackberry |
13115 |
a |
11718 |
ab |
|
Unvegetated |
15745 |
a |
8101 |
b |
Total Priority PAHs |
Standard grass mix |
49.6 |
a |
59.1 |
ab |
|
Willow/poplar |
51.4 |
a |
94.3 |
a |
|
Hackberry |
49.1 |
a |
57.6 |
ab |
|
Unvegetated |
59.1 |
a |
50.7 |
b |
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents |
Standard grass mix |
10.7 |
a |
10.4 |
ab |
|
Willow/poplar |
10.7 |
a |
15.4 |
a |
|
Hackberry |
10.5 |
a |
9.9 |
b |
|
Unvegetated |
11.6 |
a |
8.6 |
b |
Table 3-5. Multiple comparison of treatment means for TPH, total priority PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents for Site F -- Time 0. Within each group of three treatments, means followed by the same letter are not different by an lsd test with p<0.05. |
|||||
Parameter
|
Treatment
|
Depth |
Depth |
||
mean |
|
mean |
|
||
TPH by GC/FID |
Standard grass mix |
1336 |
a |
821 |
a |
|
Willow/Poplar |
1340 |
a |
575 |
a |
|
Volunteer |
1378 |
a |
527 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
1663 |
a |
672 |
a |
Total Priority PAHs |
Standard grass mix |
304.3 |
a |
196.6 |
a |
|
Willow/Poplar |
357.1 |
a |
106.6 |
a |
|
Volunteer |
368.9 |
a |
82.8 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
415.3 |
a |
116.4 |
a |
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents |
Standard grass mix |
34.3 |
a |
22.0 |
a |
|
Willow/Poplar |
39.0 |
a |
14.0 |
a |
|
Volunteer |
43.1 |
a |
10.7 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
43.5 |
a |
13.6 |
a |
Table 3-6. Multiple comparison of treatment means for TPH, total priority PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents for Site G -- Time 0. Within each group of three treatments, means followed by the same letter are not different by an lsd test with p<0.05. |
|||||
Parameter
|
Treatment
|
Depth (0-15 cm) |
Depth (15-45cm) |
||
mean mg/Kg |
|
mean mg/Kg |
|
||
TPH by GC/FID |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
15704 |
a |
12516 |
a |
|
Switchgrass |
15487 |
a |
14382 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
12921 |
a |
11477 |
a |
Total Priority PAHs |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
13.7 |
a |
17.0 |
a |
|
Switchgrass |
12.8 |
a |
18.0 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
10.8 |
a |
15.4 |
a |
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents |
Standard Fescue/legume mix |
0.54 |
a |
0.39 |
a |
|
Switchgrass |
0.52 |
a |
0.47 |
a |
|
Unvegetated |
0.51 |
a |
0.34 |
a |
Table 3-7. Multiple comparison of treatment means for TPH, total priority PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents for Site K -- Time 0. Within each group of three treatments, means followed by the same letter are not different by an lsd test with p<0.05. Natural Attenuation is the same as unvegetated at other sites. |
|||||||
Parameter
|
Treatment
|
Depth |
Depth |
Depth |
|||
mean mg/Kg |
|
mean mg/Kg |
|
mean mg/Kg |
|
||
Total Priority PAHs |
Willow/Poplar |
680.8 |
a |
1064 |
a |
2770 |
a |
|
Natural Attenuation |
881.2 |
a |
1967 |
a |
2906 |
a |
Benzo[a]pyrene |
Willow/Poplar |
36.4 |
a |
67.7 |
a |
138.8 |
a |
|
Natural Attenuation |
59.6 |
a |
122.4 |
a |
150.8 |
a |
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents |
Willow/Poplar |
57.5 |
a |
98.6 |
a |
194.4 |
a |
|
Natural Attenuation |
87.1 |
a |
177.1 |
a |
212.8 |
a |
Table 3-8. Summary of mean priority pollutant PAH concentrations at Time 0 for five RTDF field trial locations. Individual PAHs are listed along with the total priority PAHs, the total of the carcinogenic PAHs, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalents. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Site A |
Site B |
Site F |
Site G |
Site K |
|||||||||||||||
Depth (cm) |
0 - 15 |
15 - 45 |
0 - 15 |
15 - 75 |
0 - 20 |
20 - 40 |
0 - 15 |
15 - 45 |
0 - 60 |
60 - 120 |
||||||||||
|
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
||||||||||
Naphthalene |
0.1 |
1.2 |
3.1 |
1.0 |
24.5 |
7.2 |
1.7 |
5.2 |
33.2 |
44.9 |
||||||||||
Acenaphthylene |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
8.3 |
2.5 |
ND |
ND |
14.5 |
25.4 |
||||||||||
Acenaphthene |
0.1 |
3.1 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
4.9 |
1.2 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
7.5 |
24.6 |
||||||||||
Fluorene |
0.1 |
4.2 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
9.1 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
1.4 |
10.9 |
34.3 |
||||||||||
Anthracene |
2.0 |
5.3 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
13.8 |
3.2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
21.8 |
65.3 |
||||||||||
Phenanthrene |
0.7 |
22.0 |
2.7 |
2.5 |
42.8 |
11.2 |
2.8 |
3.8 |
88.1 |
206.6 |
||||||||||
Floranthene |
0.3 |
2.8 |
0.4 |
1.4 |
52.7 |
18.8 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
128.5 |
268.6 |
||||||||||
Pyrene |
4.0 |
26.1 |
4.3 |
14.0 |
47.6 |
