United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
4*EPA Use of Bioremediation at
Superfund Sites
EPA542-R-01-019
September 2001
clu-in.org
-------
EPA-542-R-01-019
September 2001
Use of Bioremediation
at Superfund Sites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation
Office with support under EPA Contract Number 68-W-99-003. Information in this report is derived
from a variety of references, some of which have been peer-reviewed. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information
about this document, please contact: Linda Fiedler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology
Innovation Office, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (MC 5102G), Washington,
B.C., 20460; (703) 603-7194; e-maiirfiedler.linda@epa.gov.
This document may be obtained from EPA's web site at , or at
. A limited number of hard copies of this document are available free of charge by
mail from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications, at the following address
(please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery):
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax:(513)489-8695
ii
-------
ACRONYMS
AFB
AFCEE
ASR
BHC
BTEX
CA
CC14
CO,
Cr+J
Cr*6
cvoc
cy
DCE
DDD
DDE
DDT
DoD
DOE
DOI
DS
EPA REACH IT
BSD
FRTR
FS
FY
JOAAP
mg/kg
NC
NNEMS
NR
NSCEP
OU
PAH
PCB
PCE
PCP
PHC
POL
RCRA
ROD
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Annual Status Report
'Benzene Hexachloride
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes
Corrective Action
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Dioxide
Trivalent Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound
Cubic Yard
Dichloroethene
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
Demonstration Scale
EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies
Explanation of Significant Differences
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Full Scale
Fiscal Year
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
Milligrams per Kilogram
Not Calculated
National Network of Environmental Management Studies
Not Reported
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Operable Unit
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Tetrachloroethene
Pentachlorophenol
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Record of Decision
in
-------
ACRONYMS (continued)
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethene
Tetryl N-rnethyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
UST Underground Storage Tank
VC Vinyl Chloride
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1
2.0 OVERVIEW OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 3
3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS AT SUPERFUND AND OTHER
SITES 7
3.1 TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS 7
3.2 REMEDY SELECTION 13
4.0 PERFORMANCE OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 17
5.0 COST OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 28
6.0 VENDORS OF BIOREMEDIATION 34
7.0 REFERENCES 35
8.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INFORMATION SOURCES 37
APPENDICES
A Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial Action
Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999) ." A-l
B Additional Information about Development of Cost Curves for U.S. Air Force Bioventing
Applications B-l
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of In Situ Bioremediation Technologies 4
2 Description of Ex Situ Bioremediation Technologies 4
3 Field Use of Three Types of Bioremediation Technologies 6
4 Superfund Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 8
5 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) 12
6 Project Status of Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) 13
7 Examples of Remedy Changes to Bioremediation 16
8 Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs 18
9 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs 20
10 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and Herbicides ... 24
11 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Explosives 27
12 Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data 29
13 U.S. Air Force Bioventing Projects 33
FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Example Configuration for an In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation System 3
2 Typical Windrow Composting System 5
3 Superfund Source Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 8
4 Superfund Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 9
5 Relative Number of In Situ and Ex Situ Superfund Bioremediation Projects 9
6 Superfund Site types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 10
7 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 11
8 Contaminants Most Frequently Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) 11
9 Number of RODs Signed for Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) 14
10 Bioremediation as a Percentage of Total Source Treatment RODs (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 14
11 Superfund Remedial Actions: Comparison of the Number of RODs for Selected Versus Planned
or Implemented Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 15
12 U.S. Air Force Bioventing Applications: Unit Cost Versus Volume Treated
(68% Confidence Interval) 32
VI
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
Bioremediation is a technology that uses microorganisms to treat contaminants through natural
biodegradation mechanisms (intrinsic bioremediation) or by enhancing natural biodegradation
mechanisms through the addition of microbes, nutrients, electron donors, and/or electron acceptors
(enhanced bioremediation). This technology, performed in situ (below ground or in place) or ex situ
(above ground), is capable of degrading organic compounds to less toxic materials such as carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane, and water through aerobic or anaerobic processes. Bioremediation is being used with
increasing frequency to remediate contaminated media at hazardous waste sites because, compared with
other remediation technologies, it often is less expensive and more acceptable to the public.
This report focuses on the use of enhanced bioremediation technologies at 104 Superfund remedial action
sites and other contaminated sites. It provides a snapshot of current applications of bioremediation and
presents trends over time concerning selection and use of the technology, contaminants and site types
treated by the technology, and cost and performance of the technology. This information will help inform
site managers, technology users, developers, and other interested parties about the capabilities and current
applications of bioremediation.
Highlights of this report are listed below:
Technology Types - Since 1991, the percentage of bioremediation projects performed ex situ has
decreased while the percentage of projects performed in situ has increased. In 1991, only 35
percent of the Superfund remedial action bioremediation projects were in situ versus 53 percent in
1999. Bioventing is the most commonly implemented in situ treatment technology for source
treatment1. Land treatment is the most commonly used ex situ source treatment technology.
Site Types - The most common type of Superfund remedial action site where bioremediation is
used is wood preserving (31 percent), followed by petroleum sites (21 percent). The most
common types of contaminants at these sites are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (40
percent); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) (37 percent); and pesticides and
herbicides (27 percent).
