vvEPA
US. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Office of Research
and Development
EPA/540/N-92/004 No. 7 October 1992
IfOIEUUM
IN THE FIELD
An information update on applying bioremediation to site cleanup.
Update on the
Bioremediation Field
Initiative
The Bioremediation Field Initiative was established to
provide the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and State Project Managers, consulting engi-
.neers, and industry with timely information regard-
ing new developments in the application of
bioremediation at hazardous waste sites. The initia-
tive provides evaluation of the performance of se-
lected full-scale field applications (these sites are
discussed on p. 36); provides technical assistance to
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) through the Technical Support
Centers; and is developing a data base on the field
applications of bioremediation, which is summarized
in this bulletin (see p. 9).
Eight sites have been selected for field evaluation of
bioremediation; Libby Superfund site, Libby, Mon-
tana; Park City Pipeline, Park City, Kansas; Allied
Signal Superfund site, St. Joseph, Michigan; Eielson
Air Force Base, Alaska; Hill Air Force Base, Utah;
Brookhaven Superfund site, Brookhaven, Missis-
sippi; Public Service, Denver, Colorado; and Reilly Tar
and Chemical Corporation, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(see article on this page),
(Continued on page 36)
In This Issue
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative 1
Field Initiative Begins Bioventing
of PAHs at Reilly Tar Site 1
Addressing Land Disposal Restrictions in Biotreatment ... 2
Air Force Launches Bioventing Initiative 3
Bioremediation Field Initiative Holds
Open House at Eielson AFB 3
Permitting Bioremediation for PCB Disposal:
Part 2, Commercial Operating Permits 4
EPA Issues Report on Bioremediation
Case Study Collection 5
Technology Innovation Office Releases
Groundwater Currents 5
EPA Bioremediation Publications 6
Conference Highlights 7
Field Applications of Bioremediation 9
Field Initiative
Begins Bioventing
of PAHs at Reilly
Tar Site
The Bioremediation Field Initiative, in cooperation
with the Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation demonstration program and the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory's Biosystems Program, has
undertaken a pilot-scale field project to test bio venting
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil.
Bioventing has proven effective at remediating light-
weight petroleum distillates such as JP-4 jet fuel; this
will be the first test of bioventing's effectiveness for
remediation of larger molecular weight hydrocarbons.
The project will take place in St. Louis Park, Minne-
sota, at the former site of Reilly Tar and Chemical
Corporation's coal tar distillation and wood preserv-
ing plant. From 1917 to 1972, wastewater discharges
and dumping from this plant contaminated about 80
acres .of soil and the underlying ground water with
wood preserving wastes. In 1978, the Minnesota De-
partment of Health discovered significant concentra-
tions of PAHs in six municipal drinking water wells
neighboring the Reilly Tar plant. St. Louis Park is
currently pumping and treating the contaminated
ground-water plume, but without an effort to control
the source of PAHs, pumping and treating will be
necessary for several hundred years.
Treatability studies were conducted at the site in August
1992. These studies revealed PAH contamination in
sandy vadose soil ranging from 2 to 10 feet below the
surface. The studies also indicated that the soil's air
permeability and microbial activity are appropriate for
bio venting. Installation of bio venting wells and baseline
soil sampling are scheduled for November 1992.
The demonstration project is expected to last 3 years,
at which point it is estimated that soil core samples will
show a 30 percent reduction in PAH levels. If biovent-
ing successfully remediates PAHs at this rate, com-
plete remediation of the site will take 10 to 15 years.
For more information, contact Paul McCauley at 513-
569-7444 or Dick Brenner at 513-569-7657.
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Addressing Land
Disposal
Restrictions in
Biotreatment
On August 18,1992, the Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated
Debris Rule was promulgated. This is Phase 1 of a
three-phased regulation promulgating treatment
standards for newly listed hazardous wastes and
designating technologies for the treatment of con-
taminated soil and debris. Phase 2, covering soil and
adding standards for more newly listed wastes, is
scheduled to be issued in May 1993. Phase 3, adding
standards for the remaining newly listed wastes, is
scheduled to be issued in March 1994. The LDRs will
have a significant impact at sites where bioremedia-
tion is being used to clean up hazardous wastes
prior to land disposal.
The purpose of the LDRs is to prevent land disposal
of untreated hazardous waste. Accordingly, two
conditions must be met for the LDRs to apply: (1) the
waste must be a Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, and (2) the waste
must be destined for land disposal. The regulation
defines land disposal as any placement of a hazard-
ous material in a landfill, surface impoundment,
waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt
dome formation, salt bed formation, or under-
ground cave. Thus, in situ bioremediation is not cov-
ered by the LDRs. The LDRs become applicable as
soon as hazardous materials are excavated, even if
subsequently they are returned to their original site or
moved to another contaminated site.
As in the case of previous LDR rulemakings, a na-
tional capacity variance has been provided to extend
the effective date of the LDRs until treatment capac-
ity is available. At that.point, the authority for im-
plementing the LDRs will rest with EPA until states
receive authorization for the LDR provisions. In
some cases, the state regulations may be more strin-
gent than the federal requirements, so EPA cautions
biotreaters to review existing state regulations prior
to treatment of hazardous waste.
Newly Listed Wastes
The original LDRs, enacted in 1984, required EPA to
promulgate treatment standards by May 8,1990, for
all wastes that exhibited hazardous waste charac-
teristics or were listed as hazardous as of 1984, a task
EPA completed through five rulemakings from 1986
to 1990. The three phases of the new LDRs will
supplement these standards and specify standards
for several wastes listed since 1984, including petro-
leum-refining and wood preserving wastes, which
are frequently candidates for bioremediation.
Under the new regulation, each newly listed waste
is assigned one of two types of treatment standards.
Some wastes have concentration-based standards,
(Continued on page 8)
Bioremediation Field Initiative Contacts
Fran Kremer, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Bioremediation Held Initiative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drivfr
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7346
Nancy Dean
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OS-ilOW
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8797
To be added to the mailing list to receive 'Bioremediation in the field, call (513) 569-7562.
This initiative is a cooperative effort among the Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS)
and Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD), Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Major contributors to this initiative include the waste programs in the EPA Regional
Offices and the following laboratories in ORD: Ada, OK; Athens, GA; Cincinnati, OH; Gulf Breeze, FL; and
Research Triangle Park, NC.
-------
Bioretnediation in the Field
Air Force
Launches
Bioventing
Initiative
In May, the U.S. Air Force launched an extensive pro-
gram to examine bioventing as a remedial technique
at contaminated Air Force Base (AFB) sites across the
country. Bioventing is a promising new technology
that promotes aerobic degradation of contaminants in
soil by direct injection or vacuum extraction of air. The
Air Force Bioventing Initiative targets 55 sites with jet
fuel, diesel fuel, or fuel oil in soil.
In selecting sites for the initiative, the Air Force looked
for characteristics appropriate for bioventing, such as
deep vadose soil, heavy hydrocarbon contamination,
and high air permeability. Air Force project coordina-
tor Major Ross Miller reports that the chosen sites
represent a wide range of depths to ground water,
hydrocarbon concentrations, and soil textures.
Short-term testing began at several sites in May to
determine the air permeability and in situ respiration
of the soil. At most sites, the test system consists of a
single vent well with screening in the unsaturated
zone and three soil-gas monitoring wells at various
distances from the vent well. By injecting air through
the vent well and measuring pressure changes in the
soil-gas monitoring wells, researchers establish the
soil's air permeability and the radius of influence of
the injection well. The rate of biodegradation in the soil
is then determined by temporarily shutting down air
injection to the vent well and measuring the rate of in
situ oxygen respiration in the monitoring wells.
Where short-term tests reveal high air permeability
and degradation rates, the Air Force will initiate long-
term bioventing tests. The requisite apparatus and an
operation manual will be provided at each site so that
base personnel can monitor the progress of long-term
testing for 2 or 3 years. At small sites, long-term testing
may well complete the necessary remediation. At large
sites, data from long-term testing will be used to de-
sign full-scale bioventing systems. Preliminary testing
has been completed and full-scale systems installed at
Beale, Eglin, Eielson, F.E. Warren, Hill, Galena, New-
ark, Offutt, and Plattsburgh Air Force Bases.
The Air Force's decision to examine bioventing on
such a large scale was prompted by a successful dem-
onstration of the technology at Tyndall AFB in Florida.
At this site, bioventing was coupled with moisture
addition to remediate jet fuel in sandy unsaturated
soil. Before bioventing was initiated, hydrocarbon
concentrations ranged from 30 to 23,000 mg/kg. After
7 months of treatment, 32 kg of hydrocarbons had
biodegraded from one treatment cell. It was estimated,
however, that stricter air flow management could have
resulted in more degradation and less volatilization of
contaminants. Similar projects are being undertaken in
cooperation with EPA's Bioremediation Field Initiative
at Hill AFB in Utah and at Eielson AFB in Alaska.
The Tyndall AFB project demonstrated several advan-
tages of bioventing over alternative oxygen delivery
systems. First, bioventing uses a low-pressure air flow,
so vapor-phase hydrocarbons that are volatilized dur-
ing the venting process are biodegraded before they
escape from the soil. Thus, bioventing eliminates the
expensive off-gas treatment step, reducing remedia-
tion costs by 50 percent or more. Second, bioventing
appears to be the only cost-effective, in situ technique
for remediating nonvolatile or low volatile hydrocar-
bons like fuel oil and diesel. Third, bioventing can be
used to treat contaminants in areas where structures
and activities cannot be disturbed, because air injec-
tion wells, air blowers, and soil-gas monitoring wells
form a relatively noninvasive apparatus.
There are currently over 4,300 documented Air Force
disposal sites requiring investigation and possible re-
mediation. At least half of these sites are contaminated
with petroleum hydrocarbons. If the Air Force
Bioventing Initiative is a success, bioventing could
play a significant role in achieving the Air Force's goal
of initiating cleanup of all sites by 2000.
For more information on the Air Force Bioventing
Initiative, contact Major Ross Miller of the Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence at 512-536-4331.
Bioremediation Field
Initiative Holds Open
House at Erelson AFB
Eielson Air Force Base In Fairbanks, Alaska, site of
a field study of in situ bioventing and soil ^anrartg
methods, will host art open house in January 1993.
Tfre bioventing project, sponsored jointly by EPA's
Bioremediation Field Initiative and the US, Air
Force, has demonstrated successful year round,
bioremediatkm mbothheated^nd unheated soils^
despite the harsh winter climate.
The Qpenhouse will Jncludea^rmal presentation
oFresTultsandatoiirofthe site M operation; Project
scientists from the EPA£i$k Reduction j|rigineer-
Jng laboratory. Air Force Civil Brtgtueering^up-
port Agency, Air Force Interior Environmental
BxcellencerlielBOB AFB, and Battellg Laboratories
attend* -
Contact Gregory Sayles of EPA at 513-569-7607 to
.jeceiyejthe final dates and, agenda for trie open
house, , -- ---- " " .....
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Permitting
Bioremediation for
PCB Disposal:
Part 2, Commercial
Operating
Permits
This is the second of two articles on permitting
the bioremediation of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). The first, on research and
development (R&D) permits, appeared in is-
sue No. 6 of Bioremediation in the Field.
To obtain a commercial operating permit for the
bioremediation of PCBs, an applicant must prove
that the process destroys PCBs as reliably as incin-
eration without producing toxic by-products or
emissions. To date,-all of the permits issued by
EPA Headquarters for the bioremediation of PCBs
have been for research and development; none
has been issued for commercial operation. None-
theless, the Agency has been developing guide-
lines for the permitting procedure.
EPA requires evidence that PCB
molecules have been biologically
degraded.
EPA will permit only processes that a company
can demonstrate to be effective—a threefold chal-
lenge. First, since the effectiveness of bioremedia-
tion varies widely from site to site, EPA requires
visual inspection of the site and laboratory stud-
ies to determine if the treatment is suitable for the
site in question. Second, since techniques that ap-
pear promising in the lab may fail in the field, EPA
further requires pilot-scale studies at the site. Fi-
nally, once a technique has been shown to reduce
contaminant levels at the site, EPA requires evi-
dence that PCB molecules have been biologically
degraded—not attenuated by nonbiological
processes.