15.4 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
127.2 |
232.8 |
||||||||||
Beno[a]anthracene1 |
1.8 |
12.4 |
2.8 |
8.1 |
30.9 |
10.8 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
59.7 |
115.1 |
||||||||||
Chrysene1 |
7.2 |
26.4 |
9.1 |
15.1 |
26.5 |
9.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
58.7 |
105.9 |
||||||||||
Benzo[b]fluoanthene1 |
1.9 |
6.6 |
3.2 |
4.2 |
27.9 |
12.7 |
3.6 |
3.0 |
65.5 |
109.8 |
||||||||||
Benzo[k]fluoranthene1 |
0.5 |
1.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
14.7 |
6.0 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
27.7 |
49.7 |
||||||||||
Benzo[a]pyrene1 |
3.6 |
11.3 |
6.9 |
7.6 |
29.2 |
10.6 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
48.0 |
95.1 |
||||||||||
Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene1 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
2.7 |
1.1 |
13.3 |
6.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
41.3 |
64.0 |
||||||||||
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene1 |
1.0 |
2.2 |
3.1 |
2.0 |
3.4 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
7.3 |
13.3 |
||||||||||
Benzo[g,h]perylene |
10.2 |
13.2 |
12.3 |
5.0 |
11.8 |
4.9 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
41.1 |
60.1 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Total Priority PAHs |
34.3 |
139.8 |
52.3 |
64.4 |
361.4 |
123.1 |
12.4 |
16.8 |
781.0 |
1515.2 |
||||||||||
Total Carcinogenic PAHs |
16.9 |
61.7 |
28.4 |
38.9 |
145.9 |
56.8 |
4.7 |
4.0 |
308.3 |
552.8 |
||||||||||
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents2 |
5.1 |
15.6 |
10.9 |
11.0 |
40.0 |
15.1 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
72.3 |
137.9 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
1 Carcinogenic PAHs |
||||||||||||||||||||
2 Weighted sum of carcinogenic PAHs based on relative potency factors (USEPA, 1993) |
Table 3-9. Summary of mean hopane concentrations, D2/P2 and D3/P3 source ratios, and D3/C3 weathering ratio for RTDF Time 0 data. |
||||||||||
|
Site A |
Site B |
Site F |
Site G |
||||||
Depth (cm) |
0 - 15 |
15 - 45 |
0 - 15 |
15 - 75 |
0 - 20 |
20 - 40 |
0 - 15 |
15 - 45 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
hopane (mg/kg) |
7.34 |
10.31 |
7.18 |
2.91 |
0.08 |
0.11 |
5.44 |
3.86 |
||
D2/P2 |
0.12 |
0.24 |
0.26 |
0.22 |
0.32 |
0.21 |
0.62 |
0.64 |
||
D3/P3 |
0.14 |
0.26 |
0.30 |
0.29 |
0.37 |
0.26 |
0.85 |
0.90 |
||
D3/C3 |
0.08 |
0.39 |
0.08 |
0.43 |
0.86 |
0.53 |
na |
na |
||
|
||||||||||
D2/P2 -- C2-dibenzothiophenes/C2-phenanthrenes/anthracenes potential source ratio |
||||||||||
D3/P3 -- C3-dibenzothiophenes/C3-phenanthrenes/anthracenes potential source ratio |
||||||||||
D3/C3 -- C3-dibenzothiophenes/C3-chrysenes potential weathering ratio |
Table 4-1. Status of field sites summary for the RTDF: TPH in Soil Phytoremediation Team as of November 24, 2000. Sites that do not require a research agreement with EPA are signified with NA. When more than one set of samples is taken within a growing season, the growing season number is followed by a letter. For each sampling time, the first mark indicates field samples were taken, and the second mark indicates analytical results have been received by Kansas State. |
||||||||||||
Site Owner Interested |
Regulatory Approvals Obtained |
Research Agreement with EPA |
Site Planted |
Samples Collected/Analyzed |
Microbial Analysis |
|||||||
Initial |
Time 0 |
Time 1 |
Time 2 |
Time 3 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
B |
|
est. |
|
|
Site A, CA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X/X |
X/X |
X/X |
X/X |
6/01 |
No |
||
Site B, OH |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X/X |
X/X |
X/X |
11/00 |
|
11/02 |
Yes |
|
Site C, AK |
X |
X |
NA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11/01 |
Yes |
||
Site D, AK |
X |
X |
NA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11/01 |
Yes |
|
Site E, AK |
X |
X |
NA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11/00 |
Yes |
|
Site F, NY |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X/X |
X/X |
X/X |
X |
11/01 |
No |
||
Site G, KS |
X |
X |
NA |
X |
X/X |
X/X |
X |
|
11/02 |
Yes |
||
Site H, RI |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No |
||
Site I, MO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
11/00 |
|
|
11/03 |
No |
||
Site J, AR |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X/X |
X |
12/00 |
|
11/02 |
Yes |
|
Site K, IN |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X/X |
X/X |
X |
11/00 |
11/01 |
Yes |
Table 5-1. Mean values for root weight, root length density, and aboveground biomass for RTDF Sites A, B, and F sampled at the end of the first growing season. Aboveground biomass from trees has not been included in this summary. |
||||||
Site
|
Treatment
|
Depth |
Sample
|
Root |
Root |
Aboveground |
A |
Standard Mix |
0 - 15 |
8 |
0.315 |
64.5 |
