oEPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Office of Research
and Development
EPA/540/N-93/002 No. 9 August 1993
mawmw
IN THE FIELD
An information update on applying bioremediation to site cleanup.
BIOREMEDIATION
Field Initiative
Update oh the
Bioremediation
Fieid initiative
The Bioremediation Field In-
itiative was established to pro-
vide the U.S. Ertvironmental
Protectiort. Agerfcy jTEPA) and
, State '"Project Managers,"" con-
'sMtingehgineers/^idindustiy,
sr - ;_T- with timely .information''re-
j new'developments in" the application of
s oioremediation at .hazardous waste sites/.The Irutia-
•JJve- provides evaluation of the performance of se--
elected; full-scale,-field applications (these sites are,
discussed on p; 40); provides technical assistance to
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and.Qn-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) through me TechnicafSupport
Geni?ers; and is developing a data base on the field,
appEcatipns of bioremediation, which is summarized
'totttisbulletinXseep.dS)/- • ; „;'- - •„/ -" "
VJsfine Sites haf e been selected for field evaluation of
site, Libby, Montana; Park City Pipeline;'
Park Qty,JKansas; Bet\dix.Cqrporation/AlHed Autb-
^mptivejSuperfund site, St: Joseph, Michigah;"Eielson
»;. Ak Force Base Superfund site, Alaska; HU1 Air Force
iBase Supertundsite, Utah; Escambia Wood Preserv-,
^g.site^Broqkhaveti, Brpokhaven, Mississippi; Pub;-
~:Mc ^ryice Company, Denver, Colorado; and Reilh/ Tar°
'~and:CnemicaT Corporation Superfund site, St "Lows
Park', Minnesota, ,-/ - *,:' t "• ,^ ,:
-" " : •• " " . (Continued ah'page44)
In This Issue
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative 1
Bioremediation Field Initiative Undertakes Performance
Evaluation at West KL Avenue Landfill 1
SITE Program Evaluates Emerging Technologies 2
Retrospective Evaluation Conducted at Public Service
Company Site 5
EPA/Environment Canada Workshop Addresses
Bioremediation Risk Assessment 7
EPA and ARA Workshop Focuses on Strategies for
Bioremediation of Pesticides . . 8
EPA Bioremediation Publications 9
Bioremediation Conference and Resource Highlights 10
Field Applications of Bioremediation 13
Bioremediation
Field Initiative
Undertakes
Performance
Evaluation at West
KL Avenue Landfill
Laboratory research is under way to determine the
feasibility of biodegrading solvents at the West KL
Avenue Landfill Superfund site in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. The research, which is being conducted
with support from the Bioremediation Field Initia-
tive, consists of two distinct evaluations. EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) is assess-
ing the biodegradative capacity of the landfill mate-
rial. EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory (RSKERL) and the Center for Microbial
Ecology at Michigan State University (MSU) are
evaluating the potential for natural biodegradation
of a plume of contaminants in the underlying
ground water.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the West KL Avenue
Landfill was the repository for an estimated 5 mil-
lion yd3 of refuse, bulk liquid, and drummed chemi-
cal waste. In 1983, the 87-acre site was placed on the
National Priority List due to the discovery of ace-
tone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
dichloroethane, benzene, and other contaminants in
ground water near the site. The plume of contami-
nation has two lobes that are moving west from the
landfill. Figure 1 shows the location oHhe landfill,
nearby lakes, and monitoring wells, as well as the
water table surface contour.
Landfill Material
The evaluation of the biodegradative capacity of the
landfill material was initiated in January 1993. A drill-
ing rig and a mobile laboratory were used to identify
areas within the landfill containing high concentra-
tions of solvents. In one area, researchers found a
sludge-like material containing primarily xylenes,
(Continued on page 4)
) Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Bloremedfation In the Field
SITE Program
Evaluates
Emerging
Technologies
This is the second of two articles on bioreme-
diation projects conducted under the Super-
fund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. The first article, which was featured
in Issue No. 8 of Bioremediation m the Field,
discussed SITE Demonstration Program pro-
jects. This article addresses bioremediation
projects conducted under the SITE Emerging
Technology Program. (ETP).
The ETP provides a framework for pilot-scale testing
and evaluation of technologies that have proven to be
effective at conceptual or bench scale. Technology de-
velopers are solicited yearly for the program, and
projects are considered for either a 1- or 2-year devel-
opmental effort. Projects are funded through coopera-
tive agreements between EPA and the technology
developers, with as much as $150,000 in EPA funding
available per year for each project. After development
under the ETP, emerging technologies may be consid-
ered for projects under the SITE Demonstration
Program.
The ETP actively solicits biological treatment tech-
nology developers in requests for preproposals and
has received an increasing number of preproposals
for biological technologies each year since the pro-
gram began in 1987. Currently, 13 biological tech-
nologies have been accepted into the ETP, and 4
bioremediation projects have been completed. A
brief discussion of each of the completed projects
follows.
Biological Sorption
In fall of 1989, a biological sorption process that
uses algae to remove heavy metal iorts from aque-
ous solutions was tested under the ETP on mer-
cury-contaminated ground water at a hazardous
waste site in Oakland, California. The sorption
medium used in this process consists of algal cells
immobilized in a silica gel polymer. This medium
functions as a biological ion exchange resin that
binds both metallic cations and metallic oxoan-
ions. After the matrix is saturated, the metals are
stripped from'the algae with acids, bases, or other
suitable reagents. Testing at the Oakland site was
designed to determine optimum flow rates, bind-
ing capacities, and the efficiency of stripping
agents. Based on the results of this project, the
sorption technology was recommended for a pro-
ject under the SITE Demonstration Program.
Methanotrophic Bioreactor System
Abioreactor system that uses methanotrophic bacte-
ria to cometabolize aqueous-phase halogenated ali-
phatic compounds, such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
Bioremediation Field Initiative Contacts
Fran Kremer, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Bioremediation Field Initiative ;;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7346
>,U.S. Envirdnmental,Protection Agency ,-;' -;
H, vvS-fc .•» ** ft f\1f 1 «"J J J ' '~~ ''"00 * """.^v ,,'f, ,*-S,'r' j.,"5^4
';•;*/""„- 'T^c|ihqlogy Innovaticin Office ,<-;; ':^';, ,, , " -t-j-;:,
!/.x Office of Solid Waste and Emergerlcy R^es%onse /
% s j
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
was tested at bench and pilot scale tinder the ETP from
1990 to 1992. The bacteria used in the reactor pro-
duce a soluble form of the enzyme methane
monooxygenase (MMO), which rapidly degrades
TGE and related compounds. Unlike many other
microbial species, the methanotrophic bacteria de-
grade TCE without generating hazardous inter-
mediate products. Bench-scale tests were
conducted on a continuous, dispersed-growth
model of the reactor during the technology's first
year in the ETP. Pilot-scale testing conducted dur-
ing the second year demonstrated the full-scale
feasibility of the reactor.
Fluid Extraction/Bioremediation System
A fluid extraction/bioremediation system that
remediates organic contaminants in soil was ac-
cepted into the ETP in June 1990. This system
combines three distinct processes: (1) fluid ex-
traction, which removes organics from contami-
nated soil; (2) separation, which transfers the
pollutants from the extract to a biologically compat-
ible solvent, such as water; and (3) biological treat-
ment, which degrades the pollutants to innocuous
products. The fluid extraction component relies on
supercritical carbon dioxide or other environmen-
tally benign solubilizing agents to extract contami-
nants from soil. In the separation step, contaminants
are solubilized in a separation solvent, so that the
clean extraction solvent can be reused in the extrac-
tion process. Bioremediation takes place in
aboveground aerobic bioreactors and uses a
mixture of microbial cultures. Pilot-scale testing of
the system at a Superfund site contaminated with 2-
and 6-ringed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) was completed under the ETP in fall of 1992.
Anaerobic Bioremediation
Two pilot-scale studies of an anaerobic process for
bioremediating soils contaminated with nitroaro-
matic compounds, such as trinitrotoluene (TNT)
and 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dmitrophenol (dinoseb), have
been completed under the ETP. In this process,
contaminated soils and sludges are diluted to slur-
ries containing 50 percent water and placed in
fiberglass vessels. A carbon source, such as starch,
and an anaerobic, starch-degrading microbial con-
sortium then are added to the vessels to degrade
nitroaromatics. The technology was tested under
the ETP on soils from dinoseb-contaminated sites
in Idaho and Washington. Based on the results of
these tests, the technology was accepted into the
SITE Demonstration Program in winter of 1992,
Newly Emerging Technologies
In addition to the technologies used in the completed
projects described above, nine bioremediation tech-
nologies currently are being developed under the
ETP. These technologies, their developers, target me-
dia and contaminants, and dates of acceptance into
the ETP are shown in Table 1.
For more information about the SITE Emerging Tech-
nology Program, contact Ronald Lewis at 513-569-
7856.
Table 1. Biological Technologies Accepted into the Emerging Technology Program
Developer
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Aluminum Company of America
Cognis, Inc.
Groundwater Technology
Government Services, Inc.
Institute of Gas Technology
International Technology
Corporation
New Jersey Institute of Technology
OHM Remediation Services
Corporation
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
Technology
Two-zone plume interception in situ
treatment strategy
Biological scrubber treatment with
activated carbon biomass
Metal extraction/biological treatment
Below-grade aerobic biological
composting
Chemical and biological treatment
Photolytic and biological
detoxification
Pneumatic fracturing/in situ
bioremediation
Oxygen microbubble in situ
bioremediation
Methanotrophic biofilm reactor
Media/Contaminant
Organic solvents in saturated soil
and ground water
Organic emissions from soil, water,
and air decontamination processes
Metals and organics in soil and
sediment
Cyclodiene insecticides in soil
Organic compounds in soil and
sludge
Organic compounds in soil
Petroleum in soil
Petroleum and solvents in ground
water
Gas-phase volatile organic
compounds
Date of ETP
Acceptance
July 1989
July 1990
August 1992
Summer 1991
January 1991
July 1990
July 1991
Summer 1991
Summer 1992
-------
Bloremedlatlon In the Field
Bloremediation Field Initiative Undertakes
Performance Evaluation at West KL Avenue
Landfill
(Continued front page 1)
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroefhylene, and toluene. This
material was excavated and transported to RREL's
Testing and Evaluation facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, for
treatability studies.
In June 1993, the sludge-like material was homoge-
nized under low oxygen conditions and loaded into
22 reactor systems to evaluate its biodegradative
capacity. Each reactor is approximately 2 ft iall and
3 in. in diameter and holds 4 Ib of landfill material.
The reactors are designed to study site material and
microbiology but not to directly simulate a landfill.
Five independent conditions are being evaluated: (1)
current landfill conditions without a Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cap, (2) condi-
tions with a RCRA cap, (3) conditions with enhanced
activity of methane-producing bacteria, (4) condi-
tions with enhanced activity of sulfate-reducing bac-
teria, and (5) optimum moisture conditions. Results
of the reactor study are scheduled to be reported in
November 1993.
Ground Water
Representatives of RSKERL spent 2 weeks at the site
in April 1993, monitoring geochemical parameters
that are indicators of the biodegradative capacity of
the contaminated ground water. These data will be
analyzed using BIOPLUMEII, a computer modeling
program that will allow researchers to quantify their
predictions about the rate and extent of natural
biodegradation in the ground water. Modeling re-
sults are scheduled to be reported in September
1993.
The results of RSKERL's analyses will be used to
select a depth interval to core for microbial ecology
studies, which will be conducted by MSU. MSU will
use serum bottles with aquifer material and ground
water to test for the presence of microorganisms able
to degrade representative contaminants. In addition,
MSU will use soil-column microcosms to simulate
the dynamics of the aquifer environment and esti-
mate the rate of contaminant degradation.
For more information on the landfill study, contact
Steven Safferman of RREL at 513-569-7350. For more
information on the ground water studies, contact
John Wilson of RSKERL at 405-436-8532.
i Scale In Feet
N 1 1 1
0 500 1000
KL Avenue
Uoend ,.
• Shallow Domestic Well • Deep Monitoring Well •*
© Deep Domestic Well A Test Well
(next to w.H If replaced) Q Nflw ^^ WeS (dflgp)
D ShattowMonltoringWeO ANawMonltoringWeH (shallow)
N ^
KL Averrde
Undfflis,^
( K
"A]
t
\
A
O)
/
/
SA
KL Avenue
Figure 1. Water table surface contour map showing the location of the landfill, nearby lakes, and monitoring wells.
4
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
Retrospective
Evaluation
Conducted at
Public Service
Company Site
A retrospective evaluation of the performance of in
situ bioremediation has been completed at the Public
Service Company (PSC) site in Denver, Colorado.
The primary objective of the evaluation was to de-
termine the extent of hydrocarbon contamination
remaining at the site and to determine whether a
plume of contamination will return now that active
remediation has ceased. The evaluation was per-
formed by EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re-
search Laboratory (RSKERL) and the University of
Colorado at Boulder with support from the Bioreme-
diation Field Initiative.
Site History
In 1987, PSC, an electric utility, determined that used
oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline had leaked from a 75-gal-
lon tank at the company's facility at 2701 West 7th
Avenue in Denver. The tank served as a temporary
catch basin for used automotive oil in the facility's
garage. A discrepancy between the volume of oil de-
posited in the tank and the volume pumped out for
disposal lead PSC to suspect the leak. Though it is
unclear when the release first began, the tank had been
in service for 29 years before the leak was discovered.
Figure 1 is a schematic model of the subsurface proc-
esses at the site; part A shows a hydrocarbon plume
being sustained in ground water downgradient of the
spill.
Site Remediation
An in situ bioremediation system was operated at the
site.from October 1989 to March 1992. Ground water
was pumped from a recovery well downgradient of
the leaking tank at approximately 11 gallons per min-
ute. The recovered water then was treated by carbon
adsorption to remove dissolved hydrocarbons and
recharged to the aquifer upgradient of the leaking tank
through two injection galleries. In the first gallery,
ground water was amended with ammonium and
phosphate compounds and with hydrogen peroxide.
Unamended ground water was injected through the
second gallery, which was upgradient of the first, to
sweep the amended ground water through the spill to
the recovery well. Figure 1, part B, depicts the subsur-
face during active remediation, showing the contami-
nated ground water being captured by the recovery
well.
The system exchanged a total of 10 to 15 pore volumes
over the course of treatment, which reduced BTEX
levels in the ground water monitoring wells to below
cleanup level goals. Active remediation ceased in
March 1992, and the site entered a period of post-
remediation monitoring.
Residual Contamination
In June 1992, aquifer core samples were taken from
seven boreholes along a transect downgradient of the
release. The transect extended laterally from clean
material, through part of the spill, into the clean mate-
rial on the other side. In each borehole, continuous
cores were drawn vertically from clean material above
the spill, through the spill, into clean material below.
The cores were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocar-
bons and individual BTEX compounds. Significant
hydrocarbon concentrations were found in a narrow,
approximately 2-ft thick interval near the water table.
The highest hydrocarbon levels were found in the
borehole closest to the spill.
The core sampling data suggest that active remedia-
tion physically and biologically weathered the spill,
creating a cortex of material with reduced levels of
soluble and biodegradable BTEX compounds sur-
rounding a core of material in which BTEX com-
pounds have not degraded significantly. Researchers
speculate that the more transmissive cortex is
(Continued on page 6)
D
Figure 1. Schematic of subsurface (A) before remediation, (B) dur-
ing remediation, (C) immediately after remediation, and (D) as
residual contaminants begin to partition to ground water.
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Retrospective Evaluation Conducted at
Public Service Company Site
(Continued frontpage 5)
weathered because it was in effective contact with
ground water, which supplied nutrients and electron
acceptors during active remediation. Conversely, the
less transmissive, fine-textured central core is not
weathered because it was not in effective contact with
ground water, and the supply of nutrients and electron
acceptors was inadequate. Figure 1, part C, shows the
weathered spill after remediation of the ground water
has been completed.
Potential for Regeneration of Contaminant
Plume
As ground water passes through the weathered spill,
a certain quantity of hydrocarbons is transferred to
the water (see Figure 1, part D). This quantity is
directly proportional to the duration of the water's
exposure to contaminated material. Since active re-
mediation has ceased, the hydraulic gradient
through the spill has decreased to its normal level,
and the water's exposure time to contaminated ma-
terial has increased accordingly (see Table 1). Fortu-
nately, the oily material in closest contact with the
ground water is weathered to the greatest extent.
The rate of release of contaminants to ground water
is limited by the rate of diffusion and slow advection
of BTEX compounds through the weathered mate-
rial from the contaminated central core.
If ground water flowing past the spill contains
enough oxygen and nutrients to biodegrade con-
taminants transferred from the contaminated core,
the limits on the rate of mass transfer of contami-
nants to ground water might prevent regeneration
of a contaminant plume. To evaluate this possibility,
researchers assayed core material from the spill to
determine its maximum rate of oxygen consump-
tion. The assays indicated a maximum oxygen de-
mand of 40 to 240 mg/L of ground water per
day—higher even than the oxygen supplied by ac-
tive remediation. These results suggested that oxy-
gen consumption during active remediation must
have been limited by the rate of mass transfer of
contaminants to ground water. If mass transfer had
not been a limiting factor, ground water produced
from the recovery well would have been oxygen
depleted and contained significant quantities of
partitioned BTEX compounds. In fact, oxygen
concentrations of 2 to 5 mg/L always were present and
BTEX compounds virtually absent in the recovery
well.
