&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/540/R-94/508a
• September 1995
SITE Technology Capsule
J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ
Bioremediation Technology:
Dinoseb
Abstract
The J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation Technology is de-
signed to anaerobically degrade nitroaromatic and energetic
compounds in soils and liquids without forming identifiable
toxic intermediate compounds produced by other biotreatment
methods. This technology was evaluated under the Super-
fund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program on
soils contaminated with 2-seo-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb),
a RCRA-listed herbicide (P020). The Demonstration was at a
county-owned airport in Ellensburg, WA (Bowers Field). A
companion SITE Demonstration of this technology was per-
formed on 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Another SITE Technol-
ogy Capsule will be provided at a later date. The Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) for dinoseb-con-
taminated soils is incineration, therefore, any alternative tech-
nology that can economically compete with incineration is of
interest.
Comparison of the dinoseb levels before and after treatment
showed a reduction of greater than 99.8% based on the
analytical instrumentation detection limit. The time of treat-
ment for 30 m3 (39 yd3) of soil was found to be 23 days, much
faster than initially anticipated. This is despite the average
temperature within the bioreactor being 18°C, far below the
preferred temperature range of 35 to 37°C (1). Other com-
pounds, namely nitroaniline; parathion; malathion; and 4,4'-
DDT were incidentally and simultaneously reduced from
parts-per-million levels in the feed soil to below the analytical
detection limit in the treated slurry. No toxic by-products
caused by the degradation of dinoseb were found by GC/MS
analysis of the post-treatment samples.
Introduction
This Capsule provides information on the J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ
Bioremediation Technology, a technology developed to re-
move nitroaromatic and energetic compounds from soils and
liquids. For the purpose of this Capsule, the technology was
evaluated on dinoseb-contaminated soil. For more information
on the SITE Program please referto the "SITE Program"
section of this Capsule. The J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremedia-
tion Technology for the degradation of dinoseb was evaluated
under EPA's SITE Program during June and July 1993 at
Bowers Field. Soils at Bowers Field were previously contami-
nated with dinoseb, profciably by crop dusting activities. Infor-
mation in this Capsule emphasizes specific site characteristics
and results of the SITE; demonstration at Bowers Field. Re-
sults obtained independently by the J.R. Simplot Company
(Simplot) during treatafcjility studies are summarized in the
Technology Status section. This Capsule presents the follow-
ing information: |
• Technology Description
• Technology Applicability
• Technology Limitations
• Process Residuals j
• Site Requirements j
• Performance Data j
• Economic Analysis j
• Technology Status I
• SITE Program j
• Source of Further Information
The J.R. Simplot Ex-S'itu Bioremediation Technology was
evaluated based on seven criteria used for decision-making
in the Superfund Feasibility Study (FS) process. Results of
the evaluation are summarized in Table 1.
;l
Technology Description
The J.R. Simplot Ccjmpany has developed a simple
bioenhancement procecjure that treats soil contaminated with
nitroaromatic compounds by the addition of naturally selected
anaerobic soil microorganisms. These microorganisms were
originally isolated from this site. The Simplot process is initi-
ated under aerobic conditions, but anaerobic conditions are
quickly achieved under designed parameters, thus enabling
the microbes to degrades the nitroaromatic contaminants.
|-
At Bowers Field, the ccintarninated soil was augmented with
0.02 m3 (a 5-gallon pall) of Bowers Field site soil that was
previously remediated by the Simplot process during treatability
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Tablo 1. Evaluation Criteria (orlhBJ.R, Simpfot Ex-Situ BtoremetOatian Technology: Dmoseb
Criteria
N>
Overall
Prelection
of Human
Health & the
Environment
Provides both short- and
long-term protection by
eliminating exposure and
permanently destroying
contaminants in soil.
Prevents groundwater
contamination and off-
site migration.
Require measures to
protect workers and
community during ex-
cavation, handling,
and treatment.