375.4 |
|
|
15 - 30 |
8 |
0.023 |
4.3 |
|
|
|
30 - 45 |
1 |
0.001 |
0.4 |
|
|
Native Mix |
0 - 15 |
8 |
0.379 |
67.0 |
412.6 |
|
|
15 - 30 |
8 |
0.056 |
11.7 |
|
|
|
30 - 45 |
1 |
0.001 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
Standard Mix |
0 - 15 |
8 |
0.364 |
168.2 |
170.6 |
|
|
15 - 30 |
7 |
0.117 |
68.3 |
|
|
Willow/Poplar |
0 - 15 |
2 |
0.305 |
97.3 |
139.1a |
|
|
15 - 30 |
2 |
0.035 |
14.3 |
|
|
Established Tall Fescue |
0 - 15 |
1 |
1.370 |
260.6 |
|
|
|
15 - 30 |
1 |
0.970 |
262.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F |
Standard Mix |
0 - 15 |
8 |
0.411 |
267.0 |
232.1 |
|
|
15 - 30 |
8 |
1.309 |
163.9 |
|
|
Willow/Poplar |
0 - 15 |
8 |
0.360 |
42.4 |
68.9 |
|
|
15 - 30 |
8 |
1.340 |
87.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a Site B biomass in willow/poplar plot was a grass cover growing between the trees. Tree biomass was not estimated. |
Table 6-1. Recommended Cost Format (Modified) |
||
Cost Category/Element |
Example Items |
Phytoremediation-Specific Items |
1. Startup Costs for Technology |
||
Technology mobilization, setup, and demobilization |
Includes the transportation (freight on board) or delivery of equipment, facilities, and personnel to and from a site, as well as the setup of temporary facilities and utilities necessary for the construction and startup of the remedial technology. |
Travel Tillage/spreading equipment |
Planning and preparation |
Includes permits and licenses including air emission and water discharge permits; licenses fees associated with use of a technology; regulatory interaction; and various written plans, such as work plans, sampling and analysis plans, health and safety plans, community relations plans, and site management plans |
Site management plans Site characterization (includes initial hydrocarbon analyses) Agronomic soil testing Permitting/regulatory interaction For R&D: CRADA/MOU costs, protocol development, CCs and meetings |
Site work |
Includes all work necessary to establish the physical infrastructure for a technology application and activities necessary to restore a site to pre-remediation conditions or to meet the specifications of a site restoration plan, Includes activities associated with preparing the specific site of the technology, such as clearing and grubbing; earthwork; and construction of utilities, culverts, treatment pads, foundations, and spill control structures. |
Land clearing Tillage prior to planting Drainage controls Amendments (fertilizer, pesticides, lime) Spreading soil/sediments |
Equipment and appurtenances |
Includes structures, equipment, and appurtenances; construction or installation of remedial technology components and materials, including technology parts and supplies to make the technology and appurtenances operation; ownership (amortization), rental or lease of equipment; and plant upgrades, modifications, or replacements; for containment, this should be broadly interpreted as including structures such as slurry walls or caps; for pump and treat this includes construction and installation of extraction wells. |
Irrigation system Fencing Seed/transplant stock Lysimeters or piezometers |
Startup and testing |
Includes activities associated with the startup of the treatment technology, such as establishment of operating conditions, shakedown, and training of O&M personnel. |
Initial planting costs (fertilization, seeding/transplant costs) Initial monitoring during establishment |
Other |
Includes all other capital costs associated with the specific technology that have not been identified above. Generally, this would include costs for non-process equipment. Non-process equipment includes office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and computer equipment, safety equipment, and vehicles. |
Plant selection study Personnel protection equipment Microbial analysis
|
2. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost for Technology |
||
Labor |
Includes labor to operate and maintain the technology and associated equipment, labor supervision, and payroll expenses. Covers ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities. |
Site engineer Field technician Travel Reporting requirements |
Materials |
Includes consumable supplies, process materials, bulk chemicals, and raw materials. Covers ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities. |
Amendments (fertilizer, pesticides, lime) Supplemental planting stock |
Utilities and fuel |
Includes consumable energy supplies, such as fuel, electricity, natural gas, and water. Covers ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities. |
Equipment fuel Irrigation system water supply and power |
Equipment ownership, rental, or lease |
Includes ownership (amortization) , rental, or lease of equipment necessary for operation and maintenance of remedial technology components. |