At present, there are no established procedures to
determine whether the mass transfer of hydrocar-
bons from oily residual material under ambient con-
ditions will exceed the supply of oxygen or other"
natural electron acceptors. As a result, it is impossi-
ble to predict whether natural bioremediation will
prevent the regeneration of a contaminant plume.
Once ground water moving under the natural gradi-
ent has flowed through the spill to the monitoring
wells, researchers will be able to determine whether
mass transfer effects will reestablish a plume.
Assuming that natural bioremediation will not be
sufficient to prevent regeneration of a contami-
nant plume, researchers from the University of
Colorado conducted three-dimensional ground
water flow modeling to determine the velocity
and trajectory of potential contaminant plumes
and make recommendations for compliance moni-
toring. The modeling relied on two assumptions:
(1) the concentration of BTEX compounds in the
spill will remain constant, and (2) water flowing
through the contaminated zone will be in equilib-
rium with residual hydrocarbons. Based on these
assumptions, flow modeling led to several conclu-
sions: (1) a benzene plume will be reestablished,
(2) the plume will consist of subplumes of varying
concentrations and velocities, (3) compliance
monitoring will have to continue past August
1993 to ensure that all subplumes have reached a
steady state, and (4) more data are needed to de-
termine when the plume will arrive at the compli-
ance monitoring wells.
For more information, contact John Wilson of RSKERL
at 405-436-8532.
Table 2. Conditions During Active Remediation and Ambient Conditions Following Active Remediation
Parameter
Introduced concentration of oxygen
Hydraulic gradient
Interstitial flow velocity
Travel time of water across the spill
Maximum oxygen demand supported
Conditions During Active Remediation
470 mg/L
0.097 m/m
2.4 m/day
20 days to recovery well
20 mg/L per day
Ambient Conditions After Remediation
5.5 mg/L
0.0012 m/m
0.03 m/day
1,500 days to monitoring well
0.004 mg/L per day
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
EPA/Environment
Canada Workshop
Addresses
Bioremediation
Risk Assessment
A risk assessment workshop was held June 17-18 in
Duluth, Minnesota, to review and discuss issues re-
lated to the use of bioremediation for selected contami-
nants at both U.S. and Canadian hazardous waste
sites. The workshop, sponsored by the Health and
Environmental Review Division (HERD) of the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the Office
of Research and Development's (ORD's) Environ-
mental Research Laboratory at Gulf Breeze, and Envi-
ronment Canada's Commercial Chemicals Branch,
brought together approximately 90 representatives of
U.S. and Canadian institutions; universities; indus-
tries; and federal, state, and provincial organizations.
Plenary session presentations and workgroup discus-
sions targeted 10 groups of biodegradable wastes com-
monly found at U.S. and Canadian sites, including
trichlorethylene (TCE), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and munitions. Detailed presentations were
given by Dr. David Drahos of Southern Bioproducts
on the proposed release of a strain of Pseudomonos
cepocia to test its TCE-degrading capabilities at a site in
Waterloo, Canada; and by Dr. Robert Finch of the
Department of Defense's Fort Detrick, Maryland,
laboratory on a set of biological assays for toxicity
screening of remediation site effluents. The Southern
Bioproducts project, if it proceeds as planned, could
represent the first North American release of a recom-
binant bacterium for in situ cleanup.
Workshop participants broke into five workgroups
that focused on the following issues: risk assessment
schemes, major metabolic pathways of selected haz-
ardous pollutants, human health protocols for meta-
bolite and pathogenicity tests, ecological effects
protocols for metabolite and pathogenicity tests, and
fate protocols and issues for microorganisms and me-
tabolites. The available literature in those five areas
was summarized in a detailed issue paper prepared by
the University of Tennessee and EPA. The workgroups
addressed specific questions arising from this issue
paper. Key findings and recommendations, presented
below, will be considered by EPA and Environment
Canada as they continue to develop guidance for
bioremediation product evaluations.
Risk Assessment Schemes
The risk assessment schemes workgroup developed a
general flow diagram for health and environmental
risk assessment relevant to bioremediation sites. Infor-
mation on microorganisms, site pollutants and their
physical and chemical properties, and general site
characteristics were identified as necessary compo-
nents of a risk assessment. Participants recommended
that laboratory and/or greenhouse efficacy studies
(e.g., mass balance or other microcosm tests) and in-
formation on metabolic pathways also could be useful
for identifying metabolites and assessing metabolite
toxicity.
The workgroup identified two environments for risk
assessment: the area directly affected by the pollut-
ant^) where microorganisms are applied and the area
surrounding the application. In the first area, the high-
est priority is the health of the workers involved in site
cleanup. For the surrounding area, both human health
and environmental effects need to be considered
equally. In areas where exposure to toxic metabolites
is likely, the group recommended biomonitoring using
appropriate single species tests in place of, or in addi-
tion to, chemical analyses of metabolites.
Metabolic Pathways
The goal of this workgroup was to determine which
pollutant/pathway/environment combinations lead
to generation of significant quantities of hazardous
metabolites. The group concluded that the intermedi-
ates for some compounds (e.g., aromatics) and specific
organisms are predictable given certain site informa-
tion. Often, however, the presence of complex mix-
tures complicates the process. For metabolites of
known structure, quantitative structure activity analy-
sis techniques can be useful in predicting toxicity. The
workgroup discussed specific metabolites of concern
for metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolics, halo-
genated organic compounds, alkanes, pesticides, sul-
fur- and nitrogen-containing heterocyclics, complex
mixtures, and munitions.
Human Health Protocols
This workgroup determined that metabolite toxicity
should be addressed in separate tests from those that
examine pathogenesis and toxin production by the
microorganisms. Participants acknowledged that re-
liable tests already exist for assessing metabolite
toxicity but that techniques for extraction of chemi-
cals sorbed to sediments need further development.
Exposure routes for microorganisms depend on
the specific bioremediation process, but where the
microorganism is unknown, pathogenicity tests
might need to consider oral, intravenous or in-
traperitoneal, and pulmonary exposures. Where
some information is available, rapid screening
tests, such as gene probes, are needed. The group
also recommended further research on the aller-
genicity effects of microbial antigens, and their
effects when combined with chemicals at a site. The
(Continued on page 12)
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
EPA and ARA
Workshop Focuses
on Strategies for
Bioremediation of
Pesticides
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA)
sponsored a joint workshop in Cincinnati, OH,
March 2-3,1993, to address remediation of pesti-
cide contamination in soil and ground water, pri-
marily at agrichemical sites. The workshop
brought together 42 representatives from EPA
headquarters, laboratories, and regional offices;
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); state
environmental agencies; universities; chemical
manufacturers and dealerships; regional environ-
mental coalitions; and industrial trade associa-
tions. The workshop's primary objective was to
open a dialogue among these groups to identify
remediation needs and technologies currently
available to treat problem pesticides.
Out of approximately 15,000 dealership sites, nearly
80 percent have some soil and ground water contami-
nation. Speakers in the 2-day workshop focused on
specific bioremediation technologies; scientific re-
search in biodegradation; federal, state, and regional
remediation efforts; and regulations affecting applica-
tion of bioremediation. The workshop culminated in
workgroups on research and development issues,
field evaluation issues, and regulatory issues impact-
ing bioremediation efforts.
Research and Development Issues
The research and development workgroup concluded
that research was critically needed on the effects of
operating parameters, such as temperature, moisture,
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, amendments, stimulants,
and pH, on the rate and effectiveness of specific biore-
mediation techniques. In addition, participants voiced
a need for better characterization of environmental
factors, bioavailability, and biodegradation pathways
on the rate arid extent of cleanup efforts, and of the
formation of toxic by-products.
This workgroup also identified pesticides that are
causing the most widespread problems for dealer-
ships on a national scale. These chemicals include
atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor, parathion, dicamba,
trifluralin, 2,4-D, dinoseb, simazine, butylate, chlor-
pyrifos, fonofos, glyphosate, metribuzine, pendi-
methalin, and diazinon. Treatment techniques
identified as requiring the most research were con-
fined soil treatment (including composting), slurry
reactor treatment, in situ aquifer treatment, and land
spreading, the technique of applying a mixture of
contaminated and uncontaminated soil to farmland in
a thin layer.
Field Evaluation Issues
This workgroup focused on pesticides, media, and
treatment techniques requiring further field dem-
onstration and evaluation. Participants cited
many of the same pesticides as did the R&D work-
group, and, in addition, identified chlordane and
Cl-cyclodiene as being particularly problematic in
the Southeast. The workgroup also emphasized
the importance of studying multi-pesticide .con-
tamination, since most sites are contaminated by
more than one chemical. Members of the work-
group agreed that remediation of soil and gravel
were the highest priorities, but that ground water
should be monitored, especially that in proximity
to soil- and gravel-contaminated sites. Sites with
a history of no containment, onsite mixing and
loading facilities, and sites in states with currently
(Continued on page 12)
Back Issues of Bioremediation in the Field Can Be Ordered from EPA
by Calling 513-569-7562 and from NTIS by Calling11^800«553*p847.
When Ordering, Please Specify the Issue and Publication Number.
Issue# Pi&lication #
1 Out of stock-NTIS PB91-228023'
2 EPA/540/2-91/007
3 EPA/540/2-91/018
4 EPA/540/2-91/027
5 EPA/540/N-92/001
Issue #' Publteatio f
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
EPA Bioremediation Publications
To order EPA documents, call 513-569-7562. For NTIS documents, call 1-800-553-6847.
Bioremediation Case Study Collection: 1991 Augmentation of the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) EPA/600/R-92/043
Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes NTTS PB92-216894
Fundamentals of Ground-Water Modeling NTIS PB92-232354
A Study to Determine the Feasibility of Using a Ground Penetrating Radar NTIS PB92-169382
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 NTIS PB92-224104
In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground Water NTIS PB92-224336
Technology Evaluation Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site Ground Water by Biotrol,Inc NTIS PB92-110048
Applications Analysis Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site Ground Water by Biotrol,Inc .... NTIS PB91-227983
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 Methanogenic Aquifer NTTS PB90-117219
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 Soil . . . . NITS 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-Contaminated 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 William Sound, Alaska NTTS 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 NTTS PB91-144873
Field Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation for Aquifer Restoration NTTS PB88-130257
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes for Remediation of Creosote-Contaminated Materials:
Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Studies NTTS PB91-179085
Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated with Jet Fuel NTTS PB91-164285
Movement of Bacteria through Soil and Aquifer Sand NTTS PB91-164277
Selection of Nutrients to Enhance Biodegradation for the Remediation of Oil Spilled on Beaches NTTS PB91-233304
Effect of Sodium Chloride on Transport of Bacteria in a Saturated Aquifer Material NTIS PB92-110428
Oil Spill Cleanup NTTS PB92-110469
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxygen:
ALaboratory and Field Study . . NTTS PB90-183435
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surf ace Soil NTTS PB90-164047
Guide for Conducting Treatabflity Studies under CERCLA, Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy Screenings NTTS PB92-109065
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals during Land Treatment of
Oily Wastes: Ritz User's Guide NTTS PB88-195540
Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds EPA/600/2-86/090
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor NTIS PB88-180393
Transformation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds NTTS PB88-170568
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook for Citizens EPA/540/2-91/002
9
-------
Bloremedfatlon In the Field
Bioremediation Conference
Fifth Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies:
Domestic & International
The Fifth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic & International
willbe held May 3-5, 1994, in Chicago, Illinois. This
3-day conference, which is being sponsored by
EPA's Technology Innovation Office, EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, and the V.S,
Army Corps of Engineers, will focus on mnovative
treatment technologies that have shown actual
performance results. The conference wiE show- >
case the results ,6f selected technologies used inter1
nationally, as weE as innovative technologies used
in the Superfund, Innovative Technology Evalu- -
ation (SITE),°program"and other projects. The ob~ -
jective of the conference is to increase awareness in
• the user community „ of technologies ready for ap-
plication at cleanup sites, -, ',' , "-" 1
For more information, contact SAIC's Technology -
Transfer Department at 800-783-3870 or 215-628- "
9317 within Pennsylvania.;" ~\ - \-
CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual Available
Amanual describing the organizational and opera-
tional components of the Comprehensive Environ-
mentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or Superfund, program is now avail-
able through the National Technical Information
Service (MHS). The CERCLA/Superfund Orienta- ;,
'tion Manual serves both as a program guide and a
reference document To order, cairNTIS at 703-
487-4785 and request document number PB93-. '
193852. " "
VISITT Data Base Offers
Expanded Information and
Capabilities
The first update of the Vendor Information Sys-
tem for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT 2.0) now is available from the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Technol-
ogy Innovation Office. VISITT 2.0 contains
updated information from 80 of the 97 vendors
originally included in yBITT 1,0, as well as in-
formation from 61 additional vendors. In total,
VISITT 2.0 contains information on 231 innova-;
rive technologies offered by 141 developers. The
number of in situ and ex situ bioremediation
technologies in the data base has increased mark-
edly, from 48 in the orginial version to 79-in
VISITT 2.0.
New database functions ,in VISITT 2.0 make it
easier to compare technologies and vendors,,The
user now may select a particular data field, such as
performance, and then, in one step,, print tir save
performance data "from all records identified in a
search, VISITT 2,0 also provides a print preview
that gives fite -number of pages in a report and
allows the .user to scroE through the information
on the screen before printing/FinaU^ VISITT 2,0
aEows the user to, limit a search to vendors with
actual experience in treating a particular
contaminant. Y , ' "> ^ -^
EPA already is developing'a third version of the
system (VJSITT3.0). For more information on sub-
mitting information to'VISITT 3.0, call the VISITT
hotline at 800-245-4505-or 703,-308*8448. VISITT 2.0.
|s available on diskette atno charge* To order, write "•
to US, EPA/NCEPI, EQ, Box 42419; Cincinnati,
OH 45242-0419, of fax a request to-513-891-6685,.
Please specify diskette size (3 tyz or 5 *4 in.); „ .„
10
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
and Resource Highlights
^t<^ *3r=I?*.tC'^-Stf^^fi.H^ '"^li—lV«AiiAs.\**. CiS*-* /1^:^*«vi**wA'U^W«i*^x'\/:'-'\ '/^r^^-W***-/*-' 1 r***£l*5» Xni^rt**^
^tff aim u«jiRail,«!cucilcui,c^Ea!n.jri~j^i.vg^cujuo/^>1 j, *x~ **«*"*'J~i »*»^^',>****;aE.y,v wl-">i" v»y*<., ^**^»^,» i^^ -;*>"„• ,;.: ,
^4^%s;,Foref^cfeiroi^ro
^^l|j^rjrfiaSortA't"^/
^Srfeiw^i^&^^x^f^^
«^'
11
-------
Bloremedlatton In the Field
EPA and ARA Workshop Focuses on Strategies for Bioremediation of Pesticides
(Continued from page 8)
active bioremediation programs all were identified as
high priorities for evaluation.
Workgroup participants cited land application, es-
pecially of soil contaminated with multiple pesti-
cides, as the technology most in need of field
evaluation. Areas of investigation include nutrient
and organic matter addition, soil incorporation ver-
sus surface application, management of moisture
content through irrigation, and inoculation of soil
with exogenous organisms. Determining the effects
of land application on crops and other plant cover is
another important evaluation area. Participants also
suggested investigating the application of dilute
mixtures of contaminated ground water to cropland,
in a manner similar to land application. Composting,
in situ biostimulation and bioaugmentation, and
bioventing were cited as other soil technologies in
need of evaluation.
Regulatory Issues
Participants in this workgroup opened by identify-
ing problems related to regulation under the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
They asked for better coordination among EPA pro-
gram offices; clarification of liability issues under
CERCLA; and a resolution of RCRA issues pertain-
ing to permitting, onsite treatment, treatment alter-
natives, and costs. Participants determined the need
both for a clear policy^under FIFRA on land spread-
ing and for uniform cleanup and site prioritization
guidance from states.
The workgroup recommended that EPA establish a
high-level task force to resolve overlapping jurisdic-
tion between RCRA and FIFRA, and suggested that
state policy groups coordinate to advise EPA. Partici-
pants also emphasized the need to fund research that
incorporates demonstration. Other recommendations
offered by the group included the establishment of a
controlled amnesty period for sites that undertook
cleanup efforts voluntarily and a RCRA exemption for
facility permits for onsite treatment.
A summary report of the workshop, highlighting
workgroup recommendations, will be available in late
1993.
EPA/Environment Canada Workshop Addresses Bioremediation Risk Assessment
(Continued from page 7)
group also developed a decision tree for tiered mam-
maUart health effects.
Ecological Effects Protocols
The ecological effects workgroup also concluded that
metabolite toxicity and pathogenicity should be ad-
dressed using separate tests, with pathogenicity tests
dependent on the availability of taxonomic informa-
tion. The decision tree developed by the workgroup
began with tests for pathogenicity, followed by single
species tests with both positive and negative controls.
