EPA/540/R-95/536
July 1996
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
Daramend™ Bioremediation Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-CO-0048 and Contract
No. 68-C5-0036 to Science Applications International Corporation. It has been subject to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute an endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environ-
mental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground
water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to
catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technolo-
gies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and
policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to
assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Abstract
This report summarizes the results and activities of the demonstration of GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology for the treatment of
soils contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and chlorinated phenols,
including pentachlorophenol (PCP). The primary market for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology consists of industrial wood preserving facilities that have used chlorinated phenols
and creosote derived PAHs as wood preservatives. This technology is patent pending and was
developed by GRACE Bioremediation Technologies in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The
demonstration was conducted at the Domtar Wood Preserving Facility in Trenton, Ontario, un-
der the USEPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
This demonstration was conducted for the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (now the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory) in October 1993 to September 1994, and the
final report was completed as of November 1995.
-------
Contents
Foreword , m
Abstract iv
Tables yii
Figures v!»
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols ix
Acknowledgments xi
Executive Summary 1
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Brief Description of Program and Reports 7
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program 9
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) 9
1.5 Technology Description 9
1.6 Key Contacts 10
Section 2 Technical Applications Analysis 12
2.1 Key Features 12
2.2 Operability of the Technology 12
2.3 Applicable Wastes 14
2.4 Availability and Transportability of the Equipment 14
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements 15
2.6 SITE Support Requirements 15
2.7 Ranges of Suitable SITE Characteristics 15
2.8 Limitation of the Technology 16
2.9 ARARS for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology 17
2.9.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) 17
2.9.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 17
2.9.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) 20
2.9.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) 20
2.9.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 20
2.9.6 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 20
2.9.7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Requirements 21
2.9.8 State Requirements 21
Section 3 Economic Analysis 22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Conclusions 22
3.3 Issues and Assumptions 23
3.3.1 Waste Volumes and Site Size 23
3.3.2 Process Optimization and Performance .• 23
3.3.3 Process Operating Requirements 23
3.3.4 Financial Assumptions 24
3.4 Basis for Economic Analysis 24
-------
Contents (Continued)
3.4.1 Site Preparation 24
3.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 26
3.4.3 Capital Equipment 26
3.4.4 Startup 27
3.4.5 Consumables and Supplies : 27
3.4.6 Labor 27
3.4.7 Utilities 27
3.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal 28
3.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Storage 28
3.4.10 Analytical Services 28
3.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement 28
3.4.12 Demobilization 28
3.5 Results 28
Section 4 Treatment Effectiveness 32
4.1 Background 32
4.2 Detailed Process Description 34
4.3 Methodology 35
4.3.1 Sampling 35
4.3.2 Data Analysis 36
4.3.3 Statistical Analysis 36
4.4 Performance Data 39
4.4.1 SITE Contractor Results from Pre-Demonstration 39
4.4.2 Summary of Results - Primary Objectives 39
4.4.3 Summary of Results - Secondary Objectives 40
4.4.3.1 The Magnitude of Reduction in the Sums of the Concentration of Select
PAHs and Chlorinated Phenols in the No-Treatment Plots Soils.. 40
4.4.3.2 The Magnitude of Reduction for Specific PAHs and Chlorinated Phenolic
Compounds Within Each Demonstration Plot 40
4.4.3.3 Comparison of Performance of Treatment Plot vs. No-Treatment Plot 44
4.4.3.4 The Toxicity of the Soil to Earthworms and Seed Germination in Each of the
SITE Demonstration Plots Before and After Treatment 44
4.4.3.5 The Fate of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Each of
the Demonstration Plots 46
4.4.3.6 General Soil Conditions - Inhibitors/Promoters to Technology's Effectiveness. 46
4.4.3.7 The Possible Generation of Leachate 48
4.4.3.8 Treatment Effects on the Microbial Biomass 48
4.4.3.9 Tendency for the Downward Migration of Contaminants 51
4.4.4 Process Operability and Performance 51
4.5 Process Residuals 54
Section 5 Other Technology Requirements 56
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements 56
5.2 Personnel Issues 56
5.3 Community Acceptance 56
Section 6 Technology Status 58
6.1 Previous Experience 58
6.2 Scaling Capabilities 58
Appendix A Developer's Claims.. 59
VI
-------
Tables
ES-I Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology 2
2-1 Federal and State ARARs for the DARAMEND™ Technology 18
3-1 Full-Scale Estimated Remediation Costs 25
3-2 Site Preparation Costs 26
4-I Primary and Secondary Objective Results for Total PAHs and Total Chlorinated Phenols 41
4-2 Specific Results for Each PAH and Chlorinated Phenol Compound Detected in the Treatment Plot 42
4-3 Specific Results for Each PAH and Chlorinated Phenol Compound Detected in the No-Treatment Plot 45
4-4 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Contaminant Reductions in the Treatment and No-Treatment Plots.. 46
4-5 Mortality of the Earthworm 46
4-6 Inhibition of Germination 47
4-7 Results of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis 47
4-8 Summary Report for GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™ SITE Project: Total
Dioxins/Furans 48
4-9 DARAMEND™ Particle Size Distribution Data 55
VII
-------
Figures
I-1 Site Location Map 8
1-2 SITE Demonstration Plots in Relation to GRACE Bioremediation Technologies Plot 8
3-1 Estimated Full-Scale Remediation Costs 30
3-2 Estimated Full-Scale Remediation Costs (Without Disposal Costs) 31
4-I Maintenance Record 33
4-2 Soil Sample Aliquots for Sampling Events 0 and 3 37
4-3 Soil Sample Aliquots for Sampling Events 1 and 2 38
4-4 Primary and Secondary Objective Results 41
4-5 PAH Percent Removal by Number of Rings 43
4-6 PAH Removal by Number of Rings 43
4-7 Results of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis (TRPH) 48
4-8 CFU/Gram Soil Using 100% PCA Agar 49
4-9 CFU/Gram Soil Using 10% PCAAgar 49
4-10 CFU/Gram Soil Using 25 mg/L PCP in Agar 50
4-11 CFU/Gram Soil Using 12 mg/L PCP in Agar 50
4-12 CFU/Gram Soil vs. TPAHs - 100% PCA 52
4-13 CFU/Gram Soil vs. TPAHs - 25 mg/L PCP 52
4-14 CFU/Gram Soil vs. TCPs - 100% PCA 53
4-15 CFU/Gram Soil vs. TCPs - 25 mg/L PCP 53
VIII
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols
nq
AO
AQCR
AQMD
ARAR
ATTIC
BTEX
CAA
CCME
CERCLA
CERI
CFR
CFU
Cl
cm
CO
CO2
CP
CWA
DQO
EIT
EPA
ESD
FS
hf
kWh
MCL
CLG
MDL
mg/kg
mg/l
NAAQS
NCP
ND
NPDES
NRMRL
NTIS
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
PAH
Micro gram
Micrograms per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Administrative Order
Air Quality Control Regions
Air Quality Management District
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
Clean Air Act
Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Center for Environmental Research Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Colony Forming Units
Confidence intervals
Centimeters
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Chlorinated Phenol
Clean Water Act
Data Quality Objective
Environmental Improvement Technologies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Explanation of Significant Difference
Feasibility Study
Horsepower
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Kilogram
Kilowatt
Kilowatt-hour
Maximum contaminant levels
Maximum contaminant level goals
Minimum Detection Limit
Milligrams per kilogram
Milligrams per liter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Non-Detect
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Technical Information Service
EPA Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
IX
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols (Continued)
PCA Plate Count Agar
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethane
PCP Pentachlorophenol
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPE Personal protective equipment
PSD Particle size distribution
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
S.U. Standard Units
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
SARA Super-fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE Super-fund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TC Total Carbon
TCP Total Chlorinated Phenols
TER Technology Evaluation Report
THC Total Hydrocarbon Compounds
TIC Total Inorganic Carbon
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TPAH Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
LIST Underground Storage Tank
VISITT Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
voc Volatile Organic Compound
WHC Water Holding Capacity
yd3 Cubic yards
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was developed under the direction of Teri Richardson, the EPATechnical Project
Manager for this SITE demonstration at NRMRL in Cincinnati, Ohio.
This report was prepared by the Environmental Technology Division of Science Applica-
tions International Corporation (SAIC), Hackensack, NJ under the direction of Michael M. Bolen,
the SAIC Work Assignment Manager, for the EPA under Contract No. 68-CO-0048. This report
was written in large part by Mr. Bolen, John King, Omer Kitaplioglu, and Dr. Robert Hoke. Sta-
tistical analyses and the experimental design were developed by Kirk Cameron and Dan Patel.
Project Quality Assurance was provided by Rita Schmon-Stasik and Joseph Evans. Field man-
agement responsibilities were performed by Steve Stavrou, with the exception of the baseline
event, which was overseen by William Dorsch. Technical support was provided by Dr. Scott
Beckman, Dr. Herbert Skovroneck, Joseph Zollo, Andrew Matuson, Antonia Laros, Brandon
Phillips, Paul Feinberg, Kate Mikulka, and Nicole Hart.
The cooperation and participation of Alan Seech, Paul Bucens, Dean Fisher, Brian O'Neill,
and supporting staff of GRACE Bioremediation Technologies throughout the course of the project
and in review of this report are gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks are offered to the employees at the Domtar Wood Preserving Facility for
their hospitality and assistance throughout this SITE demonstration.
XI
-------
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results and activities of the
demonstration of GRACE Bioremediation Technologies'
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology for the treatment
of soils contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs) and Chlorinated Phenols (CPs), including pen-
tachlorophenol (PCP). The primary market for the
DARAMEND™ technology consists of industrial wood pre-
serving facilities that have used CPs and creosote derived
PAHs as wood preservatives. This technology is patent
pending and was developed by GRACE Bioremediation
Technologies in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The dem-
onstration was conducted at the Domtar Wood Preserving
Facility in Trenton, Ontario, under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is a
bioremediation process that treats soils contaminated with
PAHs and CPs by adding and distributing solid-phase or-
ganic amendments according to a strict application, moni-
toring, and maintenance program. According to the devel-
oper, the DARAMEND Bioremediation Technology re-
duces the acute toxicity of the soils aqueous phase by tran-
siently binding soil contaminants and allowing
bioremediation to proceed in highly toxic soils. Further-
more, the developer claims the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology is an effective bioremediation
alternative for the treatment of soils containing high levels
of CPs and PAHs, which are typically considered too toxic
for bioremediation. The traditional treatments for these soils
include soil washing, incineration, or landfilling. There are
approximately 400 industrial wood treatment facilities in
the United States and an additional 200 sites in Canada
that exhibit soils contaminated with CPs and creosote. The
Appendix contains additional information presented by the
developer, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies.
Under the SITE Program, the technology was evaluated
to determine its effectiveness in reducing PAHs and CPs
in excavated soil at the Domtar site, after a proposed 240
days of treatment (actual 254 days). The technology was
evaluated against the nine criteria for decision-making in
the Superfund Feasibility Study Process. Table ES-I sum-
marizes the specific federal environmental regulations
pertinent to the operation of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology, including the transport, treat-
ment, storage, and disposal of wastes and treatment re-
siduals.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is appli-
cable to the in situ and ex situ remediation of soils con-
taminated with PAHs and CPs. According to the developer,
the technology has been proven on soils with PAH con-
centrations up to 18,500 mg/kg, total petroleum hydrocar-
bon concentrations up to 8,700 mg/kg, and PCP concen-
trations up to 660 mg/kg. However, soils with extremely
high concentrations of target compounds (i.e., 1800 mg/
kg of PCP) have proven resistant to the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology. The technology is a simple soil
remediation system, both in design and implementation.
The process involves a certain amount of materials han-
dling: the ex situ application more so than the in situ appli-
cation. The ex situ application is similar to landfarming tech-
nologies in that a large amount of space is required to treat
the soils. In an ex situ application, the process is designed
to generate no leachate. The process does not require any
major utilities to operate. Inhibitors to the technology are
inordinate amounts of debris in the soil, acidic soils (pH
<2), and elevated heavy metal concentrations in the soil
(not yet determined by the developer). According to the
developer, the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
appears to be limited to soils contaminated with
nonhalogenated and slightly halogenated organic com-
pounds and is not suited for soils contaminated with PCBs
and other highly halogenated organics.
A full-scale clean up of this demonstration site using this
technology was estimated to cost between $619,000 for
an in situ plot case with an attendant unit cost of $92/m3
($70/yd3), and $959,000 for an ex situ plot case with an
attendant unit cost of $140/m3 ($1 08/yd3). These costs were
calculated based on the following assumptions: an equal
soil volume (6,800 m3); a treatment depth of 0.6 m; a treat-
ment period of 11 months to meet regulatory standards;
one treatment cycle for the in situ plot; and five treatment
cycles for the ex situ plot, since the ex situ plot can only
accommodate 2,300 m2 of soil per cycle. For both cases
above, residuals and waste shipping and handling charges
were the predominant cost. Without residuals disposal, the
unit costs decrease to $46/m3 ($35/yd3) for the in situ plot,
representing a 50% reduction, and $96/m3 ($73/yd3) for
the ex situ plot, representing a 31% reduction. No costs
-------
Table ES-I. Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Provides both short-
and long-term protect-
ion by reducing or
eliminating organic
(PAHs and TCPs)
contaminants in soil.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Compliance with Long-Term Effectiveness Mobility, or Volume Short-Term
Federal ARARS and Permanence Through Treatment Effectiveness Imolementabilitv
Requires compliance Provides for
with RCRA treatment, irreversible treat-
storage, and land ment of PAHs and
disposal regulations TCPs.
(of a hazardous
waste).
Significantly reduces The DARAMEND™ Involves few
toxicity, mobility, and Bioremediation administrative
volume of soil contami- Technology requires difficulties.
nants through treatment, a period of approxi-
mately 240 days for
the degradation of
contaminants to reach
regulatory standards.
Length of time is based
on contaminant type,
concentration levels,
and the characteristics
of the media.
Community
Cost Acceptance
A first estimate Minimal short-term
cost is $50 to risks to the commu-
$80 USD/ton. nity make this tech-
The cost is nology appealing to
affected by pro- the public.
ject parameters
such as contami-
nant type and
initial concentra-
tion; soil volume
requiring remedi-
ation; climate;
remediation time
frame; and project
scope of work.
State
Acceptance
State ARARs
may be more
stringent than
federal regula-
tions.
Removes existing Excavation, construc-
contamination source, tion, and operation of
thereby preventing onsite treatment unit
continual contamination may require compli-
to other environmental ance with location-
media, specific ARARs.
Prevents further
ground water
contamination and
pollutant migration.
Eliminates contamina-
tion source, thus re-
ducing the mobility of
contaminants to other
environmental media.
System is easy
to install and
operate. Uses
conventional
excavation and
tilling equipment.
Technology is
generally accepted
by the public be-
cause it provides a
permanent solution.
State accept-
tance of the
technology
varies de-
pending upon
ARARs.
Requires measures
to protect workers and
community during
excavation, handling,
and treatment.
Process does not
generate significant
air emissions or
wastewater during
implementation of
treatment.
Volume of soil after
treatment is slightly
increased due to the
addition of treatment
amendments.
May require a
greenhouse type
enclosure to ensure
proper soil tempera-
ture and humidity.
Noise generated
during system in-
stallation could be
troublesome, but
once the process is
operational it does
not generate much
appreciable noise.
-------
were assigned for effluent treatment and disposal since
no leachate was generated for the ex situ case. This was
also assumed for the in situ case at the demonstration
site, although the developer indicated that pilot-scale test-
ing at other sites would be required. For both cases, labor
and site preparation were among the top four cost catego-
ries, after residual and waste shipping and handling costs,
costs attributed to analytical services, capital equipment,
demobilization, permitting, and regulatory requirements are
about the same for both cases. The evaluation of the ex
situ application of the technology was the primary focus of
this SITE demonstration.
The EPA SITE demonstration area consisted of two plots,
a Treatment Plot and a No-Treatment Plot, containing ex-
cavated contaminated soil from the same source on-site
(former processing area). The plots were constructed iden-
tically, with the exception that the No-Treatment Plot was
only 2 m x 6 m, and the Treatment Plot was a 6 m x 36 m
area. The No-Treatment Plot was left idle over the course
of the demonstration and was isolated from the treatment
process. The Treatment Plot consisted of a 12-inch thick
layer of excavated soil targeted for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology and evaluation by the SITE
Program. Once the organic amendments were mixed into
the Treatment Plot soil, monitoring and maintenance of
the Treatment Plot occurred over a period of 11 months. A
total of 254 treatment days occurred, excluding days dur-
ing which the soil temperature fell below 15°C. GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies, the developer, monitored the
plot at least biweekly, by measuring the soil temperature,
soil water holding capacity, soil moisture, and air tempera-
tures, and by conducting Microtox™ soil toxicity assays.
Maintenance of the Treatment Plot consisted of biweekly
tillage and irrigation of the soil.
The demonstration of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology was conducted from October 1993 to Septem-
ber 1994 at the Domtar site. The Domtar site is located 90
miles east of Toronto, Ontario, along the northern coast of
Lake Ontario. The site was a wood-preserving facility for
several decades; otherwise, very little is known about the
history of the site. The facility is currently used to store treated
lumber, railroad ties, and telephone poles. Past wood pre-
serving operations used PCP (a chlorinated phenol com-
pound), petroleum hydrocarbons, and creosote-derived PAHs
in their processes. As a result the surrounding soil was con-
taminated by accidental spills and by drippings during the
drying process. Recently, some of this contaminated soil was
excavated and stockpiled for treatment by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies. This excavated soil was uti-
lized during the SITE demonstration.
The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to
evaluate the technology's ability to reduce total PAHs and
total CPs (TCPs) in the Treatment Plot, which was expected
to be on the order of 95%, over a period of 240 days (eight
months) of treatment. To accomplish this objective the
Treatment Plot was sampled at the start (day 0) and at the
end of the demonstration (day 254), as well as during two
intermediate periods. Soil samples were analyzed for semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs, by SW846 EPA
Method 3540/8270), which included PCP and selected
PAHs.
Process performance was evaluated by comparing the
concentrations of the following analytes before and after
treatment:
Total Chlorophenols
. 2-chlorophenol
. 2,4-dichlorophenol
. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
. Pentachlorophenol
Total PAHs
• Naphthalene
• Acenaphthalene
• Acenaphthene
• Fluorene
• Phenanthrene
• Anthracene
• Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
• Fluoranthene
• Pyrene
• Chrysene
• Benzo(a)pyrene
• Benzo(b)fluoranthene
• Benzo(k)fluoranthene
• Benzo(a)anthracene
• lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
• Dibenzo (a.h)anthracene
• Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
The total list of chlorophenols presented by the devel-
oper has been abbreviated to the above list to include those
analytes routinely analyzed under SW846 354018270.
As the process is temperature-dependent, the treatment
period only incorporates days when the average daily soil
temperature within the plot was above 15°C. Originally,
the demonstration was scheduled to run until the begin-
ning of June 1994, but was extended to the end of Sep-
tember due to the number of days the soil temperature fell
below 15°C during the winter months.
As part of the secondary objectives a variety of param-
eters were evaluated as listed below:
. Determine the magnitude of reduction in the sums
of the concentrations of select PAHs and CPs in the
No-Treatment Plot soils.
. Determine the magnitude of reduction for specific
and chlorinated phenolic compounds within each of
the SITE demonstration plots.
. Determine the toxicity of the soil to earthworms and
seed germination in each of the SITE demonstra-
tion plots before and after treatment.
. Monitor the fate of total recoverable petroleum hydro-
carbons (TRPH) in each of the SITE demonstration
plots.
-------
. Monitor general soil conditions (i.e., nutrients, toxins)
that might inhibit or promote process effectiveness,
such as total carbon (TC), total inorganic carbon (TIC),
nitrate-nitrite, phosphate, total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
pH, particle size distribution (PSD), chlorides and to-
tal metals within each of the SITE demonstration plots.
. Monitor for the presence of leachate within the SITE
demonstration Test Plot.
. Monitor each of the SITE demonstration plots for ac-
tive microbial populations, specifically focusing on to-
tal heterotrophs and PCP degraders, as a way to quali-
tatively assess the magnitude of biodegradation over
the course of the eight-month test.
. Monitor the upper sand layer in contact with the treated
soil to qualitatively assess any tendency for downward
migration of contaminants.
These primary and secondary project objectives were
achieved through a carefully planned and executed sam-
pling and analysis plan. For this demonstration SVOCs
were considered critical during "Baseline" and "Post-Treat-
ment" sampling (Event #0 and Event #3) of the SITE dem-
onstration Treatment Plot. This parameter was considered
noncritical during sampling of the No-Treatment Plot and
during the two intermediate rounds of Treatment Plot sam-
pling (Event #1 and Event #2). The period of performance
evaluation was estimated by the developer to be approxi-
mately 240 days (actual 254 days) starting on October 14,
1993. A week in September marked the final Event #3 (254
days) or "Post Treatment Sampling" of the plots. The two
intermediate rounds (Event #l and Event #2) occurred on
the 88th day and on the 144th day of treatment in April
1994 and June 1994. No sampling was conducted during
the months of November, December, January, February,
and March since little biodegradation was expected to oc-
cur at low winter temperatures.
An additional objective of this demonstration was to de-
velop data on operating costs for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology so that the applicability and cost
effectiveness of this process at other sites can be evalu-
ated. Capital costs were obtained from the developer.
Operating and maintenance costs were either estimated
or obtained from the developer. Estimates for labor require-
ments were developed using observations made and data
gathered during the demonstration. The companion docu-
ment to this report is the Technology Evaluation Report
(TER), which contains such information as quality assur-
ance/quality control protocols, raw and summarized data,
and project chronology.
Conclusions Based on Primary Objectives
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology achieved
an overall 94% removal of PAHs (with a 90% confidence
interval (Cl) of 93.4% to 95.2%) and an overall 88% re-
duction of TCPs (with a 90% confidence interval of 82.9%
to 90.5%) after 254 days of treatment of the Treatment
Plot ex situ soils. Total PAHs were reduced from an aver-
age of 1710 mg/kg to 98 mg/kg and TCPs were reduced
from an average of 352 mg/kg to 43 mg/kg. Statistical com-
parison with 10% level of significance indicate that reduc-
tions of PAHs and chlorophenols realized in the Treatment
Plot were significantly higher that those realized in the No-
Treatment Plot (presented later in this section).
Conclusions Based on Secondary
Objectives
The results of the demonstration suggest the following
conclusions regarding the technology's performance at the
Domtar site. These conclusions were based on secondary
objectives:
No-Treatment Plot Total PAH and TCP
Reduction Rates
. Results from the No-Treatment Plot indicate total PAHs
were reduced by 41% (with a 90% Cl of 34.6% to
48.7%) and CPs were reduced 0%. Total PAHs were
reduced from an average of 1312 mg/kg to 776 mg/kg
and TCPs remained at an approximate average of 217
mglkg.
Treatment Plot - Specific PA H Compounds
and Chlorinated Phenols
. The reduction of individual PAHs and CPs in the Treat-
ment Plot ranged from approximately 98% to 41%.
Statistical analysis indicated that the reductions ob-
served were significant with a 90% confidence level.
The 3-ring and 4-ring PAH compounds were reduced
more significantly than the 5-ring and 6-ring PAH com-
pounds. The approximate average reduction rate of 3-
ring and 4-ring PAH compounds was 97%; 5-ring and
6-ring PAH compounds averaged approximately 77%
and 40% removal, respectively.
No-Treatment Plot Specific PAH
Compounds and Chlorinated Phenols
. The reduction of individual PAHs and CPs in the No-
Treatment Plot ranged from approximately 76% to 0%.
The 3-ring and 4-ring PAH compounds were reduced
more significantly than the 5-ring and 6-ring PAH com-
pounds. The approximate average reduction rates of
3-ring and 4-ring PAH compounds were 64% and 34%,
respectively. In comparison, the 5-ring and 6-ring PAH
compounds averaged approximately 16% and 20%
removal, respectively.
Toxicity
. Toxicity analysis results indicate that the treatment pro-
cess appeared to reduce the toxicity of the Treatment
Plot soil to both the earthworms and plant seeds. At
the end of the treatment process, the Treatment Plot
soil sample was considered nontoxic. The earthworms
in the Treatment Plot soil exhibited a 100% mean
mortality rate during the baseline. After 254 days of
treatment by the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
-------
Technology, earthworms exhibited a 0% mean mortal-
ity rate. Plant seeds in the Treatment Plot soil exhib-
ited a 100 to 52% mean inhibition of germination rate
(lettuce and radish, respectively) during the baseline.
After 254 days of treatment, lettuce and radish seeds
exhibited a 33% and 0% mean inhibition of germina-
tion rate, respectively. The No-Treatment Plot exhib-
ited only a slight reduction in toxicity and the soil re-
mained toxic. Only radish seed germination changed
from 82% mean inhibition to 28% mean inhibition in
the No-Treatment Plot (others exhibited practically no
change). This slight reduction in toxicity of the No-Treat-
ment Plot soils is consistent with the slight reduction
in PAHs observed.
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
. The results of the TRPH data for each plot indicated
significant reductions occurred in the Treatment Plot
(87%) and no reduction in the No-Treatment Plot mo/-
So/7 Chemistry
. A significant reduction of PAHs and CPs in the Treat-
ment Plot soil was exhibited despite the concentra-
tions of metals and conventional soil chemistry present.