Irrigation system Tractor/harvester |
Performance testing and analysis |
Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to identifying the performance of a technology. Does not include similar activities related to demonstrating compliance with applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application. |
Microbial analysis For R&D: Plant growth assessment Other monitoring Agronomic soil tests |
Other |
Includes all O&M costs associated with a specific technology that were not identified above. Costs generally include non-process equipment overhead and health and safety associated with the O&M of a technology. Non-process equipment overhead includes maintenance and repair of office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and computer equipment, safety equipment, and vehicles. Health and safety costs include those for personal protective equipment and monitoring of personnel for health and safety. |
Personnel protection equipment
|
3. Other Technology-Specific Costs |
||
Compliance testing and analysis |
Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to demonstrating compliance with applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application. Does not include similar activities related to monitoring the performance of a technology. |
Determination of cleanup goals (TPH/Individual hydrocarbons) Hydrocarbon analyses (frequency in unit costs: 2 events/season at 3 samples/A) For R&D, split out to BTEX; PAHs; Biomarkers; TPHCWG TPH |
Soil, sludge, and debris excavation, collection, and control |
Includes activities associated with excavation, collection , or control of contaminated soil, sludge, and debris prior to ex site treatment, including staging of contaminated media. This element includes collection of drums containing contaminated media. |
Debris from land clearing Excavation and/or on-site placement of contaminated soil |
Disposal of residues |
Includes activities associated with disposal of primary and secondary waste residues for the operation of the technology, such as treated soil disposed of off site. Covers both on- and off-site disposal of water residues. |
Disposal of harvested plant material (for heavy metals) Off-site disposal of treated soil |
4. Other Project Costs |
Includes all activities associated with remediation of a contaminated site that are not attributed directly to a specific technology, such as mobilization and demobilization, site work, and site reparation activities. These costs may be helpful in comparing costs of entire remediation projects and in comparing costs for a specific technology to that of the entire project. |
Table 6-2. Sample Worksheet for Compiling Phytoremediation-Specific Unit Costs Over a Three-Year Period -- R&D Application |
|||||||||||||
Type of Cost |
Phytoremediation-Specific Cost Categories |
Year 1 Technology Costs |
Year 1 Total Cost ($) |
Year 2 Technology Costs |
Year 2 Total Cost ($) |
Year 3 Technology Costs |
Year 3 Total Cost ($) |
||||||
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
|||||
1. Startup Costs for Technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology mobilization, setup, and demobilization |
Travel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tillage/spreading equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning and preparation |
Site management plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site characterization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agronomic soil tests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permitting/regulatory interaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CRADA/MOU costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protocol development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meetings, conference calls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site work |
Land clearing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tillage prior to planting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drainage controls (berms, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendments (fertilizer, pesticides, lime) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spreading soil/sediments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment and appurtenances |
Irrigation system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fencing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seed/transplant stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lysimeters or piezometers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Startup and Testing |
Initial planting (fertilization, seeding/transplant) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial monitoring during establishment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