Compliance
with Federal
ARARs
Requires compli-
ance with RCRA
treatment, storage,
and land disposal
regulations (for
hazardous waste).
Excavation, con-
struction, and oper-
ation ofonsite treat-
ment unit may require
compliance with
location-specific
ARARs.
Emission controls
are needed to ensure
compliance with
air quality stand-
ards if volatile
compounds are
present.
Long-Term
Effectiveness
Permanently
destroys contam-
ination and inter-
mediates.
Provides reduct-
ion in contamination
levels; duration of
treatment deter-
mines final con-
taminant levels.
Short-Term
EffecHvenes
Presents potential
short-term risks to
workers and nearby
community, Includ-
ing exposure to
noise and contami-
nants released into the
air during excava-
tion and handling.
These can be min-
imized with correct
handling procedures
and borders.
Reduction of
Toxictty,
Mobility, or
Volume through
Treatment
Reduces toxiclty and
mobility of soil con-
taminants.
Does not leave
known toxic inter-
mediate compounds
as a result of bio-
degradation when
operated properly.
Could leave inter-
mediates if term-
inated prematurely.
If not fully dried,
increases volume of
treatment material by
addition of water to
create slurry.
Implementability
Major equipment is
limited to bioreactor
and agitation/suspen-
sion devices.
Support equipment in-
cludes earthmovlng
equipment (for exca-
vation, screening, and
loading of bioreactor)
and monitoring equip-
ment (for recording
pH, redox potential,
and temperature).
Once onsite, the small
portable bioreactor
can be assembled
and ready to load
within two days. The
time to excavate pits
for use as bioreactors
is determined by the
volume of contami-
nated soil. The larger
modular bioreactor
requires approxi-
mately four days for
erection. After exca-
vation, bioreactor
loading activities
(soil and water) are
a function of the
treatment volume.
Cost
$127/m> (S97/ycP)
for treatment In four
lined pits utilized as
bioreactors and a
total treatment vol-
ume of 3,824 rrfl
(5,000yd3) of soil.
This estimated cost
is based on a 30-day
batch treatment time.
For longer treatment
times, the treatment
costs will increase.
Actual cost of a re-
mediation technology
is highly specific and
dependent upon the
volume of soil, soil
characteristics, con-
taminants present,
and the original and
target cleanup levels.
Depending on site
characteristics, an
additional cost of up
to S131/m3 (100/yd3)
may be assessed to
the client by the
developer.
After treatment is com-
plete, the small bio-
reactor can be emptied
and demobilized in three
days. Treated soil can
be placed in the ex-
cavated area and used
as fill material. For
lined pits and erected
bioreactors, the in-
tegrity of the liner can
be intentionally breached
when treatment is com-
plete, and the liner
abandoned in place.
-------
studies. This previously treated soil contained the necessary
microorganisms to biologically degrade dinoseb. Previous labo-
ratory results have indicated that this augmentation may en-
hance the degradation rates. In cases where the
microorganisms are not present in the contaminated soil, the
volume of inoculation can be increased. To date, the minimum
number of required microorganisms to initiate the process has
not been determined.
The Simplot technology utilized a portable tank as the bioreactor
during the Demonstration Test because of the small volume of
test soil. In applications where larger volumes of soil are
treated, in-ground lined pits, or erected lined tanks each ca-
pable of remediating 956 m3 (1,250 yd3) of soil may be used.
The bioreactor used for these tests was a steel tank mounted
on wheels. It was 12.2 m long, 2.4 m wide, and 2.6 m tall (40 ft
x 8 ft x 8.5 ft) which approximates to 75,700 L (20,000 gal).
Water was first placed in the bioreactor and then soil was
added in a ratio of approximately 1 L of water to 1 kg of soil.