Determining the biological degradation of PCBs
in soil is a complex undertaking, because PCB
molecules penetrate soil and can be sorbed, vola-
tilized, transported, and attenuated by abiotic
reactions. EPA feels a conservative approach is
needed to make this determination. One such
approach is outlined in a recent article by Eugene
Madsen in Environmental Science and Technology.
Madsen cites five types of evidence necessary to
demonstrate in situ bioremediation of PCBs:
• In situ recording of greater contaminant losses
from biodegradation than would be expected
from abiotic degradation
• Assays with laboratory-incubated flasks demon-
strating the presence of metabolically adapted
microorganisms
• In situ detection of unique microbial
metabolites
• In situ detection of increased protozoan popula-
tions preying on contaminant-fed bacterial
populations
• In situ detection of decreased ratios of biode-
gradable congeners to nonbiodegradable
congeners
Madsen's method is rigorous, but rigor is needed
to ensure that bioremediation has actually taken
place, even for processes that appear to be
effective.
The length of time required to permit bioremedia-
tion for commercial operation has yet to be deter-
mined. EPA Headquarters requires three
successful runs before issuing a permit for a non-
biological process. Because bioremediation is a
lengthy process, three runs may not be a practical
requirement for this technology. Instead, the
Agency is considering requiring 3 years of suc-
cessful research and development before issuing a
commercial permit. EPA welcomes applications
for R&D permits, which are usually issued for 1
year. This year may be seen as a trial period de-
signed to demonstrate whether the technology
will be commercially reliable in any situation at
any site.
EPA feels that the permitting process is justifiably
cautious because the technology for bioremedia-
tion of PCBs is still in its infancy. The public per-
ceives bioremediation as a glamorous new
technology that will soon solve hazardous waste
problems in soil, water, and air. Bioremediation
shows obvious promise, but if permitted proc-
esses fail to perform, the public may become dis-
illusioned with the entire bioremediation
industry.
For more information on TSCA permitting for PCB
disposal, contact Joan Blake of EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics at 202-260-6236.
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
EPA Issues Report
on Bioremediation
Case Study
Collection
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD) recently
released Bioremediation Case Study Collection: 1991
Augmentation of the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC). This report documents
the results of a 1991 effort by the Data Identifica-
tion/Collection Subcommittee of EPA's Bioremedia-
tion Action Committee (BAG) to increase the number
of bioremediation case studies in ORD's ATTIC data
base. This data base includes information on biologi-
cal technologies, as well as thermal, solidifica-
tion/stabilization, chemical, and physical
technologies.
In total, BAG collected information on 240 sites
where private companies are using bioremediation
to clean up hazardous contaminants. This informa-
tion ranged in detail from brief summaries to 30-page
reports. BAG determined that 132 sites had sufficient
information to meet ATTIC database acceptance cri-
teria. ORD's report presents statistics on the number
of case studies accepted by scale of project, contami-
nants treated, media treated, and treatment methods.
Though not comprehensive, the report suggests a pro-
file of current bioremediation activities in the field.
Over 65 percent of the case studies describe full-scale
projects, 20 percent describe pilot-scale projects, and
26 percent describe laboratory-scale projects. Petro-
leum was the most common contaminant, undergo-
ing treatment at 56 percent of the sites; wood
preservatives were second at about 11 percent, fol-
lowed by solvents at 8 percent. Soil was the sole
medium treated at 46 percent of the sites, soil and
ground water were treated jointly at 23 percent of the
sites, and ground water alone was treated at 16 per-
cent of the sites. Over 60 percent of the sites remediat-
ing soil employed solid phase/land treatment, in
which soil was spread over a prepared area and
treated to optimize conditions for biodegradation. A
bioreactor was used at 42 percent of the sites report-
ing ground-water treatment. At those sites where a
bioreactor was not used, ground water was typically
pumped to the surface, amended with nutrients, and
reinjected. Twenty-nine percent of the case studies
reported the use of additional technologies to supple-
ment bioremediation.
EPA will be updating and expanding this data base
with information supplied by vendors, contractors,
and industry. Information will be sent to specific
companies and a general notice will appear in a
future issue of this bulletin.
To order a copy of the 31-page report, write to ORD
Publications Office, Center for Environmental Re-
search Information, 26 West Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268-1072, or call 513-569-
7562. To order hard copy of all 132 case studies, write
to Dr. Curtis Harlin, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460, or call Dr. Harlin at 202-260-9642. For more
information on the ATTIC data base, contact the sys-
tems operator at 301-670-6294.
Companies Included in the Report
Participating
Company*
ABB Environmental
GET Environmental Services
ECOVA Corporation
Environmental Remediation, Inc.
Groundwater Technology, Inc.
IT Corporation
OHM Corporation
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Woodward-Clyde
Location of
Coordinating
Office
Wakefield, MA
Long Beach, CA
Redmond, WA
Baton Rouge, LA
Concord, CA^
Knoxville, IN
Walnut Creek, CA
Chapel Hill, NC
West Chester, PA
San Diego, CA
*Participating companies submitted
information voluntarily.
Technology Innovation Office Releases Groundwater Currents
GroundwaterCurrents,thelaiesttechftologynev?slettef from the Technology Innovation Off ice, is now available,
Groundwater Currents reports on the development and application of innovative in situ and ex situ ground-
water remediation technologies. Articles also will include innovative monitoring technologies and analysis
systems, references to new regulations that impact ground-water remediation, highlights on current issues
such as dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPts), and information on conferences and publications. To be
included on the permanent mailing list, send a fax request to the EPA Publications and Information Center (EPIC)
at 513-891-6685, or send a mail request to EPIC, 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242,
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
EPA Bioremediation Publications
To order EPA documents, call 513-569-7562. For NTIS documents, call 1-800-553-6847.
Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes NTIS PB92-216894
Fundamentals of Ground-Water Modeling . EPA/540/S-92/005
A Study to Determine the Feasibility of Using a Ground Penetrating Radar EPA/600/R-92/089
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste EPA/600/R-92/126
Methodologies for Evaluating In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents , . NTIS PB92-146943
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water EPA/540/S-92/002
In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground Water EPA/540-S-92/003
Technology Evaluation Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site
Ground Water by Biotrol, Enc NTIS PB92-110048
Applications Analysis Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site
Ground Water by BiotroUnc. EPA/540/A5-91/001
Microbial Removal of Halogenated Methanes, Ethanes, and Ethylenes in an Aerobic
Soil Exposed to Methane (Journal Version) NTIS PB89-103196
Sequential Reductive Dehalogenation of Chloranilines by Microorganisms from a
MettianogenicAquifer. NTISPB90-117219
Creosote-Contaminated Sites NTIS PB90-129552
Action of a Fluoranthene-Utilizing Bacterial Community on Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Components of Creosote NTIS PB90-245721
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes
in Contaminated SoH .... NTIS PB90-245275
Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation Project NTIS PB90-216466
Laboratory Studies Evaluating the Enhanced Biodegradation of Weathered Crude Oil
Components through the Application of Nutrients NTIS PB90-264011
Total Organic Carbon Determinations in Natural and Contaminated Aquifer Materials NTIS PB91-129205
Anaerobic In Situ Treatment of Chlorinated Ethenes NTIS PB91-137067
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for
Site Characterization, Project Design, and Evaluation of Performance NTIS PB89-219976
Comparison of Methods to Determine Oxygen Demand for Bioremediation of a
Fuel-tontaminated Aquifer NTIS PB89-207351
Available Models for Estimating Emissions Resulting from
Bioremediation Processes: A Review NTIS PB90-228610
Role of Microorganisms in the Bioremediation of the
Oil Spill in Prince Willliam Sound, Alaska NTIS PB90-263070
Approach to Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil NTIS PB91-116152
Protocol for Testing Bioremediation Products Against Weathered Alaskan Crude Oil NTIS PB91-137018
Reductive Dehalogenation: A Subsurface Bioremediation Process NTIS PB91-144873
Held Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation for Aquifer Restoration NTIS PB88-130257
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes for Remediation of Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Bench^cale Treatability Studies NTIS PB91-179085
Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated with Jet Fuel NTIS PB91-164285
Movement of Bacteria through Soil and Aquifer Sand NTIS PB91-164277
Selection of Nutrients to Enhance Biodegradation for the
Remediation of Oil Spilled on Beaches NTIS PB91-233304
Effect of Sodium Chloride on Transport of Bacteria in a Saturated Aquifer Material NTIS PB92-110428
Oil Spill Cleanup NTIS PB92-110469
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental
Source of Oxygen: A Laboratory and Field Study . NTIS PB90-183435
The Federal Technology Transfer Act: Opportunities for Cooperative Biosystems
Research and Development with U.S. EPA CERI-90-114
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surf ace SoU NTIS PB90-164047
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source
of Oxygen: A Laboratory and Field Study NTIS PB90-183435
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA, Aerobic Biodegradation
Remedy Screenings NTIS PB92-109065
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals during Land Treatment of
Oily Wastes: Ritz User's Guide NTIS PB88-195540
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks NTIS PB89-219976
Microbial Decomposition of ChlorinatedAromatic Compounds EPA/600/2-86/090
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor NTIS PB88-180393
Transformation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds NTIS PB88-170568
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook for Citizens EPA/540/2-91/002
6
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Conference Highlights
Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International
This forum, sponsored by U.S. EPA's Technology Innovation Office and Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, and the California Environmental Protection Agency, will be held November 17-19,1992, at the
Westin, St. Francis, San Francisco, CA. Using technical paper and poster presentations, this 3-day confer-
ence will introduce and highlight innovative treatment technologies having actual performance results. It
will showcase the results of selected international technologies, the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program technologies, the CAL-EPA field demonstration program, and case
studies from those using innovative technologies. The overall objective is to increase awareness in the user
community of technologies ready for application at cleanup sites.
For further information, contact SAIC, Technology Transfer Department, 501 Office Center Drive,
Suite 420, Ft. Washington, PA 19034,215-542-1200 (fax: 215-542-8567).
Second International Symposium on
In Situ and Onsite Bioreciamation
This symposium, sponsored by Battelle and supported by EPA, will be held at the Sheraton Harbor Island
Hotel, San Diego Bay, CA, April 5-9, 1993. Researchers, engineers, site managers, regulatory agents,
consultants, and vendors should all benefit from this opportunity to exchange information on case histories
of field operations, examine ongoing research programs, and investigate public and regulatory acceptance
of bioremediation technologies from a global perspective. More than 240 platform presentations and more
than 60 poster presentations have been scheduled. Session titles include:
• Chlorinated Aromatics and PCBs
• Anaerobic and Aerobic Biodegradation of
Chlorinated Solvents
• Explosives and Nitroaromatics
• Cold Region Applications
• Marine Spills
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
• Bioventing, Air Sparging, and Related
Technologies
• Land Treatment
• Vapor Phase Bioreactors
• Aqueous Phase Bioreactors
• Fungal Technologies
• Soil Bioreactors
• Characterization and Development of Microbial
Populations and Strains
• Non-Indigenous Organisms
• Hydrogeological Considerations
• Process Monitoring and Verification
• Surfactant- and Enzyme-Aided Bioremediation
• Alternative Electron Acceptors
• Laboratory and Field Studies, Site Case
Histories
• In Situ and Ex Situ Bioremediation
• Modeling
• Regulatory, Economic, and Public Perception Issues
The keynote speaker for the symposium will be Dr. Barry Commoner, noted environmental scientist and
author. Battelle will be mailing a preliminary program in early November 1992. Proceedings will be
published by Lewis Publishers.
Limited space is still available for additional posters. If you are interested in presenting a poster, please
submit a one-page abstract to Rob Hinchee, Bioremediation Symposium Chair, Battelle, 505 King Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43201-2693, USA, fax: 614-424-3667. For information on registering or exhibiting, contact
Phillip Wells of the Conference Group at 800-783-6338 (fax: 614-488-5747).
-------
Bloremedlatlon In the Field
Addressing Land Disposal Restrictions in
Biotreatment
(Continued from page 2)
meaning the waste must be treated until a certain
concentration of hazardous constituents is attained.
Other wastes have technology-based standards for
situations in which there is no analytical method.
Therefore, the waste must be treated by certain meth-
ods, deemed Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDATs). If biotreatment cannot per-
form adequately for a waste with a concentration-
based standard, a variance must be obtained or an
alternative technology substituted.