The soil was primarily free of any inhibitors that may
have impeded the biodegradation of the PAHs and
CPs. The metals concentrations ranged from 6690 mg/
kg of iron to 1 mg/kg of cadmium. Levels of pH ranged
from 8.16 to 9.38 in the Treatment Plot. In addition,
other soil chemistry analyses (e.g., nitrate-nitrite, total
organic carbon, etc.) gave no evidence that nutrient
levels in the soil were increased as a result of the treat-
ment process. The No-Treatment Plot exhibited rela-
tively the same soil chemistry as the Treatment Plot
over the duration of the demonstration. Only TIC was
elevated in the Treatment Plot (26,300 mg/kg to
216,000 mg/kg) in comparison to the No-Treatment
Plot (13,800 mg/kg to 96,200 mglkg).
. Analysis of chlorinated dioxins and furans in the Treat-
ment Plot at the beginning and end of the project indi-
cated the presence of low concentration of various
penta-, hexa-, and hepta- congeners in both soils. The
major constituents were the fully chlorinated conge-
ners. The toxic congener 2,3,7,8-TCDD was absent.
Decreases, if any, in totals for tetra-, hexa-, hepta- octa-
congeners would lead one to suspect that a decrease
has occurred over the course of the demonstration.
Leachate Monitoring
. No leachate was generated as a result of the treat-
ment process.
Microbial Biomass Populations
. The magnitude of biodegradation was enhanced by
the treatment process and inhibited by the PCP, as
measured by colony forming units (CPU) of total het-
erotrophic microbial biomass. In addition, the micro-
bial data suggests that high total PAH concentrations
in the soil had an inhibiting effect on the microbial bio-
mass of the demonstration soil, including organisms
that may be capable of metabolizing PCP. A large de-
gree of variability (i.e., standard deviation) was asso-
ciated with these conclusions, and they may not be
statistically significant. However, all observed trends
were consistent and biologically plausible.
Pollutant Migration Monitoring
. Evaluation of the possible downward migration of con-
taminants was compromised prior to the demonstra-
tion and during the demonstration by the developer.
No conclusions can be substantiated.
Operability and Overall Performance
. The operability and overall performance of the tech-
nology was very satisfactory. The treatment process
was installed, monitored, and maintained by the de-
veloper as designed. Only one incident occurred: the
underlying clean sand layer was accidentally mixed
with the overlying demonstration soils during the dem-
onstration (prior to the 88th day of treatment). Pos-
sible dilution calculations indicate that this incident had
an insignificant effect (i.e., PCP approximately 2%) on
the overall performance of the technology. Section
4.4.4 discusses this in more detail.
The findings of this SITE demonstration are supported
by several complementary observations, all of which dem-
onstrate that the contaminants were removed by the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. These include
(1) a statistical analysis of the first and last sampling epi-
sodes that indicate significant decreases in total PAHs and
PCP; (2) intermediate measurements that show steadily
declining values for these contaminants; (3) a marked de-
crease in TRPH over the duration of the test; (4) decrease
in toxicity as measured by earthworm and seedling bioas-
says; and (5) bacterial plate counts that illustrate enhanced
activity in the Treatment Plot. Taken together these obser-
vations are more convincing than any single set of data
considered separately.
Other technology requirements for the implementation
of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology may in-
clude permits for the treatment, storage, construction, pos-
sible air emissions, etc. Personnel issues are a factor de-
pending on the scale of the remediation. Otherwise, health
and safety issues for personnel are generally the same as
those that apply at all hazardous waste treatment facili-
ties. Community issues may occur depending on the
community's exposure to noise and airborne particulate
generated during site preparation and pretreatment activi-
ties.
The following sections of this report contain the detailed
information that supports the items summarized in this Ex-
ecutive Summary.
This section provides background information about the
SITE- Program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the
-------
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. For additional
information about the SITE Program, this technology, and
the demonstration site, key contacts are listed at the end
of Section 1.
-------
Section i
Introduction
1.1 Background
The GRACE Bioremediation Technologies SITE dem-
onstration was conducted to evaluate the performance of
the developer's DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
in remediating PAH and chlorinated phenol contamination
in wood-treatment soils from the Domtar Wood Preserv-
ing Facility in Trenton, Ontario. According to the developer,
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is an effec-
tive bioremediation alternative to soil washing, incinera-
tion, or landfilling for soils containing high levels of CPs
and PAHs, which are typically considered too toxic for
bioremediation.
The primary markets for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology are industrial wood treatment facilities that have
used CPs and creosote-derived PAHs as wood preserva-
tives. There are approximately 400 such sites in the United
States and an additional 200 in Canada. The DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology has been applied to five other
PAH- and PCP-contaminated sites in Canada. According to
the developer, the success of the technology with wood pre-
serving chemicals, such as PAHs, has allowed the contami-
nant range to be extended to phthalates in soils. In addition,
the developer states that a new bioremediation technology
based on the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is
being developed that rapidly reduces the concentrations of
organochlorine pesticides and organic explosives in soil.
Prior to the developers participation in the EPA SITE Pro-
gram, the technology underwent successful bench and pilot
scale testing by the developer on soils from the demonstra-
tion site. During the developer's pilot-scale program, the re-
duction of in situ chlorinated phenol concentrations to be-
low the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment
(CCME) guideline of 5 mg/kg, and the 99% reduction of
PCP (is a chlorinated phenol) concentration from 680 to 6
mg/kg, were reported. Total PAH concentrations were also
reduced from 1485 mg/kg to 35 mg/kg during this time. In
1993, to assess the reliability and cost effectiveness of the
technology, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies con-
ducted a full-scale demonstration at the Domtar facility to
treat 3000 tons of soil in situ and 1500 tons ex situ. Based
on the results of the site characterization in September
1993 and some further soil screening, targeted test soils
at the Domtar site were found to be acceptable for the
demonstration of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Tech-
nology. The EPA SITE demonstration of the ex situ
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology was conducted
over the next 11 months, from October 1993 to Septem-
ber 1994, at the Domtar site.
The Domtar Wood Preserving Facility is located in Tren-
ton, Ontario, Canada, approximately 90 miles east of
Toronto, along the northern coast of Lake Ontario (see
Figure l-l). Very little is known about the history of the
site, other than its long history (several decades) as a
wood preserving facility. The wood treatment process re-
sulted in the deposition of creosote, and petroleum
hydrocarbons in the soil. The facility currently operates
as a large storage yard for treated lumber, railroad ties,
and telephone poles; however, all wood preserving op-
erations have ended. SITE demonstration activities were
conducted at the northern end of the Domtar property and
utilized the excavated soils from the former wood treat-
ment area (see Figure 1-2).
1.2 Brief Description of Program and
Reports
The SITE Program is a formal program established by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE Program
promotes the development, demonstration, and use of new
or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites
across the country.
The SITE Program's primary purpose is to maximize the
use of alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites by
encouraging the development and demonstration of new,
innovative treatment and monitoring technologies. It con-
sists of four major elements discussed below:
. the Emerging Technology Program
. the Demonstration Program,
-------
Detroit
CANADA
Trenton
*
Cleveland
Figure l-l. Site Location Map Trenton, Ontario and Vicinity.
Toronto
*
'• Buffalo
U.SA
*
Rochester
N
SITE Demo No-Treatment Plot
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies'
Main Treatment Area
2
Meters
36 Meters
S2
03
Q)
CD
Approximately 200 Meters
Figure 1-2. SITE Demonstration Plots in Relation to GRACE Bioremediation Technologies Plot.
-------
. the Monitoring and Measuring Technologies Program,
and
. the Technology Transfer Program.
The Emerging Technology Program focuses on concep-
tually proven bench-scale technologies that are in an early
stage of development involving pilot or laboratory testing.
Successful technologies are encouraged to advance to the
Demonstration Program.
The Demonstration Program develops reliable perfor-
mance and cost data on innovative technologies so that
potential users may assess the technology's site-specific
applicability. Technologies evaluated are either currently
available or close to being available for remediation of
Superfund sites. SITE demonstrations are conducted on
hazardous waste sites under conditions that closely simu-
late full-scale remediation conditions, thus assuring the
usefulness and reliability of information collected. Data
collected are used to assess (1) the performance of the
technology, (2) the potential need for pre- and post-treat-
ment processing of wastes, (3) potential operating prob-
lems, and (4) the approximate costs. The demonstrations
also allow for evaluation of long-term risks and operating
and maintenance costs.
Existing technologies that improve field monitoring and
site characterizations are identified in the Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies Program. New technologies
that provide faster, more cost-effective contamination and
site assessment data are supported by this program. The
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program also
formulates the protocols and standard operating proce-
dures for demonstrating methods and equipment.
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates techni-
cal information on innovative technologies in the Emerg-
ing Technology Program, Demonstration Program, and
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Programs
through various activities. These activities increase the
awareness and promote the use of innovative technolo-
gies for assessment and remediation at Superfund sites.
The goal of technology transfer activities is to develop in-
teractive communication among individuals requiring up-
to-date technical information.
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration
Program through annual requests for proposals. ORD staff
review the proposals to determine which technologies show
the most promise for use at Superfund sites. Technologies
chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, must be
innovative, and must have some advantage over existing
technologies. Mobile and in situ technologies are of par-
ticular interest.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative agree-
ments between EPA and the developer establish respon-
sibilities for conducting the demonstrations and evaluat-
ing the technology. The developer is responsible for dem-
onstrating the technology at the selected site and is ex-
pected to pay any costs for transport, operation, and re-
moval of the equipment. EPA is responsible for project plan-
ning, sampling and analysis, quality assurance and qual-
ity control, report preparation, information distribution, and
transport and disposal of treated waste materials.
The results of this evaluation of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology are published in two docu-
ments: the SITE Technology Capsule and the ITER. The
SITE Technology Capsule provides relevant information
on the technology, emphasizing key results of the SITE
demonstration. TER is available as a supporting document
to the ITER. Both the SITE Technology Capsule and the
ITER are intended for use by remedial managers when
making a detailed evaluation of the technology for a spe-
cific site and waste.
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
This ITER provides information on the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology and includes a comprehensive
description of the demonstration and its results. The ITER
is intended for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA
on-scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision
makers in implementing specific remedial actions. The
ITER is designed to aid decision makers in further evalu-
ating specific technologies for consideration as applicable
options in a particular cleanup operation. This report rep-
resents a critical step in the development and commer-
cialization of a treatment technology.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated technolo-
gies, EPA provides information regarding the applicability
of each technology to specific sites and wastes. The ITER
includes information on cost and performance, particularly
as evaluated during the demonstration. It also discusses
advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the tech-
nology.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of
a technology in treating a specific waste. Waste charac-
teristics at other sites may differ from those at the demon-
stration site. Therefore, successful field demonstration of
a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure its
applicability to other sites. Data from the field demonstra-
tion may require extrapolation to estimate the operating
ranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily.
Only limited conclusions can be drawn from a single field
demonstration.
1.5 Technology Description
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies' DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology treats soils contaminated with
PAHs and CPs by adding and distributing solid-phase or-
ganic amendments according to a strict application/moni-
toring/maintenance program. The DARAMEND™
-------
Bioremediation Technology is patent pending and consists
of three components:
. Addition of solid-phase organic soil amendments of
specific PSD and nutrient content,
. Distribution of the soil amendments through the target
matrix and the homogenization and aeration of the
target matrix using specialized tilling equipment, and
. A specialized soil moisture control system designed
to maintain moisture content within a specified range,
to facilitate rapid growth of an active microbial popula-
tion and prevent the generation of leachate.
According to the developer, the organic amendments
enable the soil matrix to supply biologically available wa-
ter and nutrients to contaminant-degrading microorgan-
isms, and transiently bind pollutants to reduce the acute
toxicity of the soils aqueous phase, allowing the microor-
ganisms to survive in soils containing very high concen-
trations of toxicants. After homogenization GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies amendments are added to
the soil in a volume of approximately 1 to 5% of the total
volume of the soil. Addition of the amendments may in-
crease the soil volume up to 15% depending on the amount
of pore space present. Typically, amendments are added
solely at the beginning of the treatment process, however,
it is possible that approximately 10% of the original amount
may need to be added midway or near the end of the treat-
ment period, based on the soil sample analytical results.
Once incorporated into the soil matrix, DARAMEND™ or-
ganic amendment particles are hydrated, begin releasing
nutrients, and are rapidly colonized by microorganisms.
The particles also have surface charges that electrostati-
cally draw organic contaminants toward them. In this way
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology creates
many microsites where soil contaminants such as PCP
are first drawn and then biodegraded. The enzymatic
mechanism by which soil bacteria destroy PCP is well rec-
ognized and results in complete conversion of the con-
taminant to carbon dioxide, water, and chloride ions.
Tilling of the soil serves three functions: to reduce varia-
tions in soil physical and chemical properties; to increase
the diffusion of oxygen to microsites; and to facilitate the
uniform distribution of soil amendments. The soil matrix is
homogenized by tilling with a power take-off driven rotary
tiller. GRACE Bioremediation Technologies utilizes two
tillers each of which is pulled by a 75 hp tractor. The tillers
are 2.1 and 1.7 m wide and can reach an effective depth
'of 60 cm.
In addition, the developer determines the water-holding
capacity (WHC) of the targeted soils and employs a spe-
cialized soil moisture control system within a specific range
to encourage the proliferation of large active microbial
populations, yet limit the generation of leachate. The fre-
quency of irrigation is determined by weekly monitoring of
soil moisture conditions. The growth rate of microbial bio-
mass is characterized via regular monitoring of soil tem-
perature using a commercial version of a hand-held ther-
mocouple.
Biweekly maintenance of the plots consists of the fol-
lowing tasks: plot tillage using a specialized tractor and
tiller, soil monitoring for moisture and temperature, and plot
irrigation. These are considered proprietary components
of the developer's process.
The only form of pre-treatment required by the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is the mechani-
cal screening of the soil (10 cm screen) in order to remove
debris (rocks, wood, metal) that may interfere with distri-
bution of the organic amendment. Screened soil is trans-
ported to the treatment area and spread uniformly in the
constructed treatment plots to a maximum depth of 0.6 m.
The constructed treatment plots consist of an area under-
lain with a high-density polyethylene liner (impermeable to
the target compounds). This liner will be underlain with 10
cm of screened sand to prevent structural damage. An-
other 15-cm-thick sand layer and a 4-mm-thick fiberpad
are spread on top of the liner to minimize the potential for
direct contact between the liner material and tillage equip-
ment. The demonstration ex situ treatment area covered
an area of 2300 m2 and allowed treatment of approximately
1500 tons of soil.
The treatment plots may also be contained within a tem-
porary waterproof structure to produce a warmer environ-
ment in northern latitudes, and to aid in the retention of
soil moisture. The waterproof structure consists of an alu-
minum frame covered by a shell of polyethylene sheeting
and is left open at each end to allow for equipment ac-
cess.
1.6 Key Contacts
Additional information on the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Treatment Process and the SITE Program can be obtained from
the following sources:
The DARAMEND™ Technology
Alan G. Seech
Director of Operations
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
3451 Erindale Station Road
P.O. Box 3060, Station A
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5A 3T5
Phone: (905) 272-7427
Fax: (905) 272-7472
Email: aseech@fox.nstn.ca
The SITE Program
Robert A. Olexsey, Director
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Phone: (513) 569-7861
Fax: (513) 569-7620
10
-------
Teri L. Richardson
EPA SITE Technical Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Phone: (513) 569-7949
Fax: (513) 569-7105
Information on the SITE Program is available through
the following on-line information clearinghouses:
. The Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) System (operator: 513-569-7272; dial-
in: 513-569-7610; telnet access: cinbbs.cin.epa.gov)
is a comprehensive, automated information retrieval
system that integrates data on hazardous waste treat-
ment technologies into a centralized, searchable
source. This database provides summarized informa-
tion on innovative treatment technologies.
.The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treat-
ment Technologies (VISITT) (Hotline: 800-245-4505;
Fax: 513-891-6685) database contains information on
231 technologies offered by 141 developers.
.The OSWER CLU-ln electronic bulletin board contains
information on the status of SITE technology demon-
strations (Operator: 301-589-8368; Access: 301-589-
8366).
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268
at 513-569-7562.
11
-------
Section 2
Technical Applications Analysis
An important aspect of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology is an understanding of the spe-
cific physical and chemical properties of the contaminated
soil that could limit the effectiveness of bioremediation. The
analysis is based on the SITE demonstration results, and
conclusions are based exclusively on these data since only
limited information is available on other applications of the
technology. The EPA SITE Demonstration evaluated the
ex situ version of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Tech-
nology, which involved the treatment of approximately
11 Om3 of soil contaminated with PAHs and CPs, including
PCP. Aseparate //isitudemonstration of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology was also conducted during the
same time frame but was not evaluated under the EPA
SITE Program. The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Tech-
nology has been successfully applied to soils with widely
different physical and chemical properties.
2.1 Key Features
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology has
been successfully applied to soils with widely different
physical and chemical properties. DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology is generally an inexpensive
remedial alternative and its remedial mechanism involves
the complete destruction of contaminants, to C02 and H20.
The technology is based upon the addition of specially for-
mulated solid phase organic amendments of a specific
PSD. In addition, these amendments are supplemented
with controlled-release macronutrients and trace elements.
According to the developer, the amendments increase the
ability of the soil matrix to supply biologically available water
and nutrients to stimulate indigenous populations of con-
taminant-degrading soil microorganisms. Furthermore, the
developer claims that the amendments also transiently bind
the contaminants to reduce the acute toxicity of the soil's:
aqueous phase, thus allowing the microorganisms to sur-
vive in soil containing very high concentrations of contami-
nants. Hence, according to the developer, the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology can effectively
bioremediate soils traditionally considered too toxic for di-
rect bioremediation.
2.2 Operability of the Technology
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is rela-
tively simple to operate. It consists of three integrated treat-
ment components:
. Addition of the appropriate specially formulated solid-
phase organic soil amendments to the target matrix
. Distribution of the soil amendments through the target
matrix and the homogenization and aeration of the
target matrix using specialized tilling equipment
. Soil moisture control using a specialized system to
maintain moisture content within a specified range, to
facilitate rapid growth of an active microbial popula-
tion and control the generation of leachate.
For insituapplications of the technology, the soil is ini-
tially broken up with excavation equipment to a depth of
0.6 m, which is the limit for the specialized tilling equip-
ment. The soil is broken up to reduce compaction and re-
move debris from the treatment zone. Following these ini-
tial soil preparation measures and the addition of amend-
ments, the soil is tilled with a power takeoff driven rotary
tiller. Tilling homogenizes the soil by effectively reducing
the physical and chemical variations and evenly distrib-
utes soil amendments through the treatment zone.
For ex situ applications of the technology, contaminated
soil is excavated and screened to 10 cm to remove debris
(rocks, wood, metal) that might interfere with the incorpo-
ration of the organic amendments. Screened soil is then
transferred to a contained treatment area consisting of a
bermed concrete pad or a plastic lined treatment plot.
These contained treatment areas are sized according to
the volume of soil to be treated and the minimum space
requirements for effective operation of the tilling equipment
within the treatment plots. If a lined treatment plot is used,
the HOPE plastic liner is underlain with 10 cm of screened
sand to prevent structural damage to the liner. The liner is
overlain by a 4mm thick fiberpad, and another sand layer,
15 cm thick, is spread on top of the fiberpad, to minimize
12
-------
the potential for direct contact between the liner and the
tillage equipment. Once the upper bedding material is in
place, the screened soil is deposited on top of the sand to
a uniform depth of 0.5 m. Using a power take-off driven
rotary tiller, the soil is homogenized to reduce the physical
and chemical variations of the soil. As with the in situ ap-
plication of the technology, the tilling equipment is also used
to facilitate the uniform distribution of soil amendments.
The contained treatment areas are typically covered by a
waterproof, temporary structure to prevent excessive soil
wetting due to rainfall and snow melt that would hinder
biodegradation and lead to the generation of leachate.
An important aspect of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology is an understanding of the spe-
cific physical and chemical properties of the contaminated
soil that could limit the effectiveness of bioremediation. This
information is acquired during an initial site characteriza-
tion and subsequent treatability studies. Once an under-
standing of various soil properties is obtained, the devel-
oper determines what alterations would make the soil ideal
from a microbiological perspective, and selects an organic
amendment formulation with the specific PSD and nutri-
ent profile to effect these alterations. According to the de-
veloper, the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
has been successfully applied to soils with widely different
physical and chemical properties. For soils with high clay
content DARAMEND™ organic soil amendments designed
to prevent agglomeration (i.e., formation of large clods)
are employed.
Since the partitioning of many soluble organic com-
pounds between leached, adsorbed, and biodegraded frac-
tions is influenced to some degree by textural variations,
percent organic matter and moisture content of the soil,
these physical parameters need to be defined during the
initial site characterization. Soil moisture is particularly
important, since excess moisture could limit the diffusion
of oxygen through the soil matrix to microbially active
microsites. Understanding the soil's WHC is also impor-
tant in gaining insight on the irrigation requirements of the
subject soil.
Chemical properties of the soil that are explored during
site characterization/treatability studies include soil pH,
macro- and micronutrient availability, the presence and
concentration of inhibiting compounds (i.e., heavy metals,
cyanide) and contaminant types and concentrations. Soil
pH affects solubility, toxicity, adsorption, and volatilization
of organic contaminants and ultimately the biotransformational
capacity of the soil. A determination is made during this
initial characterization as to whether soil pH has to be ad-
justed. The nutrient requirements necessary to sustain
bacterial viability and growth are determined based on the
mass of contaminants in the soil. These requirements are
compared to the actual mass of nutrients available in the
matrix. If the soil is lacking in the nutrients available for
complete bioassimilation of the contaminant mass, more
nutrients are added to the soil. The soil is sampled for toxic
metals and any other compound that might be detrimental to
the indigenous microbes. At elevated concentrations these
compounds could negate the viability of bioremediation as
a remedial alternative for these soils. The initial concen-
trations of PAHs and chlorophenols in the soils are also
determined to assess if these concentrations have the
potential to limit the rate at which biodegradation proceeds.
Soils with extremely high concentrations of target contami-
nants might need to be mixed with soils having lesser
amounts of contamination in order to optimize the condi-
tions for biodegradation.
The presence of prolific indigenous microbial populations
that utilize the organic contaminants as a food source is
another potential operating parameter. Microbial activity is
assessed prior to treatment and periodically during treat-
ment as part of assessing the biotransformational capaci-
ties of the soil. Soil samples are collected over the course
of the remediation to evaluate changes in the microbial
populations resulting from system operation. Standard plate
count methodologies are employed in the enumerations.
In situations where the microbial populations are inad-
equate, the indigenous communities may be augmented
with strains of hydrocarbon and PCP degrading microbes
previously cultivated from the contaminated soil. The soil
in the treatment plots did not require augmentation during
the Demonstration.
Periodic soil tilling is an important operating aspect of
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. Following
soil characterization and any treatability studies, the ap-
propriate organic amendment formulation is tilled into the
soil marking the start of treatment. The amendments se-
lected are matched to the specific physical and chemical
limitations of the soil to optimize biodegradation. The
amendments are thoroughly mixed into the contaminated
soil using specialized tilling equipment. The soil is tilled
every two weeks and after each irrigation to increase dif-
fusion of oxygen to the microsites and to ensure uniform
distribution of irrigation water in the soil profile.
Maintaining the treated soil's moisture content after or-
ganic amendment addition is critical. After addition of the
organic amendments, the WHC of the soil-amendment
mixture is determined, and the irrigation requirements of
the treated soil are established. WHC is an expression used
to describe the mass of water that a soil can hold against
the force of gravity. As long as a soil continues to retain
water being added it is below 100% WHC. Saturation, or
100% of WHC, has been reached at this point where added
water begins to be released from the soil. During remedia-
tion, the soil moisture content is maintained within a speci-
fied range (below the soil's WHC) to facilitate rapid growth
of a large and viable microbial population. According to
the developer, maintenance of soil moisture within a nar-
row range is critical for effective biodegradation of the tar-
get compounds. Excess soil moisture can impede the dif-
fusion of oxygen through the soil matrix to microbially ac-
tive microsites, due to a low ratio of air-filled to water-filled
pores. If soil moisture falls below the optimum range, bio-
degradation can be inhibited due to inadequate biologi-
13
-------
cally available water. Soil moisture is controlled by cover-
ing the treatment plots to eliminate wetting from precipita-
tion. The frequency of irrigation is determined by weekly
monitoring of soil moisture conditions at two depths: 0-20
and 40-60 cm. The upper horizon is the zone where most
of the water is consumed by microbial utilization, evapora-
tion, and downward migration. The lower horizon is moni-
tored for any excess soil moisture to appear. Taken to-
gether the two values allow effective characterization of
the moisture status of the soil profile and thus indicate when
irrigation is needed.
Soil temperature is monitored regularly because it can
greatly influence the rate of bioremediation. Metabolic re-
actions tend to occur rapidly under warmer conditions and
proceed more slowly under cooler conditions. In colder cli-
mates, the remediation season would be shorter, thereby
extending the time it takes to remediate a site using the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. For an ex situ
application, an enclosure that functions as a greenhouse
can be constructed over the treatment plots to extend vi-
able biodegradation into the winter months. Enclosures are
typically not installed, since their construction adds sub-
stantially to the technology's capital cost, and the trade-off
of reduced remediation time typically does not justify the
construction expense.