Nutrients (a J.R. Simplot Company potato-processing starch
by-product) and pH-regulating agents (buffers) were added to
induce the aerobic microorganisms to consume oxygen from
the soil. The characteristics of the potato-processing starch
byproduct include the following: 42% solids; 215 mg of avail-
able starch per gram; 6.7 mg of total nitrogen per gram; 2.6 x
10" culturable heterotrophic bacteria per gram; and 8 x 103
culturable amylolytic bacteria per gram. The addition of the
nutrients and pH-regulating agents lowered the redox potential
(EJ and created anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic conditions
with Eh less than -200 mV promote the establishment of anaero-
bic microorganisms capable of degrading dinoseb and other
nitroaromatic compounds.
Figure 1 shows the Simplot process flow diagram. Initially, the
excavated test soil was sent through a vibrating screen to
remove large rocks and other debris >12.7 mm (1/2") diameter.
Since dinoseb is water-soluble, the rocks and debris larger
than 12.7 mm diameter at the Bowers Field site were rinsed
with water to remove dinoseb contamination from the surface.
The rinse water was combined with make-up water and placed
in the bioreactor. Enough make-up water was added until the
bioreactor contained an amount of water sufficient to provide
the 1-L to 1-kg ratio required to form a suitable treatment
slurry. A phosphate buffer was added to the system to control
the pH to 7 to 7.5. Batches of soil and the J.R. Simplot potato-
processing starch by-product were mixed together in a pug mill
(homogenization unit) and added to the bioreactor until all of
the treatment soil was in the bioreactor. The bioreactor was
sized so that it was approximately 75% full when loaded.
The bioreactor was loosely covered and equipped with two
mixers with 1.1 m (44") diameter blades rotating at 37 rpm for
agitation at each end of the bioreactor. A high speed mixer
with 0.36 m (14") diameter blades rotating at 450 rpm was
placed in the center of the bioreactor and used only during
loading of the soil into the bioreactor. "Dead spots" occurred in
the bioreactor due to insufficient mixing of the slurry by the
agitators. Therefore, lancing of the bioreactor was performed.
This was accomplished, by placing the suction end of a dia-
phragm pump into the settled sediment and pumping it into a
well-mixed region of the bioreactor. The bioreactor was
equipped with instrumentation to monitor pH, temperature, and
redox potential. Optimum operating conditions are 35 to 37°C,
pH below 8 (ideally between 7 and 7.5 for dinoseb degrada-
tion), and redox potential <-200 mV (1).
Technology Applicability
The technology is a stand-alone technology that can be used
to destroy nitroaromatic compounds without the presence of
identifiable toxic intermediate compounds in contaminated soils
at the completion of treatment. If the soils contain rocks or
debris greater than approximately 38 mm (1.5") in diameter,
the technology may be used with a rock/soil washing system.
In some cases the roclcs can be crushed to the required
diameter and added to trie bioreactor for remediation. Results
from the Demonstration "1'est showed that in addition to reduc-
ing the levels of dinoseb 'to below the analytical detection limit,
similar effects were found on a variety of pesticides, namely
4,4-DDT; malathion; parathion; and nitroaniline. However,
these results are based: on less rigorous data. There ap-
peared to be no degradation of atrazine, chlordane, or en-
dosulfan in these 23 days! at thest conditions. During treatability
studies, dinoseb levels of 800 mg/kg were successfully re-
duced to below the anatyjtical detection limit.
•I
Simplot claims that any sioil type can be treated, providing the
soil is thoroughly mixed'with the carbon source (potato by-
product). The soil type 'used during the Demonstration Test
was a clayey sand with gravel. The soil itself need not contain
the microorganisms required to degrade the dinoseb, since the
bioreactor can be inoculated with the appropriate microorgan-
isms. These microorganisms can be obtained from previous
site remediations or treatability studies.
j
Technology Limitations
This technology is claimed to be suitable for a variety of soil
types that are contamirjatecl with nitroaromatic compounds.