Contaminated Debris
The LDR Contaminated Debris Rule defines hazard-
ous debris as any solid material intended for discard
that is contaminated with hazardous waste or that
exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste charac-
teristics. To be classified as debris, the solid material
must have a particle size in excess of 60 mm (2.5 in.)
and be a manufactured object, plant or animal mat-
ter, or natural geologic material.
In the past, contaminated debris was subject to the
concentration-based treatment standard for the par-
ticular waste with which the debris was contami-
nated. Adhering to this standard is still acceptable,
but the new rule adds the option to treat hazardous
debris with one or more BDATs specified for each
debris/contaminant combination. These technolo-
gies are divided into extraction, immobilization, and
destruction technologies. Biodegradation is identi-
fied as a destruction technology for several types of
hazardous debris, including debris contaminated
with most common organic compounds.
Contaminated Soil
Phase 2 of the rule, LDRs for Newly Listed Waste
and Contaminated Soil, is scheduled for proposal in
Fall of 1992 and promulgation in Spring of 1993.
These will be published in the Federal Register. Biore-
mediation is a possible BDAT standard for contami-
nated soil, so EPA encourages biotreaters in the field
to evaluate the proposed rule and comment accord-
ingly. Until new treatment standards for contami-
nated soils are promulgated, however, biotreaters
must comply with current LDRs, obtain a treatabil-
ity variance, or apply for a no-migration petition
from LDR standards.
Compliance Alternatives
Alternatives to compliance with the LDRs are avail-
able to biotreaters:
• Treatability variances to concentration-based treat-
ment standards are available in the event that a
particular waste is more difficult to treat than the
waste on which the standard was based. There are
two kinds of treatability variances: (1) variances
with generic applicability, which apply to a spe-
cific waste at any site, and (2) site-specific vari-
ances, which apply only to a particular waste at a
specific site. For more information on site-spe-
cific variances, refer to Regional Guide: Issuing Site-
Specific Treatability Variances for Contaminated Soils
and Debris from Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
(Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
[OSWER] Directive 9380.3-08FS), which can be
ordered by calling the RCRA/Superfund Hotline
at 800-424-9346 or 703-920-9810 in the Washing-
ton, DC area.
• No-migration petitions are granted if an appli-
cant can demonstrate that hazardous waste
will not migrate from the place of disposal for
as long as the waste remains hazardous. These
petitions may be especially useful for biotreat-
ers considering land treatment, in which soil is
treated and left in place. For more information
on no-migration petitions for RCRA sites, see
Variances to the Hazardous Waste Land Disposal
Prohibitions: A Guidance for Petitioners. For more
information on no-migration petitions for Super-
fund sites, refer to OSWER Directive 9347.3-1 OFS,
which also can be ordered by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline.
• The concept of the corrective action management
unit (CAMU) was established by the proposed
Subpart S under RCRA for corrective action. This
concept allows RCRA sites to treat wastes and
contaminated soils within the CAMU without
triggering the LDRs. The CAMU portion of Sub-
part S is scheduled for promulgation in Decem-
ber 1992. For more information on~CAMU
exemptions, refer to the Federal Register (55 FR
30789).
• An LDR BDAT exemption for ground-water ^injec-
tion is available. This exemption will be useful for
RCRA and CERCLA bioremediation sites where
ground water is pumped to the surface to be
amended, then reinjected. For more information
on reinjection exemptions, refer to OSWER Direc-
tive 9234.1-06.
For more information, contact Michael Forlini of
OSWER's Technology Innovation Office at 703-308-
8825, or call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or 703-920-9810 in the Washington, DC area.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION1
REG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Baird and McGiire
Holbrook,MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Chades George Landfill
Tyngsboro, MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Chadestown Navy Yard
Boston, MA
CERCLA State Lead
Coakley Landfill
North Hampton, NH
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
GtfteMBlectlic
Pitt$fi.eia,MA
TSCALeaa (Federal)
GenetalElectao^-Woods!
Fond**
PiusfieId,MA
BCRA Lead (Federal)
Iron Hotse Pad:
Billerica, MA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
David Lederer
(617)573-5738
Evelyn Tapani
(617)556-1125
David Dickeison
(617)573-5735
Dale Young
(617)292-5785
Stephen Carlson
(617)242-5680
Steve Calder
(617)573-9626
Dan Coughlin
(617)573-9620
Toan Blake
(2
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
I
II
II
Jl
II
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Sylvester**
Nashua, NH
CERCLA Slate Lead
American Linen
Stillwater, NY
CERCLA State Lead
FAA Technical Center— Area D
Atlantic County, NJ
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
GeneialBl^c— I&teon.
mv«T
w
TSCAI*4d
Oil and grease in samples is
hindering efficiency of
bioremediation; material may
require pretieatment. Will be
doing treatabili ty studies of
several other technologies in
case bioremediation is not
successful.
a-
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
in
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
'Knispel ConstiuctionSite
Hotsekead,W
USTXead (State)
Mobil Terminal
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Nascolite
Maiville,NJ
CERCLA Fund Lead
Osmose
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA State Lead
Plattsbtttgh Ait Force Base
Ptesburgh.NY
Federal Facility
Syracuse
SvracusejNY
USTLea,d (State);
ARC
Gainesville, VA
BCRALead^Federal)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Frank Peduto
(5 18)371 -9153
Robert Leaiy
0716)851-7220
MikeHinton
(716)851-7220
Famaz Saghafi
(212)264-4665
Anton Mawarajah
(609)633-6798
Pat Evangelista
(212)264-6311
Jim Harrington
(518)485-8792
JaspalWalia
(716)851-7220
Ph2Von.Bar$en
<518)*65-667Z
Jim Lister
(518)457-3976
ftatfyWarnef
PS>«6..7519
Robert Sttoud
(2iS)597.fi88« i
Patrick Giover
<80J3E»-2.863
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (va dose and saturated)/
ground watec. neficpjeuni.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum (gas and diesel), lead.
Volume: 10K cubic yards.
Ground water:
methylmethacrylate, lead.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving, petroleum
(fuel oil).
Volume: 670 cubic yards.
Ground water! petroleum.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum.
Volume: 6,000lcubio yarfs.
Seal {vadose and saturated);
solvents (chlorobenzene).
Volumes 2,009 cubic yank.
STATUS
Completed: Ml scale.
Remediaiion startr Ol/$9<
Remediation completion: 10/89.
Jaewted fic6uO&M,$250K.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 07/91.
Piedesign: laboratory scale.
Remediation expected start:
09/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 01/96.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 09/90.
Expected cost: $125K.
Design; pilot scale.
Remediation expected start!
03/94,
Completed: full scale.
Remediation start; 07/90.
Remediation completion; 11/91.
Completed! full scale.
Remediation start; 10/89,
Remediation completion; 06/91.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water; petroleum, 5 ppb
(drinking water standaTlb).
Soil (vadose and saturated): petroleum,;
5/pg/kg (drinking water standards).
Soil (vadose and saturated): NYDEC
guidance values based on TCLP.
Ground water, methylmethacrylate,
350 ppb (NJ Interim Soil Action
Levels).
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose arid saturated): NY Soil
Cleanup Levels.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
chlorobenzene, 0.014 ing/kg
(technology effectiveness).
TREATMENT
In sitn land treatment,
hydrcgen-pejowde, niitnent
addition (water), Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms, 100% of site
underwent TnoremelfiMion,
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
vacuum extraction. 100% of
site under bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, contact
stabilization, continuous flow.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
solidification and stabilization
of site soils contaminated with
lead.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. 30% of site under
bioremediation.
In sittt treatment, bioVenting.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
In situ land treatment. Ex situ
land treatment
In situ treatment, bioVenting.
Aerobic conditions, exogenous.
organisms. Other technologies;
pump and neat, soil shredding-
proposed.; 5% of site underwent
bioremedjation.
COMMENTS
None.
Ongoing process; treated soil
remains on site at Mobil
terminal. Air extraction system
installed in summer 1991 to
enhance bioremediation in part
ofbiocell.
None.
None.
This will be a pilobscale
project asgartoftheAir Foice
Bioventing; Initiative.
Late- start forfirst: phase; cold
weather slowed use of
Horemedration, Site was
prepared for closure in Fall
J99J > but small untreated areas
were discovered. This material
was sepatated and moved to an
adjacent aiea jforweatweatw
Spring 1992.
Facility was required toSubnfit
a closure plan to the state of
VA; nowever» this zequirement
n.0 longer-easts.
I
S1
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
;ij;S!ia'ding indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
in
m
nr
-
-
in
in
in
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Atlantic Wood
Portsmouth, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Avtex Fibers
Front Royal, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Bovet AfrRsree Base*
Dover, DE
^federal Facility
Process!
PtocesyU
Process $
Recess 4
Drake Chemical
Lock Haven, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
LA. Clarke & Son
VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Ordnance Works Disposal Area
Morgantown.WV
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Ronald Davis
(215)597-1727
Steve Mihalko
(804)255-3263
Bonnie Gross
(215)597-9aZ3
Milton Beck
(302)677-6845
Roh Allen
(302)323-4540
Roy Schrock
(215)597-0517
Gene Wingert
(215)597-1727
Drew Lausch
(215)597-1286
RiadTarmir
(304)378-2745
MEDW
CONTAMINANT
Sediments /soil (vadose and
saturated): wood preserving
(TCP, PAHs), dioxins, furans.
Ground water: arsenic, zinc,
lead, carbon disulfide,
cadmium, hydrasulfide.
Soil {Vadbse sand) / ground
watec petroleum, metals (lead).
VoInmei}5K«Bbic yards.
Soil (vadose: and. saturated
sand) / xrwncf water: solvents,
Stan, manganese.
Votumef 50K «ubic yards.
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum,
PAHs, TC&
Sott(vadoses sand, silt):
petroleum.
Volume? 30BS cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated) /
ground watec pesticides,
solvents (DCE), herbicides
(fenac).
Sediments /soil (vadose and
saturated): wood preserving.
Volume: 119K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
PAHs, arsenic, cadmium,
capper, lead.
Vdume: 42K cubic yards.
STATUS
Treiubilily studies conducted
or in progress.
Design.
Expected cost: $9M
TrealabUJty studies conducted
or in progress: full scale.
Remediation expectedstarti
11/92.
Tieatabtlity studies conducted
or in progress: foil scale.
Remediation expectexUtare.
01/93.
Preflesignifun scale;
Remediation expecttxUuft
08/93.
Pffidesign: Ml scale;.
Remediation expecwdstartr
^09/93.
incurred txsK O&M, SlQOK
Expected costi$1.2M.
Ptedesign.
Design: pilot scale.
Expected cost: $23 M.
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Expected cost: $8.3M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Ground water: arsenic, 0.05 mg/L; zinc,
5 mg/L; lead, 0.05 mg/L; carbon
disulfide, 0.7 mg/L; cadmium,
0.01 mg/L.
Soil (vadose): petroleum, lOTOg/kg. .
petroleum, 1,000-mg/kgj.lead,
500ng/kg (nsk-based).
Ground water: ask-bised.
Not yet established,
Soil (vadose); petroleum, 10 mg/kg; '
petroleum, I.OOOrog/kg (riste-basecl).
Soil (vadose); petroleum, 1,000 mg/kg;
petroleum, 10 ing/kg (risfc-tasedj.
Not yet established
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
carcinogenic PAHs, 44.7 mg/kg
(risk-based).
TREATMENT
Ex situ land treatment. Other
technologies: soil washing,
thermal desoipticn,
incineratioa
Ex situ treatment, attached
growth reactor. Aerobic
conditions. Other technologies:
chemical treatment.
Si sim treatment, bioyenting.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies;
vacuum extraction.
Jn sJtu treatment, atrspatging.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other wchaologiew
vacuum extraction.
In iitu tiBatment, bioventing.
AeroHo conditions, indigenous
organisms.
In «t» tieattaertt, air spargtog^
bioventing. Ex situ Jaad
treatment Aerobic conditions,
indigenous Organisms, Other
technologies: vacuum
extraction, asphalt binding.
Aerobic attached growth.
In situ treatment, creosote
recovery. Other technologies:
soil flushing. 25% of site under
bioiemediatioa
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
solidification of inorganics.
