Site Technology Capsule: Multi-Vendor Bioremediation Demonstration Project: Environmental Laboratories/SBP Technologies' UVB Vacuum Vaporization Well Process


                     United States
                     Environmental Protection
                     Agency
  Office of
  Research and Development
  Cincinnati, OH 45268
I £PA/540/R-99/503a
 March 1999
                     SITE Technology Capsule
                     MultB/endor  pbremediation
                     Demonstration Project:
                     Environmental  Laboratories/
                     SBP  Technologies'  UVB
                     Vacuum Vaporization Well
                     Process
Abstract

The UVB process was developed by IEG Technologie
GmbH of Germany and licensed in the eastern U.S. by
Environmental  Laboratories,  Inc.  (ELI)  and  SBP
Technologies, Inc. (SBP). A modified microbial system
employing an in-well biofilter was demonstrated under the
SITE Program at the Sweden-3 Chapman landfill in
Sweden, New York, along with the ENSR/Larsen Biovault
technology and the R. E. Wright Environmental, Inc. In
Situ Bioventing System, as part of a Multi-Vendor
Bioremediation Demonstration.

A single wide bore UVB-400 well (Vacuum Vaporization
Well) equipped  with  a biofilter  was  used  in the
demonstration. Groundwater was circulated through the
well and is returned,  presumably with  an increased
microbial population, to the saturated zone for further in
situ biodegradation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
An aboveground blower assists circulation of air, provides
oxygen for biodegradation, and strips volatiles from the
vadose zone. Extracted volatiles were treated by an ex
situ vapor phase biofilter followed by activated carbon.
The developers estimated that the single well would
influence a soil volume of approximately 1000 yd3.
A primary objective of the demonstration waste determine
the effectiveness of the UVB Process in reducing the
concentrations of six target VOCs in the vadose zone soil
to below New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) Soil Cleanup Criteria (acetone:
0.2 ppm, methyl ethyl ketone: 0.6 ppm, 4-methyl-2-
pentanone: 2 ppm, cis-1,2-dichloroethene: 0.6 ppm,
trichloroethene: 1.5 ppm, and tetrachloroethene: 2.5 ppm).
ELI/SBP expected that 90% of the soil samples collected
from the vadose zone of the 50 ft x 50 ft test area would
meet the NYSDEC Criteria for the six target contaminants
after six months (one  season) of treatment. A second
primary objective was to evaluate the developers' claim
that biodegradation would be the dominant mechanism of
contaminant removal, but all participants agreed that this
claim could only be evaluated qualitatively because of
limitations in the sampling  procedures. Assessing the
effectiveness of the process in reducing groundwater
contamination by VOCs was a secondary objective of the
study.

Because of the time required to establish the convection
loop coupled with operational and site problems, the
investigation was extended from 5.5 months to 14 months.
After 5.5 months, only 65% of approximately 50 soil


                    «§5 Printed on Recycled Paper
                             SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
                             TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
|™^ J'IH ,'!!,ji'!i 'fiji'i '" '""!:' BE :i "IT1- ";,'ll|1'1'1 ' """"' l|!]"'|!" ' II"1 11"'!1" "' • '"'" i"1' '!":,,:' ""' " "" , ...,-,; ,i.. , , y „, ; , ,„ ;<|F| < • ,, -. ,,|,r!i, |.,.| mX'9i V; . .n'hviijciw.iii1
rt Jjj = ; : ! ! • i ' ; !l=i :iii * : : : : ' ' :: ; • ! ; ^ ; ; :=: :;!
1 ,|'!!'',l' ':' ' 'jjl! " ' ' 1" !' ' ' ';'j :' ' ' ', " ' . ''j" ' i ' ' • '::'. ,„. n ^ ' I'1!
i;!;;;,:;,!!,,;,!:.!!:!!;!;;.!:!!;;;;!;,:!;:::; ; i;,;;!!;;!:,!:;;,.; ; ;; ;,; ^, 1:1; i:;;,;;;;

i.;\, ;,', ... ,'i. . .. . ," ... ' I,:!; ; ,;;,,
i'iii|i| |ii" :;|ii !' " '"'in

ii'iiif

iN"