However, if the soil contains rocks or debris greater than 38.1
mm (1.5") diameter, the| contaminants need to be removed.
from these large particles by a separate technology or can be
crushed to the required diameter and remediated in the
bioreactor. I
The presence of heavy metals in the feed soil does not
adversely affect the process. As this technology is a sulfate
reducing process, toxic metals in the feed soil such as cad-
mium, lead, etc. are converted to their sulfide forms, making
them in nocuous. Simplot claims that this technology is less
susceptible to the effects of the toxic metals than most biore-
mediation systems. If total hydrocarbons are found in the soil
at concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg Total Recoverable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH), this may be toxic to the
particular microorganisms degrading dinoseb. However, the
hydrocarbons can be removed from the soil using the cloud-
point separation technique prior to bioremediation. This tech-
nique incorporates the iiddition of a surfactant/water solution
to the waste. Heat aids the separation of the organic phase
from the aqueous phase! and gravity aids the separation of the
solid phase. After separation from the soil the hydrocarbons
will contain a portion of the dinoseb and must be sent to a
RCRA-permitted facility for disposal. Although previous labo-
ratory results indicate that optimum degradation occurs at
higher temperatures (1), this demonstration showed that the
operating temperature could be lowered and degradation could
still be performed. However, degradation rates can be re-
stricted if freezing conditions exist. This problem can be
-------
Contaminated soil
i
Vibrating screen
•
Contaminated
soil> 12.7mm
Screen overs
washing
Contaminated
soil < 12.7 mm
Homogenization
(using a pug mill)
Augmentation soil
Clean rejects'
Water from
screen overs
washing
' dean rejects If contaminants in the soil are water soluble.
FIgura 1. J.R. Simplot process flow diagram for the bioremediation of Dinoseb-contaminated soil during the demonstration test.
overcome by adding heaters to the system, but at an additional
cost to the remediation.
Process Residuals
Three process residuals are generated by the Simplot ex-situ
bioremediation process. These are the treated soil, wastewa-
ter, and the washed rocks and debris with diameters greater
than 12.7 mm (1/2"). Prior to the Demonstration Test at
Bowers Field, the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)
established a clean-up level at which the soil no longer pre-
sented a hazard to human health, and therefore, would no
longer be considered hazardous. After treatment in the
bioreactor at Bowers Field, the dinoseb concentrations in the
treated soil and liquid were below the analytical detection
limits. The treated soil could then be replaced within the
excavated area and used as fill material. In states where
clean-up levels have not been established or when the clean-
up levels are not met, then disposal of the soil at a RCRA-
permitted facility may be necessary. If nitroaromatic compounds
other than dinoseb are remediated disposal of the soil at a
RCRA-permitted facility is required only if the compound is a
listed waste or has hazardous waste characteristics.
Water is used to wash the dinoseb from the separated rocks
and debris. This rinse water is then added to the bioreactor
with the make-up water to be remediated by the process. After
treatment in the bioreactor at Bowers Field, the dinoseb con-
centrations in the water were below the analytical detection
limit. Thus, the wastewater could be disposed through the
local sewer system.
The third waste stream, the untreated but washed rocks and
debris, may present a disposal problem. However, since
dinoseb is highly water soluble, it was assumed that the wash-
ing process transferred the dinoseb from the rocks to the rinse
water. The decontaminated rocks and debris could then be
replaced into the excavated area as fill material. In the case
where the nitroaromatic compound is not water soluble, the
contamination needs to be transferred from the oversized frac-
tion to the smaller grain sizes or the oversize rocks and debris
may require disposal at a RCRA-permitted facility.
Site Requirements
The site requirements for the Simplot technology are a function
of the quantity of soil to be treated. If 30 m3 (39 yd3) or less of
soil is to be remediated, a small 7£,700-L (20,000-gal) portable
bioreactor can be used. If the site contains greater than 30 m3
of contaminated soil, one or more excavated lined pits, or one
or more erected lined bioreactors can be used. Equipment
requirements are limited to front-end loaders, backhoes, and
dump-trucks for excavation of lined pits, a vibrating screen (or
other size-separating device), conveyors, and, if needed, a
rock or soil washing system. The bioreactor requires a form of
slight agitation to occasionally "turn over" the soil in the slurry.