Project Status - Over half of bioremediation projects at Superfund remedial action sites (57
percent) are in the operational phase, while 26 percent are in the predesign, design, or installation
phases, and 17 percent have been completed. Of the 18 completed projects, 14 are ex situ source
treatment projects, and 4 are in situ projects for source treatment and ground water treatment.
Trends in Use - Few bioremediation Records of Decision (RODs) were signed in the early- to
mid-1980s. Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1988, the number of bioremediation RODs has
increased. In general, 8 to 12 bioremediation RODs have been signed per year.
Performance - Available performance data shows that bioremediation is capable of reducing
contaminant concentrations in contaminated media. Bioremediation is being used to treat
recalcitrant organic compounds, including chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
PAHs, pesticides and herbicides, and explosives. For ten projects treating chlorinated VOCs,
concentrations of VOCs in treated groundwater ranged from below detect limit (<5 iig/L for
tetrachloroethene [PCE], trichloroethene [TCE], and dichloroethene [DCE]) to 1,200 |ag/L (for
carbon tetrachloride).
1 The term source treatment includes treatment of soil, sludge, sediment, or other solid waste.
1
-------
For seven projects treating PAHs, concentrations of PAHs in treated soil and sludges ranged from
3.3 nig/kg to 795 mg/kg, with some projects showing more than 90% removal. For four projects
treating pesticides and herbicides, concentrations of specific pesticides and herbicides in treated
soil were less than 10 ing/kg at two projects and less than 200 mg/kg at the other two projects,
with some projects showing more than 90% removal. For six projects treating explosives, three
showed removals of more than 75% and the others showed removals ranging from little or none
to as much as 64%.
Cost - Information about the cost of using bioremediation to treat contaminated media was
available for 67 sites. Unit costs for bioventing projects ranged from approximately $2 per cubic
yard (cy) to more than $300/cy, with most sites less than $40/cy. Unit costs for ex situ
bioremediation of soil, such as land treatment or composting systems, ranged from $13/cy to
more than $500/cy, with most projects costing less than $300/cy.
Information sources used for this report included Superfund RODs, ROD amendments, and Explanations
of Significant Differences (ESDs) issued by EPA through fiscal year 1999 (EPA 2001); and cost and
performance reports prepared by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR 2001).
Specific references are identified at the end of this report.
Section 2 of the report provides an overview of bioremediation technologies, including in situ and ex situ
technologies, and provides examples of field use for three types of bioremediation technologies. The
characteristics of bioremediation projects at Superfund and other sites are described in Section 3,
including the types of bioremediation projects that have been conducted and the selection of
bioremediation as a remedy. Section 4 provides a summary of the performance of bioremediation
technologies, with a summary of bioremediation costs in Section 5. Information about vendors of
bioremediation technologies is provided in Section 6. References used in preparation of this report are in
Section 7, and additional information about selected information sources is in Section 8.
Appendix A to the report provides selected information about 104 bioremediation projects, including site
name, location, ROD year, contaminants treated, project status, and contact name. Appendix B provides
additional information related to the development of the cost curves for bioventing projects.
-------
2.0 OVERVIEW OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Bioremediation technologies use microorganisms to treat contaminants by degrading organic compounds
to less toxic materials, such as CO2, methane, water, and inorganic salts. These technologies include
intrinsic or enhanced bioremediation, which is the focus of this report, and can be performed in situ or ex
situ under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. During enhanced bioremediation, amendments are typically
added to the media to supplement biodegradation processes.2 Amendments include nutrients (such as
nitrogen and phosphorus), electron donors (such as methanol or lactic acid for anaerobic processes),
electron acceptors (such as oxygen for aerobic processes, ferric iron or nitrate for anaerobic processes), or
microbes (bioaugmentation) (EPA 1994, EPA 2000).
Figure 1. Example Configuration for an In Situ Groundwater
Bioremediation System
As shown in Table 1, in situ
bioremediation technologies
include source treatment
technologies such as
bioventing and slurry-phase
lagoon aeration, and
groundwater technologies
such as biosparging and in
situ aerobic or anaerobic
treatment. Amendments are
added using direct injection
and groundwater
recirculation systems. For
direct injection (illustrated in
Figure 1), amendments are
added to the contaminated
media through injection
points. With groundwater
recirculation systems,
contaminated groundwater is
extracted, amendments are
mixed with the groundwater
ex situ, and the amended
groundwater is re-injected into the subsurface, usually upgradient of the contaminated zone. One
configuration for a recirculation system is to extract and re-inject groundwater in a single strata or at a
common groundwater elevation. An alternative configuration for a groundwater recirculation system is
extraction and re-injection at different elevations in a single treatment cell, creating vertical circulation.
As shown in Table 2, ex situ processes include land treatment, composting, biopiles, and slurry-phase
treatment for source treatment.3 Figure 2 presents an example configuration for a windrow composting
system. Table 3 presents three examples of successful bioremediation projects: one in situ groundwater
project, one ex situ source control project, and one in situ source control project.
Source: EPA 2000
" During bioremediation, microorganisms also can affect the metal chemistry and bioavailability in the
contaminated media; however, those effects are not addressed in this report.
3 This report does not include ex situ groundwater bioremediation technologies.
3
-------
Table 1. Description of In Situ Bioremediation Technologies
In Situ Source Treatment Processes
Bioventing - Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by movement of forced air (either
extraction or injection of air) to increase concentrations of oxygen and stimulate biodegradation.
Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration - Air and soil are brought into contact with each other in a lagoon to
promote biological degradation of the contaminants in the soil.
In Situ Groundwater Processes
Biosparging - Air is injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation and volatilization of
contaminants; biodegradation occurs aerobically.
Aerobic - Air, oxygen, and/or nutrients are injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation of
contaminants. Systems include direct injections of oxygen release compound (ORCฎ) or hydrogen
peroxide, or groundwater recirculation systems.
Anaerobic - Carbon sources such as molasses, lactic acid, or hydrogen release compound (HRCฎ) are
injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation of contaminants using direct injection or
groundwater recirculation systems.
Sources: EPA 2000. FRTR 200la
Table 2. Description of Ex Situ Bioremediation Technologies
Ex Situ Source Treatment Processes
Land Treatment - Contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge is excavated, applied to lined beds, and
periodically turned over or tilled to aerate the contaminated media. Amendments can be added to the
contaminated media in the beds.
Composting - Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed with bulking agents such as wood chips and
organic amendments such as hay, manure, and vegetable wastes. The types of amendments used
depends on the porosity of the soil and the balance of carbon and nitrogen needed to promote microbial
activity.
Biopiles - Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in aboveground enclosures. The
process occurs in an aerated static pile in which compost is formed into piles and aerated with blowers or
vacuum pumps.
Slurry-Phase Treatment - An aqueous slurry is created by combining soil, sediment, or sludge with water
and other additives. The slurry is mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in contact with
the contaminants. Treatment usually occurs in a series of tanks.
Sources: EPA 2000, FRTR 200la
-------
Figure 2. Typical Windrow Composting System
Source: FRTR 2001 a
Biodegradation occurs under
aerobic and anaerobic
conditions, with the majority
of bioremediation systems
designed to treat
contaminants aerobically.
Aerobic processes use
oxidation to degrade organic
compounds to less toxic
compounds such as CO2 and
water. Anaerobic processes,
used to treat contaminants
such as chlorinated VOCs,
include dechlorination where
the chlorinated VOCs act as
an electron acceptor, and are
degraded to nonchlorinated
compounds. During
anaerobic degradation,
persistent intermediate
compounds may be
produced. For example, anaerobic biodegradation of chlorinated aliphatic solvents can produce lower
substituted chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as chloroethane or vinyl chloride (VC). Such compounds are
not readily degraded under anaerobic conditions (these contaminants may be more readily degraded under
aerobic conditions) and may be more toxic than the original contaminant.
Biodegradation of contaminants occurs as direct or cometabolic processes. For direct bioremediation
processes, the microorganisms use the contaminants as a source of food or energy. When contaminants
cannot be used as a food source, biodegradation may occur though cometabolism in which the
contaminant is degraded by an enzyme or cofactor produced during microbial metabolism of another
compound.
The types of contaminants that are amenable to bioremediation include petroleum hydrocarbons, such as
gasoline and diesel fuel; nonchlorinated solvents, such as acetone and other ketones; wood-treating
wastes, such as creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP); some chlorinated aromatic compounds, such as
chlorobenzenes and biphenyls having fewer than five chlorine atoms per molecule; and some chlorinated
aliphatic compounds, such as trichloroethene (TCE).
-------
Table 3. Field Use of Three Types of Bioremediation Technologies
In Situ Bioremediaton of Soil
The Dover Air Force Base. Building 719 site in Dover. Delaware had groundwater contaminated with TCE,
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and cis-l,2-DCE. A field-scale cometabolic bioventing system was operated at the
site between May 1998 and July 1999. The primary objectives of the project were to determine the efficiency of
an in situ cometabolic bioventing process for chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons under field conditions. During
the 4-month period immediately prior to system startup, small amounts of propane were added directly to the soil
to drive the cometabolism of TCE and TCA. Concentrations of TCE, TCA, and DCE in the soil decreased to less
than 0.25 mg/kg for each contaminant during the 14-month period of operation. Increased levels of chloride (a
product of the biodegradation of chlorinated solvents) in the soil during this period showed mat the reduced
contaminant concentrations were a result of the cometabolic bioventing system. (FRTR 2001)
In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater
The Avco Lycoming Superfund site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania had groundwater contaminated with TCE,
DCE, VC, hexavalent chromium (Cr+6), and cadmium. Since January 1997, as part of a full-scale cleanup effort,
molasses has been injected directly into the groundwater to reductively dechlorinate (cometabolic and direct) the
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons and to reduce the groundwater concentrations of the cadmium and Cr+6 (the
chromium is not degraded as a result of the molasses injection; rather, it is reduced from Cr+6 to trivalent
chromium (Cr+3)). By July 1998, the use of molasses injection had created an anaerobic reactive zone, with
concentrations of TCE, DCE, and Cr+6 reduced to below their cleanup goals in many monitoring wells at the site
(cleanup goals are 6.5 (Jg/L, 30 ng/L, and 32 |ig/L, respectively). According to the technology vendor,
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, this technology saved substantial resources when compared to pump and treat.