For
mem
sion M tests for aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates, and
mammals; and in vitro screening tests, such as enzyme
tests, for plants. For toxicity testing, the group con-
cluded that protocols such as the Office of Water's
short-term chronic tests would be appropriate, but
that tests for terrestrial organisms might need refine-
ment The decision tree also included the selection of
toxicity tests based on exposure (e.g., seawater, fresh-
water, aboveground, belowground), and ecosystem
tests, where applicable.
Fate Protocols and Issues
This workgroup felt that the microcosms currently
used for efficacy studies are simplistic relative to field
conditions. Participants recommended the following
test endpoints for risk assessments; mass balance for
parent compounds, accumulated metabolites, and
gaseous end products; persistence; and residual den-
sity of organisms mediating the bioremediation proc-
ess. They also identified site information critical to
determinations of chemical and microbial fate and
transport. The workgroup examined the applicability
of some mathematical models to determining metabo-
lite and bacterial/fungal fate and transport in the sub-
surface, and found them inadequate for risk
assessment. Items recommended for inclusion in risk
assessment models were microorganism growth and
death rates, dissemination and transport, persistence
of boundary values such as lower survival levels of
degradative organisms, sensitivity analysis, potential
for formation and exposure, contaminant strategy un-
der site conditions, potential for genetic exchange,
predation rate quantitation, and net metabolite forma-
tion and decay.
The workshop findings will be detailed in an ORD re-
port, to be available in early 1994. For more information,
contact workshop coorganizers Dr. Phil Sayre, HERD, at
202-260-9570, or Dr. Terry Mdntyie, New Substances
Division of Environment Canada, at 819-953-6684.
12
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION1
REG
I
I
I
I
i ?< »<
, I '
I
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
BaildandMcGuire
Holbrook,MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Charlestown Navy Yaid
Boston, MA
CERCLA State Lead
Coakley Landfill
North Hampton, NH
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
General Electric
RttsfieldiMA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
5 *
jGeneral FJectric— Woods Pond
Pittsfield,MA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
i ;
'fs !
Iron Horse Park
BUIerica, MA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
David Lederer
(617)573-5738
Martin Home
(617)292-5716
Stephen Carlson
(617)242-5680
Steve Calder
(617)573-9626
DanCoughlin
(617)573-9620
Joan Blake
(202)260-6236
> ; t
Joan Blake
(202)260-6236
' 5 ;
DonMcElioy
(617)223-5571
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground water: petroleum, wood
preserving, pesticides
(chlordane), arsenic, lead.
Volume: 300 gallons per minute.
Sediments: wood preserving
(PAHs).
Ground water ammonia.
Sediments: PCBs.
Volume: 12cubic meters.
Sediments; PCBs.
Volume: 250 gallons.
Sludge / soil (vadose: sand,
loam): PAHs, petroleum, lead.
Volume: 20K cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/93.
Incurred cost capital, $13M.
Cost per yean O&M, $2M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are being
conducted.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Expected start
01/94.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Laboratory-scale studies are
planned.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Laboratory-scale studies are
being conducted.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 05/92.
Total expected cost $2M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: MCLs.
Not yet established.
Ground water: NPDES requirements.
Sediments: PCBs, 2 ppm.
Sediments: PCBs, 2 ppm.
Soil (vadose): PAHs, 1 mg/kg; TPH,
100 mg/kg (risk-based).
Sludge: PAHs, 1 ppm; TPH, 100 ppm
(risk-based).
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, activated sludge,
continuous How. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: chemical treatment for
ground water and incineration for soil.
100% of site under bioremediation.
In situ treatment Ex situ treatment,
attached growth process. Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
Ex situ treatment, typical wastewater
system. Other technologies: metal
precipitation and air stripping. 50% of
site will undergo bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, sequencing batch
realtor, batch flow. Anaerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: incineration,
flotation separation.
In situ treatment, confined treatment
facility, nutrient addition. Anaerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: incineration,
flotation separation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. 20%
of site under bioremediation.
COMMENTS
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
Cold weather creates short
season.
a
3"
1 CERCLA/RCRA/UST sites considering, planning, operating, or having used bioremediation.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
I
REG
I
n
n
H
n
n
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Sylvester
Nashua, NH
CERCLA State Lead
American Linen
Stfflwater.NY
CERCLA Stale Lead
FAA Technical Center— Area
D
Atlantic County, NJ
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
General Electrics-Hudson ;
River
NY
TSCA Lead (Federal)
General Motors — Central
Foundry Division
Massena,NY
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Knispel Constroction Site
Horseheads, NJ
UST Lead (State)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
OtetJanowski
(617)573-9623
PaulHicrtdcr
(603)882-3631
Frank Peduto
(518)457-2462
CarlaStruble
(212)264-4595
Joseph Freudenberg
(609)633-1455
Keith Buch
(609)484-6644
Jim Harrington
(518)457-3957
AjaySchroff
(518)457-3957
Lisa Carson
(212)264-6857
Frank Peduto
(518)457-2462
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground waten solvents (vinyl
chloride, benzene, chloroform,
MEK.PCB, phenols, TCB,
1,1,2-trichIoroethane,
chlorobenzene, methylene
chloride, toluene,
1,1-dichIoroelhane,
trans-l,2-dicMoroethaue,
1,1,1-trichIoroctbane, methyl
methacrylate), selenium.
Volume: 100 gallons per minute.
Soil: PAHs, VOCs, petroleum
(lube oil).
Volume: 4,375 cubic yards.
Soil (saturated sand) / ground
waten petroleum (jet fuel,
NAPLs).
Volume: 33K cubic yards.
Sediments: PCBs, cadmium,
chromium, lead.
Volume; 150 cubic feet
Sediments / sludge / soil: HAHs
(PCBs).
Volume: 350K cubic yards.
Soil / ground water: petroleum.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 06/86.
Expected completion 07/94.
Incurred cost $15M
Total expected cost S20M.
Costperycar:$2M.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 08/92. Started
07/91.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 08/92.
Total expected costs: capital,
$286K;0&M,$200K.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been completed.
Incurred cost: $2, 6M.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been under way since 04/93.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 10/89. Started
01/89.
Incurred cost O&M, S250K.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water vkyl chloride, 95 ppb;
benzene, 340 ppb; chloroform,
1,505 ppb; MEK, 8.000 ppb; PCE,
57 ppb; phenols, 400 ppb; TCE,
1,500 ppb; 1,1,2-trichloroelrume,
1.7 ppb; chlorobenzene, 110 ppb;
methylene chloride, 12.3K ppb;
toluene, 2,900 ppb; 1,1-dicnIoroethane,
1.5 ppb; trans-l,2-dtchlorocUiane,
1,800 ppb; 1,1,1-trichloroelhane,
200 ppb; methyl melhacrylate, 350 ppb
(New Hampshire Drinking Water
Standards).
Soil: TCLP to meet soil guidance
levels.
Soil (saturated): New Jersey Soil
Action Levels.
Ground water: New Jersey MCLs.
Not yet established.
Soil: PCBs, 10 mg/kg (risk-based).
Sludge: PCBs, 10 ppm (risk-based).
Sediments: PCBs, 1 ppm (risk-based).
Soil: petroleum, 5 ug/kg (drinking
wafer standards).
Ground wafer: petroleum, 5 ppb
(drinking water standards).
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, activated sludge,
extended aeration, continuous flow.
Aerobic conditions. Other technologies:
vacuum extraction. 20% of site under
bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
100% of site underwent bioremediation.
In situ treatment, nutrient addition (soil,
water), reinjection of ground water.
Other technologies: free product
extraction, cement kiln incineration,
soil venting, off-gas treatment with
catalytic incinerator combustion or
activated carbon adsorption of VOCs.
In situ treatment Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Less than 1% of
site underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor, batch
Sow. Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
chemical extraction, chemical
treatment, thermal desorption.
In situ land treatment, hydrogen
peroxide, nutrient addition (water).
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms, 100% of site underwent
bioremediation
COMMENTS
Problems providing nutrients
to maintain an active bfomass.
Contaminated soil was applied
in 2-ft layers; nutrients were
added and soil was tilled by
mechanical means.
None.
None.
Oil and grease in samples is
hindering efficiency of
bioremediation; material may
require pretreatment Will be
doing treatability studies of
several other technologies in
case bioremediation is not
successful.
None.
I
* Indicates a new site.
*« Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
n
n
n
n
n
,n>
**'<
•
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Mobil Terminal
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Nascolite
Millvffle,NJ
CERCLA Fund Lead
Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation
Saratoga Springs, NY
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Osmose
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA State Lead
PlattsWgh Air Force Base
Pittsburgh, NY
Federal Facility
>!
Syracuse .
Syracuse, NY
UST Lead (State)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Robert Leary
(716)851-7220
SalCalandra
Famaz Saghafi
(212)264-4665
Anton Navarajah
(609)633-6798
NicolettaDiFotte
(212)264-0970
William R. Jones
(315)428-5690
Michael Sherman
(315)428-6624
Jim Harrington
(518)485-8792
JaspalWah'a
(716)851-7220
Phil Von Bargen
(518)565-6672 ,
Jinx Lister
(518)457-3976 <
Harry Warner
(315)426-7519
1
-
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (silt, fill): petroleum (gas
and diesel), lead.
Volume: 15K cubic yards.
Sediments (sand, silt) / soil
(sand, silt) / ground water.
methylmethacrylate, lead.
Soil (sand): PAHs.
Soil (vadose and saturated: silt,
clay): wood preserving
(benzo(a)pyrene, PAHs),
petroleum (fuel oil).
Volume: 670 cubic yards.
Ground water: petroleum.
Soili petroleum.
Volume: 6,000 cubic yards.
;
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 07/91.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies were completed 06792.
Started 04/92.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 05/92. Started
02/92.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 09/90.
Total expected cost $125K.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 03/94.
" ! ;
Full-scale remediation was
completed 10/91. Started
07/90.
,
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil: NYDEC guidance values based on
TCLP.
Ground water: risk-based.
Soil: potential for leaching to ground
water.
Soil: wood preserving, 473 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Soil (vadose and saturated):
benzo(a)pyrene, 10 mg/kg;
carcinogenic PAHs, 50 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Not yet established
Soil: NY Soil Cleanup Levels.
'
TREATMENT
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, exogenous organisms.
Other technologies: vacuum extraction.
100% of site under bioremediation.
••
Ex situ treatment, contact stabilization.
batch flow. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: filtration, ultraviolet
oxidation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. 30%
of site under bioremediation.
In situ treatment/bioventing. Aerobic _
conditions, indigenous organisms.
"
In situ land treatment. Ex situ land
treatment.
/ i
'
„
1
>
'
COMMENTS
_
Ongoing process; treated soil
remains on site at Mobil
terminal. Air extraction system
installed in summer 1991 to
enhance bioremediation in part
ofbiocell.
None.
Laboratory-scale feasibility
study report currently is being
prepared. Depending on
results, pilot- and full-scale
activity may be undertaken. In
situ treatment with nutrient
addition would be used for
soils, and a fluidized bed
bioreactor would be used for
ground water.
None.
This will be a. pilot-scalp
project as part ofthe Air Force
Bioventing Initiative.
~
Late.startfor first phase; cold
weather slowed use of
bioremediation. Site was
prepared for closure in Fall
1991,tut small untreated atsas
were discovered. This material
was separated and moved to an
adjacent area for treatment in
Spring 1992, '
3
3'
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
I
REG
111
m
m
in
JH
~ >
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Allied Chrome Wocks
Baltimore, MD
ARC
Gainesville, VA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Atlantic Wood
Portsmouth, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
AvtexRbers
Front Royal, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Dover Air Force Base
Dover, DE
FederalFacility "
Process 1
Process2
ProcessS
Process4
•
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
LouhDcHlippi
(708)391-3251
F. Stephen Lupon
(708)391-3224
Robert Stroud
(215)597-6688
Patrick Graver
(804)225-2863
Vance Evans
(215)597-8485
Steve Mihalko
(804)255-3263
Bonnie Gross
(215)597-0491
Milton Beck
(302)677-6845
Rob Allen,
(302)323-4540
*
^
!
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Sediments /soil/ ground watcn
hexavalent chromium.
Soil: solvents (chlorobenzene).
Volume: 2,000 cubic yards.
Sediments / soil: wood
preserving (PCP, PAHs),
dioxins, furans.
Ground water arsenic, zinc,
lead, carbon disulfide, cadmium,
hydrasulfide.
Soil (vadose sand) / ground
water petroleum, metals (lead).
Volume: 15K cubic yards.
Soil (sand) / ground water.
solvents, iron, manganese.
Volume: 50K cubic yards.
Soil (yadosesilt): petroleum,
PAHS.TCE.
Soil (vadose; sand, silt):
petroleum.
Volume: 300K cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale bioremediation is
noc planned.
Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies have been
completed.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 06/91. Started
10/89,
Laboratory-scale studies are
being conducted.
Laboratory-scale studies are
planned.
Total expected cost $9M.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 1 1/92.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 01/93.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 10/93.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 09/93.
Incurred cost: O&M, S100K.
Total expected cost: capital,
S1.2M.
CLEANUP
T dTCT C
LEVELS
Soifc hex nvalent chromium.
0.05 rag/kg.
Ground water, hexavalent chromium,
0.05 ppm.
Sedimenti: hexavalent chromium,
0.05 ppm.
Soil: chlorobenzene, 0.014 rag/kg
(technology effectiveness).
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.
Sott(vadose): BTEX, 10 rag/kg; TPH,
,1,000 mg/kg; lead, 500 mg/kg
. (risk-based).
Ground water: risk-based.
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose): BTEX, 10 mg/kg; TPH,
1,000 mg/kg (risk-based).
Soil (vadose): TPH, 1,000 mg/kg;
BTEX, 10 mg/kg (risk-based).
>
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, septic tank reactor.
continuous flow. Anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
In situ treatment, biovcnting. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous organisms. 5%
of site underwent bioremediation.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established. Other technologies: in situ
soil flushing, soil washing, thermal
desorpn'on, incineration.
Ex situ treatment, attached growth
reactor. Aerobic conditions. Other -
technologies: chemical treatment
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: vacuum extraction,
air sparging.
In situ treatment, air sparging. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: vacuum extraction.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
In situ treatment, air sparging,
bioventing. Ex situ land treatment.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Outer technologies: vacuum
extraction, asphalt binding.
COMMENTS
Pilot-scale studies in field
indicated that the site geology
was too problematical for
full-scale investigation and
treatment
Facility was required to submit
a closure plan to the state of
VA; however, this requirement
no longer exists.
Feasibility study results
currently are being reviewed.
Type of treatment won't be
determined until review is
completed. The presence of
dioxins and furans might be a
problem.
Site is undergoing a remedial
investigation/feasibility study.
Problem with free productand
ground water contamination.
Site has solvents in ground
water, high iron and
manganese.
None,
Sitete free product soil
contamination under aircraft
parking apron.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that me site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
m
m
in
in
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Drake Chemical
Lock Haven, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
L.A. Clarke & Son
Fredericksburg, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Oidnance Woiks Disposal
Area
Morgantown, WV
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
WhitmoreLabs
Myerstown, PA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Alabama State Docks
Mobile, AL
RCRA-Federal for soB;
RCRA-State for ground water
Process 1 , ,
Process 2
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
RoySchrock
(215)597-0913
Gene Wingert
(215)597-1727
Melissa Wliittiiigton
(215)597-1286
Janet Wolfe
(304)558-2745
Christopher Coibett
(215)597-8995
Noreen Chamberlain
(717)657-6309
Jason Darby,
(404)347-3433,. '
Clyde Sherer
(205)271-7726
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil / ground water: pesticides,
solvents (DCE), herbicides
(fenac).
Sediments / soil: wood
preserving.
Volume: 119K cubic yards.
Soil: PAHs, arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead.
Volume: 42K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
solvents (benzene,
trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, aniline),
arsenic.
Volume: 4,000 cubic yards.
Ground water; wood preserving
(PC^^arsenic.diromiuni,
benzene, lead. '» >
Soil (sand, silt, clay, humus rich
matter); wood preserving (PCP).
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 07/92.
Total expected cose $23M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Laboratory-scale
studies have been under way
since 02/93. Expected
completion 11/93.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 11/93.
Total expected cost: $8.3M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies have been completed.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently hi
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies have been completed.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Soil: carcinogenic PAHs, 44.7 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Soil (vadose): benzene, 0.009 mg/kg;
trichloroethene, 0.017 mg/kg;
tetrachloroethene, 0.051 mg/kg; aniline,
0.009 mg/kg.
Soil (saturated): benzene, 0.002 mg/kg;
trichloroethene, 0.004 mg/kg;
tetrachloroethene, 0.012 mg/kg; aniline,
0.002 mg/kg.
Ground water; arsenic, 0.05 mg/Li
chromium, 0.05 mg/L; benzene,
0.005 mg/L,
Hot yet established.
TREATMENT
Aerobic attached growth.
In situ treatment, creosote recovery.
Anaerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies: soil
flushing. 25% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: solidification of
inorganics.
Ex situ treatment. Other technologies:
chemical treatment, fixation,
incineration, containment, pump and
treat Less than 10% of site will
undergo bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, fixed bed, continuous
flow. Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: granular activated carbon.