Equipment to measure the pH, temperature, and redox poten-
tial is also necessary to monitor the treatment process.
The time required to excavate, screen, and homogenize the
soil with the potato starch prior to forming the slurry in the
bioreactor is a function of the soil type, moisture content, and
soil volume. In the future, Simplot anticipates homogenizing
the potato starch with the water in the bioreactor prior to soil
addition. Once the bioreactor has been filled and the monitor-
ing equipment is in place, maintenance requirements are mini-
mal. Access roads are needed for equipment and office trailer
transportation. After the treatment is completed, the small, >
portable bioreactor can be emptied, agitation equipment re-
moved, and all equipment shipped offsite within three days.
For the case of the lined pits and large modular bioreactors,
upon the completion of treatment, the integrity of the liner base
-------
can be breached and the liner abandoned in place. The walls
of the erected tank can be removed and shipped to the next
remediation project.
If the contaminated soil contains volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), then some form of cover equipped with a VOC collec-
tion device (carbon adsorber or biofilter) is required during the
excavation phase of treatment. The soil stockpiled after exca-
vation should be wetted and covered with plastic to minimize
airborne emissions.
Utility requirements for this technology include water and elec-
tricity. Approximately 29,000 L (7,650 gal) of water was needed
to treat 30 m3 (39 yd3) of soil. An electrical circuit is required to
power the agitators, screening, and homogenization equip-
ment. The current required is a function of the size of the
equipment, which in turn depends on the size of the site.
Performance Data
The Simplot technology was evaluated to determine its effec-
tiveness in degrading dinoseb in soil without forming any toxic
intermediate compounds known from other bioremediation pro-
cesses. The critical objective for this project was to determine
the percent reduction of dinoseb based on the concentration of
the pre-treatment slurry on a dry basis and the post-treatment
slurry on a dry basis. Other noncritical objectives for this
evaluation were:
• to determine if the reduction of dinoseb was a result of the
bioremediation process;
• to determine the presence of any known intermediate com-
pounds in the soil before and after treatment;
• to obtain information on other pesticides and herbicides in the
soil before and after treatment; and
• to develop operating costs.
Sufficient material was excavated and screened to provide 30
m3 (39 yd3) of contaminated soil to feed into.the bioreactor.
Prior to homogenizing the feed soil with the potato starch, 61
primary samples were taken of the feed to determine the
average dinoseb concentration. Each of these primary samples
was a composite of 4 grab samples taken while the soil was
being fed to the homogenization unit. In the same manner,
except that composites were made up of 12 grab samples,
aliquots were taken for the analysis of metals, pesticides, and
chlorinated herbicides. Three grain size distribution and Atterberg
limits samples were taken directly from the stockpiled feed soil.
These samples were taken to identify the soil type being
remediated. A total of 29,000 L (7,650 gal) of potable water
was added to the bioreactor before introducing the soil. This
water was sampled and analyzed for the chemical parameters
specified above. Approximately 570 L (150 gal) of water from
the rock- and debris-washing process was sampled and added
to the bioreactor.
Samples were also taken of the feed soil to undergo toxicity
testing (earthworm reproduction, early seedling growth, and
root elongation). It was anticipated that the toxicity tests could
be performed on the pre- and post-treatment soils to determine
if the formation of intermediate compounds had caused the
relative toxicity of the soil to increase because of the degrada-
tion of dinoseb. However, it was found that the presence of
pesticides and herbicides other than dinoseb already in the soil
would negate the relevance of these analyses. To determine if
the relative toxicity increases because of this process, toxicity
testing was performed during the TNT SITE demonstration. Its
decrease in toxicity is reported in the associated Capsule.
Monitored parameters during remediation were pH, tempera-
ture, and redox potential: Measurements of these parameter.1?
were taken every 15 seci and recorded by a data logger.