;
les from both vadose arid saturated zones met the
.J Criteria, and "only 70% met the Criteria after 14
,. Nevertheless, significant removal of the ketones
•id td"lake place over the 14-month study.
a i i i
!i..:..j"! ! q|o3egra3aT!on and slnpplng were important mechanisms
Groundwater
„«„,,>,. fieextentof removal nor the removal mechanism
- ~w... i^.—^.—
'for'treating'""Hazardous""wastes.1 The sites on the National
Pj|prittes Qsi total over 1,200 and comprise a broad
di
-------
ambient
air Inlet
NNT r-i
2
7 A*
18
2.8'
1
.6'
t
r<
4
*
2.V

trloolno
lactor c
c
s
act carbon

biofilter
packer

c
e
o
f tump

q
n
!i —
EB

i u i

vacuum port
to blower .

i
1 ! ki B

JT -
^
"^L
4
t—
4
C[
sump
1(

)

Tp--

n
i"

•^ '
land tfc.
UK .
T 4
V
t
T
5.
i
II
I
r *•«'
0'
12.T (8/12/94)
3' italic wator tovel

5*
r
r
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1. Schematic of UVB System
Drawing ravlied 8/16/84
basod on 8/13/94 sit* visit
-------
E m a
1 : f: -
" '(". ' .i
if"
".:'"'
fji'j:! 1 "

• ! ', - :' r ;' „ , Pj'!1!' ,',,'• , . ' , i |, ' , ' • ! • i : •,„,!,•' ,...„, ' I,'; ;.. ' , ,' ' • •••
, . !i."" , , !!i, ,'.'••„,• " ' ' ' . .' , ',' •'•",. i '„]' i'i"!;,, • • . " .
"i!1!"! !"! Si : ":' j : i'l!! !* Ml*]1;
'•'•.:" , . .\ •.: ' "•• ;i;:.;;:
iiijijli: I,:!: : ;,;,,
,*; l";i: -"'
•ill S'i : i i-;
'jp^te—tbcafed pipe as well as from lie surrounding vadose zone
raising the level of water already present in the well.
ajr Infiltrating the surrounding soil formation
captures ybCs that may volatilize. Infiltration also
Increases the o3^erTconceh^i{ron of the grouhdwater/soil
matrix and stimulates indigenous microbes to enhance the
biodegradation of contaminants. The ambient air also
bubbles through the raised groundwater, sparging or
stripping VOCs in the process. The VOC-laden air is then
exhausted through a combination of ex situ, vapor-phase
btoraactors and activated carbon filters on the positive
pressure side of the blower to minimize VOC emissions to
the atmosphere.

After treatment in the stripper reactor, the elevated
groundwater is discharged into the upper soil stratum and
)©rco!ates back to its natural level, again picking up
circulation loop is established. This circulation cell
C^nistahtly transports contaminants, nutrients, oxygen and
indigenous bacteria through the affected soil. The
ecAffibution pf the physical "stripping" effect as compared
J tie, biological effect varies according to site specific
!"!::: """ " "• ' ! '"""'"" :i"-":ri'r -"" arid water
^

perrfieabilily, indigenous microbe characteristics, etc.).
1 1 !:: ' !;•
||:
According to ELI/SBP^ dewatering is not essential for
efficient operation of thisi system. Treatment of the phreatic
'-'i
system can be operated in either a standard mode as
depjjribed above and used for the demonstration, or in a
re^se-flow circulation mode by the addition of a pump;
in be readily converted in the field.
Finally, in|ectlon of heated air can enhance both VOC
tjesorption and the rate of biodegradation of organic
' ':;""' ;!"; 'i:i'"!il! ' ' "* This would be particularly useful in regions
. _
nocrfiay subject to cold winter climates. These concepts
Ifere not evaluated during this demonstration.
: ' i ' i
technology Applicability
The UVB Mlcrobial Treatment Process was evaluated
Bas'ed on the nine criteria used for decision making as part
Mthe Super-fund Feasibility Study (FS) process. Results
of the evaluation are summarized in Table 1.
source areas. The technology employs readily available
equipment and materials, and the material handling
requirements and site support requirements are minimal,
according to the developers.