To chart the progress of bioremediation using the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology the developer
periodically samples the treated soil. Sampling is performed
by dividing the treatment area up into sample zones mea-
suring 10 m on a side. Each sample zone is further subdi-
vided into 1 nf sub-units. Soil homogenization due to fre-
quent tilling negates the need to collect soils from every
sub-unit. Typically, 5 sub-units from each sample zone are
selected for sampling using a random number generator.
Cores collected from each sub-unit within a single sample
zone are homogenized together to form a single repre-
sentative sample of that sample zone. Periodic sampling
also allows the developer to determine if further adjust-
ments to the physical and chemical properties of the soil
are warranted.
2.3 Applicable Wastes
As of this writing, the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology has been applied to six PAH- and PCP-con-
taminated soil sites in Canada. The DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology is considered suitable for the
in situ and ex situ remediation of soil contaminated with
PAHs and CPs, including PCP. These compounds (e.g.,
PCP and creosote) have been used in the treatment of
wood because of their ability to inhibit or slow down the
destruction of wood by microbes and other wood-infesting
organisms. It is these same anti-microbial/bacterial char-
acteristics that make bioremediation of soils contaminated
with wood treatment chemicals difficult. The ability of the
technology to reduce the acute toxicity of the soil's aque-
ous phase by transiently binding soil contaminants allows
the process to treat soils typically considered too toxic for
biodegradation. According to the developer, the technol-
ogy has been proven on soils with PAH concentrations up
to 18,500 mg/kg, total petroleum hydrocarbon concentra-
tions up to 8,700 mg/kg, and PCP concentrations up to
660 mg/kg.
Soils with extremely high concentrations of target com-
pounds have proved resistant to the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology. Bench-scale testing conducted
on soil with a PCP concentration of 18,000 mg/kg indi-
cated that treatment was ineffective due to high acute soil
toxicity. In these situations, the developer has diluted the
highly contaminated soil with less contaminated soil to di-
lute the contaminants to a range more suitable for the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. The presence
of certain inorganic compounds (heavy metals) at elevated
concentrations may make a soil unsuitable for treatment
using the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology.
2.4 Availability and Transportability of the
Equipment
The DARAMEND™ in situ and ex situ Bioremediation
Technology is simple in design and implementation. The
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is generally not
considered to be a mobile technology because the pro-
cess components are not trailer-mounted and are not ca-
pable of being transported from site to site. Most hard-
ware components and materials needed to construct treat-
ment plots are common and readily obtainable from local
hardware/plumbing stores and lumber yards. Other equip-
ment, including machinery, trailers, and storage sheds can
often be rented locally. Utilizing rental equipment also tends
to eliminate transportation needs and costs. Among the
pieces of equipment that might be required are dump
trucks, rotary tillers, front-end loaders, mechanical shaker
screens, backhoes, excavators, skid-steer loaders, grad-
ers, fork lifts, electrical generators, and steam cleaners.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is as-
sembled onsite with basic hardware and plumbing com-
ponents that can be transported to the site in vehicles no
larger than a pick-up truck. The only supplies that might
have to be brought in are the soil amendments and some
laboratory and sampling items. Given these features, the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is always avail-
able.
System installation can take from a week to a month.
The time it takes to set up an ex situ system depends on
the volume of soil to be processed, the distance that the
soil has to be transported, and the size of the treatment
plots. An in situ system takes considerably less time to get
started since no construction is involved and the soil does
not have to be excavated and screened. The initial soil
characterization and any treatability studies would likely
be conducted concurrently or prior to system installation.
System demobilization activities would consist of discon-
necting utilities, disassembling the treatment plots, return-
ing treated soil to its original location, regrading, decon-
taminating equipment, and arranging for disposal of all
residuals. Large debris that is initially screened from the
14
-------
soil will need to be handled, stored, and disposed of as
hazardous waste.
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology involves
a certain amount of materials handling; the ex situ appli-
cation more so than the in situ application. For ex situ treat-
ment, contaminated soil must be excavated, screened,
homogenized, and if the initial concentrations are too high,
diluted with less contaminated soil. In situ treatment re-
quires only that the soil be homogenized. Both applica-
tions require the incorporation of organic amendments into
the soil using tilling equipment. Depending on terrain fea-
tures and the volume of soil to be treated, site and soil
preparation can involve any combination of dump trucks,
front-end loaders, backhoes, excavators, conveyors, skid-
steer loaders, graders, and fork lifts, in addition to a power
take-off rotary tiller. Screening equipment (Le., subsurface
combs, portable vibrating screen, etc.) is often required
for both in situ and ex situ treatment to remove coarse
material in the soil (e.g., cobbles, large pieces of wood
and metal, other debris) that would interfere with the in-
corporation of the amendments. In addition, ex situ treat-
ment also involves the construction of a contained treat-
ment cell consisting of a bermed concrete pad or a plastic
liner/fibrepad/sand layer configuration prior to delivery of
the contaminated soil. Once the soil is properly prepared
and delivered to the treatment cell, the physical and chemi-
cal properties of the soil will be defined during the initial
waste characterization. Regular tilling initially distributes
the organic amendments through the soil. Afterwards, the
soil is tilled every two weeks or immediately after irrigation
to increase oxygen to microsites and ensure uniform dis-
tribution of irrigation water in the soil profile.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is de-
signed to limit the production of leachate. Although con-
trols are in place to limit excessive soil wetting due to rain-
fall/snow melt, extreme weather conditions can cause prob-
lems. The ex situ treatment plots are lined with HOPE and
are contoured in a manner that would direct any leachate
along the central axis of the plot for collection. Any leachate
that is collected must be disposed of according to regula-
tory criteria or slowly recycled back into the plot as irriga-
tion make-up water.
After treatment, the ex situ treatment plots are disas-
sembled and consumable items, such as the polyethylene
sheeting, fiberpad, and plot covers must be disposed of.
Large debris that was initially screened from the soil will
need to be handled, stored, and disposed of as hazardous
waste. Treated soils can remain onsite, if they satisfy site-
specific ARARs.
2.6 Site Support Requirements
Technology support requirements include utilities, sup-
port facilities, and support equipment. These requirements
are discussed below.
The DARAMENDTM Bioremediation Technology does not
require any major utilities to operate. Minor utilities needs
include electricity, a potable water supply, telephone, and
sewer service. Electricity with 110 volt service is needed
to supply power to a laboratory/field trailer. If power is un-
available and a connection to the power grid is considered
unfeasible, electric generators would likely satisfy any
power requirements. Water is necessary for soil irrigation,
equipment decontamination, laboratory uses, and person-
nel consumption. If potable water is unavailable, it can be
trucked in and stored onsite. Phone service to the site would
allow the field trailer to operate as a satellite office and
would promote more efficient project administration func-
tions. Phone service is also important in summoning emer-
gency assistance. If a sewer connection is not available,
portable toilets can be used for sanitary purposes.
Support facilities required by the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology include a laboratory/field trailer
and a storage shed for storing amendments, supplies, and
tools. A roll-off or drum storage area is required for the
temporary storage of screened debris generated during
soil preparation. An assortment of heavy equipment, dis-
cussed in Section 2.5, is required during treatment setup
and decommissioning.
Access to the site must be provided over roads suitable
for travel by heavy equipment. Personnel must also be
able to reach the site without difficulty. Depending on site
location, security measures might be necessary to protect
the public from accidental injury and to prevent accidental
or intentional damage to the developer's equipment. A chain
link fence with a locking gate large enough to allow trucks
to enter and leave should provide adequate security.
2.7 Ranges of Suitable Site Characteristics
To date, the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
has been applied to total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
PAH, and chlorinated phenol contaminated soils at wood
treating facilities. This report represents a critical step in
the development and commercialization of a treatment
technology.
The site should be well graded and accessible to an
assortment of heavy equipment such as dump trucks, front-
end loaders, backhoes, excavators, skid-steer loaders,
graders, fork lifts and a rotary tiller. Areas that are desig-
nated for excavated or in situ treatment must be free of
utilities lines or other underground features (i.e., fuel tanks,
piping). The subsurface should be free of large debris, such
as might be found in a landfill.
Areas designated for the staging of ex situ treatment
plots must satisfy the space requirements of the treatment
plots. Since the depth of the soil deposited in a treatment
plot is dictated by the limitations of the tilling equipment,
approximately 20 m2 of surface area are necessary to treat
10 m3 of contaminated soil. Tilling equipment can only mix
15
-------
soils to a depth of 0.5 m. The maximum tilling depth also
imposes limitations on the in situ application of the tech-
nology. If contamination extends to greater depths, a pos-
sible option is to treat the soil 0.5 m at a time, whereby the
treated soil is temporarily removed to expose the next layer
of contaminated soil. However, remediating the site a layer
at a time will increase the throughput time. For in situ treat-
ment, any dimension plot can be treated; however, in ad-
dition to the depth limitation previously discussed, any in
situ plot should be free of obstruction that could interfere
with tilling equipment. Other space requirements include
an area large enough to set up a laboratory/field trailer
and a drum staging or roll-off storage area. Sufficient space
should be available to maneuver the trailer and roll-off in
and out of the site, and there should be room for a waste-
water storage tank and a tank truck if potable water needs
to be trucked in. Enough space for a small shed used to
store organic amendments and tools should also be avail-
able. A small area, measuring 4 m2, is needed to facilitate
the decontamination of equipment and personnel through-
out the remediation.
Since the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
physically and chemically alters the contaminated soil to
enhance the rate of bioremediation, soil characteristics at
a particular site are not as critical in determining a site's
suitability for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technol-
ogy as they might be for other bioremediation technolo-
gies. A number of factors that could interfere with the pro-
cess would be an inordinate amount of debris in the soil,
that would interfere with the incorporation of organic
amendments and reduce the effectiveness of tilling, and
the presence of toxic compounds (i.e., heavy metals) that
may be detrimental to soil microbes. In addition, soils with
a high humic content could interfere with the application of
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology by slow-
ing down the cleanup through increased organic adsorp-
tion and oxygen demand.
Sites that are suitable for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology should not be prone to sea-
sonal flooding nor have a water table that fluctuates to
within 1 m of the site's surface. A high water table and
flooding will interfere with attempts to maintain soil mois-
ture within the narrow range necessary for effective bio-
degradation and could potentially redistribute contamina-
tion across the site. Flooding could also destroy the ex
situ treatment plots, equipment, and supplies.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is suit-
able for organic contaminants found in wood preserving
soils, such as PAHs and CPs. The developer has also re-
ported encouraging results with soils contaminated with
light oils, heavy oils, and phthalates. The developer has
indicated that the technology would experience problems
with soils contaminated with PCBs. In addition, soils with
extremely high contaminant levels may limit the rate at
which biodegradation proceeds, and would need to be
mixed with less contaminated soil to allow biodegradation
to proceed.
The technology can be operated in nearly every climate,
although remediation times are extended in colder climates
due to a significant reduction in the rates of remediation
during the winter months. A canopy placed over the treat-
ment plot to prevent excessive soil wetting by precipitation
also insulates the soil to some degree.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology can be
used in fairly close proximity to inhabited areas, providing
that appropriate measures are implemented to prevent off-
site emissions, odors, and noise. The DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology generates very little noise,
since the plots are left idle for the majority of the treatment
period. Some noise will be generated during the initial
phases of remediation that will involve excavation and till-
ing of the soil. Additional noise would be generated when
the soil is refilled every other week. Precautions might need
to be taken at some sites to limit the production of volatile
emissions and dust during excavation and tilling.
2.8 Limitations of the Technology
The ex situ DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
is similar to landfarming technologies in that a large amount
of space is required to treat the soils. Fortunately, most
work to date has been done on former wood preserving
sites, which by nature have plenty of land available. The
land requirements of the technology are exacerbated by
the limitations of the tilling equipment, which can only till
soil down to a depth of 0.6 m. As a result, the surface di-
mensions of a treatment plot are enlarged to compensate
for the depth limitations. The tillage equipment also limits
the depth to which soil can be remediated in the in situ
application of the technology. The in situ treatment plot
must also be free of any surface and subsurface obstruc-
tions that would interfere with soil tilling.
The ex situ application of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology requires soil to be excavated
from one area and treated in another area. Communities
generally prefer technologies that do not require excava-
tion due to the noise and potential emissions that are pro-
duced. Communities also object to the inherent hazards
associated with increased heavy equipment and truck traffic
in their neighborhoods.
At some sites the reduction of contaminant concentra-
tions may be caused more by volatilization than biodegra-
dation. This problem has not been encountered yet, since
the technology has only been applied to soil contaminants
characterized by low volatility. If the technology is applied
to a site where the contaminants consist primarily of lighter,
more volatile compounds a significant percentage of the
contaminant mass will be volatilized as a result of soil han-
dling. It is likely that certain controls would have to be imple-
mented at sites where soils are contaminated primarily with
volatile organic contaminants, in order to meet air quality
standards.
16
-------
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology appears
to be limited to soils contaminated with non-halogenated
and slightly halogenated organic compounds. The devel-
oper claims that the technology would probably not work
on soils contaminated with PCBs or highly halogenated
organics. In addition, the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology is a soil remediation system and does not treat
ground water, surface water, or sludge.
2.9 ARARS for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology
This subsection discusses specific federal environmen-
tal regulations pertinent to the operation of the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology including the
transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and
treatment residuals. Federal and state applicable or rel-
evant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are pre-
sented in Table 2-1. These regulations are reviewed with
respect to the demonstration results. State and local regu-
latory requirements, which may be more stringent, must
also be addressed by remedial managers. ARARs include
the following: (1) the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act; (2) the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; (3) the Clean Air Act; (4)
the Safe Drinking Water Act; (5) the Toxic Substances
Control Act; and (6) the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations. These six general ARARs are
discussed below.
2.9.1 Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
The CERCLA of 1980 as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
provides for federal funding to respond to releases or po-
tential releases of any hazardous substance into the envi-
ronment, as well as to releases of pollutants or contami-
nants that may present an imminent or significant danger
to public health and welfare or to the environment.
As part of the requirements of CERCLA, the EPA has
prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pol-
lution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous substance
response. The NCP is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 300, and delineates the methods
and criteria used to determine the appropriate extent of
removal and cleanup for hazardous waste contamination.
SARA states a strong statutory preference for remedies
that are highly reliable and provide long-term protection
and directs EPA to do the following:
. Use remedial alternatives that permanently and sig-
nificantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
.Select remedial actions that protect human health and
the environment, are cost effective, and involve per-
manent solutions and alternative treatment or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent possible.
.Avoid offsite transport and disposal of untreated haz-
ardous substances or contaminated materials when
practicable treatment technologies exist [Section
121 (b)].
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology meets
each of these requirements. Volume, toxicity, and mobility
of contaminants in the waste matrix are all reduced as a
result of treatment. Organic compounds are biodegraded
by indigenous soil microbes either insituor ex situ in a
series of specially designed treatment plots. In both cases,
contaminants are subject to biochemical reactions that
convert them to cell material and energy for metabolic pro-
cesses. Even though microbial, biochemical byproducts
of these reactions were not monitored during the demon-
stration, they were assumed to consist of carbon dioxide
and water. Except for the debris that is screened from the
soil prior to treatment, the need for offsite transportation
and disposal of solid waste is eliminated by ms/futreat-
ment. Soils, once treated, can be left in place. Volatile
emissions generated during construction and tilling opera-
tions might require control and treatment prior to release
to the atmosphere.
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removal and remedial action. Superfund removal
actions are conducted in response to an immediate threat
caused by a release of hazardous substances. Removal
action decisions are documented in an action memoran-
dum. Many removals involve small quantities of waste or
immediate threats requiring quick action to alleviate the
hazard. Remedial actions are governed by the SARA
amendments to CERCLA. As stated above, these amend-
ments promote remedies that permanently reduce the vol-
ume, toxicity, and mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, or contaminants. The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology is likely to be part of a CERCLA remedial action.
Onsite remedial actions must comply with federal and
more stringent state ARARs. ARARs are determined on a
site-by-site basis and may be waived under six conditions:
(1) the action is an interim measure, and the ARAR will be
met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would
pose a greater risk to health and the environment than
noncompliance; (3) it is technically impracticable to meet
the ARAR; (4) the standard of performance of an ARAR
can be met by an equivalent method: (5) a state ARAR
has not been consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR
compliance would not provide a balance between the pro-
tection achieved at a particular site and demands on the
Superfund for other sites. These waiver options apply only
to Superfund actions taken onsite, and justification for the
waiver must be clearly demonstrated.
2.9.2 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), is the primary federal legislation governing haz-
17
-------
Table 2-1. Federal and State Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
Process Activity
ARAR
Description of
Regulation
General
Applicability
Specific
Applicability to
DARAMEND™
Waste Characterization of
untreated wastes
Soil excavation
Storage prior to
processing
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 261
or state equivalent
CAA: 40 CFR Part 50
(or state equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 262
or state equivalent
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
or state equivalent
Waste processing
Waste processing
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
(or state equivalent)
CAA: 40 CFR Part 50
(or state equivalent)
Storage of auxiliary
wastes
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart J (or state
equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart I (or state
equivalent)
Standards that apply to
identification and
characterization of wastes
Regulations govern toxic
pollutants, visible emissions
and particulates
Standards that apply to
generators of hazardous
waste
Standards applicable to
the storage of hazardous
waste
Chemical and physical
analyses must be performed
to determine if waste is a
hazardous waste.
If excavation is performed,
emission of volatile com-
pounds or dusts may
occur.
Excavated soils may be
considered hazardous
waste.
Excavation and pretreat-
ment screening may
generate hazardous over-
sized wastes that must be
stored in waste piles.
Standards that apply to
treatment of wastes in a
treatment facility
Regulation governs toxic
pollutants, visible emissions.
and particulates
When hazardous wastes
are treated, there are
requirements for operations,
recordkeeping, and contin-
gency planning.
Stack gases may contain
volatile organic compounds,
or other regulated gases
Regulation governs stan-
dards for tanks at treatment
facilities
Regulation covers storage
of waste materials gener-
ated
If storing non-RCRA wastes,
RCRA requirements may
still be relevant and appro-
priate
Applicable for RCRA
wastes; relevant and appro-
priate for non-RCRA wastes
Chemical and physical
properties of waste
determine its suitability
for treatment by
DARAMEND™
Applied to construction
activities (i.e., excavation
and screening) during
system installation
Staged soil for ex situ
treatment should be
placed in treatment plots
immediately
If stored in a waste pile,
the materials should be
placed on and covered
with plastic, and tied
down to minimize fugi-
tive emissions. The time
between excavation and
treatment (or disposal if
material is unsuitable for
treatment) should be
minimized
Applicable or appropriate
for DARAMEND™ oper-
ations
During the SITE Demon-
stration, no stack gases
were emitted, however,
stack gases may be of
concern and must not
exceed limits set for the
air district of operation.
Standards for monitoring
and recordkeeping apply
Storage tanks for liquid
wastes (e.g., decontami-
nation waters and con-
densate) must be
placarded appropriately,
have secondary contain-
ment, and be inspected
daily
Roll-offs or drums con-
taining drill cuttings need
to be labeled as hazard-
ous waste. The storage
area needs to be in good
condition, weekly inspec-
tions are required, and
storage should not
exceed 90 days unless a
storage permit is
obtained
(continued)
18
-------
Table 2-1 Continued
Process Activity
Waste characterization
(treated waste)
Storage after treatment
ARAR
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 261
(or state equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart I (or state
equivalent)
Waste disposal
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 262
CWA: 40 CFR Parts 403
and/or 122 and 125
Description of
Regulation
Standards that apply to
identification and character-
ization of wastes
Standards that apply to
the storage of hazardous
waste
Standards that pertain to
generators of hazardous
waste
Standards for discharge of
wastewater to a POTW or
to a navigable waterway
General
Applicability
Chemical and physical
analyses must be performed
to determine if treated
waste is a hazardous waste.
The treated material will be
stored in the plot until it has
been characterized and a
decision on final disposition
has been made.
Generators must dispose
of wastes at facilities that
are permitted to handle the
waste. Generators must
obtain an EPA ID number
prior to waste disposal.
Discharge of wastewaters
to a POTW must meet pre-
treatment standards; dis-
charges must be permitted
under NPDES.
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 268 Standards regarding land Hazardous wastes must
disposal of hazardous
wastes
meet specific treatment
standards prior to land dis-
posal, or must be treated
using specific technologies.
Specific
Applicability to
DARAMEND™
Chemical and physical
properties of treatment
residuals must be per-
formed prior to disposal.
The treatment plots must
be maintained. If stored
in a waste pile, oversize
material should be
placed on and covered
with plastic, and tied
down to minimize fugitive
emissions. The material
should be disposed of or
otherwise treated as
soon as possible.
Waste generated by the
DARAMEND™ is limited
to contaminated drill cut-
tings. Spent activated
carbon could be another
waste if carbon is used in
the treatment of system
off gases.
Applicable and appropri-
ate for decontamination
wastewaters and con-
densate.
The treated material will
be stored in the treat-
ment plot until it has
been characterized and
a decision on final dis-
position has been made.
ardous waste activities and was passed in 1976 to ad-
dress the problem of how to safely dispose of municipal
and industrial solid waste. Subtitle C of RCRA contains
requirements for generation, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste, most of which are also
applicable to CERCLA activities. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 greatly expanded
the scope and requirements of RCRA.
RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regu-
late their transport, treatment, storage, and disposal. If soils
are determined to be hazardous according to RCRA (ei-
ther because of a characteristic or a listing carried by the
waste), all RCRA requirements regarding the management
and disposal of hazardous waste must be addressed by
the remedial managers. Criteria for identifying character-
istic hazardous wastes are included in 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart C. Listed wastes from specific and nonspecific
industrial sources, off-specification products, spill clean-
ups, and other industrial sources are itemized in 40 CFR
Part 261 Subpart D. If the Domtar demonstration site was
located within the United States, the technology would likely
be subject to RCRA regulations because the former wood
treatment facility would be contaminated with RCRA-listed
wastes included under the F034 code (e.g., wastewaters,
process residuals, preservative drippage, and spent for-
mulations from wood preserving processes generated at
plants that use creosote formulations). RCRA regulations
do not apply to sites where RCRA-defined hazardous
wastes are not present.
Unless they are specifically delisted through delisting
procedures, hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D remain listed wastes regardless of the treat-
ment they may undergo and regardless of the final con-
tamination level in the streams and residues. This implies
that even after remediation, "clean" wastes are still classi-
19
-------
tied as hazardous because the pretreatment material was
a listed waste.
For generation of any hazardous waste, the site respon-
sible party must obtain an EPA identification number. Other
applicable RCRA requirements may include a Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest (if the waste is transported),
restrictions on placing the waste in land disposal units, time
limits on accumulating waste, and permits for storing the
waste.
Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated
facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F (pro-
mulgated) and Subpart S (partially promulgated). These
subparts also generally apply to remediation at Superfund
sites. Subparts F and S include requirements for initiating
and conducting RCRA corrective action, remediating
ground water, and ensuring that corrective actions comply
with other environmental regulations. Subpart S also de-
tails conditions under which particular RCRA requirements
may be waived for temporary treatment units operating at
corrective action sites and provides information regarding
requirements for modifying permits to adequately describe
the subject treatment unit.
2.9.3 Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA establishes national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
lead. It also limits the emission of 189 listed hazardous
pollutants such as vinyl chloride, arsenic, asbestos, and
benzene. States are responsible for enforcing the CAA.
To assist in this, Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) were
established. Allowable emission limits are determined by
the AQCR, or its sub-unit, the Air Quality Management Dis-
trict (AQMD). These emission limits are determined based
on whether or not the region is currently within attainment
for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The CAA requires that treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities comply with primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards. Fugitive emissions from the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology may come from
(1) excavation and construction of ex situ treatment plots,
(2) periodic tilling of soil in ex situ and /fls/totreatment
plots, and (3) the staging and storing of screened debris.
Soil moisture should be managed during system installa-
tion to prevent or minimize the impact from fugitive emis-
sions. State air quality standards may require additional
measures to prevent fugitive emissions.
2.9.4 Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters. To achieve this objective, effluent limitations on
toxic pollutants from point sources were established. Pub-
licly-owned treatment works (POTWs) can accept waste-
waters with toxic pollutants; however the facility discharg-
ing the wastewater must meet pretreatment standards and
may need a discharge permit. A facility desiring to discharge
water to a navigable waterway must apply for a permit
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES). When an NPDES permit is issued, it in-
cludes waste discharge requirements according to volume
and contaminant concentration.
The only wastewater produced by the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology that might need to be managed
is wastewater generated during equipment decontamina-
tion. Soil moisture in the treatment plots is controlled within
strict limits to optimize biodegradation and prevent the
generation of leachate. Leachate could also be generated
as a consequence of rainwater or snow melt seeping
through a treatment plot cover. Decontamination water
could amount to several thousand gallons depending on
the scale of a remediation effort at a given site. Depending
on the levels of contaminants and the volume of this waste-
water, pretreatment might be required prior to discharge
to a POTW. This water could possibly be used as makeup
water for spray irrigation of the treatment plots thereby elimi-
nating the need for disposal at a POTW.