During the course of remediation, anaerobic conditions (Eh <-
200 mV) were achieved in three days and the pH stabilized at
7.1, as shown on Figure 2. However due to the unusually cool
summer experienced in the Pacific Northwest during 1993, the
average temperature in the bioreactor was less than 18°C.
This was lower than the preferred bioreactor temperature range
of 35 to 37°C (1). It was anticipated, based on treatability
studies, that treatment time would be on the order of six
weeks. Therefore, after 23 days (an anticipated mid-point)
samples were obtained to determine the progress of the
remediation. Analysis 99.8%, on
a dry basis. j
Another outcome of the; HPLC analysis for the pre-treatment
soil and post-treatment islurry was that no known intermediate
compounds from the degradation of dinoseb were found. To
investigate this further, gas chromatography/mass spectrom-
etry (GC/MS) scans were run on selected pre- and post-
treatment samples. These analyses confirmed that no
compounds had been formed during remediation as identified
by these analytical methbds.
Nitroaniline was found inj the feed soil at an average concentra-
tion of 13.3 mg/kg. This compound was also degraded to
below its analytical detection limit in the post-treatment slurry
samples (0.75 mg/kg and 0.75 mg/L), thus, leading to a reduc-
tion of >88.6%. Other pesticides such as 4,4'-DDT; malathion;
and parathion were reduced from parts-per-million levels to
below their analytical detection limits (0.75 mg/kg and 0.75 mg/
L). The process had no effect on atrazine, chlordane (alpha,
gamma, and technical), jand endosulfan (I and II).
I
Metals concentrations irj the pre-treatment soils were at levets
generally found in natural soils and were not thought to be
toxic to the microorganisms. The metals concentrations were
not expected to change :due to remediation and therefore post-
treatment samples were! not analyzed.
-------
g
a
25
20 -•
15
w -•
5 -
Temperature "C
PH
Day 0 to Day 23
300
x
tc
Redox
Day 0 to Day 23
Flgura2. Monitored parameters during demonstration test.
A negative control that consisted of a 0.02 m3 (5-gal) High
Density Polyethylene (HOPE) pail 75% full of pre-treatment soil
was set-up. This pail was left in the vicinity of the bioreactor
throughout the course of the test. Samples were taken from the
pail at the beginning and completion of the test to determine if
the dinoseb and nitroaniline had degraded without the assis-
tance of the process. The results from this control indicated
that the dinoseb and nitroaniline in the soil naturally degraded
during the treatment period. However, dinoseb and nitroaniline
levels in the negative process control were only reduced by
26.8% (from 28.0 mg/kg to 20.5 mg/kg, on a dry basis) and
51% (from 10.2 mg/kg to 5.0 mg/kg, on a dry basis), respec-
tively. This is lower than the reduction levels of these com-
pounds achieved in the bioreactor: >99.8% and >87.3%.
A sterile control was also attempted on the slurry after the
mixing of the soil, water, and potato starch. However, after the
sterile control had received 1.56 Mrads of gamma radiation,
biological plate counts showed that dinoseb degraders were
still present. However, treatability studies have shown that the
degradation of dinoseb is a result of the biological process (3).
Economic Analysis
Estimates on capital and operating costs have been deter-
mined for a treatment volume of 3,824 m3 (5,000 yd3) of
dinoseb-contaminated soil. This cost is estimated to be $127/
m3 ($97/yd3). This estimate is based on information gathered
during the Demonstration at Bowers Field and information
provide by Simplot. Excavation of the dinoseb-contaminated
soil is not included in this cost estimate. The estimated costs
presented can be expected to vary depending on contamina-
tion level, soil type, site facilities, and site location. The cost for
-------
treating approximately 3,824 m3 of dinoseb-contaminated soil
are based on:
• construction of four lined pits, each 50 ft wide, 340 ft long, and
4 ft deep with a 1 -ft berm;
• treatment of dinoseb-contaminated soils with levels and soil
characteristics similar to the Demonstration Test soil;
• a direct scale-up of chemical usage from the SITE demon-
stration; and
• a batch treatment time of 30 days.