Technology Limitations

According to ELI/SBP, the UVB system is most appropriate
for treatment of sites with good hydraulic conductivity in the
saturated zone and high air permeability in the vadose
zone. Good hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
accelerates the establishment of a circulation cell for faster
and more effective cleanup. High air permeability in the
vadose zone increases the volatilization of contaminants,
improves the supply of oxygen to indigenous microbes for
enhanced biological degradation, and increases the air
supply to the in situ stripper reactor for better performance
while reducing the size of the blower required and lowering
overall remediation costs.

The effectiveness of the technology may be limited for soils
contaminated with high concentrations of heavy metals that
could be toxic or could inhibit biological performance.
Jhg ieyeippers suggest! several means of enhancing the
biocfpflradation. The fixed film indigenous microflora used
by the bioreactor can be augmented with other types of
contaminant-degrading microbes, depending on site
cof^ittons and contaminants. Degradation also can be
I by the addition of either liquid or gaseous
nutrients and/or alternative electron acceptors.
s • 'i ' .
The ELI/SBP UVB system is designed to treat vadose and
saturated zone soils and groundwater contaminated with
"'"~"^ an! semjvojatfles. ^e chemical and 'physical
water
rnafe this jjechnofogy suited for remediation of contaminant
Types and concentrations of metals present as well as any
other compounds that may be toxic to the indigenous soil
mjcrobes need to be assessed at each site under
consideration.

In areas with very shallow groundwater (less than 5 ft), it
may be difficult to establish contact between the gas and
aqueous phases long enough to remove contaminants.
The technology has further limitations in thin aquifers (less
than 10 ft); the saturated zone must be of sufficient
thickness to alow propir iriiteTIallon offfieweTI sysTerru in
addition, the thickness of the saturated zone affects the
radius of the circulation cell; the smaller the aquifer
thickness, the smaller the radius of the circulation cell and
consequently the larger the number of wells required.

The majority of the water being drawn from the aquifer into
the lower screened section is treated water reinfiltrating
from the upper section. As the UVB system continues to
operate, the circulation cell expands until a steady state is
reached. As the circulation cell grows, the amount of
recircuiated water increases, causing a significant
decrease in contaminant concentrations in the water being
treated by the syslem. This can potentially have ah
adverse effect on the performance of both the bioreactor
',§DS! strigper, since their performance is concentration
depiridenT

Conversely, high concentrations of volatile compounds
may require multiple passes through the system to achieve
reffiediation gpals. This may be a problem since a portion
of the treated water is not captured by the system and
continues to leave the circulation cell in the downgradient
direction. However, once the UVB circulation cell is
established, the influent concentrations should be diluted
to below levels requiring more than one pass, thereby
-------
1
Table 1. FS Criteria Evaluation for UVB In Situ Bioremediation Treatment Process
Criteria
UVB Performance
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with Federal
ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness
and Performance

Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment

Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Community Acceptance
State Acceptance
Provides both short- and long-term protection by eliminating organic
contaminants in soil. Prevents further groundwater contamination and
minimizes off-site migration. Minimal emissions and discharges during
installation and operation.

Requires compliance with RCRA treatment, storage, and land disposal
regulations (of a hazardous waste) particularly during installation. Installation
and operation require compliance with location-specific ARARs. Emission
controls may be needed to ensure compliance with air quality standards if
VOCs are present.

Has the potential to effectively remove contamination source. May involve
some residuals treatment and disposal (e.g., extracted air, well cuttings).

Significantly reduces toxicity and mass of soil contaminants by treatment. May
distribute organic contaminants through zone of influence.
Presents minor short-term risks to workers from air releases during installation
of UVB well.

Involves few administrative difficulties, other than those associated with well
installation. Wells and aboveground system can be constructed in less than 2
weeks. Requires heavy equipment, such as crane, to install and position UVB
system.