Plant selection study |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel protection equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microbial analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. O&M for Technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor |
Site engineer/agronomist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Field technician |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Materials |
Amendments (fertilizer, pesticide, lime) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental planting stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities and fuel |
Equipment fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irrgiation system water and power supply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment ownership, rental, or lease |
Irrigation system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tractor/harvester |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance testing and analysis |
Microbial analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agronomic soil tests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant growth assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
Personnel protection equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operation and maintenance costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Other Technology-Specific Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance testing and analysis |
Determination of cleanup goals (i.e., TPH, individual hydrocarbons) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTEX analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPH analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAH analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biomarker analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPHCWG fraction analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soil, sludge, and debris excavation, collection, and control |
Excavation and/or on-site placement of contaminated soil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debris from land clearing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal of residues |
Disposal of harvested plant material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-site disposal of treated soil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Other Project Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total technology cost (year basis for cost - sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs for calculating unit cost (sum of Capital and O&M costs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depth of remediation (ft) |
|||||||||||||
Areal extent of remediation (ft2) |
|||||||||||||
Quantity treated (ft3) |
|||||||||||||
Calculated unit cost |
|||||||||||||
Source: Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects. Revised Version. EPA 542-B-98-007. October 1998. |
|||||||||||||
Unit costs for the technology is considered by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable to include Capital and O&M costs only. |
Table 6-3. Sample Worksheet for Compiling Phytoremediation-Specific Unit Costs Over a Three-Year Period -- Full-Scale Application |
|||||||||||||||||
Type of Cost |
Phytoremediation- Specific Cost Categories |
Yr 1 Technology Costs |
Yr 2 Technology Costs |
Yr 3 Technology Costs |
|||||||||||||
1. Startup Costs for Technology |
|
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
Year 1 Total Cost ($) |
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
Year 2 Total Cost ($) |
Amt |
Units |
Unit Cost ($) |
Year 3 Total Cost ($) |
||||
Tillage/spreading equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Planning and preparation |
Site management plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Site characterization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Agronomic soil tests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Permitting/regulatory interaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Site work |
Land clearing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Tillage prior to planting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Drainage controls (berms, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Amendments (fertilizer, pesticides, lime) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Spreading soil/sediments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Equipment and appurtenances |
Irrigation system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Fencing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Seed/transplant stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Lysimeters or piezometers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Startup and testing |
Initial planting (fertilization, seeding/transplant) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Initial monitoring during establishment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
