Remediation of Petroleum Refinery Waste Pond Contents: A Case Study
Publication: Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 4, Issue 4
Abstract
The objectives of this field study were to (1) remediate the contents of a pond containing petroleum refinery waste products, and 2) characterize the performance of the remediation effort in terms of changes in chemical concentration, toxicity of the waste material, and mobility of the remediated waste constituents. The study was conducted in a field land treatment unit (LTU) in two phases over 140 weeks. Site remediation and closure decisions should be based on criteria that indicate that protection of human health and the environment has been achieved. Thus, criteria used to determine performance should include measures of chemical loss as well as measures of mobility (leaching) and toxicity. In this field study, changes in both general (oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbons) and specific (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) hydrocarbons were determined. Several measures of chemical mobility and LTU soil toxicity also were used. The data indicated that the land treatment of this waste material reduced the concentrations of general and specific hydrocarbons, reduced the toxicity of the material being treated, and contained the waste constituents, that is, little to no vertical migration of the chemicals measured occurred. At the end of both field phases of the study, considerable amounts of general hydrocarbons remained in the LTU soil, as indicated by total petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compound measurements. However, there were little chemical mobility and relative toxicity of the soil at the end of these phases.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Davila, J. C., and Acosta, D. ( 1993). “Chapter 21: preparation of primary monolayer cultures of postnatal rat liver cells for hepatotoxic assessment of zenobiotics.” Methods in toxicology, Vol. IA, Academic, San Diego.
2.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. ( 1995). Acute toxicity of soil to Eisenia foetida. Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory, Fort Collins, Colo., February.
3.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ( 1983). “Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.” EPA-600/4-79-020, Envir. Monitoring and Support Lab., Cincinnati.
4.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ( 1986). Test methods for evaluating solid waste: Physical/chemical methods, 3rd Ed., USEPA/SW-846, Ofc. of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
5.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ( 1989a). “Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites: A field and laboratory reference.” EPA/600/3-89/013, Washington, D.C.
6.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ( 1989b). “Protocols for short term toxicity screening of hazardous waste sites.” EPA/600/3-88/029, Washington, D.C.
7.
Gas Research Institute. ( 1990). “Biological treatment of soils containing gas plant residues.” Rep. GRI-90/01117, Chicago.
8.
Hayes, K. W., Meyers, J. D., and Huddleston, R. L. ( 1995). “Biopile treatability, bioavailability, and toxicity evaluation of a hydrocarbon impacted soil.” Applied bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons, R. E. Hinchee, J. A. Kittel, and H. J. Reisinger, eds., Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, 249–256.
9.
Loehr, R. C. ( 1993). “Chapter 20: “Bioremediation of soils.” Geotechnical practice for waste disposal, D. E. Daniel, ed., Chapman & Hall, London, 520–550.
10.
Loehr, R. C., and Webster, M. T. ( 1996). “Performance of long term, field scale bioremediation processes.” J. Haz. Mat., 50, 105–120.
11.
Loehr, R. C., and Webster, M. T. ( 1997). “Effect of treatment on contaminant availability, mobility and toxicity.” Environmentally acceptable endpoints in soils, D. Linz and D. Nakles, eds., American Academy of Environmental Engineering, Annapolis, Md., 137–386.
12.
Pope, D. F., and Matthews, J. E. ( 1993). “Bioremediation using the land treatment concept.” EPA/600/R-93/164, Ofc. of Res. and Devel., Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Okla.
13.
Riser-Roberts, E. ( 1992). Bioremediation of petroleum contaminated sites, C. K. Smoley, Boca Raton, Fla.
14.
Ryan, J. R., Loehr, R. C., and Rucker, E. ( 1991). “Bioremediation of organic contaminated soils.” J. Haz. Mat., 28, 159–169.
15.
Smith, J. R., Egbe, M. E., and Lyman, W. J. ( 1999). “Bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.” Bioremediation of contaminated soils, D. C. Adriano, J. M. Bollag, W. T. Frankenberg Jr., and R. C. Sims, eds., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis., 665–717.
16.
Smith, J. R., Tomicek, R. M., Swallow, P. V., Weightman, R. L., Nakles, D. V., and Helbling, M. ( 1995). “Definition of biodegradation endpoints for PAH contaminated soils using a risk-based approach.” Hydrocarbon contaminated soils, Volume V, P. T. Kostecki et al., eds., Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Mass., 531–572.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 4 • Issue 4 • October 2000
Pages: 140 - 147
History
Received: Jun 8, 2000
Published online: Oct 1, 2000
Published in print: Oct 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.