2.9.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA of 1974, as most recently amended by the
Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, requires EPA
to establish regulations to protect human health from con-
taminants in drinking water. The legislation authorized na-
tional drinking water standards and a joint federal-state
system for ensuring compliance with these standards.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are
found in 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. These drinking
water standards are expressed as maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for some constituents, and maximum con-
taminant level goals (MCLGs) for others. Under CERCLA
(Section 121 (d)(2)(A)(ii)), remedial actions are required to
meet the standards of the MCLGs when relevant. The
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is not aground-
water remediation technology, but it could improve the
quality of the ground water by reducing contaminant load-
ing by bioremediating the source of contamination in the
vadose zone.
2.9.6 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The TSCA of 1976 grants EPA the authority to prohibit
or control the manufacturing, importing, processing, use,
and disposal of any chemical substance that presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the envi-
ronment. These regulations may be found in 40 CFR Part
761; Section 6(e) deals specifically with PCBs. Materials
with less than 50 ppm PCB are classified as non PCB;
those containing between 50 and 500 ppm are classified
as PCB-contaminated; and those with 500 ppm PCB or
greater are classified as PCB. PCB-contaminated materi-
als may be disposed of in TSCA-permitted landfills or de-
stroyed by incineration at a TSCA-approved incinerator;
PCBs must be incinerated. Sites where spills of PCB-con-
taminated material or PCBs have occurred after May 4,
1987, must be addressed under the PCB Spill Cleanup
Policy in 40 CFR Part 761, Subpart G. The policy estab-
20
-------
lishes cleanup protocols for addressing such releases
based upon the volume and concentration of the spilled
material. To date, it has not been documented that the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology is useful for
PCB-contaminated wastes.
2.9.7 Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Requirements
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with the OSHA require-
ments detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, espe-
cially §1910.120, which provides for the health and safety
of workers at hazardous waste sites. Onsite construction
activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective action sites must
be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of OSHA, which
describes safety and health regulations for construction
sites. State OSHA requirements, which may be significantly
stricter than federal standards, must also be met.
All technicians and subcontractors involved with the con-
struction and operation of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology will be required to have com-
pleted an OSHA training course and be familiar with all
OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste sites.
Workers on hazardous waste sites must also be enrolled
in a medical monitoring program. The elements of any
acceptable program must include (1) a health history, (2)
an initial exam before hazardous waste work starts to es-
tablish fitness for duty and a medical baseline, (3) periodic
examinations (usually annual) to determine whether
changes due to exposure may have occurred and to en-
sure continued fitness for the job, (4) appropriate medical
examinations after a suspected or known overexposure,
and (5) an examination at termination.
For most sites, minimum personal protective equipment
(PPE) for workers will include gloves, hard hats, safety
glasses, steel-toe boots, and Tyvek®. Depending on con-
taminant types and concentrations, additional PPE may
be required, including the use of air purifying respirators
or supplied air. Noise levels during the construction and
operation of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technol-
ogy are not expected to be high, except during the con-
struction, which will involve the operation of heavy equip-
ment. During these activities, noise levels should be moni-
tored to ensure that workers are not exposed to noise lev-
els above a time-weighted average of 85 decibels over an
eight-hour day. If noise levels increase above this limit,
workers will be required to wear ear protection. The levels
of noise anticipated are not expected to adversely affect
the community, depending on its proximity to the treatment
site.
Workers will be required to comply with the recently pro-
mulgated OSHA requirements for confined spaces (29 CFR
§1910.146), including requirements for stand-by person-
nel, monitoring, placarding, and protective equipment.
Since the construction phase of DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology will require some excavation,
trenches could be considered confined spaces (based on
type and depth). Other construction- or plant-related OSHA
standards may also apply while installing and managing
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology, including
shoring of trenches, and lock-out/tag out procedures on
powered equipment.
2.9.8 Sfafe Requirements
In many cases, state requirements supersede the cor-
responding federal program, such as OSHA or RCRA,
when the state program is federally approved and the re-
quirements are more strict.
21
-------
Section 3
Economic Analysis
3.1 Introduction
This economic analysis is based primarily on results and
experiences gained from the SITE demonstration that was
conducted over an 11-month period at the Domtar Wood
Preserving Facility located in Trenton, Ontario, Canada.
The costs associated with treatment by the GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Treatment Technology, as presented in this economic analy-
sis, are defined by 12 cost categories that reflect typical
cleanup activities performed at Superfund sites. Each of
these cleanup activities is defined and discussed. Many of
the cost assumptions are derived from information sup-
plied by GRACE Bioremediation Technologies, based on
a full-scale remediation project at the Domtar facility and
other field projects conducted in Canada. Certain assump-
tions and costs are also based on previous experience
with similar bioremediation processes evaluated under the
SITE Program. Collectively, they form the basis for a cost
analysis of a full-scale remediation using this technology
at the Domtar facility.
The GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Treatment Technology is principally appli-
cable to wood preserving soils and sediments contami-
nated with organic wood preserving compounds, such as
PCP and PAH constituents of creosote. A number of fac-
tors could affect the cost of treatment. Among them are
soil type, contaminant type and concentration, soil mois-
ture, geographic location, site size and accessibility, re-
quired support facilities and utilities, and treatment goals.
It is important to thoroughly and properly characterize the
site before implementing this technology, to determine the
amount and type of amendment to add, and to decide
whether a leachate collection, storage, and treatment sys-
tem is needed. Although this characterization cost may be
substantial, it is not included here. It is also highly recom-
mended that a treatability study be performed so that the
amendment that would be most effective at a particular
site can be identified and its respective dosage level de-
termined. The cost for this is also not included here.
An economic analysis for a full-scale remediation at this
site was done for an in situ and an ex situ case, assuming
the process was implemented in a similar manner with simi-
lar performance to that demonstrated under the SITE Pro-
gram. Cost figures provided here are "order-of-magnitude"
estimates and are generally +50/-30%.
3.2 Conclusions
. A full-scale cleanup of this site using this technology
was estimated to cost between $619,000 for an in situ plot
with an attendant unit cost of $92/m3($70/yd3), and
$959,000 for an ex situ plot with an attendant unit cost
of $140/m3($108/yd3), including the cost of residual
disposal. The residual consisted of oversized particles
screened out of the soil during pretreatment and
deemed to be hazardous. Landfilling was assumed to
be the preferred disposal option, although this may
not be permissible for these types of wastes in some
jurisdictions.
. Without residual disposal, the unit costs decrease to
$46/nf ($35/yd3) for the in situ plot, representing a 50%
reduction, and $96/m3 ($73/yd3) for the ex situ plot,
representing a 31% reduction.
. In either case, the in situ plot was far more economi-
cal to set up and operate than the ex situ plot. How-
ever, there are instances where ex situ treatment
may be more advantageous than in situ treatment,
particularly for highly toxic or recalcitrant soils. Better
control over moisture content and temperature can be
achieved, resulting in more uniform treatment without
isolated pockets of high concentration soils.
. For both cases, residuals and waste shipping and han-
dling was the predominant cost category (51% for the
in situ case and 35% for the ex situ case).
. No costs were assigned for effluent treatment and dis-
posal because the SITE demonstration results showed
that no leachate was generated for the ex situ case.
This was also assumed to be the case for the in situ
plot, although the developer has indicated that pilot-
scale testing would be required at other sites because
it is a highly site-specific phenomenon.
. For the in situ plot, startup (22%), site preparation
(ll%), and labor (8%) were the next largest catego-
22
-------
ries; together with residuals and waste shipping and
handling, they account for over 90% of the total cost.
. For the ex situ plot, residual and waste shipping and
handling costs were followed by labor (29%), site
preparation (18%), and consumables and supplies
(1 0%), again accounting for over 90% of the total.
. For both plots, labor and site preparation were among
the top four cost categories. In the case of the ex situ
plot, this is related to the construction of the treatment
pad, the purchase and installation of the greenhouse,
the additional labor connected with multiple treatment
cycles, and the longer treatment times associated with
a smaller plot. For the in situ plot, these costs are a
reflection of the larger plot size assumed.
. Costs attributed to analytical services, capital equip-
ment, demobilization, and permitting and regulatory
requirements are about the same forboth plots. This
indicates that these categories do not appear to de-
pend on whether an in situ or ex situ process is se-
lected.
3.3 Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes the major issues and assump-
tions used. In general, assumptions are based on infor-
mation provided by the developer and observations made
during this and other SITE demonstration projects.
3.3.1 Waste Volumes and Site Size
This economic analysis assumes that the site and wastes
have already been thoroughly and properly characterized,
and that these results were used to optimize the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology, i.e., the type
and amount of contaminants present, the heterogeneity of
the soil, the type and amount of amendment to add, etc.
Therefore, it does not include the costs for treatability stud-
ies, waste characterization tests, pilot studies, or process
optimization. All of these activities could add substantially
to costs and time required for remediation.
The volume of soil to be treated was estimated to be
6,800 m3 (8,900 yd3). Two scenarios were considered. The
first was in situ treatment of the contaminated soil without
excavation; the second was above ground treatment in a
fabricated plot contained in a greenhouse, hereafter re-
ferred to as the ex situ case. For both cases, treatment
down to a depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) was assumed. For the ex
situ case, a half-acre plot (2,300 nf, 25,000 ft2) was as-
sumed, containing two parallel plots each covered by a
greenhouse. This scenario would require five treatment
cycles to treat the entire volume of waste. For the in situ
plot, the entire volume of waste was assumed to be treated
in a single 1 l-month period. This would require an area of
11,400 nf (123,000 ft2) or 2.8 acres. Smaller or larger in
situ batches could be treated depending on the site physi-
cal constraints and the client requirements. Use of a green-
house cover depends as much on the physical shape of
the treatment area as the size of the area.
3.3.2 Process Optimization and
Performance
The performance of a full-scale system for both scenarios
considered here was assumed to be similar to the ex situ
case demonstrated under the SITE Program. Results from
the SITE demonstration indicated that PCP concentrations
were reduced 88%, PAH concentrations were reduced
94%, and TRPH concentrations were reduced 87% over
an 11 -month period that included a full winter season. Al-
though the developer fell slightly shy of its claims, it was
assumed that treatment goals would have been attained
had the demonstration gone on for a full 12 months.
Since better control over the bioremediation process can
be maintained in a greenhouse, the ex situ plot could treat
the same soil in less time than the in situ plot. Further-
more, the ex situ plot could treat more recalcitrant soils
with higher initial contaminant concentrations in the same
period of time. For this analysis, the latter was assumed.
For the in situ plot, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
measured the average initial PAH concentration to be 77
mg/kg and the average initial PCP concentration to be 6
mg/kg. The ex situ plot, on the other hand, had an average
initial PAH concentration of 500 mg/kg and an average
initial PCP concentration of 125 mg/kg. For purposes of
this analysis, it was assumed that the in situ plot would
achieve similar performance levels due to lower starting
contaminant concentrations. The tacit assumption is that
this level of removal would be sufficient to meet regulatory
standards.
3.3.3 Process Operating Requirements
For this bioremediation technology, the majority of activ-
ity occurred either during site preparation and startup or
during demobilization. For the ex situ case, involving mul-
tiple treatment cycles, there is additional labor between
cycles to remove the treated soil and replace it with con-
taminated soil for the next treatment cycle. As will be dis-
cussed in more detail later, this effort involves manpower
as well as the necessary equipment and materials. These
have all been lumped into a single hourly rate that will be
referred to in the text as the labor, equipment, and mate-
rial (LE&M) rate. This rate was used in the startup and
demobilization cost categories.
For the ex situ case, this LE&M rate was also used as a
separate line item under the labor cost category entitled
'Changeover.'This represents the work effort involved be-
tween treatment cycles to excavate cleaned soil and re-
place it with contaminated soil. For both in situ and ex situ
cases, another line item entitled "Maintaining Treatment"
was used to reflect the manpower requirements for plot
maintenance. These tasks would include monitoring soil
physical and chemical properties (i.e., moisture, pH, tem-
perature), irrigating to maintain target soil moisture con-
tent, tilling to ensure a homogeneous and aerated soil
mass, and inspecting the site regularly. Routine equipment
maintenance could also be done by the plot maintenance
people already onsite.
23
-------
SITE demonstration results from the ex situ plot indi-
cated that no leachate was generated. This was also as-
sumed to be the case with the ms/fuplot. To determine
whether this would be true for other insitu applications,
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies would probably con-
duct ex situ pilot tests before designing a full-scale reme-
diation system. Consequently, the cost of leachate collec-
tion and treatment was not included for either the insituor
ex situ case.
3.3.4 Financial Assumptions
All costs are given in U.S. dollars, without accounting
for interest rates, inflation, or the time value of money. In-
surance and taxes are assumed to be fixed costs listed
under "Startup" and are calculated as 10% of annual capi-
tal equipment costs.
3.4 Basis for Economic Analysis
In order to compare the cost effectiveness of technolo-
gies in the SITE Program, EPA breaks down costs into the
12 categories shown in Table 3-1, using the general as-
sumptions already discussed. The assumptions used for
each cost factor are discussed in more detail below.
3.4.1 S/te Preparation
The amount of preliminary preparation necessary for
bioremediation technologies is highly site-specific. For this
analysis, generic site preparation responsibilities such as
site design and layout, surveys and site logistics, legal
searches, access rights and roads were all assumed to be
performed by the responsible party (or site owner) in con-
junction with the developer. None of these costs have been
included here.
The focus instead was on technology-specific activities.
These included treatment plot fabrication, utility connec-
tions, trailer rentals, fence installation, and where appro-
priate, greenhouse construction (Table 3-2). These are
generally one-time charges and are necessarily site-spe-
cific. In the case of the ex situ plot, there may be recurring
charges associated with replacing the sand layer and re-
pairing the polyethylene liner and/or the fiberpad. When
treated soil is removed from the plot some of the sand
may be removed, and damage to the liner and/or fiberpad
may occur. Hence, replacements may be necessary. This
cost is included under Maintenance and Modifications.
Since the treatment depth was assumed to be the same
as that in the SITE demonstration, 0.6 m (2 ft), costs were
based on area rather than volume.
Treatment plot fabrication costs were assumed to con-
sist of two components, earth work and treatment plot
preparation (Table 3-2). Earth work involved the cleaning
of debris and brush, and the grading of soil. Both plots
would require this step and costs were estimated using
the following formula from the developer:
$5,000 + $5,000 (A/1,500m2)
where A is the area of the plot in m2. This is justified by the
fact that the contractor used to do these tasks and usually
required a minimum charge of $5,000 just to mobilize his
equipment and bring it onsite, regardless of the site size.
The second term represents the cost to perform these tasks
based on $5,000/1 ,500m2. The result of this calculation
was rounded up to nearest $5,000 to get a conservative
estimate.
For the ex situ plot, an additional component is required
to account for preparation and installation of a 1 Ocm (4 in.)
thick sand buffer zone, a 4mm thick fiberpad, a polyethyl-
ene liner, and another 15cm (6 in.) thick sand layer. The
developer estimated these costs to be about $40,000 in-
cluding labor, equipment, materials, and miscellaneous ex-
penses, such as per diem rates, travel costs, and personal
protective equipment. As discussed earlier, no provision
for a leachate collection, storage, and treatment system
was included for either plot.
Utility connection costs for electricity and water have
been included even though some sites may not require
these. A minimum of 110 V electric service was assumed
to be required for the office trailer (lights, air conditioning,
heater, outlets, etc.). For the ex situ case, additional power
will be required to run small blowers that separate the two
sheets of polyethylene in the greenhouse canopy. Water
is necessary for irrigation, decontamination, and hygiene
purposes. An additional $7,500 has been included for an
irrigation system in the ex situ plot greenhouses. The in
s/fuplot relied on natural precipitation for irrigation due, in
part, to lower contaminant concentrations. Irrigation equip-
ment may also be installed for the ms/fuplot but this cost
has been included here.
Trailer rentals have been included even though some
sites may not require them. Costs were linearly scaled up
according to treatment time, and rates were obtained from
this and other SITE projects. For the ex situ case, it may
be cheaper to purchase the trailers and amortize their costs
over the 5-year life of the project rather than rent them.
Also, additional portable toijets and perhaps a septic tank
hookup would be required in those instances where addi-
tional people would be onsite, i.e., between treatment
cycles.
Although security fencing may already exist on some
sites, the cost for additional fencing to separate the treat-
ment area from other operations at the site was included.
The cost ($4/linear ft) was obtained from previous SITE
demonstrations. The length of fencing required for each
plot was obtained by assuming a square geometry and
finding the length of a side by taking the square root of the
plot area. This was multiplied by 4 to get the perimeter and
multiplied again by 3 to account for additional space that
may be required for support structures or for maneuvering
equipment around the site.
The cost to buy and install two 9 m (30 ft) wide and 230
m (760 ft) long greenhouses was obtained from GRACE
24
-------
Table 3-1. Estimated Full-Scale Remediation Costs using the GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™ Treatment Technology for
Two Cases
Cost Category
1 . Site preparation
Treatment Plot Fabrication
Utility Connections
Trailer Rentals
Fence Installation
Greenhouse Construction
Total Costs
2. Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
3. Capital Equipment
4. Startup
Soil Preparation
Amendment Incorporation
Fixed Costs
Total Costs
5. Consumables and Supplies
Amendment Incorporation for Successive
Treatment Cycles
Gasoline
Health and Safety Gear
Total Costs
6. Labor
Maintaining Treatment
Changeover (soil preparation)
Total Costs
7. Utilities
8. Effluent Treatment & Disposal
9. Residuals and Waste Shipping & Handling
10. Analytical Services
11. Maintenance and Modifications
12. Demobilization
Total
In situ Plot
6,800 m3
(1 1 ,400 m2)
$ %
45,000
2,250
6,550
16,800
70,600 11.4
$3,000 0.5
9,600 1.5
23,500
116,000
960
140,000 22.6
250
2,000
S250 0.4
52,000
52,000 8.4
_ —
—
316,000 51
20,000 3.2
— —
5,700 0.9
619,150 99.9
$
55,000
9,750
30,400
7,500
70,000'
172,650
$3,000
8,500
4,700
23,100
850
28,700
92,400
250
2,000
94,700
18,800
260,000
279,000
2,100
340,000
20,000
6,000
4,600
959,250
Ex situ Plot
1 ,360 m3
(2,300 m2)
%
18.0
0.3
0.9
3.0
9.9
29.1
0.2
_
35.4
2.1
0.6
0.5
100
25
-------
Table 3-2. Site Preparation Costs
Cost Item
In situ Plot
6,800 m3
(11,400 m2)
Ex Situ Plot
1,360 m3
(2,300 m2)
1. Treatment Plot Fabrication
a. Earth work (cleaning debris and brush, and soil grading)
b. Preparation of sand buffer zones, fiberpad, and polyethylene
liner to house contaminated soil in treatment plot
Total
2. Utility Connections
a. Electricity (110V service)
b. Water
Total
$45,000
$45,000
$1,250
$1,000
$2,250
$15,000
$40,000
$55.000
$1,250
$8,500
$9,750
3.
4.
5.
Trailer Rentals
a. Office trailer (12' x 60' w/ 4 office rooms and toilet) - $400/mo
b. Portable toilet and septic tank - $300/mo.
c. Garbage dumpster (6 cu. yd.) - $70.50/mo.
Total
Installation of Fence ($4/linear ft)
Total
Purchase and Installation of Two Greenhouses (30'W x 7601 each)
Total SITE Preparation Costs
$4,800
3 mo.
$900
$850
$6,550
4,200 linear
ft.
$16,800
$70,600
$24,000
7 mo.
$2,100
$4,250
$30,400
1,900 linear
ft.
$7,500
$70,000
$172,650
Bioremediation Technologies. This included the purchase
price as well as the cost to securely anchor the structure
to the ground to prevent damage from high winds and the
installation of large access doors for heavy earth moving
equipment.
3.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory
Requirements
This category includes costs associated with system
health/safety monitoring and analytical protocol develop-
ment, as well as permitting costs. Permitting and regula-
tory costs can vary greatly because they are very site- and
waste-specific. For the Domtar Wood Preserving Facility
the only environmental permit required was an alteration
to the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Certifi-
cate of Approval for liquid, solid, and gaseous waste han-
dling.
For the greenhouse, a building permit may be required
from the local governing body before construction com-
mences. Additional requirements to be considered are
flame spread index of the greenhouse material, appropri-
ate number and location of emergency exits, installation
of CO monitors and/or smoke detectors, and adoption of
proper health and safety procedures while working in the
greenhouse, such as the "buddy system."
An estimated $3,000 has been assigned to this cost cat-
egory to allow for technical support services that GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies would provide to the client.
The reader should be aware that obtaining and complying
with permits and any other applicable regulatory standards
could potentially be a very expensive and time-consuming
activity.
3.4.3 Capital Equipment
Bioremediation technologies are inherently not capital
equipment intensive. Since the heavy earth moving equip-
ment is necessary for a relatively short period of time, it is
far more economical to contract out those services than it
is to tie up capital in purchases.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it has been as-
sumed that OSHA-trained personnel and any necessary
equipment would be contracted during startup and demo-
bilization, to set up the treatment plot and subsequently
decommission it. For the ex situ plot, the intermediate pro-
cess of replacing treated soils with contaminated soils for
each treatment cycle was also assumed to be done by
contracted personnel and has been included in the Labor
cost category.
The only piece of hardware required to successfully
implement this technology is a tractor to run the rototiller.
The cost of purchasing vs. renting would be dependent on
the size of the plot and the treatment time. The cost to rent
was assumed to be $800/mo while the purchase price was
estimated to be $17,000. For a 12 month period, it is ad-
vantageous to rent at a yearly cost of $800/mo x 12 mo =
$9,600 rather than buy. Conversely, for the ex situ plot,
buying the tractor and amortizing the cost over a useful
life of 10 years yields an annual expense of $1,700, or
$8,500 for the 5-year duration of the remediation.
26
-------
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies considers the
rototiller to be a commercially proprietary item and an inte-
gral part of its treatment process. Its cost has been in-
cluded as part of amendment addition under the startup
category on a $/m3 basis.
3.4.4 Startup
Startup activities for this technology include excavating,
screening, handling the oversized material, adding the
amendment, and homogenizing the soil. As discussed
under Capital Equipment costs, it was assumed that some
of these activities would be contracted out for both of the
cases considered.
The work was divided into two segments. In preparation
for amendment addition, the first segment involved exca-
vating, screening, and handling the oversized material. For
the in situ case, this was primarily accomplished by a sub-
surface ripper and rock picker. For the ex situ plot, the soil
was excavated, screened through a 10 cm (4 in.) grizzly
screen and deposited onto the treatment plot. All of these
tasks were assumed to be contracted out. Based on expe-
rience, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies estimated
that soil could be processed at a rate of approximately
14.5 m3/hr (19 yd3/hr). The LE&M rate was inferred from
the SITE demonstration to be $50/hr, including all neces-
sary equipment and materials. The reader is cautioned that
this hourly rate can vary greatly according to geographic
location and should be conservatively estimated for the
site under consideration.
The second segment involved adding the amendment
and homogenizing the soil using the rototiller to ensure
uniform treatment. These tasks were assumed to be
handled by GRACE Bioremediation Technologies person-
nel. Amendment type and dosage are very site-specific.
Key factors that affect these parameters are contaminant
type and concentration, and physical characteristics and
nutrient content of the soil. The amendment may be added
all at once or periodically throughout treatment, depend-
ing on soil properties and the extent of remediation. For
the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that the necessary
amendment was added during Startup and that no further
amendment additions were required. The cost of amend-
ment addition would typically include the cost of the amend-
ment; shipping, handling, and storage; and the associated
labor, equipment, and consumables necessary to incor-
porate the amendment into the soil matrix. Based on these
factors, a reasonable estimate for amendment addition was
given by GRACE Bioremediation technologies as $1 7/m3
of soil.
For the ex situ plot, the cost of soil preparation for suc-
cessive treatment cycles was considered under the Labor
cost category. Similarly, the cost of incorporating the
amendment into the soil matrix for successive treatment
cycles was included in the Consumables and Supplies cost
category.
Fixed costs such as insurance and taxes were assumed
to be 10% of annual capital equipment costs or $960 for
the in situ plot and $850 for the ex situ plot.
3.4.5 Consumables and Supplies
The main item that could be considered "consumable"
for this process would be the amendment. This may not
necessarily be a one-time charge. As discussed under
Startup, depending upon how well the remediation is pro-
gressing, new amendment may need to be added periodi-
cally. For simplicity, it was assumed that amendment was
added only at the beginning with no further additions for
the remainder of treatment. For the ex situ case, this would
have to be repeated for every treatment cycle, and this
cost is accounted for as shown in Table 3-I.
Other items that should be included here are the gaso-
line required by the tractor, and health and safety gear.
Gasoline for the tractor was assumed to cost about $5/wk
for the insitup\oi and $1 /wk for the ex s/fuplot. Either way,
the total cost of gasoline for the tractor to treat 6,800 m3 of
contaminated soil is about $250. Health and safety gear
was estimated to cost about $2,000 a year.
3.4.6 Labor
Once the treatment plot is established and amended,
the amount of labor involved is minimal. Rototilling to aer-
ate the soil once every two weeks, irrigating as necessary,
taking moisture and temperature readings every two weeks,
sampling to determine the extent of bioremediation that
has occurred, and maintaining the facility and equipment
is about all the work that is required. GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies has indicated that labor costs
are dependent on plot size and intensity of sampling. Based
on experience from the SITE demonstration, it was esti-
mated that this would require no more than two people
working a standard 40-hour week. An hourly labor rate of
$13/hr was assumed; this includes a base salary, benefits,
overhead, general and administrative (G & A) expenses,
travel, per diem, and rental car costs. This would yield a
labor cost of $52,000 annually.