$149/yd3 based on successful removal of VOCs from 12,800 yd3 over 14
months. Actual costs of remedial technology are site-specific and dependent
on factors such as the cleanup level, contaminant concentrations, soil
characteristics, and volume of soil treated.

Presents minimal short term risk to community. Public familiar with and
comfortable with biotreatment as in wastewater treatment. Some minor,
controllable noise from blowers.

State permits may be required if remediation is part of RCRA corrective action.
limiting the potential migration of contaminants from the
system.

The relative sizes of the circulation cell and the
contaminant source area will determine the number of wells
needed for remediation of a particular site.

As with other biological processes, the ELI/SBP technology
could be impacted by low temperatures, which are known
to slow biodegradation processes. Extended periods of
below freezing temperatures could seriously affect
treatment performance. As such, the technology may be
better suited to areas with moderate winters, may require
a heated enclosure for protection against extreme cold
weather conditions, may require the ambient air to be
heated, or may be operated on a seasonal basis.

Process Residuals
The materials handling requirements for the UVB system
include managing spent activated carbon or residues from
other offgas treatment, drilling wastes, purge water, and
decontamination wastes generated during installation,
operation, and monitoring of the system. Spent carbon
generated by offgas treatment can either be disposed of or
regenerated by the carbon vendor. Drilling wastes
produced during installation of the system well and
monitoring wells can be managed either in 55-gallon drums
or in roll-off debris bins, depending on quantity and
characteristics. Disposal options for this waste depend on
state and local requirements and on the presence or
absence of contaminants. The options may range from on-
site disposal to disposal in a hazardous waste landfill.

Purge water generated during development and sampling
of groundwater monitoring wells usually can be stored in
-------
i,|i ! 1 ii "i i ii'ji' ' ,i ii
'!
Ii
I I lll'l 1 I
i i;
''!!' 1',
55-gallon drums. Disposal options again depend on state
and local restrictions and on the presence or absence of
contaminants. Options include surface discharge through
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) outfall, disposal ffirough a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW), and treatment and disposal at
a peifnitted hazardous waste facility, all with or without on-
, g|e grejreajment. | " | |

pecontaminatiqn wastes generated during installation,
decommissioning, and sampling activities include
decontamination water. A decontarninatign pad may be
I^Ulred for ihe drill rig. Solid decontamination wastes can
be managed In roll-off type debris boxes and liquid wastes
i can be managed in 55-gail6n-l3HJmsI Dlipoial ppliorii are
slmfer to those for drilling wastes and purge water.
contamination in the soil sufficiently to meet NYSDEC Soil
Cleanup Criteria. As^a remediation goal to evaluate this
objective, the developers expected that 90% of the soil
samples collected from the anticipated vadose zone in the
plot after 5.5 months (nominally one warm season) of
operation would be below NYSDEC Cleanup Criteria for six
target VOCs (acetone: 0.2 ppm, MEK: 0.6 ppm, MlBK: 2.0
pjjjm, cis-DCE: 0.6 gpm, TCE: ' 1 .5 ppm, and PCE: 2.5 "
..... ' ........................................ ................... ..................... .................. .................... ....................
Site Requirements

A UyB microbial treatment system consists of several
major components: a dual-screened well, stripping reactor,
bfefjjter, well packer, submersible1 pump] blower!
aboveground vapor phase bioreactors, and carbon
Adsorption units. A drill rig is required to install and remove
frie well casing and to installtfieeo]ulprnelirwltrt?ntfiewefl
ItSelf, ;",' ':., ' '.
',' I'1,1 ,; '!"!''i ' ' ',',,'
The site support requirements needed for the UVB system
are potable water, electricity, and space to set up the ex-
situ bloreaqlors and off-fas treatment system. The blower
requires standard 440 VQlts (200 amperes). An electrical
pole, a 4OT-yolt 3-ghase ranverter for the operating
systerri'i incf elec^Eal RojoRup Bitwein fh'e supply Rneii
pole, and Ifie UVB treatment system are necessary to
supply power. The space requirements for the
aboyeground components of ffie UVB system, including the
"" ^ system well, off-gas treatment units, blower, and
j used during the SITE demonstration, were
apprSxtrnately 250 square feet. Other requirements for
instajlatlon „ and routine monitoring of the system may
Include access roads for equipment transport, security
fencSlig, and decontamination water and/or steam for
drilling and sampling.
Thesiteshopd" be~FeiatiYeiy level and clesir^FoBsfrucHoni
to facilitate well and equipment placement. As noted
earlier, vadose'and saturated zones should be well defined
and shou!q* be reasonably consistent from season to
season, ' " ''" '

