Follow NEMC
 |
 |
 |
Chemical Marker Strategy for Evaluating Future Contamination at a Wood Preserving Facility
Oral Presentation
Prepared by J. Mc Ateer1, T. Belunes2
1 - QA/QC Solutions, LLC, 7532 Champion Hill Rd. SE, Salem, OR, 97306, United States
2 - Belunes Consulting, Inc., 61365 Elkhorn St, Bend, OR, 97702, United States
Contact Information: jjmcateer@msn.com; 503-763-6948
ABSTRACT
Operations at wood treatment facility for over 50 years using creosote, pentachlorophenol-enriched P-9 base oil, and Chemonite® Resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater with DNAPL, creosote, PAHs associated with creosote and petroleum products, pentachlorophenol (PCP), PCDD/Fs, arsenic, and other constituents. Under new ownership, white poles are being treated using PCP, a co-solvent, and diesel fuel. To limit future liabilities, the current owner needs a reliable and cost effective means to distinguish historic contamination from a potential future release. An evaluation of unique chemical constituents and chemical fingerprints was used to develop a “Marker Strategy” to identify a potential future releases.
The Marker Strategy used various chemical fingerprinting techniques and other common analytical methods to develop multiple lines-of-evidence to distinguish historic contamination from a potential future release and uses constituents such as PCP, PCDD/Fs, a co-solvent, and several types of polycyclic aromatic compounds. Results from a baseline study conducted to characterize current site contamination and current production chemicals as well as other site investigations conducted will be compared to the results obtained from the chemical fingerprinting analyses that were completed. Data from the analysis of paraffins and isoparaffins; alkylcyclohexanes; C4-Alkylbenzenes; bicyclanes; Tricyclic, Tetracyclic, and Pentacyclic Terpanes; selected PAHs, alkylated PAHs, alkylated benzothiophenes; and, aromatic sterane assemblages; and, PCDD/Fs will be discussed to show how the objectives of the marker strategy were met using chemical fingerprinting analyses.
Oral Presentation
Prepared by J. Mc Ateer1, T. Belunes2
1 - QA/QC Solutions, LLC, 7532 Champion Hill Rd. SE, Salem, OR, 97306, United States
2 - Belunes Consulting, Inc., 61365 Elkhorn St, Bend, OR, 97702, United States
Contact Information: jjmcateer@msn.com; 503-763-6948
ABSTRACT
Operations at wood treatment facility for over 50 years using creosote, pentachlorophenol-enriched P-9 base oil, and Chemonite® Resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater with DNAPL, creosote, PAHs associated with creosote and petroleum products, pentachlorophenol (PCP), PCDD/Fs, arsenic, and other constituents. Under new ownership, white poles are being treated using PCP, a co-solvent, and diesel fuel. To limit future liabilities, the current owner needs a reliable and cost effective means to distinguish historic contamination from a potential future release. An evaluation of unique chemical constituents and chemical fingerprints was used to develop a “Marker Strategy” to identify a potential future releases.
The Marker Strategy used various chemical fingerprinting techniques and other common analytical methods to develop multiple lines-of-evidence to distinguish historic contamination from a potential future release and uses constituents such as PCP, PCDD/Fs, a co-solvent, and several types of polycyclic aromatic compounds. Results from a baseline study conducted to characterize current site contamination and current production chemicals as well as other site investigations conducted will be compared to the results obtained from the chemical fingerprinting analyses that were completed. Data from the analysis of paraffins and isoparaffins; alkylcyclohexanes; C4-Alkylbenzenes; bicyclanes; Tricyclic, Tetracyclic, and Pentacyclic Terpanes; selected PAHs, alkylated PAHs, alkylated benzothiophenes; and, aromatic sterane assemblages; and, PCDD/Fs will be discussed to show how the objectives of the marker strategy were met using chemical fingerprinting analyses.