Lower Costs, Fewer Delays
by John Sallman
January 8, 2008
A highway expansion project applies XRF
technology to obtain cost-effective remediation.
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry is a non-destructive,
analytical method used primarily to detect the metal composition in soil/solids
samples. Portable XRF instruments can provide rapid, accurate analysis of heavy
metal levels in soil on new construction or redevelopment sites. In response to
the growing need for field analysis of metals, many of these units have been
adapted for use in the environmental field. They provide field data that can be
used to identify and characterize contaminated sites and guide remedial work,
among other applications.
Soils remediation challenge
 |
| It required 1,500 soil samples to determine what soils could be recycled. The XRF equipment efficiently allowed the contaminated soil to be identified and stockpiled for proper disposal. |
|
A general contractor was awarded the construction contract
for a highway expansion project in which a consulting firm that had been
contracted by the highway department identified the presence of
metals-contaminated soils on the project site. The project included the
installation of overpasses at the intersection of two major highways, and the
contaminated soils were located in the expansion rights-of-way. The highway
department requested that the general contractor retain a different
environmental consulting firm to manage the contaminated soils during the
planned construction/remediation activities. Additionally, the department
requested a plan to minimize the costs of the construction/remediation project.
Because it was about a two-hour drive from the expansion project to the nearest
metropolitan area with a highway department-approved laboratory, a traditional
approach to sample collection and laboratory analytical procedures for the
soils was not practical. Further complicating matters at the site , the
remediation and construction projects were being conducted concurrently; the
project schedule did not allow for the time needed to analyze samples at a
laboratory without paying for a rush analysis of the soil samples.
Management plan
The general contractor contacted an environmental consulting
firm and presented the highway department’s request for an overall
construction/remediation management plan. The construction plans already
included excavation of soils along areas of the two highways scheduled for
widening, and placement of imported soils to build new on-ramps and exit ramps.
Several deep structural piers were being installed in the contaminated soils
areas.
Initial evaluation of the existing soil data for the project area indicated
that the majority of the soils from the site were acceptable for reuse.
However, the areas where metals exceeded the applicable reuse criteria were
scattered across the project area, and the limits of the soils exceeding the
reuse criteria were poorly defined. As a result, soils testing during
excavation would be required to determine suitability for reuse based on the
metals concentrations.
Immediate cost savings for the project could be realized by reducing the
overall volume of soils requiring disposal and reusing acceptable soils on the
site to build the on- and exit-ramps. Approximately 75,000 cu. yards of soil
were scheduled for excavation across the project area. If the soils were to be
properly characterized and disposed, the cost of the remediation project would
have been over $2.3 million. In order to comply with state regulations,
sampling of the soils on a 50 cu. yard basis would be required to determine
their suitability for reuse on the construction project. That meant that 1,500
samples would have to be collected and analyzed.
Selection of metals testing technology
 |
| Soil tests at the construction site found that some of the soil was contaminated with metals and could not be used. Excavated soils had to be stockpiled until a determination allowed the soil to be properly disposed or reused on the project. |
|
Due to the sampling requirements and project time
constraints, several field testing technologies for metals were evaluated. For
comparison’s sake, the estimated cost for collection and analysis of
traditional laboratory samples was approximately $75,000 and included a normal
turnaround time of five to seven business days, or $150,000 for a 24-hour rush
analysis.
Immunoassay/test kits were evaluated first. This method of analysis typically
required purchasing a test kit, including the reagents and powders necessary to
extract the metals from the soil and provide qualitative concentration results.
Since the contractor believed the immunoassay could not provide reliable
quantitative results, this technology was not selected.
The second technology evaluated was a portable spectrophotometer. The initial
cost was relatively low but required purchase of various test kits/reagents for
digestion and analysis of soil samples. The total digestion and test time for
each individual metal would have been 45 minutes or more to allow time for
proper digestion as various reagents were added. The total time required to
perform analyses for the spectrophotometer was not feasible with the scheduled
collection of 1,500 samples across the site.
Solution
The last technology evaluated was the portable XRF
instrument. The contractor was impressed that the instruments could analyze
multiple metals at the same time, resulting in shorter turnaround times. The
state agency approved the technique for evaluation of soils.
To test a sample with an XRF instrument, a small quantity of soil is placed
into a disposable plastic container that holds the correct volume of soil. The
analyzer is positioned over the container and held in place. The analytical
time depends on the matrix but is typically completed in less than a minute.
The initial cost of an XRF instrument was fairly high (approximately $35,000 to
$45,000), and rental rates for such an instrument ranged from about $500 to
$600 per day. However, the quick turnaround times and the reproducibility of
the quantitative results led to the technology’s selection.
An additional concern with the instrument was its use of a radioactive x-ray
source. Using a radioactive source required specific licensing, maintenance and
transportation requirements. Research indicated XRF instruments utilizing x-ray
tubes (similar to cathode ray tubes utilized in televisions) did not require
these licensing and transportation restrictions. In order to meet the project
objectives, the environmental consultant purchased an XRF instrument equipped
with an x-ray tube and the associated soil testing software, and negotiated a
rental rate of $350 per day for use of the instrument.
The expansion project
The initial remediation/construction phase of
the project was scheduled to be completed in 90 days. The first phase of the
project consisted of a total of 64 working days. As construction began, the
excavated soils were stockpiled for analysis; samples were collected and
analyzed utilizing the XRF instrument, an average of approximately 24 samples
per working day. Based on the results, the soils were segregated for reuse on
the on-ramp/exit ramp construction or for future waste disposal. The project
was completed within the 90-day schedule. The soils stockpiled for disposal
were properly characterized for waste disposal using conventional laboratory
methods in order to meet the disposal facility’s requirements.
Project results
The objectives of the highway department were to
reduce overall direct project costs and avoid delays due to traditional
remediation projects. Because the XRF instrument was utilized based on a
nominal daily rental rate, the cost difference between traditional analysis of the
1,500 samples on a normal turnaround time basis and use of the XRF resulted in
a cost savings of over $50,000. Additionally, the project was completed on
schedule, resulting in cost savings from avoiding project delays and payment
for rental of idle construction equipment. For the approximately 10,000 cu.
yards of soil requiring disposal, costs were approximately $300,000, resulting
in a savings of approximately $2 million when compared to disposing all of the
excavated soils from the site. PE
|