The largest contributor, however, is the work associated
with multiple treatment cycles. As discussed under Startup
costs, the total LE&M for additional treatment cycles for
the ex situ plot is $260,000, while plot maintenance is es-
timated to cost only $18,800.
3.4.7 Utilities
The major utility demand for this project was electricity.
In addition to the power required for the office trailer, elec-
tricity was used to power the blowers separating the two
layers of polyethylene sheeting on each greenhouse for
the ex situ plot. The blowers were required every 45 m
(150 ft) and were rated at 1.15 amps at 115 V (133 watts).
Therefore, six blowers for the two greenhouses were re-
quired for a total of 800 watts. At $0.06/kWh, the electricity
usage for the ex situ plot would be $420/yr (0.8 kW x 24
27
-------
hr/day x 365 days/yr x $0.06kWh) or about $2,100 for the
5 year period.
The primary use of water for the ex situ plot was irriga-
tion. The irrigation demand is dependent on season, soil
character, treatment protocol, temperature, and climate.
The in situ plot relied solely on natural precipitation. The
cost of water usage for the ex situ plot was estimated to be
so low that no value was assigned.
3.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Since there was no leachate produced during the SITE
demonstration of the ex situ plot, it was assumed that no
leachate would be produced during the course of the full-
scale remediation. Pilot-scale testing showed that this
would also.be true for the in situ plot. Therefore, there were
no costs assigned to this category for either case.
3.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping,
Handling, and Storage
During the SITE demonstration, oversized material sepa-
rated out during the Startup phase was analyzed and found
to be hazardous. Because this may not necessarily be the
case at every site, residual disposal costs were estimated
two ways. First, it was assumed that the residual was a
hazardous waste and needed to be handled appropriately
offsite. Secondly, it was assumed that it was not hazard-
ous and could be landfilled at the same site with no addi-
tional costs incurred.
The oversize material was 7% by volume of the total soil
treated. The average bulk density was assumed to be 1.3
tons/m3or about 620 tons for the 6,800 m3 of soil. The cost
of landfilling hazardous material was assumed to be $5001
ton. It should be pointed out that landfilling PCP contami-
nated waste may not be permissible in some jurisdictions.
In that case, the only disposal option would be incinera-
tion at 2 to 3 times the cost of landfilling. Therefore, if this
material is hazardous, disposal costs may be as low as
$300,000 or as high as $1 ,000,000.
The only other residual generated during the course of
the SITE demonstration that required disposal was PPE.
This cost would probably be greatest during site prepara-
tion, startup, and demobilization activities, and between
treatment cycles for the ex situ plot. PPE usage should be
minimal during treatment. It was assumed that an average
of one drum of PPE per month of treatment would be gen-
erated. At a disposal cost of $500/drum, this would trans-
late to $6,000 for 12 months of treatment.
3.4.70 Analytical Services
The project analytical costs will necessarily be depen-
dent on site-specific factors, such as regulatory require-
ments regarding sampling intensity, frequency, and analy-
ses. For this estimate, a sampling program that generates
one sample per 100 m3 was assumed. Thus, 68 samples
per sampling event would be generated for 6,800 m3 of
soil. Soil moisture, temperature, and pH would be mea-
sured every two weeks at an internal cost of $10. This
would then total $16,320 (68 samples/event x 2 events/
month x 12 months x $IO/sample). To determine the
progress of treatment, PCP and PAHs would be measured
less frequently, perhaps once every quarter. To account
for the costs of PAH/PCP analyses, duplicate samples,
additional samples/analyses required by regulatory agen-
cies, and shipping and handling, this category was esti-
mated at $20,000.
3.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement
Replacement, repair, and/or modification of the sand lay-
ers, polyethylene liner, and/or the fiberpad in between treat-
ment cycles may be necessary. This has been estimated
at $1,500 per treatment cycle or $6,000 for four treatment
cycles. Seasonal modifications to the greenhouse, such
as opening the side vents at the beginning of the summer
season and closing them at the beginning of the winter
season, are considered negligible costs and therefore have
not been included.
3.4.72 Demobilization
Demobilization of the in situ plot would require minimal
effort. The key tasks would be levelling, seeding, and com-
pacting the treated area. The cost is estimated to be about
$5,700.
For the ex situ area, the demobilization would involve
dismantling the greenhouse, removing the synthetic treat-
ment pad material, returning treatment pad soil and clay
to the site as clean fill, levelling, seeding, and compacting
the treatment area. It is estimated that the cost of these
activities would be about $4,600.
3.5 Results
The results indicate that a full-scale cleanup of this site
using this technology would cost between $619,000 and
$959,000, including the cost of residual disposal. The cor-
responding unit costs would range from $92/m3 ($70/yd3)
for the in s/toplot to $1 40/nf ($1 08/yd3) for the ex situ plot.
Without residual disposal, the unit costs decrease substan-
tially; $46/m3 ($35/yd3) for the in situ plot, representing a
50% reduction, and $96/m3 ($73/yd3) for the ex situ plot,
representing a more modest but still significant 31% re-
duction. In either case, the in situ plot was far more eco-
nomical to setup and operate than the ex situ plot (it would
cost 34% less with residual disposal, and 52% less with-
out residual disposal).
Although this is a considerable difference, there could
be circumstances where ex situ treatment would be more
advantageous than in situ treatment. For instance, recal-
citrant soils with high contaminant concentrations could
be treated in an ex situ greenhouse, which allows better
control over moisture content and temperature and, there-
fore, more uniform treatment without isolated pockets of
high concentration soils. For the same initial contaminant
concentration, treatment in the controlled environment of
a greenhouse would be faster than relying solely on natu-
28
-------
ral irrigation and temperatures. Finally, ex situ treatment in
a greenhouse may be more easily accepted by the com-
munity than uncovered in situ treatment, even though there
might not be a technical advantage.
The 12 cost categories for the two cases considered here
are shown in Figure 3-I. Figure 3-2 displays the same cost
categories minus the cost category Residuals + Waste
Shipping + Handling. For both the in situ and ex situ plots,
the predominant cost category was Residuals & Waste
Shipping & Handling (51% for the in situ case vs. 35% for
the ex situ case).
For the in situ plot, the next highest cost categories were
Startup (22%), Site Preparation (11%) and Labor (8%).
These four highest cost categories accounted for over 90%
of total costs. Analytical Services (3%), Capital Equipment
(2%) and Demobilization (1%) were the next largest con-
tributing factors. Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
and Consumables & Supplies each contributed 0.5% or
less to total costs.
For the ex situ plot, the Residuals & Waste Shipping &
Handling cost category was followed by Labor (29%), Site
Preparation (18%), and Consumables & Supplies (10%).
These four items again accounted for over 90% of costs.
Startup (3%), Analytical Services (2%), and Capital Equip-
ment (1%) were the next largest categories. Maintenance
and Modifications and Demobilization each contributed
about 0.5%, while Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
and Utilities were insignificant cost contributors.
No costs were attributed to Effluent Treatment and Dis-
posal for either plot because it was assumed that no
leachate would be generated. This observation was con-
firmed during the SITE demonstration project on the ex
situ plot.
For both plots, Labor and Site Preparation were among
the top four cost categories. In the case of the ex situ plot,
this is related to the construction of the treatment pad, the
purchase and installation of the greenhouse, the additional
labor connected with multiple treatment cycles, and the
accompanying longer treatment times associated with a
smaller plot. For the in situ plot, these costs are a reflec-
tion of the larger plot size assumed. Cost contributions from
Analytical Services, Capital Equipment, Demobilization,
and Permitting and Regulatory Requirements are about
the same for both plots. This indicates that these catego-
ries are not dependent on the size of the site. Maintenance
and Modification and Utility costs were insignificant for the
in situ plot because of the relatively short cleanup time
involved.
This section presents the results of the EPA SITE dem-
onstration conducted at the Domtar Wood Preserving Fa-
cility in Trenton, Ontario, Canada. This section discusses
the effectiveness of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology in remediating PAHs and CPs in wood treat-
ment soils.
29
-------
In Situ Plot (6800 m3)
Capital Equipment 1.5%
Site Preparation 11.4%
Demobilization 0.9%
Analytical 3.2%
Startup 22.6%
Consumables/
Supplies 0.4%
Labor 8.4%
Permitting 0.5%
Residuals/Waste 51.1%
Ex Situ Plot (1360m3)
Analytical 2.1%
Residual/Waste 35.4%
\
Demobilization 0.5%\
Site Preparation
18.0%
Capital
Equipment 0.9%
Startup 3.0%
Permitting 0.3%
Utilities 0.2%
Labor 29.1%
Consumables/
Supplies 9.9%
Maintenance 0.6%
Figure 3-1. Estimated full-scale remediation costs.
30
-------
In Situ Plot (6800 m3)
Startup 46.2%
Capital
Equipment 3.1%
Consumables/
Supplies 0.8%
Labor 17.2%
Site Preparation 23.3%
Permitting 1.0%
Demobilization 1.8% Analytical 6.5%
Ex Situ Plot (1360 m3)
Labor 45.0%
Utilities 0.3%
Analytical 3.3%
Demobilization 0.8%
Site Preparation 27.9%
Figure 3-2. Estimated full-scale remediation costs.
Permitting 0.5%
Maintenance 0.9%
Consumables/
Supplies 15.3%
Startup 4.6%
Capital Equipment 1.4%
31
-------
Section 4
Treatment Effectiveness
4.1 Background
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology SITE
demonstration utilized a portion of a much larger full-scale
demonstration area being treated simultaneously by
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies, the developer, at
the Domtar site. The full-scale technology demonstration
was co-funded by Domtar, Environmental Canada, and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. GRACE Bioremediation
Technologies, was contracted to treat 3,000 tons of soil in
situ and 1,500 tons of excavated soil (ex situ) at the Domtar
site, for a period of approximately one year. The SITE dem-
onstration involved the treatment of approximately 300 tons
of excavated soil. GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
installed, maintained (i.e., tilling and irrigation), and moni-
tored the ex situ treatment system, which covered an area
of approximately 2,300 m3. The EPA SITE demonstration
involved the construction of a separate Treatment Plot and
No-Treatment Plot that were monitored and maintained
by the developer.
The Domtar Wood Preserving Facility operated for sev-
eral decades at the site and was responsible for the depo-
sition of CPs, creosote, and petroleum hydrocarbons to
the native soil. The wood preserving process has been
discontinued at the facility and the property is currently
used for the storage of treated lumber, railroad ties, and
telephone poles. In the past decade, soils surrounding the
former process area have been excavated and stockpiled
for treatment. The SITE demonstration focused on these
soils which, according to the developer, have the highest
concentrations of PAHs and CPs. Historical data collected
by the developer indicated that the excavated soil con-
tains total chlorophenol concentrations from 276 mg/kg to
1228 mg/kg (PCPI from 249 mg/kg to 1176 mg/kg) and
total PAHs from 577 mg/kg to 2068 mg/kg.
Prior to the SITE demonstration, EPA collected composite
samples of the soil to be used in the Treatment and No-
Treatment Plots. The Treatment Plot exhibited total PAH
concentrations ranging from 2274 mg/kg to 3453 mg/kg
and total chlorinated phenol concentrations ranging from
540 mg/kg to 740 mg/kg (only PCP was detected). The
No-Treatment Plot exhibited a total PAH concentration of
1718 mg/kg and a total chlorinated phenol concentration
of 360 mg/kg (only pentachlorophenol was detected).
This SITE demonstration was conducted to evaluate the
performance of GRACE Bioremediation Technologies'
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology to remediate
PAH and chlorinated phenol contamination in soils from
the Domtar Wood Preserving Facility in Trenton, Ontario.
According to the developer, the DARAMEND™ Technol-
ogy is an effective bioremediation alternative for the treat-
ment of soils containing levels of CPs and PAHs typically
considered too toxic for bioremediation.
The developer claimed that the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology can achieve a 95% reduction
in total PAHs and a 95% reduction in TCP over an eight-
month period of treatment. The performance was evalu-
ated using the pre- and post-treatment concentrations of
the analytes listed below:
Total Chlorinated phenols
. 2-chlorophenol
. 2,4-dichlorophenol
. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
. Pentachlorophenol
Total PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo (a.h)anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
The total list of CPs presented by the developer has been
abbreviated to the above list, which includes only those
analytes routinely analyzed under SW846 3540/8270. Data
collected during the developer's pilot testing program have
shown that PCP comprises 96% of the total contamination
contributed by This being the case, the elimination of
chlorinated phenolic compounds not routinely analyzed in
32
-------
SW3540/8270 had a negligible effect on the measured per-
formance of this technology.
As the process is temperature-dependent, the treatment
period only includes days when the average daily soil tem-
perature within the greenhouse was above 15°C. The dem-
onstration was originallv scheduled to run until the begin-
ning of June 1994: but was extended by the 93 days that
the greenhouse average soil temperature fell below 15°C.
The actual number of treatment days between the initial
baseline sampling and the final sampling event totaled 254.
A summary of sampling and data monitoring activities is
presented in Figure 4-I.
Primary (Critical) Project Objectives
The SITE demonstration was designed to determine
whether the developer's claim could be achieved during a
full-scale application of the technology. The primary ob-
jective was evaluated by comparing the sums of the con-
centrations of select PAHs and CPs in soils within the dem-
onstration Test Plot, after 254 days of treatment by the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. The Test Plot
was physically separated from the GRACE Bioremediation
Technologies plot and was evenly divided into 54 2 x 2
meter subplots. Soil samples for critical analyses were
collected from designated subplots using a random num-
ber generator as discussed in the TER. Homogenized soil
cores from each of the designated subplots were analyzed
for SVOCs using analytical SW846 Method 3540/8270.
Secondary (Non-Critical) Project Objectives
Other objectives of the demonstration included:
• Determine the magnitude of reduction in the sums of
the concentrations of select PAHs and CPs in the No-
Treatment Plot soils.
• Determine the magnitude of reduction for specific PAHs
and chlorinated phenolic compounds within each of
the SITE demonstration plots.
• Determine the toxicity of the soil to earthworms and
seed germination in each of the SITE demonstration
plots before and after treatment.
• Monitor the fate of TRPH in each of the SITE demon-
stration plots.
• Monitor general soil conditions (i.e., nutrients, toxins)
that might inhibit or promote process effectiveness,
such as TC, TIC, Nitrate-Nitrite, Phosphate, TKN, pH,
PSD, Chlorides and Total Metals within each of the
SITE demonstration plots.
AA
+ +
No treatment occurred 12/13/93
•! 3/1 6/94
-50-30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330350
One interval = 20 calendar days
• Tillage • Demonstration sampling
A Irrigation ^ Pre-demonstration activities
+ Amendment added • Soil temperature below
Figure 4-1. Maintenance Record.
33
-------
. Monitor for the presence of leachate within the SITE
demonstration Test Plot.
. Monitor each of the SITE demonstration plots for ac-
tive microbial populations, specifically focusing on to-
tal heterotrophs and PCP degraders, as a way to quali-
tatively assess the magnitude of biodegradation over
the course of the eight-month test.
. Monitor the upper sand layer in contact with the treated
soil to qualitatively assess any tendency for downward
migration of contaminants.
These primary and secondary project objectives were
evaluated through a carefully planned and executed sam-
pling and analysis plan (see TER). For this demonstration
SVOCs were considered critical during "Baseline" and
"Post-Treatment" sampling (Event #0 and Event #3) of
the SITE demonstration Treatment Plot. This parameter
was considered noncritical during sampling of the No-Treat-
ment Plot and during the two intermediate rounds of Treat-
ment Plot sampling (Event #1 and Event #2). The period
of performance evaluation was estimated by the devel-
oper to be approximately 240 days (actual 254 days) start-
ing on October 14, 1993 (Event #0) and ending on Sep-
tember 26, 1994 (Event #3). The two intermediate rounds
were performed on the 88th day and on the 144th day of
treatment which occurred on April 21, 1994 and on June
14,1994 (Events #l and #2). No sampling was conducted
during the winter months of December, January, Febru-
ary, and March since little biodegradation was expected to
occur at low winter temperatures.
An additional objective of this demonstration was to de-
velop data on operating costs for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology so that the applicability and cost
effectiveness of this process at other sites could be evalu-
ated. The results of the economic analysis were presented
in Section 3.
4.2 Detailed Process Description
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies demonstrated their
patented DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology on a
portion of an ex situ plot located in a 10 x 200 m green-
house-enclosed treatment plots installed along the north-
west corner of the Domtar Wood Preserving Facility. The
SITE plots consisted of a 2 x 6 m No-Treatment Plot and a
6 x 36 m Treatment Plot. Both plots were constructed and
bermed off from the larger GRACE Bioremediation Tech-
nologies plot to facilitate testing under the SITE Program.
The Treatment Plot underwent treatment by the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology and was main-
tained in the same manner as the larger GRACE
Bioremediation Technologiesplot. The No-Treatment Plot
received no treatment and was left idle and covered
throughout the demonstration period.
The excavated soil provided for the SITE demonstration
plots, according to the developer, had a total chlorophenol
concentration in the range of 276 mg/kg to 1228 mg/kg
(PCP from 249 mg/kg to 1 ,176 mg/kg); total PAHs ranged
from 557 mg/kg to 2068 mg/kg. Actual Test and No-Treat-
ment Plot concentrations were verified during the pre-dem-
onstration sampling effort conducted a month before the
start of the demonstration (September 7, 1993). Prior to
placing the test soil in the SITE demonstration plots, the
test soil was screened by the developer to remove debris
that might interfere with the homogenization or incorpora-
tion of organic amendments (see Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.4
regarding the soil screening process). The screened soil
was transported to the treatment area and stockpiled on a
polyethylene liner until construction of the SITE demon-
stration plots was complete.
The No-Treatment Plot was physically isolated from the
adjacent treatment areas by wooden walls that rose 1.5 m
above the surface of the soil, extended downward through
the soil and the underlying sand layer, and rested on the
fiberpad that protected the underlying plastic liner. This was
done to protect the No-Treatment Plot soil from inadvert-
ent inoculation by nearby tillage or by the migration of sub-
surface water.
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies treated the soil in
the SITE demonstration Treatment Plot through the addi-
tion and even distribution of its solid-phase organic amend-
ments using a specially designed rotary tiller. Tilling serves
the dual purpose of reducing variations in soil physical and
chemical properties and aerating the soils. The developer
determined the WHC of the Treatment Plot soils and em-
ployed a specialized soil moisture control system to en-
courage the proliferation of large active microbial popula-
tions and limit the generation of leachate. These are con-
sidered proprietary components of the developer's process.
Figure 4-I illustrates the overall schedule of the demon-
stration, depicting the number of calendar days on which
sampling, tillage, irrigation, and the addition of amendments
occurred. In addition, Figure 4-1 depicts a total of 93 "no
treatment days," from December 13, 1993 to March 16,
1994, when the soil temperature in the Treatment Plot was
below 15°C.
Plot Construction
The Treatment and No-Treatment Plots were contained
at the northern end of a temporary "greenhouse" that also
housed GRACE Bioremediation Technologies' demonstra-
tion plot (See Figure I-2). The waterproof structure con-
sisted of an aluminum frame covered by a shell of polyeth-
ylene sheeting and could be opened at each end to allow
for equipment access.
Both the Treatment and No-Treatment Plots were un-
derlain with a high-density polyethylene liner (imperme-
able to the target compounds). This liner was underlain
with 10 cm of screened sand to prevent structural damage
to the liner. Another 15-cm-thick sand layer and a 4-mm-
thick fiberpad were spread on top of the liner to minimize
the potential for direct contact between the liner material
and tillage equipment.
34
-------
Once the upper bedding material had been spread across
the plot, the targeted test soil was screened and then de-
posited within the lined plots to a depth of 0.6 m. Each
demonstration plot was isolated from the adjacent plots by
earthen berms with wooden boards protruding 1.5 m above
the top of the soil. One side of the Treatment Plot remained
open for tilling equipment access.
Decontamination Pad
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies constructed a de-
contamination pad adjacent to the demonstration area to
facilitate cleaning of the tilling equipment and prevent cross-
plot contamination.
Site Preparation for Treatment
Soil targeted for treatment by the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology was prepared by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies prior to being placed in the
control and treatment plots. Soil stored near the wood treat-
ment site was collected with a backhoe and introduced
into a screening device in order to remove debris (rocks,
wood, metal) that could interfere with incorporation of the
organic amendment. Oversized debris was stockpiled in a
secure area near the runoff collection and treatment area,
to prevent the generation of leachate containing the target
compounds. Screened soil was then transported to the
treatment area and spread onto the prepared No-Treat-
ment and Treatment Plots to a depth of 0.5 m.
The soil matrix was initially homogenized in both the
Treatment and No-Treatment Plots by tilling with a power
take-off driven rotary tiller to ensure uniform physical and
chemical soil properties, and to facilitate distribution of soil
amendments. GRACE Bioremediation Technologies uti-
lized two tillers, each of which was pulled by a 75 hp trac-
tor. The tillers are 2.1 and 1.7 m wide and can reach an
effective depth of 60 cm.
After homogenization GRACE Bioremediation Technolo-
gies' patented amendment was added to the Treatment
Plot soil in a volume of approximately 1% of the total vol-
ume of the soil. The organic amendments increase the
supply of biologically available water and nutrients to con-
taminant-degrading microorganisms. Addition of the
amendments may increase the soil volume up to 15% de-
pending on the amount of pore space present. Typically
amendments are added solely at the beginning of the treat-
ment process, however, an additional 2% was added in
December 1993, and an additional 1% was added in March
1994, based on soil sample analytical results.
Plot Maintenance
Figure 4-1 illustrates the frequency of Treatment Plot
maintenance, which consisted of the following tasks:
• tilling the plot using a tractor and tiller
. monitoring for moisture and temperature
. irrigating the plot
Soil in the Treatment Plot was tilled immediately after
the commencement of irrigation, and at weekly intervals
thereafter, to increase diffusion of oxygen to microsites and
to ensure the uniform distribution of irrigation water in the
soil profile.
All plot monitoring was performed by the developer, and
a daily log of measurements was maintained. The fre-
quency of irrigation was determined by weekly monitoring
of soil moisture conditions; successful bioremediation de-
pends on maintenance of the soil's water holding capacity.
The growth rate of microbial biomass was characterized
via regular monitoring of soil temperature using a com-
mercial version of a hand-held thermocouple.
4.3 Methodology
4.3.1 Sampling
Pre-Demonstration
During the week of September 7, 1993, representative
soil samples were collected by the SITE contractor from
both demonstration plots to satisfy the following pre-dem-
onstration objectives:
. Characterize the target media for treatment
. Ensure the presence and concentration of target
compounds present in the target media
. Identify any conditions present in the soil that could
inhibit the treatment process or its validation.
The pre-demonstration sampling plan called for five com-
posite samples to be collected using hand augers; how-
ever, the soil contained large stones and concrete debris
that necessitated the use of a pick-axe and shovel. All
samples were analyzed for SVOCs (which included PAHs
and CPs) and one composite was analyzed for metals,
VOCs, pesticides/PCB's, PSD, and dioxins/furans. One
composite sample from the No-Treatment Plot was col-
lected and analyzed for SVOCs, metals, VOCs, and PSD.
Due to the amount of oversized material (greater than 1/2-
inch), three composite samples were screened in the field
using a 1/2-inch screen to determine the ratio of rocks to
soil in the plots. In addition, a representative sample of the
undersized and oversized soil was collected from each of
these three composites and sent to the laboratory for semi-
volatile organic analysis (SW 846-8270).
Demonstration
The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to
evaluate the effectiveness of the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology in degrading PAH and CPs
contamination in wood-treatment soil at the Domtar site.
The collection of soil samples from the Treatment Plot be-
gan following pretreatment of the soil, which entailed:
35
-------
. Screening of the soil to a diameter of 10 cm
. Addition of proprietary organic amendments to the soil
(1% of volume of soil)
. Homogenization of the soil and amendments
The 2 m x 6 m No-Treatment Plot received the same
screened and homogenized soil as the Treatment Plot but
no organic amendments or moisture were added, and no
tillage occurred.
The SITE demonstration called for four sampling events
These four sampling events were as follows:
Event #0
Event #l
Event #2
Event #3
Baseline
October 14, 1993*
Intermediate -April 21, 1994
Intermediate - June 14, 1994
Final September 26, 1994
Note: * - The day after the amendments were tilled into
the soil.
These sampling events in relation to the treatment pro-
cess are depicted in Figure 4-I. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show
the locations sampled and parameters analyzed within
each grid during the four sampling events.
During all four sampling events, grab soil samples were
collected from the selected subplots using a hand auger,
and were analyzed for SVOCs (SW 846 3540/8270) (which
includes the analysis for CPs and PAHs). Portions of soil
from each of the subplots were retained and mixed together
to form a single composite sample, which was analyzed
for the parameters indicated in Figure 4 2 and Figure 4-3.
4.3.2 Data Analysis
The analytical results, once validated, were reduced to
develop the average sums of the concentrations of total
PAHs, individual PAHs, TCP, and individual CPs. To evalu-
ate the primary objectives, only the initial and final levels
of the specified 16 PAHs and the specified 5 CPs (CP)
were utilized to calculate the magnitude of reduction of
PAHs and CPs in the SITE demonstration Plots.