In sihiland treatment. Ex situ
treatment, slurry reactor.
COMMENTS
None.-
None.
Unilateral administrative order
issued June 1990. There may
be problems at this site
associated with: (1) achieving
the cleanup levels, (2)
extrapolating data from the
treatability studies, and (3)
determining usable
amendments for the treatability
studies.
None.
Problems win! regulatory
concerns when managing
treated material.
RCRA land disposal
restrictions (LDRs)may
interfere with land treatment of
contaminated soils. , < <
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
American Creosote Worts
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
O.UJ2
O.U.S3
American Creosote
Works — Pensacola
Pensacola, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Brown Wood Preserving
Live Oak, FL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Cabot Koppers
Gainesville, FL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Fayetteville, NC
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
TonyUeAngelo
(404)347-7791
Ron Sdls
(901)423-6600
Betty Maness
(901)423-6600
Madolyn Streng
(404)347-2643
DougFitton
(904)488-0190
Beverly Houston
(404)347-3866
MarthaBerry
(404)347-2643
Charles Logan
(904)488-0190
Martha Berry
(404)347-2643
Kelsey Helton
(904)488-0190
JonBornholm
(404)347-7791
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground waJcn wood preserving
(PCP), chromium (+3), copper,
silver.
Sludge / soil (vadoae and
saturated: sand, silt): wood
preserving (PAHs, phenols),
chromium (+3), copper, silver.
Soil: wood preserving (PCP,
PAHs), dioxin.
Volume: 30K cubic yards.
Soil: wood preserving (PCP,
PAHs).
Volume: 9,000 cubic yards.
Soil: wood preserving (PAHs,
phenol, naphthalene, fluorine,
PCP, arsenic, chromium).
Volume: 6,700 cubic yards.
Sediments / soil / ground water
and surface water: wood
preserving (arsenic, PAHs,
chromium).
Volume: 4,000 cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are planned.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are planned.
Full-scale bioremediation Is
not planned.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 11/91.
Total expected cost $5M
Full-scale remediation was
completed 12/91. Started
10/88.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 04/89.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 01/90.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 07/94.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Soil: PCP, 30 mg/kg; PAHs, 50 mg/kg;
dioxin (in situ), 2.S ug/kg; dioxin (ex
situ), 1 ug/kg (risk-based).
Soil: PAHs, 100 mg/kg.
Soil: carcinogenic PAHs, 0.59 mg/kg;
phenol, 4.28 mg/kg; naphthalene,
211 mg/kg; fluorine, 323 mg/kg; PCP,
2.92 mg/kg; arsenic, 27 mg/kg;
chromium, 92.7 mg/kg.
Soil: PAHs, 1 mg/kg; carcinogenic
PAHs, 2.5 mg/kg; arsenic, 94 mg/kg;
chromium, 88 mg/kg.
Surface water: arsenic, 12 ug/L.
Ground water: PAHs, 14 mg/L;
carcinogenic PAHs, 10 ug/L.
Sediments: arsenic, 94 mg/kg; PAHs,
3 mg/kg.
TREATMENT
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
In situ treatment Ex situ treatment,
sequencing batch reactor, slurry reactor,
batch flow. Aerobic conditions. Other
technologies: soil washing, incineration
possible for dioxin-contaminated soils.
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
Hydrogeologic investigation
under way. Remedial action
contingent upon receiving 10%
cost share from stale. Funds
available for trcalability
studies only.
State may not have 10% cost
share for any remedial action
to be undertaken.
Bioremediation was not
effective for remediation of
dioxins in soils.
None. ' ' "
None.
Laboratory-scale 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.
-oo
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
w,
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Celanese Fibers Operations
Shelby, NC
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Charleston Ak Force jBase-
Charleston, $C 'i „'
&<^I*ad (Federal)^ , <; "
/t
< v>< /
Coleman-Evans
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
DuboseOil
Cantonment, FL
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Escarnbia Wood Preserving
Site— Brookhaven
Brookhaven, MS
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Ken Mall ary
(404)347-7791
Charlotte Jesnick
(919)733-2801
$ue"0avte ' >"''
(803)56W978-
(1,1-dicHoroethene,
1,1,1-tricMoroethane,
trichloroethene, vinyl chloride,
trans t^-dfchloroefhene,
tBtracMoroet&ene,
dicWorranethane),lead,
Soil (sand, loam): wood
preserving (PCP), arsenic.
Volume: 27K cubic yards.
Soil (sand, clay): TPNA, PCP,
petroleum, solvents (TCE, PCE).
Volume: 15K cubic yards.
Soil (loam): wood preserving
(PCP).
Volume: 200 cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 10/88.
Expected completion 09/99.
Total expected cost $2M.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 11/92.
Expected completion 12/93.
! '
I *
' * <' <
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 06/93. Expected
completion 06/94.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been completed.
Total expected cost S8.6M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been completed.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Total expected cost $3M.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 11/92. Started
06/92.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: ethylene glycol, 7 ppm;
1,2 DCE, 0.07 ppm; chromium, 50 ppb
(state ARAR).
Not yet established.
- >'
>- f "
j ( >
Soil: PCP, 25 rag/kg.
Soil: TPNA, 50 mg/kg; PCP, 50 mg/kg;
xylene, 65 mg/kg; benzene, 10 mg/kg;
TCE, 0.05 mg/kg; PCE, 0.07 mg/kg.
Soil: risk-based.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, sequencing batch
reactor, aerated tank, batch flow.
Aerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies:
chemical treatment, carbon adsorption,
and air stripping used for ground water,
rotary kiln incineration,
solidification/stabilization to treat
sludges and soils. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
'Other technologies: pump and treat for
ground waterplume. Less than 10% of -
site under bioremediation. - ~
'< .,
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor, batch
flow. Aerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies: soil
washing, solidification/stabilization.
100% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, pile. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: carbon adsorption
for treatment of wastewater. 90% of
site will undergo bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment Aerobic conditions,
exogenous and indigenous organisms.
1% of site underwent bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Biomass upsets decreasing
operating efficiency of
treatment system. Cause of
upsets is unknown to date.
COD removal efficiency for
seventh operational quarter
was 92 percent for wells
located close to source. TOG
removal efficiency was 87
percent.
Bioventing will be difficult
due to high ground water table
and seasonal variation of ,
ground water elevation anil
direction.
j; >
Problem with wood chip
removal from soils; dioxins
have been identified and are
being evaluated.
Bioremediation will be
ineffective for dioxins.
Pilot study was delayed due to
waiting for results of dioxins
test
There is a lack of information
on success of technology at
field-scale level; however,
results of field treatabiUty "
study showed reduction in
PCP and creosote— up to 86%
for PCP, and 96% for 3-ringed
PAH creosote compounds.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
IV
IV
rv
IV
/
i
i
;
-
*
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Koppers/Florcnce
Florence, SC
RCRALesd (Federal)
Langdale Facility
Sweetwater, TN
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Orkin Facility
Fort Pierce, FL
TSCALead (State)
Shavers Farm
Lafayette, GA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Savex
Saint Augustine, BL
State Lead
s _
)v '. '>
t ** ^"*!
' ' V N « '
'/•' ' \"
"i S1'^"' "
i " ' '
s- * "
.
'
* *
^
\ j r:
Soil: wood preserving.
Volume: 1 OK cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
p redesign.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 01/89,
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 12/93. Expected
completion 12/95.
Pilot-scale studies have been
completed.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 08/91, Started
01/91,
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 10/92. Started
01/92,
*
i
'"
!
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 04/90.
Total expected cost: $1.7M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not supplied.
Not yet established.
Soil: dicamba, 25 mg/kg; benzoic acid,
25 mg/kg; dichlorosalicyclic acid,
25 mg/kg; benzonitrite, 25 mg/kg.
Ground water: acetone, 700 ug/L
(risk-based); benzene, 1 jig/L
(risk-based); chloroform, 0.7 ug/L *•
(risk-based); cresols, 700 Ug/L
(risk-based); ethylbenzene, 39 ug/L" '<'
(proposedMCL); 2-butanonei 680 Jig/L
(risk-based^methylene^chloride^j < "
7 ug/L (risk-based); toluene^ '
2,000 Jtg/L (risk-based); < Bfs
1,1,1-tricWoroethane, 200 Hgfl& raefivyl
isobutyll;etone,'350 ftg/L (risk-based);
2,l,Wimethylpheiiol,39iig/L v
(risk-based). ' >•
.. >
Soil: K001 land ban standards.
TREATMENT
Ex situ tad treatment. Exogenous and
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies; ground water extraction.
pretreatment, and discharge to a
POTW. 3396 of site will undergo
bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Exogenous
organisms.
In situ land treatment, hydrogen
peroxide, nutrient addition (soil, water).
Aerobic and anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
continuous flow. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil solidification. 100%
of site wiUtmdergQ bioremediation.
,
;.' * '
,
'
^ .. \
»
\ -, 3.*' v %s j ^t t
<* * *• \ * ' X
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor, batch
flow. Aerobic conditions, exogenous
and indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil washing. 100% of
site under bioremediation.
COMMENTS
None.
None.
None.
•
Pilot bench-scale treatability
studies being reviewed. Still
working out logistics.
None,
v ,1*
.
^
£> '
* s. * < x
•»sl t ^ »s
^
Failed to meet current K001
land ban standards for pyrene
and phenanmrene. May be
forced to seek treatability
variance.
I
3"
t
a
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
IV
}
*
( >
j
'
IV
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
StaUworfii Timber^
Beatrice, AL " '
RCRA Lead (State) and
RCRALeaS (Federal) . ,\ •<
i< * 5 ' j> , '
* < <
<
-•' Y;>
White House Waste
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Allied Chemical**
tontoh, OH
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Jason Darby
(404)347-3433 \<
StanSulfivan' ''%'<
(205)271--7730 , .
>
'
' , '-('
'
Tony Best
(404)347-2643
Marvin Collins
(904)488-0190
Jim Van der Hoot
(312)353-9309
Kay Gossett
(614)385-8501
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (sand, silt) /ground water:
wood'presetving (PCP).
>* ' "„
<>,
» " " „ <
>
" * 'if >
Soil (sand, silt) / ground water:
petroleum, solvents
(benzo(a)pyrene, chlorobenzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, di-n-butyl
phthalate, methylene chloride,
2-methyl naphthalene,
naphthalene, phenol,
tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, acetone,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalat
carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene,
methyl ethyl ketone,
3,4-methylphenol), PCB 1260,
lead, other inorganics.
Volume: 40.7K cubic yards.
Sediments (coal and coke fines):
PAHs, arsenic.
Volume: 500K cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned, Currently in <
predesign. t
!
S
' '
- ' " '
> <
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Expected start
06/93. Expected completion
06/94.
Total expected costs: capital,
$15.5M;O&M,$3.4M.
*
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 09/92.
Pilot-scale studies have been
completed.
Total expected cost $26M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
,»,
° -. » \ '
** ,
1 ; >
* '(
', , "
Soil: benzene, 1.13 ug/kg;
benzo(a)pyrene, 0.192 rag/kg;
chlorobenzene, 970 mg/kg;
1,4-dichlorobenzene, 0.012 mg/kg;
memylene chloride, 29.3 mg/kg; PCB
1260, 0.09 mg/kg; 2-methyl naphthalene,
2.2 mg/kg; naphthalene, 0.261 mg/kg;
phenol, 0.549 mg/kg; tetrachloroethene,
4.3 mg/kg; toluene, 14.4K mg/kg;
trichloroethene, 0.0447 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Ground water: acetone, 0.0016 mg/L
(risk-based); benzene, 0.005 mg/L
(ARAR-based); benzo(a)pyrene,
0.0002 mg/L (ARAR-based);
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtlialat, 0.004 mg/L
(ARAR-based); carbon disulfide,
1.64 mg/L (risk-based); ethylbenzene.
0.7 mg/L (ARAR-based); methyl ethyl
ketone, 8.46 mg/L (risk-based);
3,4-methylphenol, 0.85 mg/L (risk-based);
naphthalene, 9,700 mg/L (risk-based);
2-methyl naphthalene, 0.067 mg/L
(risk-based); phenol, 10 mg/L
(risk-based); toluene, 1 mg/L
(ARAR-based); trichloroemene,
0.005 mg/L (ARAR-based); xylene,
10 mg/L (ARAR-based).
Sediments: carcinogenic PAHs,
1 mg/kg (risk-based).
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, nutrient addition (soil:
oxygen, potassium nitrate, potassium
phosphate, molasses). Ex situ
treatment, activated sludge, continuous
flow. Aerobic conditions, exogenous
and indigenous organisms. Other ,
clarification, ultraviolet oxidation.
bioranedlation, '• ,' ^
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor, batch
flow. Aerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms. Other technologies: soil
washing, solidification/stabilization.
100% of pit material at site will
undergo bioremediation.
In situ treatment Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: incineration withonsite
reuse of waste heat; pump and treat for
ground water. 50% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
COMMENTS
None. ' ,-
," " «
* * "> * <
> °, . > ' "
« V
<
< 1 » I
1 '' : !
Bioremediation is a proposed
remedy, presently under public
comment If accepted, an
amended ROD will follow in
May 1993.
Solidification/stabilization will
follow bioremediation in the
treatment train due to the
presence of lead.
Concentrations of
contaminants are highly
variable, making confirmation
of cleanup difficult
* 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
V
sim
LOCATION/
LEAD
Arh tech Chemical
HavemflLOH
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Autostyle
Kentwood,MI
State Lead
B&F Trucking Company
Rochester, MN
UST Lead (State)
Bendix Corporation/Allied
Automotive Site
St Joseph, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
BP Oil Company
Luna, OH x'
^RCRALead^edenul
"< * ' - *
Burlington Northern <
Bnun.erd,MN
CMCLA— State to start;
RCRA—Federal since 1986
X > \ ^ ,
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Matthew Ohl
(312)886^4442
Scott Schermerhom
(614)385-8501
Bud Smith
(614)533-5412
Bonnie White
(616)456-5071
Pat Hanson
(612)297-8578
Stephen Thompson
:(612)297-8603
JohaKuhns
(312)353-6556
Sally Beebe
(517)373-4110
Gary Vonderembsr
,(419)226-2744 '\ <
David Seep'
(913)661-701^! -'
Frederick Jenness
(612)297-8470
RiAardTrnax
(303)493-3700 ' x<
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (clay): cumcae, phenol.
Ground waten solvents
(aromatic k«onea), alcohol
Soil/ ground waten petroleum
(lube oil).
Volume: 700 cubic yards.
Ground water: solvents (TCE,
DCE, DCA, vinyl chloride).
Soil; petroleum (beazo(a)pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene
1 -methyl chrysene, I -methyl
naphthalene), barium, cadmium,
chromium (HI), chromium (VI),
lead, nickel, zinc.
.Soil (vadose sand) /ground
water: wood preserving
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
V
V
-j;v--
=:'•; v
;;H
*>"' -
V
V'
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Cliff/Dow Disposal Site
Marquette.MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Galesburg/Koppers
Galesburg, IL
CERCLA State Lead
HenfcheUs '>'!';':"'/,'°> <"'vj
traverse City, MI '*'*'"> '-;'- '.<
USTlia4'(Stote)' .;,„«; „> _ .
~"-:' -'::,-':.-:^-''°:> ":;':'
' * ** ^ -' ' ° ^ V ' ,
'* /'> \ ,<'*>>*' ' 3' ^
JoIietAnny Ammunitions
piant ;; ^>;> , -
EIwo6d,IL',' -;i; .";,
Federal-Facility,. - ': '•
•'' • ';sO$" - ' '
4;-^- ,,>^, ' ^'
DlpriNovak, '•'
'(312)886^4737
Steve Miller?;, ',;,;,
(217)782-18{B' '*"
Ann Bidwell
(612)296-7827
Kevin Turner
(312)886-4444
KayGossett
(«I4) 385-8501
f
Maeve Morgan
(906)346-2342
Ma&Vefee ,
(906)228-6561
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadose charcoal/sand mix)
/ ground water: wood preserving
(PAHs), arsenic, copper, lead,
mercury.
Volume: 9,000 cubic yards.
Soil: phenols, chlorophenol,
PNAs, POP, PAHs.
Soil /ground water; petroleum.
: ";•>,',-, • " -,\J.li'
s ' ^ 'J v ' ' %
V' ' \,/< ^ Stt
' * ' ' J " ' < * ;, ' ) ?
V & , ' ' ''* > 'ii'
:Spii:;TNT,DNf;RDX:; f.
.:.•?-''"' ''•-'-'u':.;'::*
''^ix ^ 'V '^ '
^'^^ * *'"< ^ J 'r
Soil (vadose): wood preserving
(PCP.PAHs).
Volume: 67K cubic yards.
Soil(vadose) / ground water.
solvents (benzene, toluene,
einylbenzene, xylene, acetone,
TPH)'
Soil (vadose sand): petroleum.
j j
STATUS
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 01/93. Started
12/92.,
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
'Full-scale remediation was
'cbmplete403/89,'Si«ted ', .