Performance Data
^ . •{' ••'
pilot-scale testing of the UVB-400 in situ process was
conducted in a 50 ft x 50 ft plot at the Sweden-3 Chapman
landfill in Sweden, New Vork'as part of the Multi-Vendor
Demonstration,
(' I I |
A primary objective of the demonstration was to determine
the effectiveness of the technology in reducing VOC
i i i
In ................... addition! ..................... the .................. developers .................... claimed .................... that .........
biodegradation would be the dominant mechanism of
contaminant removal from the formation. The developers
also expected that groundwater would exhibit significant
reductions in VOC concentrations as a result of the
recircuiation cell through the in situ biofilter. Finally, as an
........ acjjuTict ......... to ........... the ............ prpjecli ............. Ifie ............ developers ............. also ............ iougHt ........... to .........
evaluate the effectiveness of ex situ biofilters in removing
VOCs from the air extracted from the formation.

the primary and secondary objectives,
samples from the soil, groundwater, and extracted air
streams were collected at intervals starting in July 1994
and continuing to the termination of the project in
September 1995. To assure that a maximum number of
the soil samples would contain detectable concentrations
of the critical VOCs, the plot was first divided into a 3 x 3
grid. Soil borings (2-inch split spoon) from the expected
vadose zone '(-9 to 15 ft below ground surface, bgs) were
first scanned by a field photoionization detector (PID). On
the basis of this screening, sixteen additional boring
locations were selected to maximize the detection of
contamination. It quickly became clear that the vadose and
saturated zones were not clearly defined and that the
vadose zone was usually much narrower than the
anticipated 9 - 15 ft bgs. To overcome some of these
unanticipated problems, samples were designated as
"vadose" or "saturated" and were analyzed separately. In
addition, again to assure maximum contamination, the
sample from each 2-foot split spoon section was selected
based on a "hot spot" reading by the PID. Consequently,
the resulting -50 samples from the 25 borings obtained
during each sampling event cannot be considered to be
representative of the site, and may not even be
representative of an individual core. Samples were
analyzed for VOCs, other contaminants, microbiological
..................... activity^ ............... and .................. nulnints ................. to .................. assess ................... performance and
effectiveness of the system.

When preliminary results indicated that little decrease in
soil VOC concentrations was occurring during the first
growing season, due to bad weather and operational
difficulties or the unique characteristics of the UVB system,
the EPA and the NYSDEC agreed to continue the
evaluation through a second warm season. Operation of
the in situ system was continued through the winter and
was assumed, for evaluation purposes, to be continuous
for the 14-month test period. Modifications to the system
also were made in the Spring of 1995 to accommodate
large, unanticipated variations in the water table and to
assure that the exhausted air passed through the ex situ
ill
I In tllli
iii
HI ill
-------
vapor phase bibfiffers.

The primary objective (achievement of the NYSDEC Soil
Cleanup Criteria) was evaluated by measuring the residual
concentrations of the selected VOCs in grab samples from
cores obtained from twenty five locations within the test
plot at the completion of the first season (-5.5 months) and
at the end of the 14-month test period. Although the
original intent was to evaluate the effectiveness of the
technology for the vadose zone only, a high and variable
water table left only a very shallow vadose zone and made
it prudent to evaluate changes in both the vadose and the
saturated zone.