COMMENTS
Type of treatment won't be
determined until review of
feasibility study results. The
presence of metals and dioxins
and furans might be a problem.
None.
Problem with See product and
ground-water contamimtioa
Site has solvente inbound,
water, high iron and manganese.
Nttie,
5ite has flee product soil.
contamination under aircraft
parking apron.
None.
None.
Treatability studies planned.
Unilateral administrative order
issued June 1990.
Oj
f
1
* Indicates a new site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
in
IV
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
WhitmoreLabs
Myerstown, PA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Alabama Sts* Bocks
Mobile, AL
RCRA-Fofertl for: soil;
RCRA-S tate for ground water
Pro cess 1
Process 2
American Creosote
Woiks— O.U. #1
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
American Creosote
Works—O.U. #2
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
American Creosote
Wois— O.U. #3
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Christopher Coibett
(215)597-6906
Moreen Chamberlain
(717)657-6309
Nancy Bsdttas
(404)347.3433
Clyde Sheref
(20S)2H-7726
TonyDeAngelo
(404)347-7791
Ron Sells
(901>423-6600
Betty Maness
(901)423-6600
TonyDeAngelo
(404)347-7791
Ron Sells
(901)442-6600
TonyDeAngelo
(404)347-7791
Ron Sells
(901)423-6600
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated):
solvents (benzene,
trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethane, aniline),
arsenic.
Volume: 4,000 cubic yards.
Gjsowidwaiw: mme,
chromium, benzene, Wood
pres«vii!g (PGP), lead.
Soil (yadoSc- and saturated) /
ground water, benzene,
chromium, aisenic, wood
preserving (PCI1),*
Soil (vadose and saturated:
sand, silt) / ground water: wood
preserving (PCP), PAHs,
chromium (+3), copper, silver.
Ground water: wood preserving
(PCP).
Sludge / soil (vadose and
saturated): wood preserving
(PAHs, phenols).
Volume: 100K cubic yards.
STATUS
Predesign.
Remediation expected start:
06/93.
Operational: &li scale,
Remedia&ii starts 09/91 .
Remediation expected
completion: 02/93,
Completed! full scale.
Remediation start: 09/91 ,
Remediation completion: 01792.
Piedesign.
Piedesign.
Remediation expected start:
12/95.
Remediation expected
completion: 12/98.
Piedesign: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
12/95.
Remediation expected
completion: 12/98.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose): benzene, 0.009 mg/kg;
trichloroethane, 0.017 mg/kg;
tetrachloroethane, 0.051 mg/kg; aniline,
0.009 mg/kg.
Soil (saturated): benzene, 0.002 mg/kg;
trichloroethane, 0.004 mg/kg;
tetrachloroethane, 0.012 mg/kg; aniline,
0.002 mg/kg.
Ground water: arsenic,
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
rv
IV
IV
rv
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
American Creosote
Works— Pertsacok
Pensacola, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Brookhaven Wood Preserving
Brookhaven.MS
CERCLA Fund Lead
Brown Wood Preserving
Live Oaks, FL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Cabot Koppers**
Gainesville, FL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Fayetteville,NC
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
MtdolynSueng
(404)347-2643
Chades Logan
(904)488-0190
Bevedy Houston
(404)347-3866
De'Lyntoneus Moore
(404)347-3931
Martha Berry
(404)347-2643
Chades Logan
(904)488-0190
Maltha Benry
(404)347-2643
Kelsey Helton
(904)488-0190
JonBornholm
(404)347-7791
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadosc and saturated):
diorin, wood preserving (PCP,
PAHs).
Volume: 30K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated
loam): wood preserving (PCP).
Volume: 200 cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving (PCP, PAHs).
Volume: 9,000 cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving (PAHs,
phenol, naphthalene, fluorine,
PCP, arsenic, chromium).
Volume: 6,700 cubic yards.
Sediments /soil (vadose and
saturated) / ground water and
surface water wood preserving
(arsenic, PAHs, chromium).
Volume: 4,000 cubic yards.
STATUS
Design: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
10/92.
Remediation expected
completion: 09/94.
Expected cost: S5M.
Predesign: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
05/93.
Remediation expected
completion: OS/94.
Completed: Ml scale.
Remediation start: 10/88.
Remediation completion: 12/91.
Completed: full scale.
Remediation completion: 04/89.
Predesign: laboratory scale.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose and saturated): PCP,
30 rag/kg PAHs, SOmg/kg; dioxin
On situ), 25 pg/lE dioxin (ex situ).
1 Jig/kg (risk-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated): risk-based.
Soil (vadose and saturated): PAHs,
100 mg/kg.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
carcinogenic PAHs, 0.59 mg/kg;
phenol, 4.28 mg/kg; naphthalene,
21 1 mg/kg; fluorine, 323 mg/kg; PCP,
2.92 mg/kg; arsenic, 27 mg/kg;
chromium, 92.7 mg/kg.
Surface water: arsenic, 12 |Og/L.
Ground water: PAHs, 14 mg/L;
carcinogenic PAHs, 10 jig/L
Sediments: arsenic, 94 mg/kg; PAHs,
3 mg/kg.
Soil (vadose and saturated): PAHs,
1 mg/kg; carcinogenic PAHs,
2.5 mg/kg; arsenic, 94 mg/kg;
chromium, 88 mg/kg.
TREATMENT
In situ treatment. Ex situ
treatment, sequencing batch
reactor, slurry reactor, batch
flow. Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: soil washing,
incineration possible for
dioxin-coittaminated soils. 75%
of site under bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, exogenous and
indigenous organisms. 1% of
site under bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment.
In situ treatment Other
technologies: soil washing,
solidification. 50% of site
underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry
reactor, batch flow. Other
technologies: soil washing,
solidification.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation not effective
forrcmedjation of dioxins in
soils.
There is a lack of information
on success of technology at
field-scale level; however,
results of field treatability study
showed reduction in PCP and
creosote— up to 86% for PCP,
and 96% for 3-ringedPAH
creosote compounds.
None.
None.
Study was terminated due to
time constraints.
Biodegradation reduced
average total PAH levels and
carcinogenic PAH levels from
306 mg/kg and 44 mg/kg
respectively to 50 mg/L and 14
mg/L in 18 days. Pilot-scale
work is needed to confirm
effectiveness; overall results
suggest longer incubation
period could result in further
reduction of PAHs to below
cleanup goals.
•radicates a new site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
w
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Cardawn
Cardawn, SC
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Celanese Fibeis Operations
Shelby, NC
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Coleman-Evans
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
DuboseOil
Cantonment, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
{toppers/Florence
Florence,. $C
jR^^a^efeiaj) ,
langdaltFiralfijT*
Sweetwi.ter,TX
lCJSAI^74t-3424 ;
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground water lead, solvents
(acetone, cis-DCE, trans-DCE,
TCA, TCE).
Ground water: chromium,
solvents (ethylene glycol,
acetone, 1,2 DCE).
Soil (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving (PCP),
petroleum, arsenic.
Volume: 27K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated:
sand, clay): TPNA, PCP,
petroleum, solvents CTCE,
PCE).
Volume: 15K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated);
wooa1 preserving (PCP+ PA8&
Sludge/soil (vadose and
saturate^ wool preseofii$
STATUS
Design: pilot scale.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 10/88.
Remediation expected
completion: 09/99.
Expected cost: S2M.
Design: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
06/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 06/94.
Expected cost: $8.6M.
Design: laboratory scale.
Remediation expected start:
12/92.
Remediation expected
completion: 03/95.
Expected cost: $3M.
PiedesigrK
Completed: full scale.
Remetfafonipomplstwns 01/89*
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: acetone, 710|og/L;
cis-DCE, 70 ug/L; trans-DCE,
120 ug/L; TCA, 200 Ug/L; TCE, 5 ug/L;
lead, 5 ug/L.
Ground water: ethylene glycol, 7 ppm;
1,2 DCE, 0.07 ppm; chromium, 50 ppb
(state ARAR).
Soil (vadose and saturated): PCP,
25mg/kg.
Soil (vadose and saturated): TPNA,
50 mg/kg; PCP, 50 mg/kg; xylene,
65 mg/kg; benzene, 10; TCE,
0.05 mg/kg; PCE, 0.07 mg/kg.
Not yel established.
Not available.
TREATMENT
Not yet established
Ex situ treatment, sequencing
batch reactor, aerated tank,
batch flow. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: chemical
treatment, neutralization,
filtration, air stripping, carbon
adsorption. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry
reactor, batch flow. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
soil washing,
solidification/stabilization.
Landfill: 100% under
bioremediation.
Operations: 50% under
bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment. Other
technologies: carbon
adsorption. 90% of site under
bioremediation.
Ex. situ land treatment.
Exogenous and indigenous
organisms. Other teehndogjes?
ground-water extraction,
pretreatrnent, discharge to
POTW.339&ofsifeuadsr,
biorernetiiatLOft
Ex situ land treatment
Exogenous organisms*
COMMENTS
Partial consent decree issued
12/4/91. Work began 12/16/91:
sampled inactive incinerators
and drums of material.
Undergoing UV oxidation
treatability studies to determine
potential for treatment of
ground water. Site is
mobilized; electrical power is
on. Application has been
submitted for a permit to
construct observation wells.
Biomass upsets decreasing
operating efficiency of
treatment system. Cause of
upset is unknown to date. COD
removal efficiency for seventh
operational quarter was 92%
for wells located close to
source. TOG was 87% removal
efficiency.
Wood chip removal from soils;
dioxins have been identified
and are being evaluated.
Bioremediation was found to
be ineffective for dioxins.
Pilot study was delayed due to
waiting for results of dioxins
test
None.
None.
* Indicates a new she.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
IV
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Shaves Farni
Shdby County. GA
CERCLA Fund Lead
«lv«u :
Smt Augustine, tt,
Swwlead:^
Southeastern Wood Preserving
MS
CERCLA Fund Lead
SlaHwocthTunber
Beatrice, At-
RCRAiead(State)afldK.CBA
l<5ad (Federal}
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Chuck Egcr
(404)347-3931
WilliamBurn*
(9M>i8S-Q190
Don Rigger
(4
STATUS
Treitability studies completed:
pilot scale.
Treatataliiy studies conducted
or in progiess: jalot. scale>
Remediation expectedslait::
01/93.
Operational: foil scale.
Remediation start: 04/90.
Remediation expected
completion: 04/93.
Expected cost: S1.7M.
Predesign: full scale.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose and saturated): dicamba,
25 mg/kg; benzoic acid, 25 mg/kg;
dichlorosalicyclic acid, 25 mg/kg;
benzonitnte, 25 mg/kg.
Gromd water: acetone, 700jig/L
{risfe-biifed); benzene, 1 (ig/L
(risk-based); chloroform, 0.7 (Ig/L
(nsfc-bssed); ciesols, 700pg/L
(risfc-tesed); ethylbenzene, 39 ]i$!L'
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
White House Waste
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Allied Chemical
Ircnton, OH
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Allied Signal/Bendix
St. Joseph, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Tony Best
(404)347-2643
Marvin Collins
(904)488-0190
JimVanderKloot
(312)353-9309
KayGossett
(614)385-8501
John Kuhns
(312)353-6556
Sally Beebe
(517)373-4110
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated) /
ground water petroleum,
solvents (benzo(a)pyrene,
chlorobenzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, di-n-butyl
phthalate, methylene chloride,
2-methyl napthalene,
napthalene, phenol,
tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, acetone,
bis-phthalate, carbon disulfide,
ethylbenzene, methylethyl
ketone, 3,4-methylphenol,
2-methylnapthalene), PCB
1260, lead.
Volume: 40.7K cubic yards.
Sediments: PAHs.
Volume: 500K cubic yards.
Ground water solvents (TCE,
DCE, DCA, vinyl chloride).
STATUS
Redesign.
Remediation expected start:
06/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 06/94.
Expected cost: capital, $15.5M;
O&M, S3.4M.
Predesign: pilot scale since
04/91.
Expected cost: S26M.