Plant selection study |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Personnel protection equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Microbial analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Total capital costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
2. O&M for Technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Labor |
Site engineer/agronomist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Field technician |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Travel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Reporting requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Materials |
Amendments (fertilizer, pesticide, lime) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Supplemental planting stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Utilities and fuel |
Equipment fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Irrgiation system water and power supply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Equipment ownership, rental, or lease |
Irrigation system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Tractor/harvester |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Performance testing and analysis |
Microbial analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Agronomic soil tests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
Personnel protection equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Total operation and maintenance costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
3. Other Technology-Specific Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Compliance testing and analysis |
Determination of cleanup goals(i.e., TPH, individual hydrocarbons) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Hydrocarbon analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Soil, sludge, and debris excavation, collection, and control |
Excavation and/or on-site placementof contaminated soil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Debris from land clearing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Disposal of residues |
Disposal of harvested plant material (for heavy metal phytoextraction) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Off-site disposal of treated soil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
4. Other Project Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Total technology cost (year basis for cost - sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Total costs for calculating unit cost (sum of Capital and O&M costs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Depth of remediation (ft) |
|||||||||||||||||
Areal extent of remediation (ft2) |
|||||||||||||||||
Quantity treated (ft3) |
|||||||||||||||||
Calculated unit cost |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Source: Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects. Revised Version. EPA 542-B-98-007. October 1998. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Table 7-1. Carcinogenic PAHs for Site G at Time 0 and Risk-Based Concentrations from EPA Region III RBCs, Risk-Based Concentration Table. October 7, 1999. |
||||||||
|
Site G, Time 0 Concentrations |
EPA Region III RBC |
||||||
|
Surface Soil |
Subsoil |
Soil Ingestion |
Groundwater Migration |
||||
|
Mean |
Max. |
Mean |
Max. |
Industrial |
Residential |
DAF* 1 |
DAF* 20 |
PAH |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
mg/Kg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benzo[a]anthracene |
0.18 |
0.36 |
0.13 |
0.19 |
7.8 |
0.87 |
0.073 |
1.5 |
Chrysene |
0.24 |
0.42 |
0.17 |
0.27 |
780 |
87 |
7.3 |
150 |
Benzo[b]fluoranthene |
3.56 |
4.58 |
3.04 |
4.67 |
7.8 |
0.87 |
0.23 |
4.5 |
Benzo[k]fluoranthene |
0.54 |
0.75 |
0.50 |
0.67 |
78 |
87 |
2.3 |
45 |
Benzo[a]pyrene |
0.11 |
0.31 |
0.06 |
0.11 |
0.78 |
0.087 |
0.019 |
0.37 |
Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene |
0.08 |
0.20 |
0.04 |
0.07 |
7.8 |
0.87 |
0.64 |
13 |
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene |
0.02 |
0.05 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.78 |
0.087 |
0.07 |
1.4 |
* DAF stands for dilution attenuation factor. It is assumed that attenuation processes will reduce the concentrations of PAHs between the source contaminated soil and the groundwater by a factor of 20. |
Table 7-2. TPH risk-based screening levels for Site G, Time 0. RBSLs are presented for residential and commercial exposure. Site G, Time 0, mean TPH values estimated by three methods are presented for comparison. |
|||||||||||
|
Residential Exposure |
Commercial Exposure |
TPH Analysis |
||||||||
|
Leaching |
Inhalation |
Ingestion |
Leaching |
Inhalation |
Ingestion |
GC/FID |
Gravimetric |
TPHCWG |
||
|
|||||||||||
Surface Soil |
26,232 |
12,924,824 |
9,542 |
247,187 |
26,144,553 |
14,126 |
14704 |
15433 |
4154 |
||
|
|||||||||||
Subsoil |
16,335 |
6,462,412 |
6,864 |
127,664 |
13,072,276 |
10,163 |
12792 |
13157 |
1972 |
||
|