(FRTR 2001)
Ex Situ Bioremediation of Soil and Sludge
The Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund site in Canton, Mississippi had soil and sludge contaminated with
PAHs. During a full-scale cleanup effort, a slurry-phase bioremediation system was operated from July 1991
until 1994. The average total PAH concentration was reduced from 8.545 to 634 mg/kg (below the cleanup goal
of 950 mg/kg). The average benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)-equivalent PAH concentration4 was reduced from 467 to
152 mg/kg (below the cleanup goal of 180 mg/kg). The data indicate mat the greatest reductions occurred during
the first 10 days of treatment and that after 19 days of treatment, the cleanup goal for total PAHs was met for 12
of the 13 batches. The initial and final concentrations are for the soil and sludge in the slurry phase, after passing
through the soil/sludge wash tank and the slurry mix tank. (FRTR 2001)
4 For the Southeastern Wood Preserving site, EPA used published toxicity-equivalent factors to calculate the B(a)P-
equivalent of the carcinogenic PAHs (Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene. Dibenzo(ah)anthracene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene). In calculating B(a)P-equivalent concentrations,
the concentration of each PAH is multiplied by a factor which is equal to its carcinogenicity relative to
benzo(a)pyrene. The resulting weighted concentrations are summed to calculate the B(a)P-equivalent carcinogenic
PAH value.
-------
3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS
AT SUPERFUND AND OTHER SITES
This section presents detailed information about the use of bioremediation to treat contaminated media for
104 Superfund remedial action projects (referred to as Superfund projects in this report; does not include
removal actions), along with summary information for other sites. The information presented includes
the specific types of bioremediation projects, trends in implementation of bioremediation, and remedy
changes under the Superfund remedial action program.
The 104 Superfund projects include bioremediation projects that have been completed or are operating,
and projects that are planned (projects where bioremediation has been selected as the remedy in the ROD
and are installed (but not operating) or in the predesign or design stage). Information about these projects
was obtained primarily from EPA's Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report,
Tenth Edition (EPA 2001). Appendix A to this report presents site-specific information about the 104
Superfund projects (including site name, location, year in which the ROD was signed, contaminants
treated, status of the project, and contact information) and is organized by type of remediation
technology.
3.1 TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS
This section summarizes information about the types of technologies, types of sites, contaminant groups,
and status of bioremediation projects at Superfund projects and other sites. This analysis includes in situ
and ex situ projects for source treatment and in situ projects for groundwater treatment.
Technology Types
Figure 3 (source treatment) and Table 4 (groundwater treatment) compare the number of Superfund
bioremediation projects with the number of Superfund projects using other treatment technologies. As
shown in Figure 3, 49 of the 425 ex situ projects for source treatment (12%) use bioremediation. Figure 3
also shows that 35 of the 314 in situ projects for source treatment (11%) use bioremediation. Table 4
shows that 20 of the 80 in situ projects for groundwater treatment (25%) use bioremediation.
Approximately 10% of sites treating groundwater are using in situ technologies, including
bioremediation. In addition, some ex situ (pump and treat) projects used bioremediation in their above-
ground treatment system. Information was not provided in the available sources about the number of ex
situ groundwater bioremediation projects and they are not discussed further in this report.
As shown in Figure 4, of the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects, 55 (53 percent) are in situ. In situ
projects include 35 for source treatment (24 for bioventing) and 20 for groundwater treatment (3
biosparging projects and 17 other projects, usually injection of amended groundwater).
Figure 4 also shows that 49 (47%) of the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects are for ex situ source
treatment. Land treatment is the most common of these, with 33 projects. Other ex situ source treatment
projects include composting, biopiles, and slurry-phase technologies.
As shown in Figure 5, between August 1991 and August 2000, the relative percentage of in situ
bioremediation projects at Superfund sites increased, and ex situ projects decreased correspondingly.5
~ The number of bioremediation projects in each year is cumulative, and represents all bioremediation projects
planned, implemented, or completed prior to mat year.
-------
Figure 3. Superfund Source Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58ฐ/<
Chemical Treatment (10) 1% ^^_^^_
Incineration (on-site) (42) 6%
Bioremediation (49) 7%
Thermal Desorption (61) 8%
Incineration (off-site) (94) 13%
Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19%
Other (ex-situ) (32) 4%
Neutralization (7)
Soil Washing (6)
Mechanical Soil Aeration (5)
Soil Vapor Extraction (5)
Solvent Extraction (4)
Open Burn/Open Detonation (2)
Vitrification (2)
Physical Separation (1)
In Situ Technologies (314) 42%
Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26%
In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization (46) 6%
In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5%
In S/fc/Soil Flushing (16) 2%
Other (in situ) (21)3%
Thermally Enhanced Recovery (6)
Chemical Treatment (5)
Phytoremediation (5)
Dual-Phase Extractioin (3)
Electrical Separation (1)
Vitrification (1)
Source: EPA 2001
Table 4. Superfund Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Technology
Number of Sites
Ex Situ Technologies
Pump and Treat
6381
In Situ Technologies2
Air Sparging
Bioremediation
Dual-Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Phytoremediation
Chemical Treatment
In-Well Air Stripping
48
20
10
8
4
2
2
Source: EPA 2001; EPA 2001 b
1 Number of Superfund remedial action sites that have signed RODs selecting a P&T remedy. Some sites may have
more than one P&T system.