Predesign: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
12/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 12/98.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: acetone, 0.0016mgyL
(risk-based); benzene, 0.005 mg/L
(ARAR-based); benzo(a)pyrene,
0.0002mg/L (ARAR-based);
bis-phthalate, 0004 mg/L (ARAR-based);
carbon disulfide, 1.64 mg/L (risk-based);
ethylbenzene, 0.7 mg/L (ARAR-based);
methylethyl ketone, 8.46 mg/L
(risk-based); 3,4-methylphenol, 0.85 mg/L
(risk-based); napthalene, 9,700 mg/L
(risk-based); 2-methylnapthalene,
0.067 mg/L (risk-based); phenol, lOmg/L
(risk-based); toluene, 1 mg/L
(ARAR-based); trichloroethene,
0.005 mg/L (ARAR-based); xylene,
10mg/L(ARAR-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated): benzene,
1.13 Hg/kg (risk-based); benzo(a)pyiene,
0.192 mg/kg (risk-based); chlorobenzene,
970 mg/kg (ARAR-based);
1,4-dichlcrobenzene, 0.012 mg/kg
(risk-based); methylene chloride,
29.3 mg/kg (risk-based); PCB 1260,
0.09 mg/kg (risk-based); 2-methyl
napthalene, 22 mg/kg (risk-based);
napthalene, 0.261 mg/kg (risk-based);
phenol, 0549 mg/kg (risk-based);
tetrachloroethene, 4.3 mg/kg (risk-based);
toluene, 1,440 mg/kg (risk-based);
trichloroethene, 0.0447 mg/kg (risk-based).
Sediments: carcinogenic PAHs,
100 mg/kg (risk-based).
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, slurry
reactor, batch flow. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
soil washing, stabilization and
solidification. 71% of site
under bioremediation.
In situ treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. 50% of site under
bioiemediatioa
In situ treatment. Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
COMMENTS
Solidification/stabilization will
follow in the treatment train
due to the presence of lead.
Lab work underway to increase
bioavailability of PAHs
through use of surfactants, and
to facilitate the delivery of
oxygen to the waste matrix.
Test plot is now operating
according to design. Incurred
cost for testing: over $2 million.
Recent sampling has identified
much higher TCE
concentrations, potentially
toxic for aerobic organisms.
Doing additional tests to
examine two-phase
anaerobic/aerobic system.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a nan-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cent.)
I
§
3*
f
REG
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
AwtcehChqmciJ
JUveriHOH
RCRAle»d(Ee&r»l)
Autastyle
Kenwood, MI
State Lead
B^FTwckfeg.Cpmpaay"'
Rochester, MN
OsrawaoSaw}
BP Oil Company
tiffl4,OH
RCMI«£ (Federal)
BuflingtonNocthew
BraineroVMNi
CERCLA— State to.start;
RCRA—Federalsiriee 198&
Cliff/Dow Disposal Site
Maiquette, MN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Ksher-Calo
LaPorts,IN
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
MstltewOH
(3 12)3 86-4442
ScoitScbeinierfww
(614)385-8501
BobV
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
V
V
v ;
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Galesburg/Koppers
IL
CERdA State Lead
ftecheUs
•Traverse C%, Ml
tISfXead (State)
Joliet Army Ammunitions
Plant**
ElwoouVIL
Federal Facility
Joslyn MFG
Brooklyn Center, MN
CERCLA State Lead
•K.L Sawyer AEB"
&tt
Federal Facility
Sitesthpa $tati.on-!&yine&
K«»W8Cd»MI
Staw Lead
MayvilleFireDcpSrUftera
Mayville^MI
USTXead (State)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Brad Bradley
(312)886-4742
Steve Davis
(217)785-3913
AwfBrnington
#516)7:75-9729
Dion Novak
(312)8:864737
Steve {KuTler
(2.17)7824803
Arm Bidwell
(612)2%-7827
Kevin Turner
(312)886-4444
Maeve Morgan
(9Q6)346'234Z
MarfcPetrie
(906)228.6561 :
Bonnie White
(«i6M5<$-507i. i
JdrtMayes :
<5 17^684-9141
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated):
phenols, chlorophenol, PNAs,
PCP.PAHs.
Soil (vadose: arid salarated) /
ground w,«ter: petroleum.
Soil {vadose and saturated}:
TNT,nNT,RDX.
Soil (vadose): wood preserving
(PCP.PAHs).
Volume: 67K cubic yards.
Soil ^vadosft sand): pMtotejm,
Ground water petroleum
(gasoline).
Ground; Water petralettrt.
STATUS
Predesign.
Remediation expected start:
12/92.
Conipleted; gift Scale* -
Remediation start; <09/$5,
RetnediatSoacotoplettoa; OS/®,
Design: pilot stale.
Operational: fell scale.
Remediation start: 08/89.
Remediation expected
completion: 09/94.
Tttaiability studies, eomjocted
or in progress; pilot seals.
Operafjonal: feft scale.
Remedwuoa «$£. 01/88,
Operational; fill scale.
Remediation starts 05/90.
Remediation expected ' ^
completion; 01/94.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Grorajd watec petroleum, 1,000 gib,
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose): PCP, 150 mg/kg; PAHs,
100 mg/kg (dermal contact).
Soil (vadose): benzene, 20 }lg/fcgs
toluene, 16K ng/kg; xylene, 6,000 V£/fc£
(MDNR Act 307 !Typ.e B Critens),
Ground water; backgroand non detection
fltosfcrbased.
Ground Watei: berttene, 1 ppb
Wsk-based)! toluene, 800 ppb (aesthetic
DWV); ethylbenzene, 70 ppb {aesthete
DWVfc xylenesi 300 pph (aesthetic
DWV)( ',
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, nutrient
addition. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
In situ treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
wgamsms, 75% cSsite
Dndeiwentbioremediaflan,
Ex sittt treatment, Slurrjr
reactor; batch How. Aerobic
: conditions, exogenous.
organisms.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. 35% of site under
bioremediation.
lit sim treatment, bioventing.
Aerobic wndmons, Indigenous
organisms.
Ex situ treatment, f»e4 film.
Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: carbon polish,
unit to ensure compliance with
NPDES permit. Company has
been considering soil Vapor
extraction to enhance process
but has not taken steps to
implement Originally alsq had
some product separation
(gravity). 85%: of site under
bioremediatioa
In situ treatment, ambient air.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. 1009o of site tinder
bioremediation,
COMMENTS
None.
koft-fonrttn.g'basteria cJ°88erf
; the. carbon system. Pursuing
final clsawp -of residae at.
leading edge of plume;. Also
need soil verification.
None.
Due to extreme rainfall in May
1992, part of Land Treatment
Unit was under water. Hooding
has delayed treatment of lift 2
soil.
Site is located in northern U,$.t
near/Lake Superior.
Accumulation of snow and
freezing temperatures for more
than 6 months of the year make
field work and system
operation difficult.
System was
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
V
V
V
V
V
v
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
McGfflisGibb
MN
CERCLA Fund Lead
Moss-American
Milwaukee, WI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
New Lyme Landfill
New Lyme, OH
CERCLA Fund Lead
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Lacrosse County, WI
CERCLA Fund Lead
Organic Chemical
MI
CERCLA Fund Lead
ftudcetovls
JfctonoVMt
1O& Lead $*e&ra!)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Daryl Owens
012)886-7089
Douglas Robohm
(612)296-7717
Betty Lavis
(312)8864784
Ted Smith
012)353-6571
Kevin Adler
(312)886-7078
Paul Kozol
(608)264-6013
Robin Schmidt
(608)267-7569
Tom Williams
(312)886-6157
SfcmKolak
(3&#S6-6l5l
BdveSlaytoa
(5;i7)J73-«012.
MEDW
CONTAMINANT
Ground water: wood preserving
(PCP).
Sediments /soil (vadose and
saturated): wood preserving.
Volume: 86. SK cubic yards.
Ground water: solvents
(ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride, methyl phthalate).
Soil (vadose and saturated
sand): solvents (TCE),
petroleum (total hydrocarbons),
wood preserving (naphthalene).
Vdume: 5,000 cubic yards.
Ground water: TCE, toluene,
petroleum (lube oil).
Soil (vstflfisft and saturated) /
ground; water., peasten,
solvents.
STATUS
Predesign: full scale.
Remediation expected start:
09/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 04/95.
Expected cost: capital, S260K;
0&M,$600K.
Piedesign.
Remediation expected
completion: 01/94.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 11/91.
Expected cost: $6M.
Design: laboratory scale.
Remediation expected start:
05/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 09/96.
Expected cost: capital, $400K;
0&M,$20K.
Piedesign: laboratory scale.
: PwJesiga,
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: POTW pretreatment
standards.
Sediments: wood preserving, 6.1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated): wood
preserving, 6.1 mg/kg (risk-based).
Ground water: ethylbenzene, 68 Hg/L;
methylene chloride, 473 (Jg/L; methyl
phthalate, 93. Jlg/L.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Hot yst establishes.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
plug flow. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil washing and
incineration under
consideration. 10% of site
under bioronediation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry
reactor, batch flow. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
soil washing. 2% of site under
bioremetHatioa
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
rotating biological. 100% of
site under bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. 20% of site under
bioremediatioa
Other technologies:
ground-water pump and treat as
interim measure until levels of
organics are reduced.
Not yet, established.
COMMENTS
A full-scale taorcmediaiion
system was tested on site voder
the SITE program. The results
arc in a report dated September
1991:EPA/540/A5-91/001.
Percent of clay in soil/sediment
may reduce efficiency of
system. May be difficult to
achieve cleanup standard due
to high molecular weight
PAHs. Surfactants used in
working process may interfere
with bioslurry system.
Calcium carbonate
precipitation causing plugging.
Fungi entering with effluent
causing plugging.
In pre-final design stage.
Construction expected May
1993. Soils outside of landfill
to be addressed— methane in
landfill.
Review of dioxin data has
revealed that soil will be
handled by EPA in Cincinnati.
Waiting for feasibility study to
do remediation on TCE and
toluene. Working on additional
plan for oil. Ground- water
pump and treat expected start:
September 1992.
None,
* Indicates a new site.
s that the site hast
Shading indicates a noo-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
V
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Rasmussen
Livingston County, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
ReillyTar
IN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Reilly Tar & Chemical
Company
St. Louis Paik, MN
CERCLA State Lead
Seymour Recycling
IN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Process 1
Process 2
Sheboygan River and Harbor
Sheboygan, IL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
KenGlatz
(3 12)886-1434
Denise Gruben
(517)335-3386
Dion Novak
(312)8864737
Daryl Owens
(312)886-7089
Douglas Beckwith
(612)296-7715
Mike Scott
(612)296-7297
Jeff Gore
(312)886-6552
Prebhakar Kasarabada
(317)243-5130
Bonnie Eleder
(312)886-4885
Ron Schmidt
(608)267-7569
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground water solvents
(acetone, 2-butanone,
4-methyl-2-pentanone).
Ground water: benzene,
pyridine, ammonia.
Volume: 13.6M cubic yards.
Soil (vadose loam): wood
preserving (2-fluorobiphenyl,
naphthalene, acenapthylene,
fluorene, acenapthene,
phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthcne, pyiene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pvrene,
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene).
Volume: 1 cubic yard.
Ground water: solvents (vinyl
chloride, TCE, DCE, benzene,
chloroethane).
Volume: 500K gallons.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
solvents (vinyl chloride, TCE,
DCE).
Volume: 1 1 IK cubic yards.
Sediments (sand, silt, clay):
PCBs.
Volume: 2,700 cubic yards.
STATUS
Redesign.
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Expected cost: $15M.
Piedesign: laboratory scale.
Incurred cost: S25K
Expected cost: $70K.
Completed: full scale.
Remediation completion: 09/90.
Incurred cost: SIM.
Completed: full scale.
Remediation completion: 09/90.
Incurred cost: $750K.
Design: pilot scale.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: acetone, 700 ppb;
2-butanone, 350 ppb;
4-methyl-2-pentanone, 350 ppb.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Ground water: drinking water standards.
Not established.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, fixed film.
Exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: chemical
treatment, air stripping/carbon
adsorption with nutrient
addition. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, sequencing
batch reactor, continuous flow.
Other technologies: chemical
extraction. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
fc situ treatment, bioventing,
nutrient addition. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
carbon adsorption. 1% of site
under bioremediation.
In situ treatment, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: vacuum
extraction, multi-layer cap.