The total PAH and total CP percent reductions in the
SITE demonstration plots were calculated using Equations
1 and 2, respectively:
% RedPAH = Cip™ " C|PAH x (100) =
(1)
CiP
x (100)
Redcp =
!.£!2Lx(100)
CiOP
where,
piPAH
"fPAH
C«P
.average initial PAH concentration in the plot
a average final PAH concentration in the plot
= average initial chlorinated phenol concentration
in the plot
= average final chlorinated phehol concentration
in the plot
The percent reduction of specific compounds in each
plot is given by equation 3.
fCP
o/0 Red = » " » x (100) =
-^x(100)
(3)
where,
C". = average initial concentration of compound y in the
plot
C" = average final concentration of compound y in the
plot
In addition, the composite soil data from each plot was
evaluated to measure changes in soil toxicity, reduction of
TRPHs, concentrations of metals, conventional soil chem-
istry, and PSD. Separate individual grab samples were also
collected and evaluated to track changes in the microbial
populations of each plot. Furthermore, the area underly-
ing the demonstration soil was sampled and monitored
during each sampling event, for the possible migration of
contaminants downward into the underlying sand layer or
the presence of leachate collecting on the liner.
4.3.3 Statistical Analysis
The pre-and post-treatment concentration data for total
and individual PAHs, and total and individual chlorophenols
were used to further compute the point estimates and their
respective confidence intervals for removal efficiencies of
these contaminants. The basic statistical methodology used
toanalyze the data collected during sampling events 0 and
3 is described below. CIs were constructed at two levels of
confidence, 80% and 90%.
First the separate pretreatment and post-treatment data
were analyzed by constituent in tests of normality on the
raw data and tests of log normality on the log-transformed
data. These tests indicated that the separate data sets, as
wells as the paired ratios of effluent to influent data, gen-
36
-------
No-Treatment
Plot
Test Plot
62
63
64
*
65
66
55
56
57
58
59
*
60
3456789 10
E E E
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
E E . E . E '
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
EE . Ed> • • E
. = sampling points (random selection for treatment plot)
Parameter
2 7
Semivolatiles X X
Semivolatiles
(Triplicate) MS/MSD X
Semivolatiles - sand
Total heterotrophs/
POP degraders X
Chloride
TKN,NO,/NO,,PQ,,
TC.TIC.'pH "
TRPH
Metals
PSD
Dioxirts/Furans
Toxicity
Test Plot
8 11 13 18 18 22 25 28 30 35 36 38 42 46 47 51
XXXXXXXXXX XX XX
X
XX X
XXX X XXX X
1 composite
1 composite
1 composite
1 composite
1 composite
1 composite
1 composite
No-Treatment Plot
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 83 64 85 66
X X X X X
X
XXX
1
1
1
1
1
1
X X X X X X X
X X X
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
E - Contingency samples.
E(1) Sampled in triplicate and extracted in the lab as contingency samples (one sample was analyzed for MS/MSD)
Figure 4-2. Soil Sample Aliquots for Sampling Events 0 and 3.
-------
No-Treatment
Plot
61
62
63
64
65
66
55
56
57
56
59
60
Test Plot
1 2 3456769 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16
* • * •
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
* * * * * •
37 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51. 52 53 54
.
. = sampling points (random selection for treatment plot)
Parameter
2 7
Semivolafites X X
Semivolatiles
(Triplicate) MS/MSD
Semivolatiies - sand
Total heterotrophs/
POP degraders X
Chloride
TKN,NO,/NQ,,,PQ4,
TC, TIC.'pH "
Test Plot
8 11 13 16 18 22 25 28 30 35 36 38 42 46 47 51
XXXXXXXXXX XX XX
X X
XX X
X X X X X X X X
1 composite
1 composite
No-Treatment Plot
55 56 5? 58 59 60 61 62 83 64 85 68
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
1 composite
1 composite
Figure 4-3. Soil Sample Aliquots for Sampling Events 1 and 2.
erally satisfied the assumption of log normality at the a =
0.01 level of significance. Letting z. = (y/x) represent the
ith paired ratio of effluent concentratfbn to'rnfluent concen-
tration, the assumption that the z.'s follow an approximate
log normal distribution implies that the quantities log (z) =
(log y-logx^ follow an approximate normal distribution.
Furthermore, the normal distribution also then describes
the behavior of the average of these log ratios:
1
log z = -I, log z, = (log y-logx)
n
and a t-statistic with (n-l) degrees of freedom (where n
represents the number of data pairs) can be formed using
the expression:
tn-1
[togz-log(1-R0)lWn
S,,
(5)
'log z
where R0 is the developer's claimed or expected removal
efficiency and S , 2 is the standard deviation of the logged
ratios.
This formula was used to develop a confidence interval
for the true expected removal efficiency. By rearranging
the terms and solving for log (1 -R0), we have the approxi-
mate equation :
log(1 -R0)6 fog z ± tMJ,- %^ <6>
Vn
Further exponentiation and rearrangement leads to the fi-
nal Cl expression for R0:
(4) R0e1-exp I logz ±
Vn
(7)
This was then the expression used to compute the re-
moval a was chosen to be .10, since a "cuts off" one tail of
the t-distribution, so that a total of 20% is cut off when the
upper and lower confidence limits are computed. Likewise,
for 90% confidence, a was chosen to be
One other point should be noted concerning the point
estimates of removal efficiency. Rather than simply taking
one minus the mean effluent divided by the mean influent,
the point estimates were based on the paired samples.
38
-------
The method used in this case is equivalent to computing
one minus the geometric mean of the paired effluent to
influent ratios. Explicitly, the following equation was em-
ployed:
R = 1 - exi
pjlog z]
(8)
This point estimate will generally be slightly different from
the typical one minus the mean effluent divided by the mean
influent, but it explicitly accounts for the pairing in the data
and has much better understood statistical properties.
Process Monitoring
Field and process monitoring data were taken by the
developer at a predetermined frequency. These measure-
ments included:
. Microtox™ Soil Toxicity Assays
. Pore Water Monitoring
. Air Sampling
• Soil Temperature Monitoring
• Soil Water Holding Capacity
• Soil Moisture Monitoring
• Greenhouse Ambient Air Temperature
• Greenhouse Air Temperature During Sampling
• Outside Air Temperature
4.4 Performance Data
4.4.1 SITE Contractor Results from Pre-
Demonstration
Pre-demonstration soil samples were collected by the
SITE contractor to characterize the target media for treat-
ment and non-treatment; to ensure the presence, concen-
tration, and variability of target compounds (PAHs and PCP)
present in the target media; and to identify any possible
conditions present in the soil that would inhibit the treat-
ment process or its validation (i.e., oversized particles, di-
oxins/furans, metals, volatile organics, pesticides, and
PCBs). Analysis of the pre-demonstration data from each
plot indicated concentrations of target contaminants ac-
ceptable to the developer, and a possible inhibitor to the
evaluation process.
The Treatment Plot exhibited total PAH concentrations
ranging from 2274 mg/kg to 3453 mg/kg and TCP concen-
trations ranging from 540 mg/kg to 740 mg/kg. The No-
Treatment Plot exhibited total PAH concentrations of 1772
mg/kg and TCP concentrations of 360 mg/kg. PCPI was
the only chlorinated phenol detected in both plots. The only
VOC detected was acetone, which may have been a labo-
ratory artifact. Pm-demonstration soil data for organic com-
pounds only utilized soil samples sieved to less than 0.5
inches in diameter.
According to the developer, no inhibitors were evident in
the demonstration soils. The test soil had been previously
screened by the developer to a diameter of 2 inches. No
abundant concentrations of toxic heavy metals were evi-
dent in either plot. Pesticides, PCBs, and carcinogenic di-
oxins were not detected in the Treatment Plot. The No-
Treatment Plot soil was not analyzed for pesticides, PCBs,
or dioxin/furans.
An important physical observation made during the pre-
demonstration was the abundance of oversized material
(greater than 1 inch in diameter) as supported by the re-
sults of the particle size distribution analysis of the soil in
each plot. The developer had screened the ex situ soil pre-
vious to sampling to a particle size of approximately 4
inches. The particle size distribution analysis indicated that
the Treatment Plot soils exhibited 13% fines, 26% sand,
and 61% gravel or larger. Particles larger then gravel size
comprised 51% of the total soil sample. The abundance of
this oversized material would potentially bias the evalua-
tion and would require additional analyses to correct. Dis-
cussions with the developer resulted in the soil from the
two plots being removed and re-screened to less than 1
inch in diameter and replaced into the plots prior to the
start of the demonstration.
In addition, to enhance the evaluation of the technology,
the laboratory screened the composite samples to a 1-
inch particle size and analyzed representative subsamples
for SVOCs. The concentrations and variations observed
during pre-demonstration activities were used to support
assumptions made in developing the demonstration's ex-
perimental design.
4.4.2 Summary of Results • Primary
Objectives
Results from the SITE demonstration indicate that the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology significantly
reduced total PAHs and TCP during the period of treat-
ment (254 days) in the Treatment Plot. The primary objec-
tive was established by comparing the sums of the con-
centrations of select PAHs and of CPs from the excavated
wood-treatment soils within the Treatment Plot prior to the
application of the DARAMEND™ Technology and at the
end of approximately 8 months (254 days) of treatment.
Total PAHs were reduced from an average of 1710 mg/
kg to 98 mg/kg, a 94% reduction with a 90% Cl of 93.4 to
95.2%; TCP were reduced from an average of 352 mg/kg
to 43 mg/kg, an 88% reduction with a 90% Cl of 82.9 to
90.5%. Table 4-I summarizes the performance of the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology over the course
of the SITE demonstration. Figure 4-4 graphically depicts
the performance of the primary objectives.
It should be noted that during the statistical treatment of
the Treatment Plot data no outliers were detected and thus
excluded from the analyses. Six constituents were consis-
tently non-detected during both sampling events and could
not be statistically analyzed for this reason. These include:
39
-------
2-Chlorophenol, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol,
2,4,5 Trichlorophenol, Naphthalene, and Acenaphthylene.
To calculate removal efficiencies of TCP and total PAHs in
light of these non-detected compounds, three different
cases were constructed: 1) putting all NDs at the MDL, 2)
putting all NDs at half the MDL, and 3) putting all NDs at 0.
All three cases gave very similar results, concluding that
the treatment of non-detects in this particular dataset is
not a significant issue. Using the statistical methodology
described in Section 4.3.3, point estimates, R, for % re-
ductions in the geometric mean concentrations of total
PAHs and total chlorophenols, and their respective CIs
were computed and are presented below.
These results indicate that with a 90% level of confidence
(i.e., 10% chance of error) total PAHs and total chlorinated
were reduced by 93.7% or more and 84% or more, re-
spectively, in the Treatment Plot over a period of 254
days.
Supporting documentation is presented in Appendix B
of the TER, which includes descriptive analyses of the set
of ratios for each compound examined on a log scale as
well as histograms and probability plots, descriptive statis-
tics, and the results of a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality
(which on the log scale tests the original ratios for log-
normality).
4.4.3 Summary of Results - Secondary
Objectives
4.4.3.1 The Magnitude of Reduction in the Sums
of the Concentration of Select PAHs and
Chlorinated Phenols in the No-Treatment Plots
Soils
Results from the SITE demonstration indicate that no
significant reduction in TCP occurred during the demon-
stration in the No-Treatment Plot. This secondary objec-
tive was evaluated by comparing the sums of the concen-
trations of the CPs from the excavated wood-treatment
soils within the No-Treatment Plot over the approximately
8 months (254 days) of no-treatment.
Parameter
R
80% Cl 90% Cl
Total PAHs( 1) .946 (.939, .952) (.936, .954)
Total PAHs(2) .945 (.938, .951) (.935, .953)
Total PAHs(3) .944 (.937, .951) (.934, .952)
Total Chlorophenols(l) .906 (.885, .922) (.878, .927)
Total Chlorophenols(2) .893 (.869, .913) (.861, .918)
Total Chlorophenols(S) .872 (.840, .898) (.829, .905)
TCP remained at an approximate average of 217 mg/
kg. However, total PAHs were reduced from an aver-
age of 1,312 mg/kg to 776 mg/kg, a 41% reduction with
a 90% Cl of 34.6 to 48.7%. Table 4-I summarizes the
performance of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Tech-
nology over the course of the SITE demonstration. Fig-
ure 4-4 graphically presents the performance of this
secondary objective. It should be noted that during the
statistical treatment of the No-Treatment Plot data no
outliers were detected and thus excluded from the analy-
ses.
4.4.3.2 The Magnitude of Reduction for Specific
PAHs and Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Within Each Demonstration Plot
Results from the SITE demonstration indicate that the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology reduced (mod-
erately to significantly) all the targeted PAHs and CPs dur-
ing the period of treatment (254 days) in the Treatment
Plot. The secondary objective was accomplished by com-
paring the sums of the concentrations of each PAH and of
each chlorinated phenol from the excavated wood-treat-
ment soils within the Treatment Plot, prior to the applica-
tion of the DARAMEND™ Technology and at the end of
approximately eight months (254 days) of treatment.
Treatment Plot
The reduction of specific PAHs ranged from approxi-
mately 98% for acenaphthene to approximately 41% for
benzo(g,h,i)perylene. The only targeted chlorinated phe-
nol detectable in the Treatment Plot was PCP. The reduc-
tion of PCP was approximately 88% which was reduced
from an average of 352 mg/kg to 43 mg/kg. Table 4-2 sum-
marizes the performance of each individual target com-
pound treated by the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Tech-
nology over the course of the SITE demonstration.
The analysis of the Treatment Plot's PAH data indicates
that the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology pro-
duced significant reductions of 3-ringed and 4-ringed PAH
compounds (both averaged approximately 97%), with lower
reductions for 5-ringed and 6-ringed PAH compounds (av-
erage approximately 77% and 40%, respectively). Figures
4-5 and 4-6 demonstrate the reduction per each of the 3-
ringed, 4-ringed, 5-ringed, and g-ringed PAH compound
groups. No statistical analysis was required to support
these conclusions on the Treatment Plot results for spe-
cific PAHs and CPs, however, a statistical analysis was
performed as a byproduct of the analysis of total PAHs
and TCP in Section 4.4.2. This analysis is presented be-
low.
A statistical analysis of the demonstration's specific PAHs
and CPs from the baseline soil sampling event (Event #0,
0 days of treatment) and the final soil sampling event (Event
#3, 254 days of treatment) was utilized to calculate the
point estimates for average removal and associated lev-
els of significance and confidence intervals. The statistical
approach was the same utilized for the evaluation of the
primary objective (see Section 4.4.2).
Six constituents were consistently non-detect during both
sampling events and could not be statistically analyzed for
this reason. These include 2-Chlorophenol, 2,4-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol,
40
-------
Table 4-1 Primary and Secondary Objective Results for Total PAHs and TCP
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
Daramend™ Bioremediation Treatment Process
Trenton, Ontario, Canada
(Concentrations in mg/kg)
Treatment Plot
Analyte
Total PAHs
TcPAHs
TB(a)PEQ
TCPs
Days of Treatment
0 88 144 254
1710
390
55
352
619
250
59
158
221
123
31
90
98
54(43)'
15(11)'
43
Percent
Removal
94.3
86. 1(89.0)'
72.4(80.3)'
87.8
0
1312
377
62
217
No-Treatment Plot
Days of No-Treatment
88 144
1155
338
56
288
982
309
62
356
254
776
274
45
218
Percent
Removal
40.9
27.1
26.7
0
All data is mg/kg on a dry weight basis
TPAHs - Total Polynuclear aromatic Hydrocarbons
TcPAHs - Total Carcinogenic Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
TB(a)PEQ - Total Benzo(a)Pyrene Equivalents
TCPs - Total Chlorinated Phenols
l-Data provided by Grace Bioremediation Technologies based on analyses of split samples by an independent laboratory.
Note: Percent removals presented in this table have been calculated using the arithmetic average (mean) concentrations from Events 0 (day 0)
and 3 (day 254).
2000
0)
144
254
Days
Figure 4-4. Primary and Secondary Objective Results Total and TCP.
41
-------
Table 4-2. Specific Results for Each PAH and Chlorinated Phenol Compound Detected in the Treatment Plot
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Treatment Process
Trenton, Ontario, Canada
Treatment Plot
(Concentrations in mg/kg)
Compound Compound Type
Pentachlorophenol Chlorinated Phenol
Fluorene
Acenaphthene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
3-Ring PAH
3-Ring PAH
3-Ring PAH
3-Ring PAH
4-Ring PAH
4-Ring PAH
4-Ring PAH
4-Ring PAH
5-Ring PAH
5-Ring PAH
5-Ring PAH
5-Ring PAH
5-Ring PAH
6-Ring PAH
Event 0
Average
Concentration
350.00
43.0
62.0
190.0
70.0
550.0
390.0
80.0
120.0
61.0
66.0
39.0
17.0
6.5
16.0
Event 1
Average
Concentration
160.0
36.2
34.4
20.0
14.0
120.0
120.0
25.0
50.0
59.0
50.0
38.0
16.0
12.3
15.0
Event 2
Average
Concentration
90.0
4.1
3.9
4.7
5.4
34.0
34.0
8.2
17.0
41 .0
19.0
21.0
12.0
4.6
11.0
Event 3
Average
Concentration
43.00
1.16
0.99
3.60
4.70
13.00
11.00
3.80
6.80
15.00
6.70
10.00
9.10
2.60
9.50
Percent
Removals
. 87-7
97.3
98.4
98.1
93.3
97.6
97.2
95.3
94.3
75.4
89.8
74.4
46.5
70.5
40.8
Average
Percent
Removals
87.7
97.1
97
77.1
40.6
Note: Percent removals presented in this table have been calculated using the arithmetic average (mean) concentrations from Events 0 (day 0) and
3 (day 254).
Naphthalene, and Acenaphthylene. To calculate total
chlorophenols and total PAHs in light of these nondetected
compounds, three different cases were constructed: 1)
putting all NDs at the MDL, 2) putting all NDs at half the
MDL, and 3) putting all NDs at 0. All three cases gave very
similar results, concluding that the treatment of non-de-
tects in this particular dataset is not a significant issue.
One other non-detect sample occurred during Event #0
for constituent Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. The MDLof 47,300
mg/kg for this sample is very high relative to the other de-
tected concentrations for this compound in the pretreat-
ment (all of which were no greater than 11,000). Further-
more, all the post-treatment samples contained this com-
pound at similar levels. Avalue equal to the average of the
other pre-treatment sample values for this constituent was
utilized, a method often used for missing data values. Al-
though the data value was not missing, it does appear
somewhat anomalous.
Given all these considerations, point estimates for aver-
age removal (R) and the associated Cl are presented be-
low:
Parameter
80% Cl
90% Cl
Pentachlorophenol
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
.872 (.
.986 (,
.979 (.
.981 (.
.942 (.
.977 (,
.974 (,
.954 (,
.946 (,
.773 (,
.902 (.
.749 (,
.470 (,
.618
.454 (,
840, .
898) (
.983, .989) (
,973, .
978, .
983) (
984) (
,929, .952) (
.974, .980) (
.970, .977) (
.949, .959) (
.940, .952) (
.740, .802) (
,888, .914) (
.717, .777) (
.391, .539) (
(.565
, .664)
.339, .550) (
.829,
'.982,
'.971,
.977,
.924,
:.973,
:.969,
:.947,
.938,
:.729,
:.884,
;.707,
'.364,
'(.548,
'.299,
.905)
.989)
.985)
.985)
.955)
.981)
.978)
.960)
.954)
.810)
.918)
.785)
.559)
.677)
.575)
42
-------
Figure 4-5. PAH Percent Removal By Number of Flings.
i nnn
S
"ro
c
o
o
° K nn
o>
2
9 200 -
•i
•I
c^^a 3-ring PAHs
^ra 4-ring PAHs
cssi 5-ring PAHs
E2Z3 6-ring PAHs
Treatment Plot
I
X
X
•><
0
i
vSj
I
sK
•.'• OcffV . vX^SSc, .
88 144 254
1
No-Treatment Plot
s
fl
0
^J
^Jfi
JH
1
i
?
B
88
ifc
.... Ja., «
X
X
X
j
144 254
Days
Figure 4-6. PAH Concentration By Number of Rings.
43
-------
As discussed above, based on the estimated Cl, the
developer's claim can be said to be supported by statisti-
cal hypothesis testing at the .10 significance level for
acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene.
None of the other tested compounds meet the claim at
this level of significance.
Supporting documentation is presented in the TER, which
includes a descriptive analyses of the set of ratios for each
compound examined on a log scale as well as histograms
and probability plots, descriptive statistics, and the results
of a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality (which on the log scale
tests the original ratios for log normality).
No-Treatment Plot
The reduction of specific PAHs ranged from approxi-
mately 76% for fluorene to approximately -14% for
benzo(b)fluoranthene. The only targeted chlorinated phe-
nol detectable in the No-Treatment Plot was PCP. No sig-
nificant reduction of PCP was encountered (average
baseline concentration of 216.7 mg/kg in comparison with
an average final concentration of 217.5 mg/kg). Table 4-3
summarizes the performance of each individual target com-
pound left untreated by the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology over the course of the SITE demonstration.
4.4.3.3 Comparison of Performance of Treat-
ment Plot vs. No-Treatment Plot
Statistical comparisons with respect to individual and total
PAHs, and individual and total chlorophenols were per-
formed to establish if the point estimates of contaminant
removal efficiencies computed for the Treatment Plot were
significantly different from those computed for the No-Treat-
ment Plot. These comparisons were made with a 10% level
of significance and the results are presented in Table 4-4.
Results of this analysis indicate that by day 254 (i.e., sam-
pling Event 3) of the demonstration study the percent re-
ductions in the geometric mean concentrations of all detected
target contaminants in the Treatment Plot (except for
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene) were significantly higher than those re-
alized in the NoTreatment Plot. For Dibenz(a,h)anthracene,
the reductions in the two plots by day 254 were statisti-
cally indifferent. This may have been due to the inherent
limitations associated with low initial concentrations (around
10 mg/kg) in both soils. With respect to the two critical
parameters, total PAHs and TCP, through all three subse-
quent sampling events (1,2, and 3) of the study the reduc-
tions realized in the Treatment Plot were significantly higher
than those in the No-Treatment plot.
4.4.3.4 The Toxicity of the Soil to Earthworms
and Seed Germination in Each of the SITE
Demonstration Plots Before and After Treat-
ment
Toxicity tests were performed on the pre- and post-re-
mediation soil samples to determine if the toxicity of the
soil had decreased due to the degradation of the com-
pounds of interest. Two toxicity tests, germination of let-
tuce and radish seeds and earthworm survival, were used
to evaluate the efficacy of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology in soils contaminated with CPs and PAHs. This
battery of tests was conducted on untreated and
DARAMEND™ treated, pre-and post-remediation samples
of contaminated soil. In addition, negative and positive
controls were utilized as part of the testing regime. Both
controls were used to assess the health of the test organ-
isms; the positive control would produce an observable
effect. The positive control response should also be within
two standard deviations of the running mean of the posi-
tive control response as determined from a control chart
tracking recent positive control tests. If either the negative
or positive control response was outside acceptable lev-
els as indicated in the DQOs (i.e., negative control sur-
vival is 80% or positive control response is two standard
deviations away from running mean), the health of the test
organisms must be examined and the tests may need to
be conducted again. The seed germination toxicity testing
utilized lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and radish (Raphanus
sativus). The earthworm toxicity tests utilized the red worm
(Eisenia foetida). Each of the test species was routinely
used in the evaluation of contaminated soils.
In all tests of 100% pre-treatment soil (i.e., untreated
and DARAMEND™ treated soil from Event #0), the end-
points of interest for a particular test species were de-
pressed relative to negative controls. The endpoints of in-
terest were plant germination and earthworm survival. For
example, 50% inhibition of lettuce and radish seed germi-
nation prior to remediation was calculated to occur in soil
mixtures containing approximately 4% and 60% of the con-
taminated soil, respectively, while the concentration of con-
taminated soil required to kill 50% of the earthworms was
calculated to be approximately 25%.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology ap-
peared to reduce the toxicity of the contaminated soil to
both the plant seeds and the earthworms in the Treatment
Plot. Post-remediation toxicity of the untreated, contami-
nated soil in the No-Treatment Plot to the earthworms was
only slightly decreased while the DARAMEND™-treated,
contaminated soil was essentially non-toxic. The slight re-
duction in toxicity of the No-Treatment Plot soils is consis-
tent with the slight reductions in PAHs observed. Similarly,
the inhibition of seed germination post-remediation was
only slightly reduced in the untreated, contaminated soil
while the 100% DARAMEND™-treated, contaminated soil
treatments caused 0% and 33% inhibition of germination
for radish and lettuce seeds, respectively. Negative and
positive control samples included within the testing scheme
were within acceptable limits and the toxicity testing analy-
ses conformed to all appropriate QA/QC requirements.
Table 4-5 and 4-6 present the results of the toxicity tests.