The second objective, estimating the contribution of
biodegradation to overall removal, was assessed by
several biological and chemical measurements over the
course of the demonstration. In addition to VOC mass
removal, other measurements used to assess the extent of
biodegradation included: changes in CO2,02, cis-DCE and
vinyl chloride concentrations, and changes in total
heterotroph and TCE-degrading microbial growth in the soil
and groundwater. The mass removal of VOCs in the
groundwater could not readily be estimated because of
factors such as flushing and migration.

Based on the analytical results (Table 2), the developers
were not successful in meeting the 90% cleanup objective,
even after 14 months. Only 65% of the usable soil
samples collected in the plot after 5.5 months and 70% of
the samples collected after 14 months met the NYSDEC
Cleanup Criteria. (At the outset of the demonstration the
calculated compliance was 67%).

As indicated in Table 2, some of the analytical data,
primarily for acetone and MEK, could not be utilized
because detection limits were higher than the NYSDEC
criterion for that contaminant and it could, consequently,
not be determined whether these samples met the Criteria.
Higher-than-anticipated concentrations of aromatic VOCs
(compared to predemonstration data) were a major
contributing factor in the high detection limits for the critical
analytes.

Table 3 compares initial and final (14 month) calculated
masses for the six critical VOCs and toluene, using the
Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) for "ND" value, and
also indicates the relative contribution to VOC removal in
the exhausted air. Ketone removals from the soil appear
to be more extensive than removal of chlorinated
hydrocarbons; cis-DCE results may be ambiguous due to
production of this compound by degradation of TCE and/or
PCE.

Because of apparent elevated masses of VOCs after 5.5
months, the contribution of biodegradation (if any) to
removal could not be estimated. Using calculated values
for the masses of each VOC at the 14-month event and the
masses of each contaminant removed in the extracted air
Table 2. UVB Compliance with NYSDEC Cteanup Criteria
VOC

Criterion
(ppb)
Usable
Data
Points
f#)
Data Points
Meeting
Criterion
Oft (%)
RESULTS AFTER 5.5 MONTHS
Acetone

MEK

MIBK

DCE

TCE

PCE

Total
200

600

2000

600

1500

2500
11

140
0

91
0

65
RESULTS AFTER 14 MONTHS
Acetone
MEK
MIBK
DCE
TCE
PCE
Total
200
600
2000
600
1500
2500

19
25
46
46
46
46
229
0
4
45
22
45
44
160
0
16
98
48
98
96
70
Note: (*) Data reported as non-detectable were not utilized
in the evaluation if the detection limit was above the
NYSDEC Criterion.

Developers "credited" with any samples that were
uncontaminated initially.
stream and in the knockout water (very small), rough
estimates of removal (61-70%) and the potential
contribution of biodegradation (94-98%) could be
calculated for the ketones, but not for the chlorinated
VOCs. The effects of extraction, biodegradation, or
flushing by groundwater on any of the contaminants are not
included. Degradation of TCE and/or PCE to cis-DCE is
another factor that may be affecting the observed values
for cis-DCE.

Other data expected to support numerical data do not
clarify the interpretation of the results of this demonstration.
Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in the extracted
air remained essentially unchanged, as expected, because
of the intake of ambient air. TCE-degrading microbial
populations in the soil and the groundwater were small and
decreased over the course of the demonstration, providing
little support for biodegradation of the chlorinated VOCs.
On the other hand, average total heterotroph populations
for the soil samples, with approximately a 7-fold increase
over the course of the demonstration, were more indicative
of biodegradation; however, total heterotroph populations
in groundwater samples decreased over the course of the
-------
Tabla 3. VOC Removals by UVB System after 14 Months

ill in nil
vbd
Mass in Soil (gm)
Mass Overall Percent
Removed in Removal
Air & Water
Percent Potentially
B|odegraded
Acetone
MEK
WIBK
cfS-DCE
TCE
PCE
Toluene

3700
6300
2200
1900
1500
380
58000

960
2100
440
1200
3200
350
7400

lymj
120
58
69
2200
510
120
1900

74
67
80
37
8
: : :
87

71
66
77

-
84

demonstration. These observations, the high removal
efficiency for the ketones, and the apparent production of
cSs-fja-dlchioroethene would suggest that some
b!odegrada|6n Is underway, althoughIhe evktenceTs not
strong. The detection of significant concentrations of vinyl
chloride (VC) in the exhausted air and in groundwater (but
not in soil samples) suggests that biodegradation is
occurring, but that anaerobic mechanisms rather than the
expected aerobic mechanisms may be operative.