In situ treatment, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: vacuum
extraction, multi-layer cap.
[n situ treatment, no
enhancement of process. Ex
situ treatment, confuted
treatment facility (tank).
Aerobic and anaerobic
conditions, exogenous and
indigenous organisms.
COMMENTS
None.
60 to 80 feet of aquifier with
conductivities of 0.01 to 0.001
with interfingering until units
are not continuous (clay);
7,000,000 gallons per day are
being pumped from lower zone
aquifier.
Site will initiate a 3-year field
evaluation of bioventing in
November 1992.
None.
Since a multi-layer cap was
applied over the bio-applied
soil, there is no way to sample
the contaminated soil. The RI
in 1 984 found more than 54
organic chemicals.
Delays in pilot-study due to
additional lab-scale tests and
coordination with ARCS
?rogram as Pilot
Demonstration Project for
Sheboygan AOC. Project is
ongoing.
* Indicates a new site.
* * Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
V
V
V
V
V
f
V
VI
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Sleeping Bar Pane* Nationd
lalceshore
2mpire,Mt
Federal facility
Spicgdbctg Landfill
Livingston Township, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
St. Louis Intedake/DuluthTar
Site
Duluth,MN
CERCLA State Lead
Union Carbide
OK
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
IJpjohn Company Cottage
Facffity
Katam!»ootWl
RCMlead(F*fefid)
West K&L Avenue Landfill
Kalamazoo, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
AtcMnson
Santa Fe,NM
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
JoJnWiJspn
(405)332-8800
CuySewett
(405)332-8800
KenGlatz
(312)886-1434
D erase Gruben
(517)335-3386
AimBidwcU
(612)296-7827
Kathleen Warren
(312)353-6756
Scott Bergreen
(614)385-8501
Terry Roundtree
(312)353-3236
L.owa:Iereza
<3123JS?-S»0-
OiegRwfloff.
(312^35-3478
DanCozza
(312)886-7252
Susan Webster
(214)655-6730
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground water petrol cum.
Volume: 1,000 gtUoos.
Ground water: solvents
(2-butanone, hcianone).
Sediments /soil (vadose and
saturated): VOCs, PAHs.
Soil (vadose and saturated) /
ground water VOCs, fioxin,
monochlorinated biphenyls,
dichlorinated biphenyls, PCBs.
Soft (vamose, and saturated) /
ground: water; solvents.
Ground water solvents
(acetone, benzene, TCE, vinyl
chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane,
xylene, toluene, trans-l,2-DCC,
ethylbenzene,
1,1-dichloroethane).
Sludge /soil (vadose and
saturated): petroleum (diesel).
Volume: 28K cubic yaids.
STATUS
Completed: Xullicalc,
Remediation start; 02/91,
Remediation completion; 02/92.
Predesign.
Predesign.
Remediation expected start:
01/93.
Trcatability studies conducted
or in progress: laboratory scale.
Redesign; piloUcale since
1987-
Predesign.
Design: expected 12/92.
Remediation expected start:
01/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 01/94.
Expected cost: $Z2M.
Design: pilot scale.
Expected cost: $3M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
NotcsutfohcA
Ground water 2-butanone, 350 ppb;
hexanone, 50 ppb.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Ground water: acetone, 700 ppb;
benzene, 1 ppb; vinyl chloride,
0.02 ppb; 1,2-dichloroethane, 0.4 ppb;
xylene, 20 ppb; toluene, 40 ppb;
trans-l,2-DCC, 100 ppb; ethylbenzene,
30 ppb; 1,1-dichloroethane, 700 ppb.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
fa atn treatment, Anaerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms, 100% ofnte
underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment Exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
airstripptng/carbon adsorption
with nutrient addition. 100% of
site under bioremediation.
Not yet established
In situ treatment of soil. Ex situ
activated sludge treatment of
ground water. Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: GAG.
Ground water -fixed 5to
friomass wjthcontinuousflow
reactor. Aerobtc conditions,
indigenous otgantaas. Other
technologies: in situ soil
flushing, vacuum extraction.
Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: depending on
results of ground-water
samples during pump test:
precipitation of metals and a
carbon filter for the vinyl •
chloride may need to be added.
In situ land treatment. Ex situ
land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Site htd an excess of iioraco.
None,
Bioremediation for
PAH-contaminated soils.
Sediments had not been
selected for treatment as of
March 1992. The supplemental
RI is not for the soils; operable
unit is currently being
completed.
None.
possible: problems with low
wjntettemperatureSf
Problems include treatment of
vinyl chloride and handling of
water after treatment There is
no POTW (possible with
installation of 3 miles of sewer
line), no surface water
discharge is possible, need to
reinjecL
Possible problem with high
chloride content in soil and
sludges.
Ni
to
* Indicates < new site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
VI ;
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Dow Chemical Company
.PJaquemtne, tA
RC&V lead (Federal)
French Limited
Crosby, TX
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
HiX&on K.0Sfci
jmjvfcCullottgh
004)3 89-S493
Judith Black
(214)655-6735
Louis Rogers
(512)463-8188
BtentTroskowsta.
<2145f>55-64$0
Deborah Griswdd
(214)655-6715
Louis Rogers
(512)463-8188
Larry Wright
(214)655-6715
Paul Sieminski
(214)655-6710
Sandra Greenwich
(504)765-0487
Ruthlzraeli
(214)655-6735
Joan Blake
(202)260-6236
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground1 water solvents
(1,2-dichloroethane,
ttJ^nchloroethaw!,
J,l-dlcnlotoethatte,
la-dicHototuhylene,
cHotoetteae^
Volumet 90K
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
VE
vn
vn
Vtt
vn
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Amoco Refinery
-Sug»tCrcek,MQ
RCRA Lead (State)
Conservation Chemical
Kansas City, MO
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Faiifield Coal & Gas
Fairfield,IA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
International. Paper
Jdplin,MQ
RCRA Lead (State)
Park City"
Park City, KS
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
FjankPcfon
($14)731-3176
Alan Hancock
(913)551*764-7
Steve Auchtedonie
(913)551-7778
Steve Jones
(913)551-7755
Johansliir Golchin
(515)281-8925
Brant; Jonlifi
(3.14)751-3176 \
John Wilson
(405)332-8800
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Sofl (vadpsc irJ saturated: silt,
day); petroleum (phcnanthmie,
pyrcne, napthalene),lead.
Volume; 137K cubic yards.
Ground water solvents
(semivoJatiles, VOCs), phenols.
Volume: Z4X109 gallons.
Soil (saturated: sand, silt, clay)
/ ground water: coal tar
(benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, xylene, PAHs).
Soil
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
vn
vn
vn
vm
vm
vm
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Scott Lumber
Altcn,MO
CERCLA Fund Lead
Sioux City Pilot Study
Sioux City, IA
CERCLA State Lead
Vogel Paint &Wax
Maurice, IA
CERCLA State Lead
Burlington Northern
GlendiveiMT
Water Quality Bureau Lead
Burlington Northern Tie Plant
Somers, MT
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Conoco Lsinatarm
Billings, MT
RCRA lead (State)
t
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Bruce Morrison
(913)236-3881
Johanshu-Golchin
(515)281-8925
Steven Jones
(913)551-7755
BobDrusttup
(515)281-8900
Terry Webster
(405)444.2406
Jim Harris
(406)449-5414
Ben Quinones
(406>449-4067
MsikHkll
<40
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
vjn.
vra
vnr
vni
vni
vm
SUE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
JwonJUndfarm
BiUingt,MT.
RCRAlead(Surte)
Geraldine Aiiport
Geraldine, MX
CERCLA State Lead
HillAirFbrceBase
tJT
Federal Facility
Idaho Pole Company
Bozeman,MT
CERCLA State Lead
Joliet Weed Control District"
Joliet, MT
CERCLA State Lead
Lake County Weed Control*
Ronan.MT
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
MafcHall
(406)4444096
Carol Fox
(406)449-4067
RobertStited
0o$#j4-w4 ;
Jim Hams
(406)449-5414
Kevin Kirley
(406)449-4067
Janie Stiles
(406)4494067
Card Fox
(406)4494067
Carol Fox
(406)4494067
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
SIudge:kW°- organics, kOSO
organic!, kOSlotganJcs,
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, loam,
clay): pesticides (aldrin,
dieldrin, endrin, chloidane,
toxaphene, b-BHC, 4,4' -DDE,
4,4'-DDT,4,4'-DDD),
herbicides (2, 4-d).
Soil {vadose and saturated);
petroleum (JP4 jet W).
Sediments / soil (vadose and
saturated) / ground water
pentachlorophenol, PAHs,
dioxins/furans.
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, loam,
clay): herbicides (2, 4-d,
dicamba, MCPA).
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, loam,
clay): pesticides (aldrin,
dieldrin, endrin,
methoxychlordane, chlordane,
t-BHClindane, b-BHC,
4,4'-DDE,4,4'-DDT,
4,4'-DDD), herbicides (2, 4-d,
dicamba, picloram (tordon),
atrazine), triallates.
STATUS
Operational: foil scale.
Remediation «a« 01/80.
Remediation expected
conjiletion: 01/2013.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start; 0W9t>
Remediadpn expected
completion; 09/93,
Piedesign.
Remediation expected start:
01/93.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Slndge; k049 otganics, J ,000 ppm,
Not yet established.
Not yet established. :
Not yet estabhshed.
Not yet established
Not yet established
TREATMENT
Bx titu landtreatrnent. Aerobic
ccoiuons, indigcnouf
organisms. Other technologiesT
chemical adsorption, ion
exchange, precipitation.
In situ treatment Ex situ
treatment. Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
In situ treatment, bioventing.
Aerobic, conditions, indigenous
organisms. Othwtechnologiew
•vapot venting. 100% of site
under- inoremexuaticn.
In situ land treatment, nutrient
addition (water), nutrient
addition (sediments). Ex situ
treatment, fixed film, slurry
reactor. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: in situ soil
flushing.
In situ treatment Ex situ
treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
In situ treatment Ex situ
treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
COMMENTS
ExxonLandfiirn (Billings) is
seeking a No Migration
Variance, the facility
maintains a Montana
Hazardous Waste Permit
(MTHWPrSS-Ol).
None.
Wone,
Dioxins and furans inhibit
biorcmediation of other
contaminants.
None.
None.
CD
3*
3
j
a
5
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
vm
vm
vm
VJO j
vm ;
via
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Libby Ground-Water Site
Libby, MT
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Miles City Airport*
Miles City, MT
CERCLA State Lead
Montana Pole
MT
CERCLA State Lead
Montana RaUlinfc
East Helena, MT
Water Quality Bttreaa
Montana Rail .Onk
MfcSOd&Mr
Waw
Remediation completkm: 01/91,
JacuttB
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
vm
VBI
IX
-
,
•,
s
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Richey Airport
Richey, MT
CERCLA State Lead
Union Pacific
Ltramie.WY
RCRA Lead federal)
Beale Air Force Base*
Marysvffie,CA
federal Facility
Process.}
Pjwxss.2
^
PKKSSSl *
ftsee5$4
^ % "*
%%
ProceisS
-
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Carol Fox
(404)449-4067
FelixBeehas- :
(3<»)293-1524
SheriRolrsness
(916)634-2643
-. -,
% "• ^- %
• S
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadosc: sand, silt, loam,
clay): pesticides (picloram
(toidon), aldrin, dicldrin,
endrin, methyloxychlordane,
chlordanc.a-BHC,t-BHC
]indane,b-BHC,4,4'-DDE,
4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDD, methyl
paratKon, ethyl parathion),
herbicides (2, 4-d, dicamba,
atrazine), triallates (far-go).
Soil [Va1 dose and satuiaied) /
ground water, wood preserving
(PAHs,PCP).
Vojumer 75QK cubic jwnfc
Soil ^vadose silty clay):
petroleum (diesel).
Vpturoer 20JC cubic yanfe.
Soil (vadose-sijty clay):"
petroleum {gasoline, diesel),
sdverns.
Volume; 10K c*ic yards.
Soil scale test
foroneyear.
Bloaters' to t»at costamtnated
soil removed daring
Underground Storage Tank.
removal projects.
Pilot-scale system to operate
•forone year.