2 Some sites use more than one in situ technology.
-------
Figure 4. Superfund Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Total Projects =104
() = Number of Projects
Ex Situ Source Treatment -
Land Treatment (33)
31%
In Situ Source Treatment -
Bioventing (24)
23%
In Situ Source Treatment -
Other(9)
9%
Ex Situ Source Treatment -
Composting (8)
8%
Ex Situ Source Treatment -
Biopile (3)
3%
Ex Situ Source Treatment -
Other(3)
3%
Ex Situ Source Treatment -
Slurry Phase (2)
2%
In Situ Groundwater -
Biosparging (3)
In Situ Source Treatment -
Slurry Phase Lagoon Aeration (2)
2%
Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year
1 Ex situ groundwater bioremediation treatments are not included in this figure.
2 Some sites may have more than one project.
3 Other in situ groundwater projects involved injection or recirculation of
amended groundwater, and cover both aerobic and anaerobic environments.
Source: EPA 2001 b
In Situ Groundwater -
Other (17)
16%
Figure 5. Relative Number of In Situ and Ex Situ Superfund Bioremediation Projects1
I)
'g*
c
0
n
ffl
ฃ
m 5ฐ'ฐ
"5
o
"o
S
65%
\
\^6%___J^_____5^
^^^---4f ^ ฃZ
~^
-------
Site Types
Figure 6 summarizes the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects by the type of facility or operation that
caused site contamination. The most common site types include wood-preserving (32 sites), followed by
petroleum sites (22 sites). The latter includes petroleum refining and reuse/petroleum, oil, and lubricant
(POL) lines.6
Figure 6. Superfund Site types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
Total Projects = 104
Wood Petroleum
Preserving Ref ning and
Reuse/
Petroleum,
Oil, and
Lubricant
(POL) Lines
Landfill/ Underground/ Pesticide Fire/Crash Munitions Surface Vehicle
Disposal Aboveground Manufacturing/ Training Manufactur ng/ Impoundment/ Maintenance
Area Storage Tank Use/Storage Area Storage Lagoon
Drum
Storage/
Disposal
Other Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing/
Use
Spill
Site Type
1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.
Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year
Source: EPA 2001 b
Contaminant Groups
Figure 7 presents data about the types of contaminant groups treated by bioremediation. The figure
shows mat bioremediation is used most frequently to treat nonchlorinated compounds at Superfund
projects, including non-chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs. Bioremediation was used less often to treat
chlorinated compounds, which are typically more difficult to biodegrade. Figure 8 presents the 14 most
common contaminants treated by bioremediation. As shown in Figure 8, benzene (32 projects),
pentachlorophenol (25 projects), and toluene (21 projects) are the most common contaminants treated by
bioremediation. Appendix A presents the site-specific contaminants at each of the 104 Superfund
bioremediation projects.
Table 5 presents data about the types of contaminant groups treated by a specific type of bioremediation
technology. Almost all the contaminant groups have been treated both in situ and ex situ by both source
treatment and eroundwater remediation technolosjies.
Sites cannot be listed on the NPL solely as a result of petroleum contaminants. These sites likely were listed
because they contain other hazardous contaminants.
10
-------
Figure 7. Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
n Number of Source Treatment Projects
Number of Groundwater Projects
Non-Chlorinated SVOCs
Non-Chlorinated VOCs
Chlorinated SVOCs
Abbreviations: BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; FY = fiscal year; PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile
organic compound; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.
Source: EPA 2001 b
Figure 8. Contaminants Most Frequently Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
25
ง
ฃ 20
10
32
Total Projects = 104
17
10
x Contaminant
1 Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.
Source: EPA 2001 b
11
-------
Table 5. Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Technology
Total
Number
of
Projects
CM
Other Non-Chlorinated
SVOCs1
X
Other Non-Chlorinated
VOCs2
01
;a
S
a
a
|3
0)
CM
Other Chlormated SVOCs3
Chlormated VOCs
Explosives/Propellants4
Ex Situ Source Treatment Technologies
Land Treatment
Composting
Biopile
Slurry Phase
Other
33
8
3
2
3
In Situ Source Treatment Technologies
Bioventing
Slurry -Phase Lagoon
Aeration
Other
24
2
9
In Situ Groundwater Technologies
Biosparging
Direct Injection or
Recirculation
3
17
Source: EPA 200Ib
Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound;
BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene. and xylenes; VOC = volatile organic compound
1 Does not include PALIs.
2 Does not include BTEX.
3 Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
4 In situ treatment of propellents has been implemented in several projects. However, the sites are not Superfund
remedial actions sites; therefore, they are not discussed in more detail in this figure.
- Contaminant was reported present at one or more sites treated using the technology shown; does not consider
effectiveness of technology.
Status
Table 6 presents a summary of the status of the Superfund bioremediation projects. The 104 Superfund
projects include completed and operating bioremediation projects, as well as projects in pre-design,
design, or installation stages. Most projects (57 percent) are operational. 26 percent are planned
(predesign/design and installed), and 17 percent are completed. Of the 18 completed projects, 14 are ex
situ projects compared to four in situ (source treatment and groundwater).