Analyses of groundwater samples, particularly those from
Weils upgradient of the UVB well, indicate significant but
Variable reductions in VOC conjamjnation over the course
g deirw^ffixi^gJTJjiSjfiy^ in 'wells closer to" trie
well! "^roun3wa!eiTvii^ dili initially and for each
sampling event also indicated that concentrations of all
• contaminants^increasedJdpWngradjent^from the UVB well.
The data also Indicate IfiaT Ivt'EK cis-DCE, toluene and
vinyl chloride were the most prominent VOCs, and that the
ketones tended to be concentrated in the shallow
groundwater while th| chlorinated ethenes were
concentrated in the deeg Monitoring wells, as might be
anticipated! Vinyl cHon3e remained" if significant
concentrations in all wells throughout the 14-month study,
jesting that anaerobic biodegradation was occurring.

Analyses of influent to and effluent from the in situ biofilter
Indicated that VOC removal was taking place in the biofilter
over the course of the demonstration as well as during the
short residence time in Ihe BTofilter. It is not possible to
attribute this to biodegradation or adsorption without more
extensive testing.

Due to excessive head'"loss* the original single, spiral-
Wound vapor phase biofifter was replaced in April 1995 with
two biofilters, each containing seven carbon cartridges.
Operating in parallel, the new design produced much lower
hea,d loss. Flow and VOC data confirmed that the changes
were successful In assuring uniform passage of air through
the two trains. Sampling and analysis of the air stream
before and after the two redesigned indicate target VOC
removals of about 60% to 75%,
mechanisms cannot be defined.
but the removal
In general; various aromatic compounds were much more
prevalent than the target VOCs in all soil samples. Toluene
is included in the data compilations as an example. High
concentrations of these aromatic VOCs adversely affected
the ability to detect or quantify low concentrations of the
target VOCs, but they also may have served as
cometabplites for biodegradation - if the concentrations
were not high enough to cause toxicity to the biological
system.

For the" T'£monfh~ deTnoTistration j the estimated cost was'
$347/yd3 to treat about 628 yd3 in the test plot. The cost to
remediate approximately 13,000 cubic yards of similarly
contaminated vadose zone soil over a 14 month period at
the Sweden-3 Chapman site using 22 UVB wells is
estimated at $149/yd3. Increasing the treatment time to 3
years or 5 years, as suggested by the developers,
increases the cost to $259/yd3 and $375/yd3, respectively.
Because of the nature of the technology, saturated zone
soils and groundwater within the radius of influence would
also be treated simultaneously. However, no credit was
taken for groundwater treatment in this economic analysis,
i'i" which focused on vadose zone soil treatment As the full-
scale" T^monTn" cos! analysis wis confTgurecT the largest
cost categories are site preparation and equipment costs,
accounting for 40% and 22% of the costs. Labor accounts
for 17% of the costs. As the duration of the remediation
increases, the contribution of site preparation costs
decreases and the labor cost increases. This technology
is typical of other bipremediation processes in that the
majority of the costs are in the initial site preparation and
startup phases. For this estimate no costs were assigned
for permitting and regulatory requirements or facility
modification, repair or replacement.
i

1 inn in i n in i ii i ii iiiii in in ii mi mi
"'I I
III Jill III 11

II I 11 III ill lllllllllll I III I I II I llllllllll I Illllllllllli I Illllll 111 III II I I III Ill
: ii!
-------
Technology Status
investigation.
The DVB microbial technology has been utilized at a
number of sites throughout the world, primarily for
treatment of BTEX-contaminated groundwater.