44
-------
Table 4-3. Specific Results for Each PAH and Chlorinated Phenol Compound Detected in the No-Treatment Plot
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Treatment Process
Trenton, Ontario, Canada
No-Treatment Plot
(Concentrations in mg/kg)
Compound
Compound
Type
Pentachlorophenol Chlorinated Phenol
Fluorene
Acenaphthene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
3-Ring
3-Ring
3-Ring
3-Ring
4-Ring
4-Ring
Benzo(a)anthracene 4-Ring
Chrysene
4-Ring
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5-Ring
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5-Ring
Benzo(a)pyrene
5-Ring
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 5-Ring
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5-Ring
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6-Ring
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
Event 0
Average
Concentration
216.7
14.4
23.5
37.2
30.8
461.7
355.0
75.2
117.0
58.5
58.4
36.8
14.6
16.1
13.8
Event 1
Average
Concentration
288.3
34.5
15.8
16.2
16.3
416.7
303.3
65.2
99.0
56.5
55.2
35.3
15.0
11.9
13.8
Event 2
Average
Concentration
355.0
23.1
16.8
15.3
12.2
315.0
276.7
52.5
84.0
53.7
49.8
31.2
14.5
23.1
13.8
Event 3
Average
Concentration
217.5
3.5
7.1
15.0
12.3
185.5
270.0
44.3
76.0
66.8
38.8
32.3
12.1
4.1
11.1
Percent
Removals
-0.4
75.7
'69.8
59.7
60.1
59.8
23.9
41.1
35.0
-14.2
38.9
12.2
17.1
74.5
19.6
Average
Percent
Removals
-0.4
64.2
42.9
16.4
19.6
Note: Percent removals presented in this table have been calculated using the arithmetic average (mean) concentrations from Events 0 (day 0) and
3 (day 254).
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Statistical Analysis of Contaminant Reductions in the Treatment and No-Treatment Plots
Percent Reductions in Geometric Mean Concentractions
@ Event 1 @ Event 2
1 Event 3
Contaminant Treatment No-Treatment
of Concern Plot Plot
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Pentachlorophenoi
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo{g,h,i)perylene
Total PAHs
Total Chlorophenols
49.3
1 6.4 »
54.5 »
90,9 »
81.4 »
80.2 »
71.8 »
71.6 »
80,7 »
4.2
25.1 »
4.0
3.0
0.0 «
7.5
64,4 »
54.5 »
46.0
0.0
0,0
55.0
50.5
3.4
22,4
15.3
16.8
1.7
8.8
4.7
0.0
29.5
1.4
14,5
0.0
Treatment
Plot
95.8 »
92.7 »
73.3 »
97.4 »
92.3 »
94.7 »
92.8 »
90,4 »
86.7 »
33.6 »
73.1 »
48.0 »
27.1 »
30.0 »
26,8 »
87.6 »
73.3 »
No-Treatment
Plot
31.4
0,0
0.0
56.8
63.3
31.3
29.4
31.7
29.3
6.6
17.7
15.7
1.3
0.0
1.0
27,4
0.0
Treatment No-Treatment
Plot Plot
98,4 »
97.9 »
07.2 , »
98.1 »
94.2 »
97.7 »
97,4 ::»
95.4 »
94,6 »
77.3 »
90.2 »
74.9 »
47.0 »
63.0
45.4 »
94.4 »
87.2 »
84.3
79.1
0.0
68,2
62.7
82.2
30,8
42.3
35,9
0.0
36.4
12.2
18.5
80.0
21.9
42.0
0,0
Note: Results of Statistical Comparisons between reductions of a given contaminant in the Treatment Plot and that in No-Treatment Plot with a
90% Level of Confidence! are presented in the Table above using signs described below.
"»" Implies that the reduction of the contaminant in the Treatment Plot was Significantly Higher than that in the No-Treatment Plot.
"==" Implies that the reductions of the contaminant in the Treatment and No-Treatment Plots were Statistically Indifferent or the Same.
"«" Implies that the reduction of the contaminant in the Treatment Plot was Significantly Lower than that in the No-Treatment Plot,
4.4,3,5 The of Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in of the Demonstration
The results of the SITE demonstration concerning total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) indicated a
significant reduction occurred in the Treatment Plot and
no significant reduction occurred in the No-Treatment Plot.
In the Treatment Plot, TRPHs were reduced from 7,300
mg/kg to 932 mg/kg (87% reduction approximately). In the
No-Treatment Plot, TRPHs remained at approximately
5,000 mg/kg. This secondary objective was evaluated by
comparing the results of the TRPH analyses of the tar-
geted soils in both plots at the beginning and end of the
approximately 3 months (254 days) of study during the
SITE demonstration. Table 4-7 and Figure 4-7 exhibit the
TRPH results for the SITE demonstration.
4.4.3.6 General Soil Conditions • Inhibitors/
Promoters to Technology's Effectiveness
Table 4-5, Mortality of the earthworm, Eisenia foetida, from 28 day soil
toxicity tests. Values reported are the mean percent mortal-
ity in the 100% treated and untreated soil before and after
remediation. Paired negative control mortality is in paren-
theses.
Mean Percent Mortality
DARAMEND™Treated Soil
Untreated Soil
Baseline
(October 1993)
Post-Treatment
100%(0%)
0% (3%)
100%(0%)
100% (3%)
46
-------
Table 4-6. Inhibition of germination from 5 day soil toxicity tests con-
ducted with lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and radish (Raphanus
sativus). Values reported are the mean inhibition of germi-
nation in 100% untreated and treated soil before and after
remediation. Paired negative control inhibition of germina-
tion is in parentheses.
Mean Percent Inhibition of Germination
Daramend™ Treated Soil
Radish
Baseline
(October 1993)
Lettuce
100% (8%;
Radish
) 52% (4%)
Untreated Soil
Lettuce
97% (5%) 82% (9%)
Post-Treatment 33% (5%) 0%(1%)
(September 1994)
92% (5%) 23% (1 %)
Based on the significant reduction of total PAHs and TCP
in the Treatment Plot soils, no inhibitors to the activity and
longevity of degrading microorganisms in the treatment soil
were evident. Supportive analytical results indicated that
the soil chemistry at the demonstration site caused no
negative effect to limit the rate at which biodegradation of
PAHs and CPs occurred. Soil chemistry was acceptable
to promote significant biodegradation in the Treatment Plot.
PSD results are discussed in Section 4.4.4.
Presence of Inhibitors to Biodegradation
The developer's literature indicates that soil containing
a high concentration of heavy metals and having a high
acidity, may limit the biodegradation rate of the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. Soil sample
composites for metals analysis were collected in both plots
initially (day 0) and at the end of the demonstration (day
254). No significant change occurred in the concentration
of metals in the soil as a result of the treatment process. A
significant reduction of PAHs and CPs in the Treatment
Plot soils was exhibited despite the concentrations of met-
als detected. The various metals present in the soil exhib-
ited the following concentration ranges in mg/kg: Alumi-
num 3100-3800; Antimony 11.9-<12; Arsenic 4.8-6.4;
Barium 39.8-<40; Beryllium <1.0-l .0; Cadmium 0.99-<1.0;
Calcium 140,000-1 67,000; Chromium 8.1 17.7 mg/kg;
Cobalt 9.9-I 0; Copper 9.8-I 7.2; Iron 4100-6690; Lead 7.9-
19.9; Magnesium 3400-4200; Manganese 150 188; Nickel
<0.1 -8.0; Potassium 995-<1000; Selenium 98.8-99.5; Sil-
ver Q.0-2.0; Thallium <2.0; Sodium 995-c1000; Vanadium
<1 0-1 0; and Zinc 61-1 25. The pH levels in the Treatment
Plot ranged from 8.16 to 9.38 during the demonstration.
The pH levels in the No-Treatment Plot ranged from 8.28
to 9.5 during the demonstration.
Single soil samples were obtained and analyzed for vari-
ous chlorinated dioxins and furans at the outset of the
project and after 254 days of treatment. Law concentra-
tions of various penta-, hexa, and hepta congeners were
present in both samples; the major constituents present
were the fully chlorinated congeners, however, the toxic
congener 2,3,7,8TCDD was absent in both events, as seen
in Table 4-8.
The small differences in the concentration of congeners
between the two samples are probably more correctly at-
tributed to sampling variability, rather than to any changes
resulting from the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Treat-
ment. Decreases in totals for tetra-, hexa, hepta, and octa-
congeners would, if anything, lead one to suspect that a
decrease has occurred over the course of the demonstra-
tion.
Presence of Promoters of Biodegradation
According to the developer, the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology provides nutrients to enhance
the biodegradation rate of the PAHs and CPs in the dem-
onstration soil. The analytical results for the analysis of
chloride, nitrate-nitrite, phosphate, TKN, TOC, and TIC in-
dicates that soil conditions remained somewhat constant
during the demonstration, with some trends. TIC appears
to be slightly higher in the Treatment Plot compared to the
No-Treatment Plot. Otherwise, no differences in these pa-
rameters were evident between the Treatment and No-
Treatment Plots.
Chloride ranged from 83 mg/kg to 283 mg/kg in the Treat-
ment Plot compared to 20 mg/kg to 139 mg/kg in the No-
Treatment Plot. TKN ranged from 234 mg/kg to 450 mg/kg
in the Treatment Plot compared to 137 mg/kg to 442 mg/
Table 4-7. Results of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis
Grace Bioremediation Technologies
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Treatment Process
Trenton, Ontario, Canada
Analyte
Treatment Plot
Days of Treatment
(Concentrations in mglkg)
Percent
Removal
No-Treatment Plot
Days of No-Treatment
Percent
Removal
TRPH
7300 NA
144
NA
254
932
87.3
0
5000
88
NA
144
NA
254
5200
NA - Not Analyzed
TRPH - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
47
-------
8000
Table 4-8. Summary Report for GRACE Bioremediation Technolo-
gies DARAMEND™ SITE Project: Total DioxinslFurans
0 254
254
Figure 4-7. Results of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Analysis (TRPH).
kg in the No-Treatment Plot. Nitrate and nitrite levels were
from non-detect to 0.8 mg/kg to 0.3 mg/kg, respectively, in
both plots. Phosphates ranged from 2 mg/kg to 1090 mg/
kg in the Treatment Plot compared to non-detect to 985
mg/kg in the No-Treatment Plot. TOC ranged from 58,000
mg/kg to 83,300 mglkg in the Treatment Plot compared to
67,000 mg/kg to 79,400 mg/kg in the No-Treatment Plot.
TIC ranged from 26,300 mg/kg to 216,000 mg/kg in the
Treatment Plot compared to 13,800 mg/kg to 96,200 mg/
kg in the No-Treatment Plot.
4.4.3.7 The Possible Generation of Leachate
No leachate was generated as a byproduct of the
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. Irrigation wa-
ter was balanced successfully with system demands to
avoid the generation of contaminated leachate. Monitored
areas beneath the Treatment Plot were free of leachate
over the duration of the demonstration. If generated, this
leachate would require treatment prior to discharge.
4.4.3.8 Treatment Effects on the Microbial Biom-
ass
Total heterotrophic microbial biomass, as indicated by
mean colony forming units (CPU) per gram of soil gener-
ally ranged between 1 .0 x 1 O6 and 1 .0 x 1 O10 CFU/g among
all plots and sampling dates. Figures 4-8 through 4-I 1 il-
lustrate the trends in CPU across sampling dates for two
concentrations of standard plate count agar (PCA 10%,
100%) and a basal mineral media (DifCo Bacto Agar) with
PCP supplemented at two concentrations (12.5,25 mg/L)
as the major nutrient source for microbial growth. Micro-
bial biomass as CPU was similar for both concentrations
of PCA media over the course of the study (Figures 4-8
and 4-9). The same observation was also true for both
concentrations of PCP-supplemented media (Figures 4-
10 and 4-I 1). For each sampling event the mean CFU in
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology treatment
soil were always greater than the mean CFU in the no
treatment soil, with the exception of the CFU for Event 0 in
the 25 mg/L PCP-supplemented media. The mean num-
Sample Number
Sampling Event
Analytes
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8_HxCDD
1 ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1, 2,3,7, 8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3, 7,8, 9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Total TCDD
Total PeCDD
Total HxCDD
Total HpCDD
Total TCDF
Total PeCDF
Total HxCDF
Total HpCDF
O-TPC-039
00
Cone, (ppb)
ND
ND
10.2 .
11.8
1.75
610
10400
ND
ND
0.142
1.52
ND
ND
1.58
80.4
4.41
733
1.24
ND
81.8
1320
0.0832
2.19
99.1
508
3-TPC-045
03
Cone, (ppb)
ND
0.116
ND
7.73
2.22
406
3830
ND
ND
ND
1.72
0.437
0.716
0.477
23.7
2.15
346
ND
0.264
45.2
890
ND
2.54
42.8
161
ber of CFU in the PCP supplemented media also was al-
ways smaller than the mean CFU in both no treatment
and treatment soils treated with the PCA media. Together,
these observations seem to indicate that PCP inhibits and
the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology treatment
increases microbial biomass, as measured by CFU. These
observations are based on trends consistently observed
in Figures 4-8 through 4-11, however, a great deal of vari-
ability is associated with each of the mean values plotted
48
-------
No Treatment
-O- Daramend Treatment
8.0E+009
1.0E+009 r-
o>
•| 1.0E+008
o
ti.
° 1 .OE+007
o
O
CO
2 I.OE+006 -
1 .OE+005
10193-0
04/94-1 06/94-2
Sampling Date - Month, Year-Event Number
09/94-3
Figure 4-8. CFU/gram soil using 100% PCA agar.
No Treatment
-O- Daramend Treatment
6.0E+009
1.0E+009
c
o>
1.0E+008
o
LL.
o I.OE+007
o
O
c
(0
0)
I.OE+006
.OE+005
10193-0 04194-1 06/94-2
Sampling Date - Month, Year-Event Number
09/94-3
Figure 4-9. CFW/gram soil using 10% PCA agar.
-------
No Treatment
-O- Daramend Treatment
4.0E+008
1.0E+008 r
c
O)
c
1.0E+007 r
>s
c
"o
O
CO
1.0E+006 -
1.0E+005
10193-0
Figure 4-10. CFU/gram soil using 25 mg/L PCP in agar.
04194-1 06/94-2
Sampling Date - Month, Year-Event Number
09/94-3
No Treatment
-O- Daramend Treatment
5.0E+008
10E+008 -
c
O)
c
"E
£ 1 .OE+007
><
_o
o
O
CO
•i 1.0E+006 r
1 .OE+005
10/93-0
04/94-I 06/94-2
Sampling Date - Month, Year-Event Number
09/94-3
Figure 4-11. CFU/gram soil using 12 PCP in agar.
50
-------
in these figures. Statistical analysis of the data could indi-
cate that, although they are consistently observed, these
trends are not statistically significant.
Comparisons of mean CPUs and concentrations of TCP
and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (TPAH) in un-
treated and treated soils over time are presented in Fig-
ures 4-1 2 through 4-1 5. No discernible trend was obvious
in the mean CPU for the no treatment soil even though
mean TPAH decreased with time (Figures 4-12 and 4-
14). However, mean CPU for the DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology treated soil increased over
time with a concurrent decrease in both TCP and TPAH
concentrations (Figures 4-12 and 4-14). This trend was
also supported by an increase in measured soil TIC over
time in the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology
treated soil. Mean CFU also appeared to increase through
time for no treatment soil in the 25 mg/L PCP-supplemented
media while little trend was obvious for CFU in
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology treated soil
(Figures 4-I 3 and 4-I 5). A conservative interpretation of
these data would suggest that TPAH concentrations in
these soils have an inhibiting effect on microbial biomass
in these soils, including organisms that may be capable of
metabolizing PCP. This interpretation is supported by the
observation that mean CFU for treatment soil increase over
time in the 100% PCA media as TCP and TPAH concen-
trations decrease over time. A large degree of variability
(i.e., laboratory's standard deviation) is associated with the
mean CFU values presented in Figures 4-12 through 4-
15, however, and it is likely that although these trends are
consistent and biologically plausible, they may not be sta-
tistically significant.
4.4.3.9 Tendency for the Downward Migration of
Contaminants
The results of monitoring the underlying sand layer be-
neath the target demonstration soils indicated that the sand
layer was contaminated prior to treatment of the demon-
stration soils and further compromised during the demon-
stration. The initial contamination of the underlying sand
layer occurred when the demonstration soils were removed
from the plots, after the pre-demonstration results indicated
the soils needed to be re-screened (to exclude particles
larger than l-inch). The underlying sand layer was prob-
ably partially mixed with the demonstration soils. Secondly,
project logbooks indicate that the demonstration soils were
further compromised just prior to the demonstration, when
a thunderstorm blew off the protective plastic covering on
each plot. The greenhouse was not completed when the
SITE demonstration started. As a result, rain water satu-
rated parts of each plot. Leachate was evident beneath
each plot. Furthermore, during the demonstration the soils
in the Treatment Plot were once accidentally mixed with
the underlying sand layer prior to April 1994, during a sched-
uled soil tillage. In conclusion, the tendency for pollutants
to migrate downward from the treatment soil is inconclu-
sive since this aspect of the evaluation was compromised.
Baseline total PAHs and TCP present in the underlying
sand exhibited concentrations averaging 430 mg/kg and
115 mg/kg, respectively. Final total PAHs and TCP present
in the underlying sand exhibited concentrations averaging
101 mg/kg and 54 mg/kg, respectively. Reduction rates
for total PAHs and TCP were approximately 77% and 53%,
respectively. These results are less significant than those
of the demonstration soils in the Treatment Plot and are
reported for the curiosity of the reader.
In addition, records from the baseline event indicate that
the sand layer was easily differentiated from the demon-
stration soils based on color. The underlying sand layer
exhibited a yellow color, while the demonstration soil ex-
hibited a dark brown color, though one of the three sand
samples collected during the baseline event exhibited a
dark stain. After May 1994, differentiation based on color
was not possible. Sampling was based on targeted depths
and proximity to the fiberpad beneath the sand layer.
4.4.4 Process Operability and Performance
This section summarizes the operability of the process and
overall performance of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology at the Domtar site. This section includes discus-
sions about developments and problems encountered, along
with the manner in which these items were resolved.
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology oper-
ated over a period of 254 days with only a few incidents
that deviated from the Demonstration Plan. Otherwise, the
process was installed, monitored, and maintained by the
developer with regularity as designed and discussed ear-
lier in this section. These incidents that deviated from the
original plan are discussed in detail below.
During the pm-demonstration, the soil/sand interface was
contrary to the design of the plot: the contaminated soil
layer was determined to be only 1 -foot thick as opposed to
the 2-foot thickness designed. In addition, a large percent-
age (about 50%) of oversized material (2 inch to 3/8
inch in diameter) was present in the demonstration soil.
This large percentage of oversized material required the
soil to be excavated from the plots and re-screened to con-
tain soil particles smaller than 1 inch in diameter to reduce
the amount of oversized material.
During the baseline event (Event #0), pre-sampling ac-
tivities indicated that the depth of the soil layer was vari-
able (ranging from 0.6 feet to 1.3 feet) throughout the Treat-
ment Plot. The variability of the soil's thickness above the
underlying sand layer made it impossible to till the soil with-
out mixing the two layers together. An agreement was
reached to collect the baseline soil samples from the Treat-
ment Plot after the soil had been tilled to a uniform depth
of 12 inches, and amendments had been added. The ini-
tial approved approach was to collect soil samples prior to
treatment. All subsequent tilling and sampling operations
would be confined to a depth of 12 inches.
51
-------
NT - * - T
8.0E+009
l.OE+005
0
PAH-NT -O- PAH-T
2000
\ t
1000
I
2 3 0
Sampling Event
Figure 4-12. CFU/gram soil vs. TPAHs - 100% PCA
NT - • - T
2.0Et008
l.OE+008
E
£ 1.0E+007
l.OE+006 -
1.0E+005
0
PAH-NT -0- PAH-T
2000
\ + '
\ •
1000
I I
0
Event
Figure 4-13. CFU/gram soil vs. TPAHs - 25 mg/L POP.
52
-------
NT -*-T
TCP-NT -0" TCP-T
8.0E+009
1.0E+009
i
o. 1.0E+008
<3
§
1.0E+007
i.OEtooe
l.OEtOOS
Figure 4-14. CFU/gram soil vs. TCPs -100% PCA.
NT
Z.OEtOOS
l.OE+008
£ l.OE+007
l.OE+006 -
.400
I
300
200 £_
o
3
100
230
Sampling Event
.4. T -o- TCP-NT -0- TCP-T
,400
H
t \
\ V*
t
t
• *
- - - -, 300
200
ov -
o>
t
-------
During subsequent events #1 through #3, sampling of
the sand layer indicated that mixing of the two layers may
have occurred. The sand layer sampled contained a mix-
ture of sand and soil.
During sampling Event #2, the developer was informed
of the soil and sand mixing issue. The developer suspected
that the two layers were accidentally tilled together during
scheduled plot maintenance. The date of this incident is
unclear. This dilution of the demonstration soil by acciden-
tal mixing with the sand layer caused a minor interference
with the evaluation of the treatment process. The magni-
tude of the problem was evaluated by comparing the PSD
analyses of composite soil samples collected during the
baseline and final sampling events. Table 4-9 depicts the
results of this analysis. As a result, a 14% increase in the
sand size fraction of the demonstration soils was observed
by measuring the increase in the amount of sand evident
in the Treatment Plot before and after treatment (Event #CI
vs Event #3). This increase in sand size particles in the
Treatment Plot is most likely a result of this accidental mix-
ing of these two layers. The overall impact of this incident
had no significant impact (i.e., 2% reduction) on the over-
all performance of the treatment process. The supportive
calculations concerning the sand dilution issue are pre-
sented below:
Sand Dilution Calculations
To account for the 14% increase in sand-sized particles,
the PAH and chlorinated phenol concentrations had to be
adjusted. PCP was chosen as an example. The initial (i)
and final (f) average concentrations evident in the Treat-
ment Plot were utilized to calculate the percent removals
depicted in Scenarios A and B below:
Scenario A - Not Accounting for Dilution via Sand Mixing
Incident
If PCPj = 349 mg/kg and PCP, = 43 mg/kg, as measured
in the Treatment Plot.
Then the percent reduction = 1 - Conc./Conc..,
hence, 1 - 43 mg/kg / 349 mg/kg = 88% reduction,
approximately.
But the "final" sample was in fact diluted by 14% due to
the addition of the sand. Therefore, the PCP, would be
calculated as 43 mg/kg multiplied by 1 .14 (dilution factor)
= 49 mg/kg if there were no sand present. The 14% "addi-
tional" test mixture due to the sand has the effect of lower-
ing the final analyte concentration as depicted in Scenario
B:
Scenario B - Accounting for 14% Dilution via Sand Mixing
Incident
PCP = 349 mg/kg
PCPf = 43 mg/kg
Then the percent reduction = 1 -Cone., (1.14) /Cone..,
hence, 1 - 43 mg/kg (1 .14) / 349 mg/kg = 86% reduction'
approximately.
Comparison of the 2% reduction rates indicates an overall
significant difference of approximately 2% on the overall
performance of the DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technol-
ogy on the treatment of PCP.
4.5 Process Residuals
The DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology demon-
stration generated limited residuals. The primary gener-
ated waste during the SITE demonstration was oversized
particles in the form of wood debris, stone, and construc-
tion material that was removed from the targeted test soils
prior to bioremediation treatment by a mechanical sieve.
These residual soils lacked heavy metals and carcinogenic
dioxin compounds. No leachate was generated as a result
of the technology's irrigation process. However, as a re-
sult of sampling and maintenance/monitoring activities,
used personal protection equipment (PPE) and contami-
nated water from decontamination activities were gener-
ated.
54
-------
Table 4-9. Soil Particle Size Distribution Data
Non-Treatment Composite (NTC):
Fraction
(Finer)
Fine Sand
Medium Sand
Coarse Sand
Fine Gravel
(Coarser)
9/93
Pre-Demo
-12%
-7%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-50%
10/93
Event 0
-22%
-13%
-15%
-10%
-5%
-32%
Events:
"Pre to 0"
Difference
+IO%
+6%
+5%
—
-5%
-18%
10/94
Event 3
-21%
-13%
-18%
-15%
-8%
-22%
Events:
"0 to 3"
Difference
-1%
—
+3%
+5%
+3%
-10%
The amount of gravel decreased 23% between the pre-demo sampling and Event 0. The NTC sample showed an 11 % increase in the sand
fractions between the pre-demo sampling and Event 0, and an 8% increase over the course of the demonstration. The amount of finer particles
increased by about 10% before the demonstration, and decreased by about 1% between Event 0 and Event 3.
Treatment Plot Composite (TPC):
Fraction
(Finer)
Fine Sand
Medium Sand
Coarse Sand
Fine Gravel
(Coarser)
9/93
Pre-Demo
-13%
-8%
-10%
-8%
-10%
-51%
10/93
Event 0
-15%
-10%
-15%
-11%
-8%
-40%
Events:
"Pre to 0"
Difference
+2%
+2%
+5%
+3%
-2%
-11%
10/94
Event 3
-25%
-15%
-20%
-15%
-8%
-15%
Events:
"0 to 3"
Difference
+10%
+5%
+5%
+4%
—
-25%
Gravel decreased 13% between the predemo and Event 0, and decreased 25% during the demonstration. The TPC sample showed a 10% total
increase in the sand fractions between the pre-demo sampling and Event 0, and a 14% increase over the course of the demonstration. The amount
of finer particles also increased, by about 2% before the demonstration, and by about 10% during demonstraction activities.