12
-------
Table 6. Project Status of Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites
(FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Type of Bioremediation
Technology
Ex Situ Source Treatment
In Situ Source Treatment
In Situ Groundwater
Total
Number of Projects (Percentage of Projects)
Predesign/
Design
10 (20%)
9 (26%)
4 (20%)
23 (22%)
Design Complete/
Being Installed
1 (2%)
3 (9%)
0 (0%)
4 (4%)
Operational
24 (49%)
20 (57%)
15 (75%)
59(57%)
Completed
14 (29%)
3 (9%)
1 (5%)
18 (17%)
Source: EPA 200Ib
Other Bioremediation Projects
Bioremediation also is being used at sites other than Superfund remedial action sites:
At Superfund removal action sites, information was available about 42 bioremediation projects.
Removal actions are short-term immediate actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances that require expedited response. Thirty-nine of the projects are operational (20
projects) or have been completed (19 projects). (EPA 2001)
Under the RCRA corrective action program and other federal programs, information was
available for 29 bioremediation projects. (EPA 2001, EPA 200Ib)
3.2
Under a U.S. Air Force initiative, information was available about bioventing at 45 Air Force
sites throughout the country. (Air Force 1996)
Under EPA's Underground Storage Tanks (UST) program, states estimated that bioremediation
was used at more than approximately 4,600 leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites, as of
FY 1997. (Tulis 1998)
REMEDY SELECTION
Information about remedy selection is based on planned, ongoing, and completed bioremediation projects.
(Cancelled bioremediation projects have been excluded from this analysis.) As shown in Figure 9, few
bioremediation RODs were signed in the early- to mid-1980s. The number of bioremediation RODs
increased beginning in FY 1988, except for two years (FY 1991 and FY 1997). In general, 8 to 12
bioremediation RODs have been signed per year.
Figure 10 shows that bioremediation RODs as a percentage of source control RODs has generally
increased between FY 1985 and FY 1999. Only two source control RODs were signed in FY 1984, with
bioremediation implemented at one.
13
-------
Figure 9. Number of RODs Signed for Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects at
Superfund Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Source: EPA 2001 b
1989 1990 1991 1992
Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed
1993 1994 1995
1997 1998
Figure 10. Bioremediation as a Percentage of Total Source Treatment RODs
(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
60% -
c
o
E
0)
S 40%"
ฃ
0
01
.ง> 30% -
Q
O
CE
M Of~|Q/
g ^O/o
01
(C
c
01
o -) no/
ป- U /o
0>
Q.
no/ ^
Total Projects = 87
,^*~^^^, /\
jpS^ ^"-i* / X.
/ \ /
L / \ 1
/ ^^^"^^ s \ /
^^\ / ^ป \ /
J* """" ^v / \ /
/^^ v V
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed
1 FY 1 982 - FY 1 984 not shown because of small number of source treatment RODs.
Source: EPA 2001 b
14
-------
Possible reasons for the increase in bioremediation as a selected remedy in RODs include:
An increase in the amount of data on full-scale bioremediation projects, including information
about cost and performance. Data on full-scale projects has increased in recent years. Six to ten
years ago, available information was limited primarily to research papers.
More bioremediation research and field demonstrations have been performed.
Widespread use of bioremediation in programs other than Superfund. As discussed earlier, the
Air Force has undertaken a bioventing initiative, and bioremediation is being used extensively at
leaking UST sites throughout the country. Use outside of Superfund provide additional data and
increases familiarity and expertise with bioremediation.
Remedy Changes
A remedy may change during the predesign or design phase of a project when new information about
characteristics of the site are discovered or when treatability studies for the selected technologies are
performed. The change can be documented through a second ROD, a ROD amendment, or an
Explanation of Significant Difference (BSD). In some cases, no decision document is necessary to
implement a change.
Figure 11 compares the number of bioremediation RODs originally signed with the number still planned
or already implemented, taking into account any remedy changes.
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Comparison of the Number of RODs for Selected Versus
Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
18 i
16
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed
- Implemented
-Selected
Source: EPA 2000, EPA 2001 b
15
-------
Between FY 1982 and 1995, some RODs changed to bioremediation from another remedy. However, in
most years, more RODs changed from bioremediation to another remedy than from another remedy to
bioremediation. The most frequent reasons cited by project managers for changing the bioremediation
remedy include (EPA 2001):
The volume of contaminated material was less than originally anticipated, and other alternatives
are more cost-effective.
Further characterization or investigation of the site after the ROD has been signed revealed that
site conditions have changed and bioremediation is no longer a suitable remedy.
A treatability study revealed that bioremediation is not capable of meeting the cleanup goals for
the site.
Table 7 presents two example projects in which the selected remedy was changed from another treatment
technology to bioremediation.
Table 7. Examples of Remedy Changes to Bioremediation
The Gulf Coast Vacuum Services site in Louisiana handled waste primarily associated from oil and
gas exploration until 1984, when the owners filed for bankruptcy. The soils and sludges at the site are
contaminated with benzene, toluene, mercury, lead, chromium, arsenic, barium, and numerous
organic compounds. EPA first selected on-site incineration as the remedy (September 1992). After
determining mat on-site incineration was not cost-effective, an amended ROD was signed for the site
on May 5, 1995 and included on-site land treatment of sludges and soils contaminated with organic
compounds and stabilization of soils contaminated with inorganic compounds.
The Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) site in Texas is a former petrochemical facility that
operated until the late 1970s. While the facility was in operation, waste oils were dumped into
unlined waste pits at the site. The principal contaminant in the soil and groundwater is benzene. The
original ROD for the site, signed on September 6, 1991, established air sparging and soil vapor
extraction as the selected remedies at the site. A 1998 ROD amendment for the site added in situ
bioremediation of the aquifer, bioventing, and slurry-phase soil bioremediation, as well as other non-
bioremediation technologies (thermally-enhanced soil vapor extraction, soil cap, pump and treat, and
monitored natural attenuation), as selected remedies for soil and groundwater. Over time, the air
sparging and soil vapor extraction systems had become less effective in removing contamination, and
other technologies were needed to meet cleanup goals.
16
-------
4.0 PERFORMANCE OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
For sites contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and BTEX, bioremediation of soil and
groundwater is generally considered to be a well-established technology compared to sites contaminated
with PAHs, chlorinated VOCs, pesticides and herbicides, and explosives, which are more recalcitrant
organic compounds. This section focuses on available performance information from projects where
bioremediation has been used to treat the less biodegradable compounds.
For these recalcitrant compounds, the contaminant reductions observed may not be attributed entirely to
bioremediation of the contaminant; instead, the reduction may be attributed in part to mixing of soils with
high contaminant concentrations with soils with lower concentrations.
PAHs
As shown in Figure 6, wood preserving sites are one of the most common site types treated by
bioremediation. Contaminants typically found at wood preserving sites include PAHs and PCP.
Consequently, a significant amount of data about treatment of PAHs using bioremediation is available,
specifically on treatment of 2-ring PAHs such as naphthalene, acenaphthylene, and acenaphthene; 3-ring
PAHs such as fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene; and 4- and 5-ring PAHs such as fluoranthene,
pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(ghi)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene.
Table 8 shows performance data that are available for bioremediation of PAHs at 7 ex situ source
treatment projects: 4 land treatment projects, 2 slurry-phase bioremediation projects, and 1 composting
project. Bioremediation reduced concentrations of PAHs from soil and sludges at all 7 projects. Cleanup
goals for PAHs were met for 3 of the 4 land treatment projects, where the goals ranged from 100 mg/kg to
8,632 mg/kg for total PAHs. At one project, the Burlington Northern Superfund site in Brainerd/Baxter,
Minnesota, the concentrations of total PAHs were reduced from as high as 70,633 mg/kg to less than 800
mg/kg (nearly 99% reduction). The one land treatment project that did not meet cleanup goals was a
demonstration project at the Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood
Pole Storage Area in Vancouver, Washington, where concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs were
reduced by nearly 90%, but did not meet the goal of 1 mg/kg.
For the one composting project, the cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg was met for total PAHs, with
concentrations reduced from as high as 367 mg/kg to less than 50 mg/kg (87%). Cleanup goals also were
met for the two slurry-phase projects, with one of the projects, Southeastern Wood Preserving, in Canton,
Mississippi, meeting cleanup goals of 950 mg/kg for total PAHs and 180 mg/kg for carcinogenic PAHs.
Chlorinated VOCs
Table 9 presents performance data for 13 bioremediation projects at sites contaminated with chlorinated
VOCs, such as TCE, PCE, DCE, VC, dichlorobenzene, and carbon tetrachloride. The 13 projects include
10 in situ groundwater projects, 1 in situ source treatment project, and 2 ex situ source treatment projects.
Bioremediation was successful in reducing concentrations of chlorinated VOCs or in meeting site cleanup
goals for groundwater, soil, sediments, and sludges at all 13 projects.
Most of the in situ groundwater projects were field demonstration and numerical cleanup goals were not
established. Two of the 10 in situ groundwater projects had numerical cleanup goals: the U.S. DOE
Savannah River Site, M Area, in South Carolina and the Avco Lycoming Superfund Site in Williamsport,
Pennsylvania. At the Savannah River Site, cleanup goals were met for PCE and TCE, with PCE
concentrations reduced from 124 micrograms per liter (|ag/L) to less than 5 |ag/L, and TCE concentrations
reduced from 1,031 pg/L to less than 5 |Jg/L. At the Avco Lycoming Superfund site, the concentration of
TCE was reduced from 67 |ag/L to 6.7 |ag/L (90%), but did not meet cleanup goal (5 |ag/L) in all wells.
17
-------
Table 8. Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs
Site Name
Media Treated
Technology
Additives
Contaminants
Treated
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
Comments
Land Treatment
Burlington
Northern
Superfund Site,
Brainerd/Baxter,
MN
Scott Lumber
Company
Superfund Site,
Alton, MO
Brown Wood
Preserving
Superfund Site,
Live Oak, FL
Bonneville Power
Administration
Ross Complex,
Operable Unit A,
Wood Pole
Storage Area.