Disclaimer

The data, observations and conclusions presented in this
Capsule have been reviewed by EPA's Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Office.

Sources of Further Information

An Innovative Technology Evaluation Report will be
available for the DVB technology and for the other two
technologies that were evaluated as part of the same
EPA Contact:

U.S. EPA Project Manager
Michelle Simon
U.S. EPA NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7469
Fax (513) 569-7676
email: simon.michelle@epamail.epa.gov
New York State Contact:
NYSDEC Project Manager
James Harrington, P.E.
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Room 222
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)485-8792
Fax (518) 457-1088
NY State Center for Hazardous Waste Mgmt.
Professor Scott Weber
Jarvis Hall
SUNY at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260
(716)645-2114
Fax (716) 645-3667
Technology Developers:

Richard Desrosiers
MACTEC, Inc.
1819 Denver West Drive, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
3032783100
303 278 5000 fax
76435.2527@compuserve.com

Jim Mueller
Dames and Moore
1701 Golf Road
One Contental Towers, Suite 1000
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
847 228 0707
847 228 1328 fax
chijgm@dames.com
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 - 750-101/00059
-------
ii !
i
' |l i
lllllll
, , III',!,
Illlllll!

I
1 1,1 lii,,1
i. ill
-------
-------
1
1?:;
|:

i; "

"*-

-B-r,!

-i" -

— «-
~-r :
4

m
SK

^ ",
3F--

;;_ --

=« ^^^ s .-. - --• — — ir
United States ......_ please make all necessary changes on the below label, detach II
Environmental Protection Agency or copy, and return to the address in the upper left-hand corner. jl
Center for Environmental Res
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

'enalty for Private Us
$300

EP,/
"

n i
n i

i i

i
i

I!
f flp:

'- --
=U^:

V5;|

"
I [

:I =

...
-^
=
-
0/R-

p
1

)3a

1
K ! s,
m t-

^~:
S
j

i I
i
l

"||

~*i

4
1
:.sr
_^t

:" - "•- -•: -'^

| :
I

earch Information )f you do no{ wjsh {o recejve these reports CHECK HERE[-,; j • j |
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the i ^

upper left-hand corner.
.; i __ ! J I
II - • • •
I 1 1

ii = • «
- , i

1
I - • • !
a • i
= mm
~ = s
!l

I I I S ' -
a •
• =
lie
-: _
I

1 1 ! •
1 l !! !
i I Ii 1 • •
4 -1 11
- Ill : I
= • = = = = ^
! ! I
= « i
! i i

«
i sl
i i ii

=:-

:---~

1 1
! I
I I
l
I =1

:-"- -i»: :-
, -

_ ; :'-}«

-.
---^---w

= •
=
1
1 1
- !
i i i

I_=
=
• i
i
i l
i
= = =
! 1
~ •
•
j -:-.-.-:
i _ . - _
r--=r-— -= -- -= -s - -= - — = ^^— - =
i iii
1 ! !•
! JI
i

i : i I
, . ^
i 11
•- I •
. =
l i •
1 1 i
i il
1 a m
i il
1 !!
1 Ii
i ii
= San
T
|I
1
! 1
1 _ 4
i i
± |
i
• - - - —~° - -'

l|
"i

-i^-

w
Fif -B

i
M
-II
I

i i
n
. i

*• ~

i
i i
il
;

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35

1
i
!
| •
! H
I]
-M
1|
j|
:=
l m
~m
1
H
•
1

- '|
-:|
1
1
f

--~a
1
1
; H-
1
1
-

i
• .11
M
I || .-

=
'- f
=a
n.
il
M! i ;
II I
1 II
; i

.-- - -

"--, ."•_

JZf

-
-i
-

i .

•-

•••-.:
-

'
-

- =f~ -

.___-*-

--,_.

1^;

;;

-r-~

! :

-- -

III

f •*
f :J

II f
|I [
I ^
Hi . t

--*

I! 1

-
i i

—
-^

--T

-4

W >L
-•---
r

.-->

-^
ii >

in -i
ISi t

'=?
-j^l

j
\~4

irt
-------