55
-------
Section 5
Other Technology Requirements
Volatile components generated from the site may in-
crease with bioremediation as a result of soil tillage. How-
ever, previous studies by the developer have indicated that
these increased levels are below permissible exposure lim-
its, and organic vapor analyzers used to monitor the breath-
ing zone in the treatment plot never indicated the pres-
ence of airborne VOCs.
5.1 Environmental Regulation
Requirements
Federal, state and local regulatory agencies may estab-
lish cleanup standards for the remediation and may re-
quire permits to be obtained prior to implementing the
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™
Bioremediation Technology. Most federal permits will be
issued by the authorized state agency. Federal and state
requirements may include obtaining a hazardous waste
treatment permit or modifying an existing permit regulat-
ing these activities on a given site. A permit would be re-
quired for storage of contaminated soil in a waste pile for
any length of time and for storage in drums onsite for more
than 90 days. Air emission permits will probably not be
required since VOCs are generally not a problem at these
types of sites. Local agencies may have permitting require-
ments for construction activities (e.g., excavation and
greenhouse), land treatment, and health and safety.
Section 2 of this report discusses the environmental regu-
lations that apply to this technology. Table 2-I presents a
summary of the federal and state ARARs for the GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
Technology.
5.2 Personnel Issues
For site preparation and pretreatment operations (exca-
vation, screening, mixing, amending, and homogenizing),
the number of workers required is a function of the volume
of soil to be remediated. During the demonstration, these
tasks were contracted out and generally required 2-4
people using heavy earth-moving equipment working 12-
hr days. If multiple treatment cycles are used, additional
labor will be required to replace the treated soil with con-
taminated soil for the next treatment cycle. Since this was
not done during the demonstration, the amount of labor
required is estimated to be similar to that required for the
pre-treatment activities. Once set up and "running," the
process is not labor-intensive. Two people working a stan-
dard 40-hr week can till the plot once a week and irrigate it
as necessary, take daily moisture and temperature read-
ings, sample to determine the progress of bioremediation,
maintain the facility and equipment, and keep the leachate
collection system and treatment train operational.
Health and safety issues for personnel are generally the
same as those for all hazardous waste treatment facilities.
That is, they must have completed the OSHA-mandated
40-hr training course for hazardous waste work, have an
up-to-date refresher certification, and be enrolled in a medi-
cal surveillance program to ensure that they are fit to per-
form their duties and to detect any symptoms of exposure
to hazardous materials.
Emergency response training is the same as the gen-
eral training required for operation of a treatment, storage,
and disposal (TSD) facility. Training must address fire-re-
lated issues such as extinguisher operation, hoses, sprin-
klers, hydrants, smoke detectors, and alarm systems. Train-
ing must also address contaminant-related issues such as
hazardous material spill control and decontamination equip-
ment use. Other issues include self-contained breathing
apparatus use, evacuation, emergency response planning,
and coordination with outside emergency personnel (e.g.,
fire/ambulance).
For most sites, PPE for workers will include gloves, hard
hats, steel-toed boots, goggles, and Tyvek®. Depending
on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE
may be required. Noise levels should be monitored during
site preparation and pretreatment activities to ensure that
workers are not exposed to noise levels above a time-
weighted average of 85 decibels, over an 8-hour day. Noise
levels above this limit will require workers to wear addi-
tional hearing protection.
5.3 Community Acceptance
Potential hazards to the community include exposure to
particulate matter released to the air during site prepara-
tion and pretreatment activities. Air emissions can be mini-
mized by watering down the soils prior to excavation and
handling, or by conducting operations in an enclosure.
56
-------
Using multiple treatment cycles may also mitigate com-
munity exposure concerns. Depending on the scale of the
project, the GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology may require
contaminated soils to remain in the treatment plot for ex-
tended periods of time. This is not expected to expose the
community to any airborne particulate matter, because the
process requires that the soil moisture content be main-
tained within a specific range for amendment to be effec-
tive.
Noise may be a factor to neighborhoods in the immedi-
ate vicinity of treatment. Noise levels may be elevated
during site preparation and pretreatment activities since
heavy earth-moving equipment will be used. Although this
is a relatively short period of time in relation to the total
treatment time frame, multiple treatment cycles will make
this a recurring problem. During actual treatment, however,
there will be no noise except for that associated with till-
age.
57
-------
Section 6
Technology Status
This section discusses the experience of the developer
in applying the GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. It also exam-
ines the capability of the developer in using this technol-
ogy at sites with different volumes of contaminated soil.
6.1 Previous Experience
The effectiveness of a number of soil amendments for
enhancing bioremediation of soils contaminated with high
concentrations of CPs and PAHs (major components of
creosote) was evaluated at bench- and pilot-scale.
Bench-scale research on eight different soil samples
collected from wood treatment sites located throughout
Canada showed that the strongest positive effect on
bioremediation was obtained by addition of solid-phase,
organic soil amendments prepared to a specific nutrient
content and PSD. Treatment of soil with such amendments
facilitated establishment of active populations of PCP-de-
grading bacteria in soils with PCP concentrations as high
as 2170 mg/kg. Residual PCP concentrations of 0.7 to 8
mg/kg were attained. Other bench-scale work indicated
that the same organic soil amendments can be used to
enhance microbial decomposition of PAHs and petroleum
hydrocarbons. Significant reductions in soil toxicity was also
observed. Positive results in the bench-scale investigations
led to both in situ and ex situ pilot-scale demonstrations of
the technology.
The pilot-scale demonstration was performed at the
Domtar Wood Preserving site where several decades of
wood treatment had resulted in deposition of CPs at con-
centrations of 680 mg/kg and total PAH concentrations of
more than 1400 mg/kg. The soil was a fine sandy loam
(72.3% sand, 23.5% silt, and 4.2% clay) with a pH of 7.4
and an organic carbon content of 1.8%. Both /ns/fuand ex
situ treatment plots showed dramatic reductions in total
PAHs using only the proprietary organic amendment and
tillage. The in situ concentations were reduced from 15,670
to 3870 mg/kg (73%) after 149 days while the ex situ con-
centrations were reduced from 1485 to 35 mg/kg (98%)
after 207 days. The ex situ plot also showed reductions in
PCP and TPH concentrations of 99% (from 680 to 6 mg/
kg for PCP and from 6325 to 34 mg/kg for TPH).
Bench-scale tests of this technology on sediments con-
taminated with PAHs have also been encouraging enough
that ex situ pilot-scale testing has started and the results
are pending.
6.2 Scaling Capabilities
The Domtar Wood Preserving site represents the first
full-scale application of the GRACE Bioremediation Tech-
nologies DARAMEND™ Bioremediation Technology. The
SITE demonstration was conducted in conjunction with the
full-scale remediation to determine its cost-effectiveness
and applicability to other soils and contaminants.
The DARAMEND™ technology has successfully
remediated 1,500 tons of soil ex-s/fuand 3,500 tons of soil
in-situ (2 ft. of near-surface soil) at the former Domtar Wood
Preserving Facility. The remediated soil met clean-up cri-
teria set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Envi-
ronment, including a 5 mg/kg criterion for pentachlorophe-
nol. In 1995, full-scale treatment of a second 1,500 ton
batch of soil was initiated at the site.
In the United States during 1996, the DARAMEND™
technology was successfully applied at full-scale at a former
wood perserving site in Minnesota. Late in 1996 a large-
scale field treatability demonstration was initiated in asso-
ciation with remedial actions at the Montana Pole
Superfund site in Butte, Montana. Commencement of a
full-scale project is planned for the summer of 1997 in
Washington State.
Key developmental work on the technology is focusing
on improving kinetics and expanding applicability with re-
spect to contaminant type. The range of contaminants ef-
fectively dealt with by the DARAMEND™ technology has
now been expanded to include phthalates. Concentrations
of phthalates have been rapidly reduced from thousands
toeass then 100 mg/kg during bench-scale studies and
pilot-scale work at a site in New Jersey in 1996. For ex-
ample, total phthalates were reduced from 7,710 mg/kg to
47 mg/kg in soil, exhibiting a greater then 99% removal
efficiency.
In addition, a second generation DARAMEND™ tech-
nology has been developed by GRACE Bioremediation
58
-------
Appendix A
Vendor's Claims
59
-------
Technologies. The new technology rapidly reduces con-
centrations of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT and
Toxaphene™} and organic explosives (e.g., TNT, RDX and
HMX) in soil. For example, p,p-DDT, an organochlorine
pesticide, was reduced from 684 mg/kg to 1.9 mg/kg in
soil and 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), an organic explosive,
was reduced from 7,200 mg/kg to 19 mg/kg in soil, exhib-
iting a greater then 99% removal efficiency in both cases.
Extensive laboratory testing has been completed. Pilot-
scale pesticide projects commenced in 1996 in South Caro-
lina and Ontario, Canada and will continue in 1997. A pi-
lot-scale project to demonstrate remediation of explosives-
contaminated soil is expected to commence in 1997.
A.1 Introduction
Bioremediation has many advantages as a treatment
technology for soils containing elevated concentrations of
organic contaminants. Among the advantages:
. It can provide a final solution through complete de-
struction of the contaminants, thereby ending liability
of the site owner.
. It is often the most cost-effective remedial option
. It is perceived by the public to be a natural, environ-
mentally friendly technology, hence, generally faces
fewer objections from stake holders, and therefore, can
be more rapidly implemented.
. It has lower capital costs than other remedial options.
. It is well suited to situations in which the site owner
prefers to spread site remediation costs over a num-
ber of years.
In contrast to these advantages traditional bioremediation
has always had significant disadvantages in that:
. It has acquired a reputation for being unreliable.
. It is frequently unable to reduce concentrations of tar-
get compounds to the remediation criteria.
. It is only effective in soils with low to moderate con-
centrations of acutely toxic contaminants, such as PCP.
As a result of these advantages and disadvantages
bioremediation has been implemented frequently, but has
often been unsuccessful in attaining remediation criteria,
particularly for highly toxic and refractory compounds such
as CPs (CPs) and high molecular weight PAHs.
A.2 DARAMEND™ Bioremediation
In 1988, under sponsorship of the government of
Canada, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies initiated re-
search aimed at development of a reliable technology for
bioremediation of wood preserving soils that contain el-
evated levels of CPs and PAHs. It was determined that
less than one-third of the 10 soils studied could be effec-
tively bioremediated by existing protocols based upon irri-
gation, tillage, and addition of nutrients. Additionally, the
research revealed that the primary factor limiting biodeg-
radation of PCP and PAHs in the hard-to-remediate soils
was the number of microsites with environmental condi-
tions supportive of vigorous microbiological activity (i.e.,
biologically active microsites with sufficient available wa-
ter, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and surfaces for microbial
adhesion). Continued research, focused on improving the
number and quality of microbially active microsites, lead
to development of a bioremediation technology based on
incorporation of insoluble organic soil'amendments engi-
neered to provide a large number of water-filled micropores
with physical and chemical conditions conducive to micro-
biological growth. The organic soil amendments are manu-
factured from naturally occurring materials and are added
to the soil at rates of 0.25 to 5% by weight. The physical/
chemical properties of the organic soil amendments (e.g.,
particle size and shape, nutrient content, nutrient release
kinetics) and the optimal application rate are highly soil-
specific. The bioremediation technology is the subject of a
patent application filed on behalf of Environment Canada,
and GRACE Bioremediation Technologies has acquired
the exclusive world-wide license for its commercial utiliza-
tion. Currently, the technology is available throughout North
America under the tradename DARAMEND™.
In 1991-1 992, a pilot-scale demonstration of the tech-
nology was conducted at an industrial wood-preserving site,
owned by Domtar Inc, in Trenton, Ontario, Canada. The
demonstration included ex situ treatment of 10 tonnes of
soil in 1991, and 100 tonnes of soil in 1992. The soils con-
tained PCP and PAHs at initial concentrations of approxi-
mately 700 mg/kg and 1,500 mg/kg, respectively. In both
demonstrations, reductions of 98-99% and 9597% in the
total concentrations of CPs and PAHs, respectively, were
attained.
In 1993 and 1994, a full-scale demonstration of the tech-
nology was successfully completed at the same site. Dur-
ing the full-scale demonstration more than 4,000 tonnes
of soil was remediated to below the required criteria (i.e.,
TCPs to less than 5 mg/kg; carcinogenic PAH compounds
to less than 10 mglkg).
In 1993, DARAMEND bioremediation was applied to silty-
clay sediment dredged from an industrial harbour on Lake
Ontario. During the 150 tonne pilot-scale demonstration
the sediment PAH concentration was reduced from more
than 1,200 mg/kg to less than 100 mglkg concentration.
DARAMEND has recently been implemented using a
biopile system at sites where available space is limited.
In 1995, modifications of the DARAMEND technology
were implemented at industrial sites in the United States
where soils are contaminated with phthalates and orga-
nochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, chlordane, toxaphene,
dieldrin). At other sites, soils containing herbicides includ-
ing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T are being remediated.
60
-------
A United States patent No. 5,411,664 covering aspects
of the technology was issued in May of 1995.
The major components of the technology are:
. DARAMEND organic soil amendments that are engi-
neered to have soil-specific properties and are applied
at rates determined during bench-scale op-timization
studies conducted on the soil to be remediated.
. A rapid, low-cost process monitoring procedure that
utilizes bench-scale microcosms and radio-labelled
analogues of the target compounds to rapidly provide
data on biodegradation of the target compound(s).
. Specialized deep-tillage and soil mixing equipment,
. Knowledge and experience provided by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies' bioremediation person-
nel.
In contrast to traditional bioremediation the DARAMEND
technology provides the following advantages:
. Increased reliability, which is achieved by engineer-
ing the DARAMEND organic soil amendments and
designing other treatment conditions on a soil specific
basis.
. Reduced analytical costs since standard analytical
techniques utilized in process monitoring are replaced
with radioisotope microcosm studies conducted in par-
allel with each field bioremediation project.
. Lower operation and maintenance costs, because
application of soil amendment is only performed once
at the initiation of treatment, tillage is performed less
frequently, and remediation criteria are attained more
rapidly.
. Ability to bioremediate soils with higher initial con-
centrations of toxic contaminants and more con-
sistently attain low residual concentrations of refrac-
tory contaminants such as carcinogenic PAHs and PCP
. Reduction or elimination of soil toxicity.
. Greater treatment depth in landfarming operations (i.e.,
a full two feet), due to utilization of specialized tillage
equipment.
. Capacity to effectively bioremediate soils with high clay
content, due to the ability of the soil amendments and
tillage equipment to favourably alter soil structure.
. Ability to bioremediate sediments without dewatering,
due to the highly adsorptive nature of the DARAMEND
soil amendments.
. Reduced evolution of VOCs and odours due to the
adsorptive properties of the organic amendments.
A.3 Summary
DARAMEND is an innovative, cost-effective
bioremediation technology. Its effectiveness has been
proven at pilot-scale and full-scale at several sites in North
America. The advantages of DARAMEND technology are
most apparent, and valuable, when the soil or sediment to
be remediated:
. contains highly refractory contaminants such as carci-
nogenic PAHs;
. contains high concentrations of acutely toxic con-
taminants such as PCP;
. has high clay content, or
. is subject to stringent remediation criteria.
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies' DARAMEND
bioremediation technology is now available to site own-
ers, consulting and engineering companies throughout
North America and Europe.
61
-------
DARAMEND™ Bioremediation of Soils Containing
Chlorophenols and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(Full-Scale Demonstration)
Final Report
Prepared by
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
formerly
Environmental Engineering Group
Grace Dearborn, Inc.
SSC File No.: 035SS.KA168-2-1222
DEEG File No.: UIO-821
June 1994
62
-------
Executive Summary
Dammend™ Bioremediation of Soils Containing
Chlorophenols and Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocabons (Full-Scale Demonstration)
Remediation of soils containing chlorophenols and creo-
sote at wood preserving sites is of particular importance in
Canada due to the large number of such sites.
Bioremediation can be advantageous to landowners since
it is based upon microbial biodegradation of the target com-
pounds and can therefore eliminate future liability. In addi-
tion, it is one of the most cost-effective remedial options.
Daramend™ bioremediation was developed under the
sponsorship of, and is owned by, the Government of
Canada. GRACE Dearborn Inc. has acquired the licence
for worldwide application of this technology that has been
successfully applied at bench- and pilot-scale to remediate
soils containing chlorophenols (CPs) and polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Daramend bioremediation
technology involves the application of solid-phase, biode-
gradable, organic soil amendments of specific particle-size
distribution, nutrient content and nutrient-release kinetics
to soils at rates determined by bench-scale optimization
experiments. The specific application rates and composi-
tion of Daramend products are considered to be propri-
etary information. The application rates typically range from
0.5 to 5% (w/w).
This report describes a demonstration of full-scale, in
situ and ex situ, Daramend bioremediation at the former
Domtar Inc. Wood Preserving site in Trenton, Ontario.
During the in situ demonstration, approximately 3,500
tonnes of soil in a 4,800 m2 area were treated. The 4,800
m2 area was divided into 49 separate sampling areas of
approximately 100 m2 each. In these sampling areas, ini-
tial total CP concentrations ranged from 0.92 mg/kg to 27.8
mg/kg and total PAH concentrations ranged from 8.7 mg/
kg to 662 mg/kg. The results indicated that, during 305
days of treatment, which included a period of 136 days
when the soil was frozen or soil temperatures were not
conducive to microbial activity (<5°C), CP concentrations
in all 49 sampling areas were reduced to below the Cana-
dian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1991)
remediation criteria for industrial soils (5 mglkg for each
listed CP). During the same time period the concentra-
tions of all nine CCME listed PAHs were reduced to below
the CCME remediation criteria for industrial soils in all but
3 of the 49 sampling areas. In these 3 sampling areas,
concentrations of two of the more recalcitrant higher mo-
lecular weight PAHs, benzo(b)fluoranthene and
benzo(a)pyrene remained above the CCME remediation
criteria (10 mg/kg) at concentrations ranging from 12 to
17 mglkg.
During the ex situ demonstration, approximately 1,500
tonnes of soil were treated using Daramend bioremediation
in two fully contained treatment cells, designated Treat-
ment Cell 1 and Treatment Cell 2.
In Treatment Cell 1, the mean total CP concentration
was reduced by 91% (from 157 to 14 mglkg) after 282
days of Daramend treatment. The CCME criteria for in-
dustrial soils was reached for all listed CPs except pen-
tachlorophenol (PCP). The mean concentration of PCP,
the predominant species, remained above the CCME cri-
teria (5 mg/kg) at 12.7 mg/kg. The mean total PAH con-
centration in Treatment Cell 1 was reduced by 67% (from
439 to 44 mg/kg) after 282 days of treatment. The CCME
criteria for industrial soils were reached for 7 of the 9 listed
PAHs. Concentrations of two of the more recalcitrant higher
molecular weight PAHs, benzo(b)fluoranthene (16.3 mg/
kg) and benzo(a)pyrene (10.6 mg/kg) remained above the
CCME remediation criteria for industrial soil (10 mg/kg).
In Treatment Cell 2, the mean total CP concentration
was reduced by 98% (from 102 to 2 mg/kg) after 175 days
of Daramend treatment. The CCME criteria for industrial
soils were reached for all listed CPs (5 mg/kg for each
listed CP). The mean total PAH concentration in Treatment
Cell 2 was reduced by 87% (from 619 to 79 mg/kg) after
251 days of Daramend treatment. The CCME criteria for
industrial soils were reached for all listed PAHs.
The number of treatment days cited for Treatment Cells
1 and 2 include a period of 55 days when the soil was
frozen or soil temperatures were not conducive to micro-
bial activity (<5°C).
Microbiological monitoring indicated that Daramend
bioremediation did not increase the number or alter the
identity of bacteria being transported offsite by air, surface
run-off water or soil transport vectors. Laboratory micro-
cosms containing soil collected from ex situ Treatment Cell
1 supported extensive mineralization of added 14C-PCP,
thereby verifying that the observed reductions in PCP con-
centration were due to biodegradation.
Scale-up of the technology from pilot- to full-scale
requried a number of modifications in procedures and
equipment. For the in situ portion of the demonstration,
the main technical issue was development of a protocol
for efficiently removing large subsurface debris that hin-
dered incorporation of soil amendments and subsequent
soil tillage. For the ex situ portion of the demonstration,
the main technical issue was modification of irrigation pro-
tocols to allow efficient irrigation of soil during treatment.
Details on these and other technical issues and their reso-
lution along with the estimated cost of applying the tech-
nology at commercial scale are presented in this report.
63
-------
In situ/On-Site Bioremediation of Soils Containing
Chlorinated Phenols and
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Final Report
Prepared by
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies
formerly
Environmental/Engineering Group
GRACE Dearborn, Inc.
SSC File No.: 035SS.KE 144-1-2324
DEEG File No.:
May 1994
64
-------
Executive Summary
In situ/On-Site Bioremediation of Soils
Containing Chlorinated Phenols and
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Remediation of soils impacted with toxic organic com-
pounds is an issue of increasing concern to society through-
out North America and the world. Remediation of soils con-
taining CPs and creosote at wood preserving sites is of
particular importance in Canada due to the large number
of such sites.
Processes that can be used for remediation of soils con-
taminated with organic wood preservatives include soil
washing, incineration, landfilling, and bioremediation.
Bioremediation, can be advantageous to landowners since
it is based upon microbial biodegradation of the target com-
pounds and can therefore eliminate future liability. In addi-
tion, it is one of the most cost-effective remedial options.
Variables that can affect the biodegradation of organic
pollutants, and hence the effectiveness of bioremediation,
include the structure, reactivity and concentration(s) of the
target compounds, their interaction with other compounds
present in the soil, and the physical, chemical, and bio-
logical characteristics of the soil.
Daramend™ bioremediation was developed under the
sponsorship of, and is owned by, the Government of
Canada. GRACE Dearborn Inc. has acquired the licence
for worldwide application of this technology that has been
successfully used at bench-scale to remediate soils con-
taining CPs and pPAHs. Daramend™ bioremediation in-
volves the addition of solid-phase, particulate organic soil
amendments to soils at rates determined by bench-scale
optimization experiments. The PSD, nutrient content and
nutrient-release kinetics of Daramend soil amendments are
specific to the soil being treated. The application rates and
composition of Daramend products are considered to be
proprietary information until patent protection is granted.
This report describes a pilot-scale demonstration of
Daramend bioremediation at the Domtar Inc. wood pre-
serving site in Trenton, Ontario.
Over the course of two years (1991-1 992), soil was
treated under a variety of conditions with Daramend™. Two
in situ demonstrations, and two ex situ (on-site) demon-
strations were conducted. During the 1991 ex situdemon-
stration, the mean total chlorophenol concentration in a
treatment area containing 10 tonnes of soil, was reduced
from 702 mg/kg to less than the criterion established by
the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) for industrial soil (5 mg/kg) in 345 days. In the
same demonstration, the mean total PAH concentration
was reduced from 1442 mg/kg to 35 mg/kg, and the con-
centrations of all PAH isomers were reduced to less than
the CCME criteria for industrial soil.
Similar reductions in CP and PAH concentrations were
obtained during the 1992 ex situ demonstration, in which
100 tonnes of soil were treated.
The first (1991) in situ demonstration was conducted to
enable comparison between treatment with a variety of
Daramend products, and controls. Reductions in chlori-
nated phenol concentrations were observed in all treat-
ments; however, of those that produced statistically sig-
nificant reductions, only Daramend bioremediation reduced
total chlorinated phenol concentrations to below the CCME
remediation criterion for industrial soils (5 mg/kg).
A second in situ demonstration, conducted in 1992, fo-
cused on bioremediation of soil with very high PAH con-
centrations (ca. 20,000 mg/kg). Soil undergoing Daramend
treatment supported greater biodegradation of PAHs than
the tilled control (79% vs. 48%). Due to high initial concen-
trations, and the short duration of the demonstration the
PAH concentrations remained above the CCME criteria.
Radioisotope (14C) microcosm studies were performed
in the laboratory using soil collected from the treatment
areas. The studies indicated that 14C-labelled compounds
added to the soils (anthracene, pentachlorophenol) were
extensively biodegraded as evidenced by substantial evo-
lution of 14C02, which is the main end product of microbial
metabolism.
Standard toxicological tests, including earthworm mor-
tality and seed germination, were performed on soil taken
from the treated area and the control area after comple-
tion of the 1991 ex situ demonstration. The tests indicated
that Daramend treatment had reduced or eliminated the
soil's toxicity. Earthworms exposed to soil from the control
area died in four days (100% mortality), while all earth-
worms exposed to the Daramend-bioremediated soil sur-
vived for the full 28 days of the assay (0% mortality). Simi-
lar reductions in toxicity of the treated soil were revealed
by seed germination assays. For example oat seeds added
to the untreated control soil failed to germinate (0% germi-
nation) while in the Daramend-bioremediated soil 93% of
the oat seeds germinated. In an agricultural soil with no
history of contamination, oats germinated at the same rate
(93%) as in the bioremediated soil.
A full-scale demonstration of Daramend bioremediation
was initiated, at the same site, in 1993. The ex situ portion
of the demonstration is being audited by the EPA's SITE
Program.
GRACE Bioremediation Technologies is in the process
of commercializing Daramend bioremediation. Commer-
cialization is proceeding successfully, with the creation of
four full-time and four part-time positions. We have re-
sponded to commercial tenders for work on five sites in
Canada, and two in the U.S. We are presently conducting
commercial pilot-scale bioremediation at three sites in
Canada.
65
ftU.S. GOVETOWEHT PRINTnC OFFICE: 1997-551-420
------- |