"09/8&'; ;"';/ .^.i: ' :':;-:
Full-scae'remediaabnis --(, '
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been completed. '•-,;,
Pilot-scale studies are being
conducted.' , , , ' ' ' ;:
1 '' * i '
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 08/89.
Expected completion 09/94.
Full-scale remediation is
planned, Currently being
installed. Laboratory-scale
studies have been completed.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under Way since 10/92,
Expected completion 10/93.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
-Sbil;;nohdetecttoiileyel3!; " •',;.;•
GroundwalertnondetectioalWetoH " !
- '"> ': '• >' \ • ' '~-'t!
Notyetestablished. . : '->',;";'•',
'• • ,<"•• " '•'••£>,; -t.
' L * ' ^ , ,•- ' ' " ' * ' ^
< * ' . . / ' ^ ^
' " v-^ L ' v '%, ".
•,, • '-'>- 5 ; ' "'"" -;"':-'
Soil (vadose): PCP, 150 mg/kg; PAHs,
100 mg/kg (dermal contact).
SoB {vadose): TPH, 40 mg/kg.
Ground water: benzene, 0.05 ppm.
,(MCL); toluene, lppm(MCL); ,,
ethylbenzene, 0.07 ppm (MCL)i
xylene, 10 ppm"(MCL); acetone; 0.025 „
ppm (risk-based). °* , t ' '
SoEfvadoSe): benzefte,20Hg*g;
toluene, 16Kjtg&g;xylene,
6,000 Ug/kg CUDNR Act 307 Type B
Criteria). ;
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, pile. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. 90%
of site will undergo bioremediation.
In situ treatment, nutrient addition.
100% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
In situ treatment, nutrient addition, {soil: ;
mono- and di-sodium phosphate, •
ammonium choride; water: mono- and
di-sodium phosphate, ammoniiun -,'
chloride).' Aerobic conditions, ^ -
indigenous organisms. 75% of site ,
underwent bioremediation. < ,,„.."* : >
Exsitutreannent; sequencing batch ' »,_,
reactor, batch flow. AenDbic,conditi6ns,' "
•indigenous organisms. <,V- ,
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: ground water pump
out system with nonbiological
treatment. 35% of site under
bioremediation.
In sitn treatment, hydrogen peroxide,
nutrient addition (nitrogen,
phosphorus). Ex situ treatment, GAG »
bioreactorj continuous flow. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
100% of site under bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic a
conditions, indigenous organisms,
Other technologies; a tsvelve-weel:
study was conductedfrom November
1990 to February 1991 to evaluateaw'
effectiveness of dual pump versus,
jangterflunp hydrocarbon jrecovery for
•Jfree product on the water table. *
COMMENTS
None.
None.
Bon-forming bacteria cloggftj";
the carbon system, Pjirsuimj '>,
final cleanup of residue at - .
leading edge of plume.. Also
need soil verification,' ' ",; : . ;
^"^ '^>ii'u ''
,None,';^ , > ,.'* ,, ';-
'',,"» *'' :* • „ '' •
Due to extreme rainfall in May
1992, part of Land Treatment
Unit was under water.
Flooding has delayed
treatment of lift 2 soil.
None. , < ,
•>, *
> " *
Sitftis located mnorthertttT.S,
neat Lake Superior.
Accumulatiottof snow and ''
freezing temperatnresformore
than 6 jnonfiis of the year
make field worJcandsystem „
operation difffcult ' , ~
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates mat the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATTON (cont.)
REG
V
V
V
v -
.
<
}\
<
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
MacGulisindGibbs
Company Site
New Brighton. MN
CERCLA Fund Lead
Marathon Statjon-Ervines
Keotwood.Ml
State Lead
Mayrille Fire Department
MayviUe, MI
USTtead (State) ;
>' «
•
Michigan Air National Guard
Battle Cieefc'MI
Federal Facility
( ' s ,
< ^
) 1 <
; , " '- ;
'
" " '
^
tl
/ " •'
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Daryl Owens
(312)886-7089
DouglasRobohm
(612)296-7717
Bonnie White
(616)456-5071
JonMayes
(517)684-9141
'
i ' i
j
Fred^ottmerhausen
(6l6)969-3233i
*
s
s
.
* w
•*•" \
> x
« -\ r -
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground water wood preserving
(PCP), arsenic, chromium.
Ground waten petroleum
(gasoline).
*
Ground watec petroleum.
(
Soil (vadose; sand, silt):
petroleum, heavy metals, , <
'
' -
>
, > ,
','
x<
1 l\*
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. CurrenUy in design.
Expected start 09/93. Expected
completion 04/95. Pilot-scale
studies were completed 09/89.
Started 07/89.
Total expected cost: capital.
J260K.
Cost per yean O&M, S600K.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/88.
*
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 05/90.
Expectedtompletion 01/94.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 09/93. Expected
completion 09/94.Pilot-scale
studies have been under way
since 09/92, Expected ,
completion 09/93,
Incurred costs: capital, $3,000;
Total expected costs: capital.
$3,000; O&M, $1,2681 -
Costs per yean O&M, $436;
totaU$436. , ';
CLEANUP
T ^\TCT P
LEVELS
Ground waten POTWpretreaJment
standards.
Ground water: background,
nondetecticn, or risk-based,
Ground water: benzene, 1 ppb '
(risk-based); toluene, 800 ppb (aesthetic
DWV); ethylbenzene, 70 ppb (aesthetic
DWV); xylenes, 300 ppb (aesthetic
DWV).
Not yet established. ' ' '
H
1 ";
•: <.<,
<
1 -
> t
" A ^ v: »
• " - i s t
t •. j f-
-' .' , >: ;. <"
COMMENTS
A pilot-scale bioremediation
system was tested on site
under the SITE program. The
results are in a report dated
September 1991
(EPA/540/A5-91/001).
System was designed as a
decay phase reactor, so
periodically has to shutdown
to allow regrowth of cultures.
(This has occurred only once.)
- „ ,
None.
'
None,
\">
< * <
>,
j * <
>
v
s * %
. - ! .
I
I
* 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
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Moss-American
Milwaukee, WI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
New Lyme Landfill
NewLyme,OH
CERCLA Fund Lead
"Newark Air Force Base
Newark, OH ,
UST Lead (State) ',,
< < ' '
> ,
<•
;<
<
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Lacrosse County, WI
CERCLA Fund Lead
Organic Chemical
Grandville, MI
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Bonnie Heder
(312)886-4885
Ted Smith
(312)353-6571
RobertColson %
(614)522-7077*
t
><
< •
Kevin Adler
(312)886-7078
Paul Kozol
(608)264-6013
Robin Schmidt
(608)267-7569
Tom Williams
(312)886-6157
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Sediments / soil (sand, silt,
loam): wood preserving.
Volume: 86.5K cubic yards.
Ground water solvents
(ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride, methyl phthalate).
'Soil (vadose: silt, clay):
petroleum (gasoline).
Volume: 60 cubic yards.
u -V
( '
;
Soil (vadose and saturated sand):
solvents (TCE), petroleum (total
hydrocarbons), wood preserving
(naphthalene).
Volume: 5,000 cubic yards.
Ground water: TCE, toluene,
petroleum (lube oil).
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesigrr. Laboratory-scale
and pilot-scale studies are
planned.
Full-scale remediation is being
conducted.
Incurred cost: capital, $18. 1M.
Total expected costs: capital,
$20M;O&M,$750K.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 08/92.
Expected completion 08/94.
Incurred costs: capital, $35K; <
'O&M, $1,000.
Total expected costs: capital,
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Remediation expected to
complete 09/96.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 03/92.
Total expected costs: capital,
$400K;0&M,$20K.
Laboratory-scale studies are
planned.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil: wood preserving, 6.1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Sediments: wood preserving, 6.1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Ground water: ethylbenzene, 68 llg/L;
methylene chloride, 473 ng/L; methyl
nhthalate. 9.2 UE/L.
f lluuuuw, .*.*. f*gfu.
Soil (vadose): TPH, 642 mg/kg;
gasoline, 360 mg/kg (risk-based).
,
. '
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor, batch
flow. Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: soil
washing. 2% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film, rotating
biological, continuous flow. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous organisms.
100% of site under bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. 40%
of site under bioremediation. <
f
,
„
1
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. 20%
of site will undergo bioremediation.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established. Other technologies: levels
of organics are so high at the site that
bioremediation is not practical until the
levels are lowered. Ground water pump
and treat with an air stripper and GAC
is being used as an interim measure.
COMMENTS
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 bioshnry system.
There have been some
problems with plugging caused
by calcium carbonate
precipitation and fungi
entering with effluent. There
also have been algal bloom
problems.
The remediation involves
small, localized areas of
petroleum product
contamination; therefore, the
testability study may
accomplish complete '
remediation of the site.
. <
'
In 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 began in
December 1993.
ts>
Ui
* 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
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Farko-Davis
Holland, MI
RCRA Lead (Federal)
ReiflyTar
Indianapolis, IN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Reilly Tar & Chemical
Company
St. Louis Park, MN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Seymour Recycling
Seymour, IN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Process 1
Process2
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Start Kolai:
(312)886-6151
Dave Slay ton
(517)373-8012
Dion Novak
(312)8864737
KristaEskikon
(317)243-5088
Daryl Owens
(312)886-7089
Douglas Beckwith
(612)296-7715
Mike Scott
(612)296-7297
Jeff Gore
(312)886-6552
Prabhakar
Kasarabada
(317)243-5130
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil /ground waten petroleum,
solvents, arsenic, chloride, zinc.
Ground waten benzene,
pyridine, ammonia.
Volume: 7M gallons per day.
Soil (vadose loam): wood
preserving (2-fluorobiphenyl,
naphthalene, acenapthylene,
fluorene, acenapthene,
phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(g,h4)perylene).
Ground waten solvents (vinyl
chloride, TCE, DCE, benzene,
chloroethane).
Volume: 500K gallons.
Soil: solvents (vinyl chloride,
TCE, DCE).
Volume: lllKcubic yards.
STATUS
Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are pinned.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies have been under way
since 12/91.
Total expected cost: J15M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Pilot-scale studies
have been under way since
11/92. Expected completion
11/95.
-
Incurred cost $25 K.
Total expected cost: $70K.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 09/90.
Incurred cost: $1M.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 09/90.
Incurred cost $750K.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Ground water: drinking water
standards.
Not supplied.
TREATMENT
In situ treatment. Ex situ treatment.
fixed film. Aerobic conditions. Other
technologic: air stripping and steam
stripping.
Ex situ treatment, sequencing batch
reactor, continuous flow. Other
technologies: chemical extraction.
100% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: carbon adsorption.
-
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.
COMMENTS
None.
60 to 80 feet of aquifier with
conductivities of 0.01 to 0.001
with intcrfingering until units
are not continuous (clay);
7,000,000 gallons per day are
being pumped from lower zone
aquifier.
Site initiated 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 1984 found more than 54
organic chemicals.
tn
I
5"
f
•n
* 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
fx
f •<'
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Sheboygan River and Harbor
Sheboygan, WI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
St. Louis River
Interlake/Duluth Tar Site
Duluth,MN
CERCLA State Lead
Union Carbide— Marietta
Facility
Marietta, OH
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Upjolm Company Pottage
'Bicinfy
Kalamazoo, Ml
3RCRA lead (Federal)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Bonnie Heder
(312)886-4885
TomEggert
(608)264-6012
Rick Fox
(312)886-7979
AnnBidweU
(612)296-7827
Kathleen Warren
(312)353-6756
Scott Bergreen
(614)385-8501
Terry Roundtree
(312)353-3236
LomaJereza
(312)353-3110
GregRudloff
(312)3,35-3478
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Sediments (sand, silt, clay):
PCBs.
Volume: 2,500 cubic yards.
Sediments / soil: VOCs, PAHs.
Soil / ground water: VOCs,
dioxin, monochlorinated
biphenyls, dichlorinated
biphenyls, PCBs, aluminum,
manganese.
Soil /ground water: solvents.
? '
>< i
STATUS
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are being
conducted
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
Laboratory-scale studies have
been completed.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Pilot-scale studies
have been under way since
01/87.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Notyet established. a „
* < 4
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, capping of sediments.
Ex situ treatment, confined treatment
facility (tank). Aerobic and anaerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: armoring
(capping) — pilot-scale study,
armoring — effects on biodegradation,
solidification/stabilization, thermal
extraction, chemical dechlorination,
solvent extraction.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established. Other technologies: "pure
tar" found in isolated "tar seeps" at the
site will be thermally destroyed as fuel.
In situ land treatment (soil). Ex situ
treatment, activated sludge (ground
water). Aerobic and anaerobic
conditions, exogenous and indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: OAC.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film biomass
with continuous flow (ground water).
Aerobic conditions, indigenous ">.<
organisms, Oflwr technologies: in sita
soil flushing, vacuum extraction.,
COMMENTS
Delays hi pilot-study due to
additional lab-scale tests and
coordination with ARCS
Program as Pilot
Demonstration Project for
Sheboygan AOC. Project is
ongoing.
Remedy for
PAH-contaminated soils and
sediments has not been
selected. The supplemental RI
report for (he soils operable
unit currently is being
completed.
Site still is in FS stage. A
treatability study has been
completed. The ROD should
be completed by September
1993.
Possible probfems with low
winter temperatures.
\ "'<
',' >f"
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cent.)
REG
V
V
i
^
VI
<>
•<
^
'•'I
^
I
a
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
West K&L Avenue Landfill
Kalamzoo, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Wright-Patterson AirForce
Base '' ,"
Dayton, OH "
'Federal Facility ^
Atchinson
Santa Fe,NM
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
t>ow Chemical > , -.
Company—Louisiana Division
PtepieminetLA "*
RCKA Lead (Federal)
,<,
*'N '" n"-
'» ~ ^ »,>''
' >• --" '
^ 1 £• '
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
DanCozza
(312)886-7252
John. Wolfe
(513)257-0178 >
i '*
Ky Nichols
(214)655-6730
Susan Morris
(505)827-2890
Madeline Murphy
(504)765-0585
JMMcCuUough
%(504)389-8493 <„
t <
\ *
•' i » r, ,
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground water solvents (acetone,
benzene, TOE, vinyl chloride,
1 ,2-dichloroclhaDC, xylene,
toluene, trans-l,2-DCH,
ethylbenzene,
1,1-dichloroethane).
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, clay):
petroleum (jet fuel). ''•• ,
Volume: 7,500 cubic yards.
V'-
Sediments (silt) / soil (sand,
silt): petroleum (diesel),
chlorides.
Volume: 28K cubic yards.
Ground water; solvents
(1,2-dichIoroethane,
1,1,1-trichIoroethane, <
1,1-dichioroethane,
1,1-dichloroethyIene,
chloroethanc).
Volume: 90Kcubicyards.
, s
„ ! ""
^' - •, ,", ' \"
STATUS
Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies are being
conducted.
Total expected cost: S12M.
Pilot-scale studies arcplanned.
Expected completion 03/94.
'"i
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 07/92.
Total expected cost $3M.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 12/90.
Pilot-scale studies have been
underway since 03/93,
Incurred costs: capital, $250K;
O&M.SlOK.,.
Total expected cost capital,.
SIM. , ^ ,'
Cost per yean O&M.SSOrC ^
CLEANUP
T p\f ur o
LEVELS
Crowd waten 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-DCE, 100 ppb; ethylbenzene,
30 ppb; 1,1-dichloroethane, 700 ppb.
Notyet established.
Not yet established.
Not yet established. , '
j
t v V *
' ^V1*-"^
J \
« " * <
> ,
TREATMENT
Aerobic conditions. Other technologies:
depending on results of ground water
samples during pump test precipitation
of mctah and a carbon filter for the
vinyl chloride may need to be added.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms. >
100% ofsite will undergo
bioremediation.
In situ land treatment, nutrient addition
(soil: phosphate and nitrogen;
sediments: phosphate and nitrogen). Ex
situ land treatment Aerobic conditions.
indigenous organisms. 100% ofsite
under bioremediation.
In situ treatment, nutrient addition.
Anaerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Oflter technologies; pump'
and treat. Less than 1% of site under
bioremediation.
i - f ?
^ T*
X;v ^ ^
A t
- l'~
COMMENTS
Laboratory-scale microcosms
and pilot-scale lysimeter
systems are being used to
assess thebiodegradative
capacity of the aquifer and
landfill material Results are
scheduled to be reported in
November 1993. Potential
problems include treatment of
vinyl chloride and handling of
water after treatment.
Discharge to POTW would be
possible only with the
installation of 3 miles of sewer
line, and no surface water
discharge is possible, so
treated ground water must be
reinjected.
None.
*
Possible problem with high
chloride content in soil and
sludges.
Permeability of contaminated
zones is lowj supply (injection) x
of nutrients is difficult All l ' >
bioactivity may occur at the
well screen, thereby plugging
the screen.