If Simplot scales up its process differently than stated (i.e.,
using modular bioreactors rather than lined pits), the cost of
remediation per cubic meter of contaminated soil will change.
These cost estimates are representative of charges typically
assessed to the client by the vendor and do not include profit.
These costs do not include an additional cost that may be
charged by the J.R. Simplot Company. Depending on site
characteristics, an additional cost of up to $131/m3 ($100/yd3)
may be assessed to the client for supplemental technical assis-
tance, soil nutrients, a carbon source, and other process en-
hancements. A detailed explanation of these costs can be
found in the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER).
Technology Status
The J.R. Simplot Company is presently going forward with
remediation of the entire Bowers Field site. This remediation is
anticipated to be performed in a lined pit because of the
volume of soil. The J.R. Simplot Company is remediating
another dinoseb-contaminated site (30 m3) in Post Falls, ID.
This site contains high levels of hydrocarbons (approximately
4,000 ppm TRPH). In this case, the soil will have to go through
the cloud-point separation technique before bioremediation can
be initiated.
As mentioned previously, this technology is also being evalu-
ated under the SITE Demonstration Program on the
nitroaromatic, TNT. This was performed on 23 m3 (30 yd3) of
soil contaminated with approximately 1,510 mg/kg of TNT on a
dry basis. This Demonstration took place at a Department of
Defense facility in Welcjon Spring, MO. In this instance a
Removal Efficiency of 99.4% to an average of 8.7 mg/kg (dry
weight) was achieved in approximately 9 months over the cold
winter of 1993, when freezing conditions dominated.
All of the equipment used by this remediation technology is
rented. Therefore, there! is no time delay while waiting for a
previous site to be remediated. All equipment can be on-site in
a short period of time.
SITE Program j
In 1980 the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, > Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), also known als Superfund. CERCLA was amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
in 1986. The SITE Program is a formal program established in
response to SARA. The primary purpose of the SITE Program
is to maximize the use of alternative technologies in cleaning
up hazardous waste sites by encouraging the development
and demonstration of new, innovative treatment and monitoring
technologies. It consists of four major elements: the Demon-
stration Program, the Emerging Technology Program, the Moni-
toring and Measurement Technologies Program, and the
Technology Transfer Program. The J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Biore-
mediation Technology vtas originally researched through the
Emerging Technology Program and then evaluated under the
Demonstration Program.j This Capsule was published as part
of the Technology Transfer Program. Other documentation
resulting from this SITE1 Demonstration include an Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) that expands on the
results and conclusions presented in this capsule and a Tech-
nical Evaluation Report'(TER) that details the SITE Demon-
stration Test. A video 'is also produced that documents the
SITE Demonstration activities and results.
Disclaimer I
While the technology conclusions presented in this report may
not change, the data h'as not been reviewed by the Quality
Assurance/Quality Contijol office.
-------
Source of Further Information
EPA Contact:
U.S. EPA Project Manager:
Wendy Davis-Hoover
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224-1701
Telephone No.: (513) 569-7206
Fax No.: (513) 569-7879
References
2.
3.
Kaake, R.H.; Crawford, D.L.; and Crawford, R.L. 1994.
"Optimization of an Anaerobic Bioremediation Process for
Soil Contaminated with the Nitroaromatic Herbicide Dinoseb
(2-seo-Butyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol)."R.E. (ed.), Proceedings
of the Second In Situ and OnSite Bioreclamation Sympo-
sium. Battelle, Columbus, OH.
Science Applications International Corporation. "Quality
Assurance Project Plan, Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation : J.R. Simplot Bioremediation Process
(Dinoseb) at Bowers Field in Ellensburg, WA." May, 1993.
Roberts, D.J./Kaake, R.H.; Funk, S.B.; Crawford, D.L; and
Drawford, R.L. 1993. "Anaerobic Remediation of Dinoseb
from contaminated Soil; An Onsite Demonstration." Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. In press.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-94/508a
------- |