3°
1
rO
00
* hdicates a new site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
;
;
;
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Process 6
Process?
BKK Landfill
WestCovina.CA
RCRA tod (Federal)
CALTRANS
iakeporti CA
USTtod (State)
Citrus Heights Irrigation
Citrus Heights, CA
OST lead (State)
ConveTse/Montabello
Corporation Yard
USTtod (State)
CWXPre^ft lines":
Santa Rosft,CA
OSTtod (State)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
.,
.,
Carmen Santos
(415)744-2037
Nancy Lindsay/Slem
Heyman.
(415)744-2044
KsnSjnarkel
(916)322-3910
lohnWesiiousky
(915)3JW-1807
KenSmarkel
(916)322-3910 ;
John Wesnousky.
(916)324-1807
Paul Hadley ]
(916)324-3823
:
MaikBerscheid
(916)322-3294 ;
:
;
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil {vadose silty clay):
petroleum (diesel, gasoline).
solvent? (rCBMead>
Volume: 130K cubic yards.
Scfl {vadoswilty clay);
petroleum {diesel), lead.
Volume): 10K«ibfc yards.
«
Ground water; solvents {vinyl
chloride, dichloromethane,
chloroform, carbon
} ,2-dicaloropropaoe).
petroleum, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cyanide, lead,
•mercury.
Volume: 100M gallons.
Soil {vadose. and saturated):
petroleum.
V
Sol (vadose and sanitated); petroleum,
100 mg/kg.
Soil (vadose and saturated); diesel,
100 mg/kg.
Not yet established.
Not established.
TREATMENT
In sitn treatment, bioventing.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
In. sita Beatment, biovemwg.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
-
Ex. situ treatment, flddized'
bed. Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: chemical
tieatraent, may also treat
landfill liquids to sec- if ground
water not heavily contaminated
canbe-stripped; airstnpping.
100% of sita under
bioremediauon.
fasiwlandttBairnent,
Ex sitn treatment, leachate
recirculation, continuous Sow.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
leachate recirculation. 100% of
site underwent bioranediation.
In sitn treatment, bioventing,
nutrient adolfion. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms, 10% of site under
bioiemedtatson.
Ex. Situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms. 100% of site
underwent bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Noie,
Site awendy discovered; littlft
install foB-scale biovenling
system
"*
Treatability study maybe done
on mixture of landfill leachate.
and ground water to see if
system can fasat, Rant wjU be
expanded. Possible use of air
strippers, whteh exist bat ass
not being used.
Degradation raw was
dependent upon the pile's
porosity, water Content, type of
waste, soil, and bacterial
consortium.
None,
None.
None,
VO
5"
?
3'
>
I
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IX
DC
IX
IX
IX
IX
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
rormer Service Sutitn
'jx Angeles, CA
UST Lead (State)
Fort Ord Aimy Base
Monterey, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Gila Indian Reservation
AZ
CERCLA Fund Lead
Groweis Air Service
Woodland, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Hamburg Ranch
Merced County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Harmon Held
Tulare County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Tony Palagyi
(818)505-2701
John Chestnut
(415)744-2387
Vance Pong
(415)744-2392
Richard Martin
(415)744-2288
Christine Holm
(916)361-5703
Christine Holm
(916)361-5703
Jack Grisanti
(209)897-5873
TonyLuan
(916)322-6872
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated) /
ground water, petroleum.
Volume; 3,000 cubic yard«.
Soil (vadose and saturated)/
ground water petroleum,
solvents (MEK).
Soil (vadose and saturated):
pesticides (toxaphene,
parathion).
Volume: 100K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
pesticides (atrazine, BRAVO,
chlorothalonil, dacthal,
tHadine, 1&2-DDT, thiadine
sulfate, trifluralin, methyl
parathion, malathion, parathion,
toxaphene, trithion, paroxon,
methyl trithion, ethion).
Soil (vadose and saturated:
loam, clay): pesticides (ODD,
DDE, DDT, endosutfan,
toxaphene, chlorfenyinphos,
methidathion, monitor,
nemacur, parathion •«,
paratHon-m).
Soil (vadose and saturated):
pesticides.
Volume: 65 gallons.
STATUS
Completed.
Remediation start: 11/88.
Remediation completion: 03/91.
Incurred cosu 51 .6M.
Design: pilot scale.
Completed.
Remediation start: 01/84.
Remediation completion: 07/86.
Incurred cost: S700K.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress: laboratory scale.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress.
Remediation expected start:
06/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 10/96.
Design: pilot scale.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water; benzene, 5 ppb.
Soil (vadose and saturated): TPH,
100 trig/kg.
Ground water: MCLs.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
background.
Not yet established
Not yet established.
Not established.
TREATMENT
fa situ treatment, hydrogen
peroxide, nutrient addition
(water), closed loop system,
Aerobic conditions^ indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
in situ soil flushing, vacuum
extraction. 659S>of sile
underwent bioremediation.
In situ land treatment. Other
technologies: pump and treat,
carbon adsorption.
In situ land treatment. Aerobic
and anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. 100% of
site underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment.
Not yet established
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
and anaerobic conditions,
exogenous and indigenous
organisms.
COMMENTS
During channeling, ovedpad
reduced the icinjection process
rate.
None.
Toxaphene is very hard to
break down. Materials handling
has been difficult.
The study was supposed to be
on a pilot scale, but it ended up
on a laboratory scale. The
results were inconclusive due
to many QA/QC problems in
the analyses. The full-scale
cleanup at this site has not
begun. The Regional Board has
not initiated action because of
staff resource limitations.
Future of bioremediation at site
is unclear.
This site is especially difficult
because of the high degree of
contamination and the amount
of material involved.
Excavation down to 1 ppm
DDT, ODD, DDE and 5 ppm
toxaphene is now taking place.
Much of this material will be
disposed of at a Class 1
landfill, since it is characterized
as non-RCRA waste. The
remainder will be
bioremediated on site.
Pilot project completed.
Evaluating field study results.
Solid-phase bioremediation:
pilot-scale tests on 13 5-gaiion
buckets of soil.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Hercules Incorporated
Hercules, CA
CERCLA State Lead
J.H. Baxter
Weed,CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Process 1
Process 2
JASCO
Mount View, CA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Koppers Company, Inc.
Orville, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Liquid Gold
Richmond, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Marine Corps Air/Ground
Combat Center
Twenty-Nine Palms, CA
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
TonyLuan
(916)322-6872
Elizabeth Keicher
(415)744-2361
Joan Fleck
(707)576-2220
EdCaigile
(916)855-7858
Rose Marie Caraway
(415)744-2235
Fied Schauffler
(415)744-2365
EdCargile
(916)855-7858
Rose Marie Caraway
(415)744-2234
Rosalind Dimenstein
(619)346-7491
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated):
TNT, DNT, nitrobenzene.
Volume: 1,500 cubic yards.
Sediments (sand, silt) /soil
(vadose and saturated: sand,
silt): wood preserving
(tetrachlorophenol, PCP, PAHs,
dioxins, furans), arsenic,
chromium, copper, zinc.
Volume: 21.9K cubic yards.
Ground water: wood preserving
(PAHs, PCP, dioxins).
Volume: 1.6x1 09 gallons.
Soil (vadose and saturated) /
ground water VOCs.
Soil (vadose: sand, clay, gravel,
cobbles): wood preserving
(PCP, PAHs, dioxins/furans).
Volume: 11 OK cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum (waste oil), phenol,
lead, zinc.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum (jet fuel, gasoline,
diesel, aviation fluid,
transmission fluid).
STATUS
Design: pilot scale.
Predesign.
Design: expected 08/93.
Remediation expected start:
01/94.
Remediation expected
completion: 01/2004.
Expected cost: capital, $12.1M;
O&M, $446K.
Predesign: pilot scale.
Design: expected 08/93.
Remediation expected start:
10/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 01/2023.
Expected cost: capital, $4.3M;
O&M, $13.1M.
Treatability studies conducted
or in progress: laboratory scale.
Inclined cost: $30K.
Predesign: full scale. -
Being installed: expected 04/93.
Remediation expected start:
06/93.
Remediation expected
completion: 06/2013.
Expected cost: capital, $4.5M;
O&M, $7.7M.
Predesign.
Design: full scale.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose and saturated): TNT,
30 mg/kg; DNT, 5 mg/kg; nitrobenzene,
5 mg/kg.
Sediments: tetrachlorophenol, 1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated): PCP,
1.7 mg/kg; carcinogenic PAHs,
0.51 mg/kg; noncarcinogenic PAHs,
0.15 mg/L; dioxins, 0.001 mg/L; furans,
0.001 mg/kg (risk-based).
Ground water: carcinogenic PAHs,
5 Hg/L; noncarcinogenic PAHs, 5 ng/L;
PCP, 2.2 Hg/L; dioxins, 0.025 ppt
(risk-based)^
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose): PCP, 17 mg/kg (state
ARAR); carcinogenic PAHs,
0.1 9 mg/kg (risk-based); dioxins/furans,
0.0005 ppt (risk-based).
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
cement fixation for soils
contaminated with inorganics.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
continuous flow. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Othertechnologies:
chemical treatment.
In situ treatment, composting
being evaluated. 75% of site
under bioremediaticn.
In situ treatment, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil washing,
fixation of metal-contaminated
soil, ground-water treatment
with carbon. 30% of site under
bioremediation.
Not yet established.
In situ treatment, bioventing.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
COMMENTS
Pilot-scale project completed.
Evaluating field study results.
Concern regarding effect of
elevated metals on
bioremediation process.
Metals removal continues to be
"spotty" — not a
bioremediation issue.
Treatability study being
conducted while FS is on hold.
Final FS will be produced
following final treatability
study.
None.
Metals contamination on site.
Site is in preliminary stages of
considering bioremediation
technology; no decisions have
been made and start of a
treatability study is not planned
None.
to
5'
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Middle; Mountain Silvex
Gtccnlec County, AZ
FederalFaciUiy
Montrose Chemical
Corporation of California
Torrance,CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Moore Aviation*
Colusa, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Naval Air Station. Fallen*
Fallon>NV
Federal facility
Pdy-Caib*
NV
CERCLA Fund Lead
Protefc
CarsonCSly.eA
TJSTLead (State)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
RobertM,Mandel
(415)744-2290
TimSteele
(602)257-2335
Nancy Woo
(415)744-2394
Alice Geniro
(310)590-4931
Christine Holm
(916)361-5703
Al Williamson
(916)753-9500
RonHoeppel
(805)952-1 $55
David Chesmore
(702)687-5 $72.
Steve- Ktaoser
(702)426-2785
BobMandel
(415)744-2290
KenSmariel
(?16)322-391G
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose: s2t, loam):
herbicides (silvex, 2,4,-d,
2.4,54).
Volume: 550 cubic .yards.
Soil (vadose: silt, clay):
pesticides (DDT), benzene,
chlorobenzene, chloroform.
Soil (vadose: silt, loam):
pesticides (DDE, endosulfanl
& n, parathion, chlorpyrifos,
disulfoton, propazine, atrazine,
2,4-d,2,4,5-TP).
Soil (vadose and saturated silt)
/ ground water: petroleum (jet
fael, p-xytene, napthalene,
1-methyl -aapthalene,
n-butylbenzene), arsenic,
j
Sol (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving (cresol,
phenols).
Volume: 1,500 cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated);
petroleum.
Volumei TOO cubic yards.
STATUS
Operational: foil sole.
Remediation start: 10/91 .
Remediation expected
completion: 10#2.
Incurred cost: $30K
Expected cost; S35K,
Prcdesign.
Completed: full scale.
Remediation stait: 07/91.
Remediation completion: 10/92.
Expected cost: $35K.
Design; pilot scale.
Completed.
Remediation start: 06/87. .
Remediation completion: 09/88.
Incurred cost: $450K.
Completed;
: Remediation start; 08/88.
Remediation completion: 12/89.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose): silvex, 50mg/kg (state
requirement).
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose): DDE, 1 mg/kg;
endosulfan I & n, 7.4 mg/kg; parathion,
3 mg/kg; chloipyrifos, 2 mg/kg;
disulfoton, 0.1 mg/kg; propazine,
0.14 mg/kg; atrazine, 0.03 mg/kg; 2,4-d,
1 mg/kg; 2,4,5-TP, 0.1 mg/kg
(beneficial use water quality criteria).