' % •* * ^ $
' >
*
i "* ^
-3 "•
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
VI
VI'
>• J 1J
VI
VI
VI
VI
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
French Limited**
Crosby, TX
CERCLA Eaforcement Lead
Hud son Refining Company
dishing, 0& -
RCJ&Lead, (federal)
jKJelly Air Force Base
San Antonio, TX
Federal Facility „
u j j *
North Cavalcade Street
Houston, TX
CERCLA State Lead
Oldlhger
Darrow.LA
CERCLA State Lead
Shendan Disposal Services
Hempstead, TX
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Judith Black
(214)655-6735
Louis Rogers
(512)463-8188
BryonHeinernari >
(214)655-8318
t)! > " '
Dennis Guadarranra
(512)925-3100
MarkWeeger -
(512)908-2361
Deborah Griswold
(214)655-6715
Louis Rogers
(512)463-8188
Larry Wright
(214)655-6715
PaulSieminski
(214)655-6710
Sandra Greenwich
(504)765-0487
Gary Bombgarten
(214)655-6749
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Sediments (sand, silt) / sludge /
soil (sand, silt, clay) / ground
water PCBs, arsenic, hazardous
contaminants, petroleum (BAP,
VOCs), arsenic.
Soil (vadose: sand, sjll; loam); ,
petroleum (lube oil), wood
preserving (PAHs). " :
Volume: 14SK cubic yards.
$ '
Soil (Vadoseclay): pew>1eura
(jet'fuel), solvents (PCE, TCE,
vinyl chloride, DCE),
Soil (sand, silt, clay) / ground
water: wood preserving
(benzene, PAHS).
Volume: 5,500 cubic yards.
Sludge / soil: petroleum.
Volume: 200K cubic yards.
Sludge / soil (sand, silt, clay) /
surface water solvents (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol),
PCBs.
Volume: 40K cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/92.
Total expected cost: $90M.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way sufce 01/86.
Full-scale remediation has
beemmder way since 02/93.
Expected completion 09/94.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Laboratory-scale
studies have been completed.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 01/92.
Total expected cost: $4M
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 04/92.
Expected completion 04/99.
Incurred cost: $5.4M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies have been completed.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 12/91. Started
04/91.
Total expected cost $28M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground water: MCLs (risk-based).
Sludge: BAP, 9 ppm; PCBs, 23 ppm;
VOCs, 43 ppm; arsenic, 7 ppm;
benzene, 14 ppm.
Soil (vadose): 30% to 50% Deduction of
contaminants.
Not yet established.
Soil: benzene, 0.04 mg/kg;
carcinogenic PAHs, 1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Soil: contaminant reduction from 76%
to 4%.
Sludge: contaminant reduction from
76% to 4%.
Soil/sludge/surface water: PCBs,
25 mg/kg (PCBs as indicators of other
organics).
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, pure oxygen
dissolution system, nutrient addition
(soil, water, sediments). Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: stabilization of
residue, if necessary. 100% of site
under bioremediation.
In sim land treatment, nutrient addition.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
excavation of soils exhibiting oil and
grease concentrations greater than
20,000 ppm. 40% of site under
bioremediation.
la situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms,
Other technologies: pump and teat for
ground water.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: soil washing,
ground water pump and treat via
separation and carbon adsorption.
100% of site will undergo
bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment, continuous flow.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: granular
activated carbon. 70% of site under
bioremediation.
Ex situ treatment, slurry reactor.
Aerobic conditions. Other technologies:
stabilization of residues. 100% of site
will undergo bioremediation.
COMMENTS
This is the first application of
in situ, slurry-phase
bioremediation to a Superfund
site cleanup.
Lack of microorganisms; state
order failed to specify cleanup
levels; iccontaminatioa at
nearby refinery. ' ,
Biovenfing to be used Only
within S-4 area of Kelly AFB
on soils with fuel related
contamination.
Winter rain has significantly
slowed the pilot study.
None.
Pilot study completed; report
finalized August 1993.
to
vo
!
§••
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
o
REG
VI
vn
vn
vn
va
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline
Saint Fnmcisville, LA
TSCA Lead (Federal)
Amoco Refinery
Sugar Creek, MO
RCRALead (state)
Conservation Chemical
Kansas City, MO
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Fairfield Coal & Gas
Fairfield,IA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
International Paper
Joplin,MO
RCRALead (state) *
x,
^ >
\
* S
} % J1
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
can Blake
(202)260-6236
TomRatermanA
(314)751-3176
Alan Hancock
(913)551-7647
Steve Auchterlonie
(913)551-7778
Steve Jones
(913)551-7755
Johanshir Golchin
(515)281-8925
Rob Morrison
(314)751-3176
'
,
> i< ' ,
i ' '
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
SofcPCBs.
Soil (silt, clay): petroleum
phenanthrene, pyrene,
naphthalene), lead.
Volume: 137K cubic yards.
Ground water phenols, solvents
(semivolatiles, VOCs), cyanide
complexes, nickel, zinc.
Volume: 200 gallons per minute.
Soil (saturated: sand, silt, clay) /
ground water: coal tar (benzene,
ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene,
PAHs).
Soil (silt, loam); wood
preserving (PCP, PAHs).
Volume: 70K cubicyards.
\
'• j
N ^ *
•\ \ % "" t
t
STATUS
jiboratoty-scale and
pilot-scale studies ace being
conducted.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way sineeOl/90.
Total expected costs: capital,
$10M;0&M,$13M.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/90.
Incurred cost: capital, S110K.
Cost per yean O&M, $25K.
Pilot-scale studies have been
underway since 12/91.
Expected completion 12/93.
Total expected cost $1.6M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently being
installed.
Total expected cost $9M.
x
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Notyet established.
Ground water: VOCs, 10 ppb; phenols,
1 ppb (Missouri drinking water
standards).
Soil (saturated): benzene, 241 mg/kg
(risk-based); PAHs, 500 mg/kg (5 X
risk-based); carcinogenic PAHs,
100 mg/kg (risk-based).
Ground water: benzene, 1 ppb
(risk-based); carcinogenic PAHs,
200 ppt (best detection level).
Soil: Sum of the concentrations of 24
aromatic compounds is less man 600
rag/kg (risk-based and state-required).
<
1
--5
" i -
> "
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous and indigenous organisms.
3x situ treatment, aerated lagoon, land
treatment, btteh flow. Aerobic
conditions, Indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: a decoUing step
may be used if EPA allows resource
recovery of oil without invoking Land
Disposal Restrictions. 5% of site under
ttoremediation.
3x situ treatment, fixed film,
continuous flow. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: carbon adsorption, lime
precipitation, and sulfide precipitation
in series. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
In situ treatment, injection and
extraction wells, hydrogen peroxide,
nutrient addition (water: nitrate).
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: thermal
treatment of contaminant source areas
and pump and treatment of ground
water by carbon adsorption with
polymer injection and settling.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologiesj chemical treatment,
soil washing proposed butrestrieted by
LandDisposal Restrictions. 100% of
site wittundergo bioremediation.
< b -* *
* \ *•
j
COMMENTS
Trcatability study being
carried out by a contractor
hired by Texas Eastern.
There have been material
landling problems such as
mixing sludge for uniformity
and providing enough oxygen
without cooling the pond
Delow an effective temperature.
None,
Possible future problems due
to poor transmissivity of the
aquifer.
Bioremediation failed at site
due lo lack of temperature and
moisture control; theHnits '
wereflooded, blocking oxygen
transfer. Steps are being taken
to control moisture and
temperature by covering basins
, (10+ acres under roof). Land
disposal restrictions limit
cleanup options. ._ \
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
Vii;
<•/
c. <
<
VJ1
vn
vn
vn
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
OfibttAfrRncsBase''
LaPlatte,?®' _"„
Federal Facility- -if- »
; j («r-
'/ ^ <:?•' *
Park City
Park City, KS
CERCLA State Lead
Scott Lumber
Alton, MO
CERCLA Fund Lead
Sioux City Pilot Study
Sioux City, IA
CERCLA State Lead
Vogel Paint & Wax
Vfaurice, IA
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Philip Cork
(402)294-4087
EdLoaU <' ' ,
(402)471-4230 , ,
FtankWemer ^
X402)294-40S7
John Wilson
(405)332-8800
Bruce Morrison
(913)236-3881
Johanshir Golchin
(515)281-8925
Steven Jones
(913)551-7755
Bob Drustrup
(515)281-8900
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadoje: sand, silt)r
petroleum (TRPH), arsenic,
barium, lead, zinc, ' >
Volume;' 700 cubic yank. ,,. '
S'< '' , "'
Ground water petroleum (lube
oil), benzene.
Volume: 700K cubic feet
Soil (vadose silty clay): wood
preserving (naphthalene,
acenaphthalene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
inderK^lAS-cdJpyrene, PAHs).
Volume: 15.9Ktons.
Soil (silty clay loam): PAHs,
petroleum (lube oil), cyanide.
Volume: 100K cubic yards.
Soil (silt, clay): petroleum (lube
oil), solvents (MEK), lead,
mercury.
Volume: 10K cubic yards.
STATUS
'Pilot-scale studies have been
under waysince 0892'.*
- * < i>, <(
;' ' - ,,ii?" <
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 12/92.
Incurred cost $275K.
Total expected cost: $650K.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 11/91. Started
06790.
Incurred costs: capital, $700K;
O&M, $500K.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 10/91. Started
08/91.
Incurred cost: capital, $250K.
Total expected cost capital,
$50-100 per cubic yard.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 10/91.
Total expected cost $2M
CLEANUP
LEVELS
NotyetestaJjJishea.
V J < " J
<->.' '
'>
Ground water: benzene, 5 jlg/L
(drinking water standards).
Soil (vadose): benzo(a)pyrene,
14 mg/kg; PAHs, 500 mg/kg.
Soil: PAHs, 500 mg/kg; carcinogenic
PAHs, 250 mg/kg.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic <
conditions, indigenous organisms, 10%
of site-under MoreraediiUiDn. t
f < *
< j < ^
' > u < >
In situ treatment (ground water),
possible bioventing for soils, nutrient
addition (ammonium chloride and
nitrate). Aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. Other technologies: in situ
soil flushing, soil washing,
denitrification of BTEX.
FA situ land treatment, 7 acres closed
system water recirculation with 2-ft
thick clay liner. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. 90% of site
underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions, exogenous and
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: chemical treatment 90%
of site underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment, batch flow.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: air
stripping of ground water, product
recovery.
COMMENTS
Pilot-scale system has been in
operation since August 1992.
No sutnificsnt information: to
reportyet
Site is serving as a test case for
new Kansas environmental
regulations.
Health-based risk levels for
PAHs were changing and
inconsistent
High soil moisture, large area
of operation, low temperatures,
and other climatic obstacles.
Volatilization control/air
monitoring being evaluated.
D
i"
i
§••
'Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
vm
vm
vm
vm
i •%.
Vffl
vm
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Burlington Northern
Glendive,MT
Water Quality Bureau Lead
Burlington Northern He Plant
Somers.MT
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Conoco Landf arm
Billings, MT
RCRA Lead (state)
Exxon Landf ami
Billings, MT
RCRA Lead (state)
Geraldine Airport
Geraldine, MT
CERCLA State Lead
Hill AirForce Base'
SaltLakeCity.DT- * "
Federal Facility > '' * ,
" K
V, ^^
N- •=> >\ N :
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Terry Webster
(406)444-2406
Jim Harris
(406)449-5414
BenQuinones
(406)449-4067
MartHaU:
(406)444^096
Mark Hall
(406)444-4096 '
Carol Fox
(406)449-4067
Robert Stites
(303)294-1974 ,s
^ *
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil: petroleum (diesd).
Soil / ground water: wood
preserving (PAHs).
Volume: 82K cubic yards.
Sludge/ soil: K048 organics,
K051 prganics,K048 metals,
K051 metals, petroleum.
Volume: 77.8Ktons.
Sludge: K049 organics, K050
organics, K051 organics, K049
metals, KOSO metals.KOSl
metals. ,
Volume: 45K tons.
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, loam,
clay): pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin,
endrin, cblordane, toxaphene,
P-BHC, 4.4--DDE, 4,4'-DDT,
4,4'-DDD), herbicides (2,4-D).
Soil; petroleum (JP-4 jet feel).
1
3 * ^ >
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
jeen under way since 01/91.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Pilot-scale studies are being
conducted.
Total expected cost SUM.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/73.
Full-scale remediationhas
been under way since 01/80.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 09/91 „
Expected" completion 0^/93.
^
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil: dicsel, 100 rag/kg (EPA
Recommended Standard).
Soil: carcinogenic PAHs, 36 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Ground water: carcinogenic PAHs,
0.03 (ig/L (water quality criteria).
Sludge; K048 metals, 1,000 ppm;K051
metals, 1 ,000 ppm (closure
performancestandards).
Sludge: K049 metals, 1,000 ppm; KOSO
metals, 1,000 ppm; K051 metals,
1,000 ppm (closure perfbnnance
standard). '
Not yet established.
Not yet established. v
^
TREATMENT
Ex situ land treatment; active tillage,
moisture and nutrient control; seasonal
monitoring of contaminants.
Monitoring below treatment zone once
a year for leaching. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms, 3096 of site
under btoremediation.
In situ treatment Ex situ land
treatment. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: in situ soil flushing,
surface treatment of extracted ground
water by either UV or carbon
adsorption is proposed. 80% of site will
undergo bioremediation.
Exsitulaud treatment: Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: chemical
adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation.
65% of site under bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment- Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: 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^
Other technologies; vapor venting.
100%o£siteunderbioremediation<
1X1 ^ \
COMMENTS
None.
Pilot-scale field activities have
been initiated because of low
soil transmissivities. Onsite
pumping tests were completed
in the third quarter of FY1991.
A portion of site is adjacent to
large lake.
Conoco Billings Landfarmis
seeking a No Migration
Variance. Tire facility
maintains a Montana
Hazardous Waste Permit ™
(MTHWP-88-02).
Exxon Landfarm (Billings) is
seeking a.No Migration >
Variance, The facility
maintains a Montana
Hazardous Waste Permit >
(MTHWP-88-01).
None.
IfHiHAFBcangetfiindnig, v
bioventing could be conducted
on soils with different
contaminant mixtures: (1)
gasoline and chlorinated
solvents, and (2) petroleum
hydrocarbons, JP-4 jetfiiel, !
dioxins/furans,and solvents. '
10
'Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
vm
vm
vm
Vffl
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
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
Libby Ground Water Site
Libby.MT
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Jim Harris
(406)449-5414
Kevin Kirley
(406)449-4067
Janie Stiles
(406)449-4067
Carol Fox
(406)449-4067
Carol Fox
(406)449-4067
Jim Harris
(406)449-5415
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
• Sediments / soil / 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,y-BHC,P-BHC,
4,4'-DDE,4,4'-DDT,
4,4'-DDD), herbicides (2,4-D,
dicamba, picloram (tordon),
atrazine), triallates (far-go).
Soil / ground waten wood
preserving (PAHs, pyrene, PCP,
dioxin, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, benzene, arsenic).
Volume: 45K cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 09/91.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 06792.
Full-scale remediation has
been under, way since 05/91.
Incurred cost: $4M.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Soil: carcinogenic PAHs, 88 mg/kg;
pyrene, 7.3 mg/kg; PCP, 37 mg/kg;
dioxin, 1 ng/kg; naphthalene, 8 mg/kg;
phenanthrene, 8 mg/kg.
Ground water: carcinogenic PAHs,
40 ug/L; noncarcinogenic PAHs,
400 (ig/L; PCP, 1 .05 mg/L; benzene,
5 mg/L; arsenic, 50 mg/L.
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, oxygen enhancement,
nutrient addition (soil, water,
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.
In situ treatment (ground water), ex situ
land treatment (soil), hydrogen
peroxide (water), nutrient addition (soil,
water). Ex situ treatment, bioreactor for
ground water. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. 75% of site
under bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Dioxins and furans inhibit
bioremediation of other
contaminants.
Pilot-scale study did not have
adequate controls.
None.
Oil-water separation in
bioreactor has been a problem
because free product has about
the same specific gravity as
water. Pyrene degradation
rates in land treatment units for
soils have been low.
OJ
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
3'
I
I
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
vm
vm
vm
vm
vm
vm
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Miles City Airport
Miesaty.MT
CERCLA State Lead
Montana Pole
Butte,MT
CERCLA State Lead
MontanaRailLink— East "
Helena
EastHelena,MT
Water Quality Bureau „'
Montana Rail Link— Missoula
MissotiIa,MTl ' i *
Water Quality Bureau \ t<,
<: ^
PubUftService Company
JJenyer,CO" * '
DSTLead (State) , <
Richey Airport
Richey, MT
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Carol Fox
(406)449-4067
3rianAntonioli
(406)449-4067
SaraWeinstock
(406)449-5414
Terry Webster
(406)444-2406
*• ,< < ^
Terry Webster
(406)499-2406
^ 1
SuzanneStevenson
(303)2934511,
"(303)331-4830 -~
Carol Fox
(404)449-4067
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadose and saturated):
pesticides (aldrin, diddrin,
methyloxychlontae, chlordme,
ot-BHC,T-BHC,p-BHC,
4,4'-DDE,4,4'-DDT,
4,4'-DDD, ethyl parathion,
endrin), herbicides (2,4-D,
picloram (tordon), atrazine),
triallates (far-go).
Sediments (silt) / soil (silt) /
ground water: PCP.
Volume: 250K cubic yards.
Soilrpetroleum (diesel). '
5
Soil: petroleum.
Ground water; petroleum.
Volume: 12M gallons. x
Soil (vadose: sand, silt, loam,
clay): pesticides (picloram
(tordon), aldrin, dieldrin, endrin,
methyloxychlordane, chlordane,
ce-BHC, fERC, P-BHC,
4,4'-DDE,4,4'-DDT,
4,4' -DDD, methyl parathion,
ethyl parathion), herbicides
(2,4-D, dicamba, atrazine),
triallates (far-go).
STATUS
"ull-jdlererocdlitioniJ
pbnned. Currently ia
redesign.
fril-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
jredesign. Laboratory-scale
studies are being conducted.
Total expected costs: capital.
$10K;0&M,$300K.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 05/92.
Full-scale remediation has
been underlay since 05/92. '
1 4
Full-scale remediation was
completed 03/92. Started
06/89,
Incurred cosU$500K.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Sam diesel, 100 rag/kg (EPA
Recommended).
Soil: petroleum, 100 mg/kg (EPA
Recommended).
, *
Ground water: risk-based.
Not yet established.
TREATMENT
IB situ treatment Ex situ treatment
Aerobic and tnaerobic conditions,
ndigemous organisms.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established. Other technologies: in situ
soil flushing, soil washing.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Active land tillage, moisture and
nutrient control, seasonal monitoring
for leachate below treatment zone.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Active land tillage, moisture and
nutrient control, seasonal monitoring
forleachatebelowtreatmentzone. .,
In situ treatment, hydrogen peroxide,
'combined bioprocess, nutrient addition.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
chemical treatment % '
In situ treatment Ex situ treatment
Aerobic and anaerobic conditions,
COMMENTS
{one.
The Montana Pole Site is in
the RI/FS stage and no
remediation currently is taking
place. However, treatability
studies have recently been
conducted and reports are
being revised at this time.
None.
None. K >
v *
A risk assessment has been
submitted to the State of
Colorado Health Department
Jforreview along witb!an
application for closure.
None.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
A
, f'
^
t
'&
\lt
Kv*
*'*
•4 r?
>!
}i
/'"
1 1
»<-
<
f i
\
f, '
!* ,>
•44
^
>'
*
<
„
"<•
.,
1
>'
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Beale Air Force Base f <,.
MarysViDejCA, Vl%, , /
Federal Facility 7 s> «• " - f
'&**. ^ i * ^ "T" I( < ^
Process; 1?? „, *> < ^ *
i^ 4^ -: gy" j y
T,r*X^? "'* :-1'^' > '
_Process2 ^'-' J ! '
t*J— j^'v ' '
' > * ' ,!< f>'\ X
-V * 1 4*f ' ,y ;."'
t,, '': ' il!i * js» *' ^ «
'• ?' j *
Process 3/(>tJ<># ,,,'
«>" <'S< , '!
>;r" f^' ^, ',
^ ( * „ > " f
'•• \ \ ''• ^
^ fl* ? P
<^ * jv ' ''^ i.
iP«?cesS4,1
***•,! '
''*•<-• > J'
ProcessS "
'i^. ""«", * >' "
^ ^ r
( s. " * ' t~ ' ' * i
4»
Process 6
-
"•'
f , X,
1 ,
Process?
1 '
' " v
' i
I , '
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
SheriRolfsness ',
(916)63f 2S43 f |»
, t
1, ^ y 'f
* A'i -• /
•f t <
- «, ^ ,
"'\ ^'''il'
^ /*
;" .J1
' >l!*j
^
'
t ' >
^''l?
?4 J
1 <'-
( ^
^
,** " ' >>
i! i "
P , ' <
^i ^> >
. '
v>
- >
K '
1 ,
•* ,.
f
' t 'fl<
t
,
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadose silty day);
petroleum (diesel),
Volume: 2QK cubic yards. <
P ^ <
' >,. * ' "" i
Soil (vadose silty clay): f -
petroleum (gasoline, diesel),
solvents. ; " t
Volume: 10K cubic yards. > ,
V ^ "'
ij ^ 4 ' *!
*' ^" <*
Soil (vadose silty clay): , '
petroleum (diesel, gasoline).
VolumeslOKqubic yards.
t < ^- -: (
> < >
v i
Soil {vadose silty clay):
petroleum (gasoline, diesel).
Volume; 3,000 subic yards.
-
„
Soil (vadose silty clay):
petroleum (diesel), lead.
Volume; lOKcubicyards.
< >
"
Soil (vadose silty clay):
petroleum (diesel, gasoline),
solvents (TCE), lead.
Volume: 100K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose silty clay):
petroleum (diesel), lead.
Volume: lOKcubicyards.
!"
>
STATUS
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 07/92. ,;
«| l!
Incurred cost; capita!, $30K.
Total expected cose O&M,
$6,000. -1 > .^
Pilot-scale studies have been
under, way since 10$2.w
Expected completion 10/93.> '
„ > ~' * •>"
Total expected costs: capital,
$50jfC;CWkM,$lOK.
^ ^ i
Pilot-scale studies have been
underway since 10/92.
Expected completion 10/93.
c^
Total expected costs: capital,
$50K;0&M,$10K,
; <
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 1 1/92.
Total expected costs: capital,
$100KtO&M,$30K, '
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 10/92.
Expected completion 10/93.
x- > x
Total expected'costs; capital,
$50K;0&M,$10K. ' !
Full-scale remediation js
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 06/93. Expected
completion 06/96. '
Total expected costs; capital,
$221K;0&M,$64K,
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 10/93,Expected
completion 10/96. ^
Total expected costs: capital,
$30K; O&M, $6,000. > '
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose): diesel, 50ing&g (state *
guidelines)* j 5 '' 'i
*" * t'1 * *
f o i
- ' ' > *f
J ^ > i
Soil (vadose): gasoline, 10 mg/kg;
diesel, 50 mg/kg (state guidelines).
,. < *
^ ! "* *-*" x
y ^ •? M
* " ' t!
Soil (vadose): diesel, 50 mg/kg; . j,'
gasoline, 10 mg/kg (state guidelines).
' * " ,- ^
* '\ i ( ^
i J^
^
&^
Soil (vadose): gasoline, 10 mg/kg;
diesel, 50mg/kg(stateguidelines),
'
Soil (vadose): diesel, 50 mg/kg (state
guidelines).
^,
^ ^
N
- .
Soil (vadose): diesel,1 50 mg/kg; / *,
gasoline, 10 mg/kg (state guidelines).
' ;
'
I \
Soil (vadose); diesel, 50 mg/kg (state
guidelines). •' ' ''
,
^A vl- J
,
1
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic ,' ,
conditions, indigeEous organisms.
, 1 , jt
>
' i s -
- v ^ '
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
~*
<*' *
^>
5 ^ ! y
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms?
5 f
" * *+
t
„
Ex situ treatment, pile. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
x > j
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, Indigenous organisms,.
1 ,
^
In situ treatment, bioveating. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
j, >
•
ta situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms,
1
,
COMMENTS
Pilot-scale test demonstrated ^
that raoremediaaon could >»A
work in silcy-clay soil. " , <*
f *
1
Project will be a pilof-scale
system, operating for one year.
. > " '
* < *
*
r^
Project will be a pilot-scale test
forone'year. *
s
\ ^
*
Biofilters to treat contaminated
soil removed during
Underground Storage Tank
jemoval projects.
Pilot-scalesystem to opiate
foroneyear, t.
>
,
None.
-i '
Process area recently
discovered; little information
available. Hope to install
roll-scale bioventing system
,
Oi
Ox
"Indicates a new site.
"* Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
DC
K
K
EC
K
K
_>
K
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
BKK Landfill
WestCovta,CA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
CALTRANS
Lakeport, CA
UST Lead (State)
Citrus Heights Irrigation
Citrus Heights, CA
UST Lead (State)
Converse/Montebello
Corporation Yard
Montebello, CA
USTLead (State)
<
CWX Freight Lines
Santa Rosa, CA
UST Lead (State)
Former Service Station
Los Angeles, CA
UST Lead (State)
' ' -.^ 0 '
Fort Ord Army Base
Monterey, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
•
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Carmen Santos
(415)744-2037
Nancy
Lindsay/Glenn
Heyraan
(415)744-2044
KenSmarkel
(916)322-3910
JohnWesnonsky
KenSmaitel
(916)322-3910:
Jofon Wesriousky
PaulHadley
(916)324-3823
MaABerscheid
(916)322-3294
TonyPalagyi
(818)505-2701
"
John Chestnut
(415)744-2387
Vance Fbng
(415)744-2392
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Ground water: solvents (vinyl
chloride, dichloromelhane,
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride,
TCE, phenols,
1 ,2-dichloropropane),
petroleum, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cyanide, lead,
mercury.
Volume: 50K gallons per day.
Soil: petroleum.
Volume: 70 cubic yards.
Soil (silt): petroleum (diesel).
Volume: 120 cubic yards.
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum
(gas, diesel).
••
-
Soil (vadose): petroleum (diesel).
Volume; 600 cubic yards.
Soil / ground water petroleum.
Volume: 3,000 cubic yards.
, f
Soil / ground water: petroleum,
solvents (MEK).
STATUS
?uU-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/87.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 01/89. Started
11/88.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 08/89. Started
05/89.
Laboratory-scale studiesliave
been completed.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 05/93.
Expected completion 12/93.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 11/91. Started
10/90.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 03/91. Started
11/88. '
Incurred cost: $1.6M.
Pilot-scale studies are being
conducted.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
*
Soil: petroleum, 100 mg/kg.
Soil: diesel, 100 mg/kg.
Not yet established.
Not supplied.
Soil: TPH, 100 mg/kg.
Ground water: benzene, 5 ppb.
^s
Ground water: MCLs.
TREATMENT
Ex situ treatment, flutdizcd bed,
continuous Dow. Aerobic conditions.
Other technologies: chemical treatment,
may also treat landfill liquids to see if
ground water not heavily contaminated
can be stripped by an air stripping
process. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
In situ land treatment.
Ex situ treatment, continuous flow.
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. 100% of site underwent
bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing, nutrient
addition (nitrate and phosphate).
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: vacuum
extraction. 10% of site under
bioremediation.
Exsitu land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous organisms.
100% of site underwent bioremediation,
In situ treatment, hydrogen peroxide,
closed loop system, nutrient addition
(water). Aerobic conditions, indigenous
soil flushing, vacuum extraction. 65% „
of site underwent bioremediation.
In situ land treatment. Other
technologies: pump and treat, carbon
adsorption.
COMMENTS
TreatabUlty study may be done
on mixture of landfill leachate
and ground water to see if
system can treat Plant will be
expanded. Possible use of air
strippers, which exist but are
not being used.
Degradation rate was
dependent upon the pile's
porosity, water content, type of
waste, soil, and bacterial
consortium.
None.
None,
None.
.
During channeling, overload
reduced the reinjection process
rate.
>.,
None.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
K
re
IX
re
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Gila Indian Reservation
Bapchule.AZ
CERCLA Rind Lead
Hamburg Ranch
Merced County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Harmon Reid
Tulare County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Hercules Incorporated
Hercules, CA
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Richard Martin
(415)744-2288
Christine Holm
(916)361-5703
JackGrisanti
(209)897-5873
MikePfister
(209)297-3934
-
Tony Luan
(916)322-6872
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil: pesticides (toxaphene,
parathion).
Volume: 100K cubic yards.
Soil (vadose and saturated:
loam, clay): pesticides (ODD,
DDE,DDT,endosulfan,
toxaphene, chlorfenvinphos,
methidathion, monitor, nemacur,
parathion-e, parathion-m).
Soil (clay): pesticides (o-BHC,
chlordane, difocol, endosulfan
E, endrin, endrin aldehyde,
heptachlor epoxide, 4,4'-DDE,
4,4'-DDT,4,4'-TDE,
methoxychlordane, toxaphene,
heptachlor).
Volume: 65 gallons.
Soil: TNT, DNT, nitrobenzene.
Volume: 1,500 cubic yards.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation was
completed 07/86. Started
01/84.
Incurred cost: $700K.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Expected start
06/93. Expected completion
10/96.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 11/90. Started
05/90.
Full-scale bioremediation is
not planned.
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 01/91. Started
01/89.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil: background levels.
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
SoU: TNT, 30 mg/kg; DNT, 5 mg/kg;
nitrobenzene, 5 mg/kg.
TREATMENT
In situ land treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. 100% of site underwent
bioremediation.
Bioremediation treatment not yet
established.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions, exogenous and
indigenous organisms.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
COMMENTS
Toxaphene is very hard to
break down. Materials
handling was difficult
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, and 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 win be
bioremediated on site. '
Tests were conducted on
thirteen 5-gallon buckets of
soil. Results showed that
pesticides were not removed
from (he containers after 192
days of treatment Due to the
high variability of the data,
however, it is unclear whether
some degradation occurred. A
larger scale study may be
conducted to achieve
statistically significant results.
Pilot-scale project completed.
Evaluating field study results.
D
>"
i
>
3'
f
*
I
d.
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CD
r
REG
K
DC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
J XL Baxter
Wccd,CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Process 1
Process 2
JASCO
Mountain View, CA
CERCLA Enforcement-Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Elizabeth Kdcher
(415)744-2361
Susan Warner
(707)576-2220
EdCargile
(916)255-3703
Rose Marie Caraway
(415)744-2235
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Sediments (sand, silt) / soil
(sand, sit): wood preserving
(letrachlorophenol, POP, PAHs),
arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc.
Volume: 21.9K cubic yards.
Ground water wood preserving
(PAHs, PCP, dioxins), arsenic,
chromium, copper, zinc.
Volume: 150K gallons per day.
Soil (silt, clay) / ground water:
solvents (1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, benzene,
chloroethane, methyl ethyl
ketone, acetone, methylene
chloride, pentachlorophenol,
tetrachloroemene, TCE, toluene,
vinyl chloride, methanol,
xylenes, ethylbenzene,
1,2-DCA), petroleum (diesel).
Volume: 1,100 cubic yards.
STATUS
Pull-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Expected start
12/94. Laboratory-scale and
pilot-scale studies have been
completed.
Total expected costs: capital,
$9.6M;0&M.$3.3M; total,
S13M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Expected start
12/94. Pilot-scale studies have
been under way since 01/89.
Total expected costs: capital,
$4.3M; O&M, S13.1M; total,
$17.4M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 11/91. Started
02/91.
Incurred cost: $30K.
Total expected costs: capital,
$200K;0&M,$248K.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil: PCP, 17 mg/kg; carcinogenic
PAHs, 0.51 mg/kg; noncaickogemte
PAHs, 0.15 rog/L (risk-based).
Sediments: tetrachlorophenol, 1 mg/kg
(risk-based).
Ground water: carcinogenic PAHs,
5 ug/L; noncarcinogenic PAHs, 5 flg/L;
PCP, 2.2 Ug/L; dioxins, 0.025 ppt
(risk-based).
Soil: 1,1-DCA, 0.03 mg/kg; 1,1-DCE,
1 mg/kg; 1,1-DCA, 0.6 mg/kg;
1,2-DCE, 1 mg/kg; 1,1,1-TCA,
100 mg/kg; benzene, 0.3 mg/kg;
chloroethane, 4,000 mg/kg; methyl
ethyl ketone, 9 mg/kg; acetone,
30 mg/kg; melhylene chloride,
0.2 mg/kg; pentachlorophenol,
200 mg/kg; tetrachloroethene, 7 mg/kg;
TCE, 3 mg/kg; toluene, 1,000 mg/kg;
vinyl chloride, 0.02 mg/kg; methanol,
200 mg/kg; xylenes, 2,000 mg/kg;
diesel, 10K mg/kg; ethylbenzene,
3,000 mg/kg (potential migration to
ground water).
Ground water: acetone, 4,000 ppb;
benzene, 1 ppb; 1,1-DCA, 5 ppb;
1,1-DCE, 6 ppb; 1,2-DCA, 0.5 ppb;
methylene chloride, 150 ppb;
pentachlorophenol, 1 ppb; toluene,
1 ppb; vinyl chloride, 0.5 ppb; TPH,
3,000 ppb; tetrachloroethene, 5 ppb.
TREATMENT
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. Other
technologies: chemical treatment
Ex situ treatment, batch flow. Aerobic
and anaerobic conditions. 100% of soil
of site will undergo bioremediation.
COMMENTS
Concern regarding effect of
elevated metals on
bioremediation process.
The ROD selected an ex situ
bioremediation process, which
will combine aerobic and
anaerobic treatments. The
challenges at this site are (1) to
minimise volatilization of
contaminants during
excavation, and (2) to balance
the aerobic and anaerobic
processes to treat the entire
contaminated area. If cleanup
levels are not achieved,
contaminated material will be
disposed of in a RCRA landfill.
u>
oo
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cent)
REG
DC
K
-IX"
\
'"A ~
DC
DC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Koppers Company, Lie.