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose and saturated): cresol,
10 mg/kg; phenols, 20 mg/kg
(performance-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated): petroleum,
10 mg/kg.
TREATMENT
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
condition!, indigenous
organisms. Prepared bed with
water and nutrients; periodic
rototilling. Other technologies:
photodegndation. 10095 ofsite
under bioiemediation.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
and anaerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms.
In situ treatment, bioventing,
nutrient addition (soil),
oil/water separation Aerobic:
conditions, indigenous
organisms. QthenechaologieK
vacuum extraction.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
in situ soil flushing, in situ
volatilization. 60% ofsite
underwent bioremediation.
Ex sittt land treatment. 100S> of
site underwent bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Laboratory support work has
been poor.
RREL, Cincinnati has agreed to
conduct tests at site. Region 9
is funding. If RREL does not
pick up the project, it may get
dropped because site is a PRP
lead.
Some problems on QA/QC of
analyses; two independent labs
are giving conflicting results.
Endosulfans have been
particularly recalcitrant.
Problems obtaining, a water
discharge pennit from the state
of Nevada to discharge treated
ground wertothe NAS
Fallen sewer system (becanse
of natural scenic- in ground
watei).
None.
Thfe control cell, which did net
receive- any nutrient
supplements, proprietary ^
inoculum, or the benefit of
rigorous- aeration,. $eemed as *
effective in seducing the
contaminant level as the site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
LO
REG
IX
IX
IX
IX:
IX
IX
X
X
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Bomic Chemical
East P4o Alto, CA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
SanDiego Gas and Electric
SanBiega,CA
VSTLead(Fedeial)
Seaside Higft School
Seaside, CA "
UST lead (State)
SEGSSoferProject
Kramw Junction, CA
State Lead
Solvent Service
CA
CERCLA State Lead
Southern Pacific Transportation
Company
Roseville, CA
CERCLA State Lead
American Crossaim
Cahailis,WA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Eist 15th Street Service Station
ArKhctige.AK
XJSTLsad (Slate)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Glem Heyman
<41S)744-2W4
PaulHadTey
(916)324-582,3
0icfcEri.ckss.ort
?916)322r-7M6
Bruce ta Belle
<91«)3 24*2958
Ron Gervason
(415)464-0688
Marie Lacey
(415)744-2234
David Wright
(916)332r3910
Lee Marshall
(206)553-2723
MikeRuef
(206H38-3059
TdnyPalagyi ;
(818)505*2701
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose- and saturated) /
ground water? solvents (MEJCj
vinyl chloride, acetone, KB.
wluettev xytae, methylene
chloride, DCE. M1BK),
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum (gasoline).
Volume? 1,200 cubic- yard?,
Soil (Vadose and saturated);
petroleum (diesel).
Volume* 100 cufeic yards.
Soil (vadas* and saturated):
biphenyl, diphenyl ether.
Ground water: solvents (1,2
DCE, cis-1 ,2-DEC, trans-1 ,2
DCE, ethylbenzene, 111-TCA,
freon 113, benzene, acetone,
l,l-DEC,napthalene).
Soil (vadose and saturated):
petroleum
Soil (vadose and saturated):
wood preserving (PCP.PAHs,
dioxins).
Volume: 7 cubic yards.
Sett {tadosa and saturaled):
*«roleum (TPH fiieseT}.
Volume: 1,5/00 sattc yards.
STATUS
Predesign,
Operatioost: &H scala.
Rerrjedfafionstartf 16JW,
Completed: fullscale.
Remediation eompletiori: 09/88.
Opetaa«»I:fttllseai«,
Renxediaticut maK 07/90.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 01/91.
Remediation expected
completion: fli/2001.
Incurred cost: $399K
Expected cost: $844K.
Completed.
Remediation start: 11/90.
Remediation completion: 01/91.
Incurred cost: $3 10K.
Predesign.
design,
Remedialiori tespstted
completioni 06/93,
laciired «osti $75K.
Kxpected cost? ^200^.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established
Soil {vadose and saturated); diesel, .
500 mg/kg.
Soft (vadose »nd samraed): biphenyl,
100 rag/kg; diphenyl ether,
1,000 mg/kg.
Ground water 1,2 DCE, 5 jig/L;
cis-1 ,2-DEC, 6 ug/L; trans-1,2 DCE,
10 ng/L; ethylbenzene, 400 jlg/L;
11 1-TCA, 200 jig/L; freon 113,
1,200 Ug/L; benzene, 0.7 |Jg/L; acetone,
400ng/L; 1,1-DEC, 1 ug/L; napthalene,
2,000 Ug/L.
Soil (vadose and saturated): petroleum,
5,000 mg/kg.
Mot yet established.
Soil (vadose and SatUtaled); TPH diesel*
100 mg/kg (regulatory guidelines:).
TREATMENT
In situ treatment. Aerobic
epnditioris, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
vacuwfi extta,cdon, acfivated
carbon, W peroadatiw.
lOO%-of*ite«flde*: •
bioicmediatioa
In. situ treatment, Anaerobic
conditions, jndigenous
organisms, 100% of $>te under
bioren^edi^tion.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic.
conditions, indigenous
organisms. 100% of site
underwent bioremediatioa
Bit siwtwatajisnt, pile.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
continuous flow. Anaerobic
conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
vacuum extraction, steam
enhancement of soil washing.
100% of site under
bioiemediation.
Ex situ land treatment.
Not yet established
in siot treatment, bicrVenting,
land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
vacuura extraction, 20% of site
under Koremedia(ionr
COMMENTS
High total dissolved solids in
ground water, buildings on top
of contaminated soils fiicjlity
borders <« sloijgh, which VfJtt
ueeharge; ground w»t# daring
powp«id;treai;.
Note,
KssBlJteldonctatatidrts we*
reduced below I,00aing/l6|
'vvith multiple applications of
fertilizeii moisture, and tilling.
Indigenous bacteria effected
the reduction in juel
pcncentrations,.
None;
Have had difficulty obtaining a
permit forbioremediation.
None.
None.
Winter weathstTiaS been an.
obstacle to bioreirtediation.
•Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
X
x i
"
'
-
X
%
••
X
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
•airchild Air Force Base*
Spokane, WA
CERCLA Fund Lead
"TOCOS!
>rocess2
?rocess3
JJff. BaxtetCompany*
Benlon.WA
State Lead
',
"•
; $
1
Terminal*
Seattle, WA
StaleToXies,PKPLead
v
5
5 - %
OukPower and Light
RCRA Lead (State) ,*
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
"bonus Smiley
509)247-2313
Vflliam Harris
(206)138-3070
Diane Wulf
509)247-2313
GaiICo!bnra
£06)649-7058
Ching-PiWang
f '-
Nnamdi Madajcor
(206)649-7112
%
Andrew Pentony
Randy Sieger
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil (vadose and saturated silt)
ground water: solvents (ICE).
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum,
solvents (TCE).
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum.
Soil (vadose: and saturated
complex, mixture) /ground
water; wood preserving (PABs,
PCP.TOH).
Volumer 20K -cubic yards.
•5
"- \
Soil {vadose and saturated);
petroleum.
Volume: 34K ««Mc yards.
4
-
••
^
Soil
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
X
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Wyckoff Eagle Harbor
Puget Sound, WA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Rene Fuentes
(206)553-1599
Sally Martin
(206)553-2102
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground water: wood preserving
(PCP, PAHs).
STATUS
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: 01/90.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: PCP, 6 Ug/L; PAHs,
20 Ug/L (water quality criteria).
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, activated
sludge, fixed film, continuous
flow. Aerobic attached growth
process in series with aeration
tank, clarifier, and biological
sludge digester, possible sludge
and soil remediation.
Exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: oil/water
separation, carbon polishing.
COMMENTS
Lower TOC than expected
during design. Periodic PCP
toxicity.
GLOSSARY OF BIOREMEDIATION TERMS
Growth Conditions
Aerobic-la the presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic-la, the absence of oxygen.
Source of Microorganisms
Indigenous-Occulting naturally at a site.
Exogenous-Not native to a site.
Treatment in a Reactor
Activated Sludge-Thebiomass is suspended in liquid, captured in a clarifier, and recycled to the
reactor; the contact time between the waste and the biomass is controlled by wasting excess biomass.
ExtendedAeration-Thebiomass is suspended in liquid, captured in the clarifier, and recycled to the
reactor; a long contact time is created by enlarging the aeration basin.
Contact Stabilization-^^ waste contacts the biomass suspended in liquid in the first aeration tank
and contaminants are adsorbed to the clarified biomass; then they are digested in the second
aeration tank.
Fixed Ft&n-Biomass is retained in the system by using a static support media.
FluidizedBed-Baama is attached to a support media, which is fluidized in the reactor.
Sequencing Batch Reactor-This self-contained treatment system incorporates equalization, aeration,
and clarification using a draw and fill approach on wastewater sludges.
Slurry Reactor-Contaminants are treated in a soil slurry (a thin mixture of soil and water) with
nutrients and oxygen added as needed; water and soil must be separated after treatment, but clean
soil is left on site.
Treatment Outside of a Reactor
Aerated Lagoon-The biomass is kept suspended in liquid with aeratioa
Land TVeateenf-Waste is applied onto or incorporated into the soil surface in a facility.
Contaminants are treated with microorganisms typically indigenous to the existing soil matrix;
nutrients, moisture, and oxygen can be added to optimize growth conditions. If the waste remains
at the facility after closure, the land treatment facility becomes a disposal facility.
Pile-This method refers to any noncontainerized accumulation of solid, nonflowing waste being
treated or stored.
Bioventing-Air is injected into contaminated soil at rates low enough to increase soil oxygen
concentrations and stimulate indigenous microbial activity without releasing volatile emissions.
In Situ TVearmenr-Biodegradable contaminants are treated by microorganisms within the
environment in which they are found. Most commonly, this process utilizes aerobic processes and
involves delivery of oxygen or other electron acceptors and other appropriate amendments.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
Bioremediation In the Held
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative
(Continued from page1)
At the Libby wood treating site, additional aquifer and soil sampling will be conducted in November, Samples
willbe collected from an uncontaminated area, a contaminated area receiving nutrients and electron acceptor, and
a contaminated area not receiving nutrients and electron acceptor. In addition to two fixed film reactors, two
suspended growth reactors are also being operated in series.
At the Park City site, the permits are in place and funding for further remedial activity has been approved by the
responsible party. The demonstration is starting this fall. Site characterization data have shown 130,000 gallons
of refined product in 50,000 cubic .yards of material and a total volume of 150,000 cubic yards containing
contaminated ground water. The projected costs for treatment are $5 to $15 per cubic yard.
y- " "J^ ^ ^- vfxx4s£rVSf/&'* "&*>'>' ft , , '* * s /""f > i" " ^
At the Allied Signal site, the second phase of the project is being undertaken to identify the nonaqueous phase
liquid (NAPL) source areas for the ground-water plumes. Site characterization of the source areas is in progress.
The bioventing project atEielson Air Force Base in Alaska has shown average soil temperatures this summer of
17°C in plots heated with warm water and enhanced solar warming using clear plastic mulching. Temperatures
in the unheated plot and theuncontaminated background location were 13°C and 9 C, respectively. As expected,
there was less temperature differential among the plots during this summer operation than during the winter
operations. • - "' ,„, .,,„„-,, <- -'•
At Hill Air Force Base in Utah, air injection rates were maintained at 65 cubic feet per minute in August and
September, followed by the current rate of 35 cubicfeet per minute. The firstin situ respiration test was conducted
in September and new soil-gas monitoring probes were installed at shallow depths.
The field demonstration at the Brookhaven wood preserving site was initiated in June, the white rot fungal
species Phanaerochaetesordifo was added to a 100 foot by 70 foot plot Two control plots were also mstaEed—one
with contaminated soil only and the other with contaminated soil and the fungal spawn mix. Sampling will
continue until November to monitor the disappearance of PCP and PAHs.
Further background information on these sites can be found in previous issues of the bulletin.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA PERMIT NO. G-35
EPA/540/N-92/004
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
36
U.S.G.P.O.: 1992-750-002/60093
------- |