Otovaie, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Marine Corps Air/Ground
Combat Center
Twenty-Nine Palms, CA
CERCLA Fund Lead
MiddleMbiiritaiaSiJvex' ;^ l
Gteenlee County^ AZ*
Federal.Facility,' < ~ ;
S<
? S
» 'f * ' >
Montrose Chemical
Corporation of California
Torrance, CA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Moore Aviation
Colusa, CA
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Fred Schauffler
(415)744-2365
EdCargile
(916)255-3703
RayLukens
(619)776-8958
Robert M.Mandel
£415)744-2290
TunSteele >
(602)257-2335
Nancy Woo
(415)744-2394
Alice Geniro
(310)590-4931
Steven Safferman
(513)569-7350
Christine Holm
(916)361-5703
Al Williamson
(916)753-9500
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadose: sand, clay, gravel,
cobbles): wood preserving (PCP,
PAHs, dioxins/furans), arsenic,
chromium.
Volume: 110K cubic yards.
Soil: petroleum (jet fuel,
gasoline, diesel, aviation fluid,
transmission fluid).
Soil (vadose: silt, loam): { '
'pesticides (2,4,5-TP), heibicides
(2,4-D, 2,4,5-T).
Volume: S50 cubic yards. >
s '
Soil (vadose: silt, clay):
pesticides (DDT), benzene,
chlorobenzene, chloroform.
Soil (vadose: silt, loam):
pesticides (DDE, endosulfan I &
n, parathion, chlorpyrifos,
disulfoton, propazine, atrazine,
2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP),
bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalat, phenols.
STATUS
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in
predesign. Laboratory-scale
studies were completed 01/93.
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected completion 11/94.
Total expected costs: capital,
$4.5M;0&M,$7.7M.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently hi design.
Full-scale remediation was „ ""
completed 09/92. '
Incurred cost- $30K. •.
Total expected cost $35K.
} , i
j * i <
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 03/93. Started
09/92.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 10/92. Started
09/91.
Total expected cost $35K.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Soil (vadose): PCP, 17 mg/kg (state
ARAR); carcinogenic PAHs,
0.19 mg/kg (risk-based);
dioxins/rurans, 0.03 ppt (risk-based).
Not yet established.
Soft (vadose): 2,4,5-TP, 50 mg/kg (istate
requirement). , ^
! '' * '' ' >
, Js
^.
S t * \
i
Not yet established.
Soil (vadose): DDE, 1 mg/kg;
endosulfan I & H 7.4 mg/kg; parathion,
3 mg/kg; chlorpyrifos, 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).
TREATMENT
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 will
undergo bioremediation.
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Prepared bed with water and nutrients, '
periodic rototilling. Other technologies:
photodegradation by ultraviolet
sunlight at elevation of 9,000 ft above
sea level. 100% of site underwent
bioremediation, i~ «„ 5
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, exogenous organisms.
Other technologies: white rot fungus.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms.
COMMENTS
None.
None.
None. -
\ ' ^ x
, , '( <•'..<
" a
None.
Some problems with QA/QC
on analyses; two independent
labs are giving conflicting
results. Endosulfans have been
particularly recalcitrant
1 Bioremediation in the Field
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
tn
5*
REG
K
DC
EC
*<; '
K
EC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Naval Air Station Fallen
FaUoo,NV
Federal Facility
Naval Weapons Station— Seal
Beach
Seal Beach, CA
ResearchFacility
Oakland Chinatown
Oakland, CA
UST Lead (State)
Process 1
Process 2
;
» •, o \ * , - » ,"
Poly-Carb
Wells, NV
CERCLA Fund Lead
Protet;"
Carson City, CA xt
USTiead (State) ' ,
* i *<
v!
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
RonHccppel
(805)952-1655
David Chcsmore
(702)687-5872
Steve Ktaser
(702)426-2785
Carmen LeBron
(805)982-1616
Donald SmaUbeck
(415)899-8804
i5 *
Robert MMandel
(415)744-2290
KenSmaikel
(916)322-3910
U ^ t -3
«( - S 1
4
i ^
X % ,3^ f\
'<•, 0"-J^V *'
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
SoU (vadose and saturated silt) /
ground water petroleum (jet
fuel, p-xylenc, naphthalene,
1-mcthyl naphthalene,
n-butylbenzene), arsenic.
Ground water: petroleum.
Soil (saturated sand) / ground
water: petroleum.
Volume: 10K cubic yards.
Ground water, petroleum.
Soil: wood preserving (cresol,
phenols).
Volume: 1,500 cubic yards.
Soil: petroleum.
Volume: 700 cubic yards.
STATUS
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 10/92.
Laboratory-scale studies are
being conducted.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 08/90. Started
03/89,
Full-scale remediation was
completed 08/90. Started
03/89.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 09/88. Started
06/87.
Incurred cost $450K.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 12/89. Started
08/88.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not yet established.
Not yet established.
Soil (saturated): BTEX, 100 mg/kg
(RWQCB guidelines).
Not supplied.
Soil: cresol, 10 mg/kg; phenols,
20 mg/kg (performance-based).
Soil: petroleum, 10 mg/kg»
\
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, bioventing, oil/water
separation, nutrient addition (soil).
Aerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms. Other technologies: vacuum
extraction.
In situ treatment Aerobic and
anaerobic conditions, indigenous
organisms.
In situ treatment, hydrogen peroxide,
nutrient addition (soil: ammonia nitrate,
mono- anddi-basic phosphates; waten
ammonia nitrate, mono- and di-basic
phosphates). Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
Ex situ treatment, completely mixed
reactor, continuous flow. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: carbon adsorption.1
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: in situ soil
flushing, hi situ volatilization. 60% of
site underwent bioremediation.
'Ex situ land treatment 100% of site
underwent bioremediatkm.
s ' ? --
COMMENTS
Problems obtaining a water
discharge permit from the
State of Nevada to discharge
treated ground water to the
NAS Fallen sewer system due
to presence of natural arsenic
in ground water.
None.
None,
None.
None.
The control cell, which didnot
receive any nutrient
supplements, proprietary* <•
inoculum, or the benefit of
rigorous aeration,sshowed N <
confamiaantlevelreductions *
equal to those of me treatment
cells,* « ;
* Indicates a new site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
EC
IX
>< "
<
" ,'
K
K
DC
X'>,
v<
y
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
SanDIegoGas andEfectno
San Diego, CA*
VST Lead (Federal)
Seaside fBghScljool , -
Seaside,'CA
UST Lead (State) ,
',
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
PanlHadley ~
(916)324-3823
DickEricksson %
(916)322-7046"
v j
<
Bruce LaBelle
(916)324-2958 '
Bruce Wolf
(510)286-0787
Marie Lacey
(415)744-2234
David Wright
(916)332-3910
TonyPalagyi
(818)505-2701 '-
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (sand): petroleum (gasoline).
Volume: 1,200 cubic yards.'
Soil: petroleum (diesel).
•Volume: 100 cubic yards.
< <
<
,',
*
<
Soil: biphenyl, diphenyl ether.
Ground water: solvents
(1,2-DCE, cis-U-DCE,
trans-l^-DCE, ethylbenzene,
1,1,1-TCA, freon 113, benzene,
acetone, 1,1-DCE, naphthalaie).
Soil: petroleum.
Volume: 240 tons.
Soil: petroleum (TPH dtesel).
Volume: 1^00 cubicyards.
, !
,
* >
STATUS
Full-scale remediation was
completed 04/93. Started
10/89.
Full-scale' remediation was
completed 06/88.
»
> ' '
*
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 07/90.
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/91.
Incurred cost: $399K.
Total expected cost: $844K.
Full-scale remediation was
completed 01/91. Started
11/90.
Incurred cost: $310K.
Full-scale remediation has
been tinder way since 06/92.
Incurred cost $75K.
Tcifal expected cost $200K-
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Not supplied.
Soil: diesel, 500 jag/kg. * •
" ;
' " (
>
Soil: biphenyl, 1,000 mg/kg; diphenyl
efter, I,000mg*g,
Ground water: 1,2-DCE, 5 ug/L;
cis-l,2-DCE, 6 ug/L; trans-l^-DCE,
10 |ig/L; ethylbenzene, 400 (ig/L;
1,1,1-TCA, 200 (tg/L; fieon 113,
1,200 |tg/L; benzene, 0.7 Ug/L;
acetone, 400 ug/L; 1,1-DCE, 1 ug/L;
naphthalene, 2,000 Hg/L.
Soil: petroleum, 5,000 mg/kg.
Soil: TPH diesel, 100 mg/kg
(regulatory guidelines).
'
1
TREATMENT
In situ treatment. Anaerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms. 100% of site
underwent bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
100% at site underwent bioremediatioii.
<•
Ex situ treatment, pile.
Ex situ treatment, fixed film,
continuous flow. Anaerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil washing, vacuum
extraction, steam enhancement 100%
of site under bioremediation.
Ex situ land treatment
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Othertechnologies* vacuum extraction.
20% of site under bioremediation.
^
COMMENTS
None..
Diesel fuel concentrations *
were reduced below 1,000
mg/kg with multiple
applications of fertilizer.
moisture, and tilling. *
Indigenous bacteria effected
thereduccionin fuel
concentrations.
None.
Had difficulty obtaining a
permit for bioremediation.
None.
Winter weather has been an
obstacle to bioremediation.
"
* 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
X
^
^ <
* '•*<
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
FaiichBd Air Fbrce Base
Spokane, WA
Federal Facility
Process!
Process!
Process 3
XH. Baxter Company
Rentor^WA
StateLead ,
•
^
Unocal — Seattle Marketing
Terminal
Seattle, WA" '
State Toxics, PRP Lead
' i
s
' >
»
"
>> '•
« ,
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Thomas Smiley
(509)247-2313
William Hams
(206)438-3070
Diane Wulf
(509)247-2313
GailColbum
(206)649-7058
Ching-HWang
(206)649-7134
i '
,
^
*
Nnamdi Madakor
(206)649-7112
'
"i
x
-
'
<
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadose and saturated Jill) /
ground water: solvents (TCE).
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum,
solvents (ICE),
Soil (vadose silt): petroleum.
Sediments (sand, silt) /sludge /
soil (vadose and saturated
complex mixture) / ground
water: wood preserving (PAHs,
PCP.TPH).
Volume: 20K cubic yards.
•
Soil: petroleum.
Volume: 34K cubic yards.
- ,
•
»
-
.
._ (
' ,
STATUS
Pilot-scale studies are planned.
Expected start 01/95.
Total expected costs: capital,
$5M;0&M,$50K.
Pilot-scale studies have been
under way since 04/93.
Pilot-scale studies liavebeen
under way since 04/93.
Full-scale remediation is
planned. Currently in design.
Expected start 02/94. Expected
completion 10/98.
Laboratory-scale studies were
completed 11/92. Started
08/92.
Full-scale remediation has
been completed.
Incurred cost $3.5M.
s
'
>
-
, ' ,
CLEANUP
LEVELS
Ground wtfen TCE, 5 ug/L.
Soil (vadose and saturated); TCE,
0.5mg/tg.
Soil (vadose): benzene, 0.5 mg/kg;
TPH, 200 mg*g; TCE, 0,5 rag/kg.
Soil (vadose): TPH, 200 mg/kg.
Ground water: risk-based.
Soil (vadose and saturated): risk-based.
Not supplied.
c
-
\
c . ,
TREATMENT
In situ treatment, bioventing. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: vacuum extraction.
In situ treatment, bioventing, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
la situ treatment, bioventing, nutrient
addition. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisms.
Ex situ land treatment. Aerobic
conditions, exogenous and indigenous
organisms.
-
Ex situ land treatment 40% of site
.underwentbioremediation. -
^
"* v J
SN <
! i * "^
„
; J r (
-" 1 ' ,_
"v -? ^ r
-^ ^ >
,
COMMENTS
None,
None.
None.
May not be able to meet
RCRA treatability standards
for land disposal.
Benzo(a)pyrene appears me
most difficult compound to
degrade. Otfier^results are very
good: 40% to 90% removals
on, individual PAHs. Those
bins experiencing drainage
problems had reduced rates of ^
bioremediation. Properly
draining bins showed 90%
reductions.
Bioremediation has been
successfulfor treating soils in
the upperyard. Soils were >
excavated, treated, and
disposed of at me Coal Creek
Landfill. TreatabBity studies
have revealed that solid-phase
bioremediattoaisineffectiveat •
freaunglower yard soils which*
are contaminated with heavier
hydrocarbons. The state is
discussing 3ft 3m6nutti6iitto
Ae Consent Decree^ to
accommodate alternative
technologies. ''"" \ t ] t
* Indicates anew site.
** Indicates that the site has been updated.
Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont)
REG
'X
* " " *
!'tt
Wyckoff Eagle Harbor
Puget Sound, WA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Andrew Pentony
(208)334-5898 ,
HandySteger; r* '
(208)334-5898
ReneFuentes
(206)553-1599
Sally Martin
(206)553-2102
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT/
VOLUME
Soil (vadosc); wood preserving
"(PAHs). •
< >
Ground water: wood preserving
(PCP, PAHs).
STATUS
Pilot-scale studies were
completed 07/91.
. "
Full-scale remediation has
been under way since 01/90.
CLEANUP
LEVELS
SoB (vadose): PAHs, SO ng/kg (permit
^stawteds),- ,,'•„- <*,
,
Ground water: PCP, 6 ug/L; PAHs,
20 ug/L (water quality criteria).
TREATMENT
In situ land treatment. Aerobic '
conditions, exogenous organisms.
Other technologies: pump and treat,
33% of site underwent bioremediation
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. Aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms. Other
technologies: oil/water separation,
carbon polishing.
COMMENTS
No monitoring of addition of
water or mixing and drying.
No indications of dilution or
votetflfzatiort Tests were
determined to be unsuccessful.
Lower TOG than expected
during design. Periodic PCP
toxicity.
GLOSSARY OF BIOREMEDIATION TERMS
Growth Conditions
Aerobic-la the presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic-ln the absence of oxygen.
Source of Microorganisms
Indigenous-Occurring naturally at a site.
Exogenous-Nat native to a site.
Treatment in a Reactor
Activated Sludge-Tbe biomass 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.
Extended Aeration-Tits biomass 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-Ths 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 Film-Bioiaass is retained in the system by using a static support media.
Fluidized Bed-Bacteria is attached to a support media, which is fluidized in the reactor.
Sequencing Botch Reoctor-Tbis self-contained treatment system incorporates equalization, aeration,
and clarification using a draw and fill approach on wastewater sludges.
Slurry jReoctor-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 aeration.
Land TVeaOnenf-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.
Pite-This method refers to any noncontainerized accumulation of solid, nonflowing waste being
treated or stored.
Bioventing-hit 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 7>ea?me«f-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.
-------
Bloremedfatlon In the Reid
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative
(Continued from page 1) '" „ v
The West KL Avenue Landfill site is featured in an article on p. jl o
At the libby Ground Water Superfund site, all field evaluatioh sampjfitg Ms been cqr|ipete'd, Technical reports,
on the performance of the two fixed-film bioreactors and the,Jand,,teatment tmits, are ttndergoing peer review..
Laboratory tests are being conducted on aquifer cores; to determine the presen^arid rfteta&olic .capability, ofe
indigenous microbes and to evaluate the effects of ternp^atoe,o^gen^,a^^u^e5its. vr//-.r, /"-'" // „ •
At the Park City Pipeline site, the demonstratior^began in fail of 1992. Site Sa^cfia^tt^d^feJ^wMl^pOdt
gallons of refined product in 50,000 yd3 of material and a^totalyolume of 150,000,yd3 containing contaminat4^:
ground water. . • ' ' ;'„/ -~"j\ • , Y;%>VJf^//r -,^' , .-,- -I- '">""., ",'f^
The aquifer at the Bendix Corporation/Allied Automotive Superfund sitehas; been,thorwgMy,^arac%ize^ for,
bioremediation. _ '' ~:~. .-"} ;;'^./ /v-,,-^C-! v>'°''"'i:-'';:''''-'f..:%/%i;,, "
At the Eielson Air Force Base site, monitoring has demonstrated j&t^average^ soU;temperatures ranged from 5 i<>
22*C in me heat tape warmed plot and 2 to 15%: in the contaminated controlpldtrOther;activities plannedlor th^
- -- •- •"' .> \ - -/•„-/:';:'• . v "'-!'!•':'' - "?„ ':>\'/'"",.
The site demonstration program report for the Escambia~ Wood Preserving sit^ fceikg
developed. Results from the demonstration will be published Si a peejr;reviewed,j6urnal;;arid papers will-be
published later this year on treatability study results and on demonstratiQn resulte, , ~, ; :f r ,;„ , , ;;", „ , ; "'
A retrospective evaluation of the Public Service Company site has beeB completed; For details* see .the article on
At meReiUy Tar and Chemical Corporation site, aS-yeareyaluatioriprdgr
1992. In situ respiration tests are being conducted several times each year to determine oxygen Utilization .and
carbon dioxide evolution rates, which can be used tq.estimate b^odegradatioijL rates. Soil :core;analyses alsq are,;',
being performed periodically to verify the disappearance of polyeyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PABSs), Tfe 'Jtayge^'
PAH removal rate for the 3-year project is 30 percent, f':/ ;- v",:>i;r- - --; '";:/„,„" '•. s w.-,- , ,, -,^s , "£ , « , 'X ' j /,4 -.1
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-93/002
------- |