Vancouver, WA
Soil and sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil
Land treatment
Land treatment
( two lifts of
soil)
Land treatment
(three lifts of
soil)
Land treatment
(and UV
oxidation)
(demonstration
project)
Lime, cow
manure
Nutrients
Not reported
Peroxide,
ethanol
Total PAHs
Other SVOCs
Total PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Total
carcinogenic
PAHs
High molecular
weight PAHs
PCP
33,982 - 70,633
mg/kg
Not reported
First lift: 560
mg/kg
Second lift: 700
mg/kg
First lift: 16
mg/kg
Second lift: 23
mg/kg
100 -208 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
62 mg/kg
608-795 mg/kg
Not reported
First lift: 130
mg/kg
Second lift: 155
mg/kg
First lift: 8 mg/kg
Second lift: 10
mg/kg
< 100 mg/kg
6.76-2 1.83 mg/kg
6.8 - 20.7 mg/kg
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goal of 8,632
mg/kg for total PAHs
met.
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goal for
other SVOCs not
met.
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goal of 500
mg/kg for total PAHs
met.
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goal of 14
mg/kg for
benzo(a)pyrene met.
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goal of 100
mg/kg for total
carcinogenic PAHs
met.
Full-scale cleanup;
cleanup goals of 1
mg/kg for high
molecular weight
PAHs and 8 mg/kg
for PCP not met for
all soil.
18
-------
Table 8. Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs (continued)
Site Name
Media Treated
Technology
Additives
Contaminants
Treated
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
Comments
Composting
Dubose Oil
Products Co.
Superfund Site.
Cantonment, FL
Soil
Composting
Not reported
VOCs
Total PAHs
PCP
0.022-38.27
mg/kg
0.578-367 mg/kg
0.058-51 mg/kg
Not reported
3.3-49.9 mg/kg
Not reported
Full-scale cleanup;
each batch of soil
treated to
concentrations that
met the cleanup goals
(includes total PAHs
at 50 mg/kg) within
14 to 30 days.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
French Limited
Superfund Site,
Crosby, TX
Southeastern
Wood Preserving
Superfund Site,
Canton, MS
Soil and sludge
Soil and sludge
Slurry-phase
bioremediation
Slurry-phase
bioremediation
Not reported
Not reported
VOCs
PCP
SVOCs
(including
PAHs)
Metals
PCBs
Total PAHs
Carcinogenic
PAHs
400 mg/kg
750 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg (for
an individual
contaminant)
5,000 mg/kg (for
an individual
contaminant)
616 mg/kg
8,545 mg/kg
467 mg/kg
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
< 23 mg/kg
< 23 mg/kg
(cleanup goal for
total PCBs)
634 mg/kg
152 mg/kg
Full-scale cleanup;
all cleanup goals
met. Cleanup goals
established for vinyl
chloride (43 mg/kg),
benzene (14 mg/kg),
benzo(a)pyrene (9
mg/kg), total PCBs
(23 mg/kg), and
arsenic (7 mg/kg).
Benzo(a)pyrene
reduced to 6.0 and
6.8 mg/kg in two
treatment cells.
Full-scale cleanup;
all cleanup goals
met, including total
PAHs of 950 mg/kg
and carcinogenic
PAHs of 180 mg/kg.
Abbreviations: PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, PCP = pentachlorophenol, SVOC = semivolatile organic compound, VOC = volatile organic compound
Source: FRTR2001
19
-------
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs
Site Name
Moffett Naval Air
Station, Mountain
View, CA
Edwards Air
Force Base, Site
19, CA
Hanford 200
West Area Site,
Richland, WA
Media Treated
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Technology
Additives
Contaminants
Treated
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
or Percent
Removal
Comments
In Situ Groundwater
Recirculating
cell (aerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell (aerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell (aerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell (aerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell
Methane
Phenol
Toluene
Toluene,
dissolved
oxygen,
hydrogen
peroxide
Acetate and
nitrate
TCE
1,1 -DCE
cis-DCE
trans-DCE
VC
TCE
1,1 -DCE
cis-DCE
trans-DCE
VC
TCE
1,1 -DCE
cis-DCE
trans-DCE
VC
TCE
CC14
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
1,000 Mg/L
2,000 |jg/L
19% removal
Not evaluated
43% removal
90% removal
95% removal
94% removal
54% removal
92% removal
73% removal
>98% removal
93% removal
Not evaluated
>98% removal
75% removal
Not evaluated
18-24 Mg/L
1,200 Mg/L
Field demonstration;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
Field demonstration;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
Final toluene
concentration at site
was 1.1 Mg/L.
Field demonstration;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
20
-------
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)
Site Name
Watertown, MA
Texas Gulf Coast
Site, Houston, TX
Abandoned
Manufacturing
Facility,
Emeryville, CA
Dover Air Force
Base, Area 6,
Dover, DE
Media Treated
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Technology
Recirculating
cell (anaerobic
conditions for
eight months,
then aerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell
Direct injection
Recirculating
cell (anaerobic
conditions)
Additives
Anaerobic -
lactic acid
Aerobic -
ORC and
methane
Methanol
Molasses
Sodium
lactate,
ammonia,
and
phosphate,
bioaugment-
ation
Contaminants
Treated
TCE
PCE
TCE
Cr+6
TCE
Cr+6
PCE
TCE
cis-DCE
VC
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
12,000 Mg/L
Not reported
50,000 Mg/L
Not reported
3,040 |jg/L
(average)
Not reported
46 Mg/L
7,500 Mg/L
2,000 Mg/L
34 Mg/L
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
or Percent
Removal
< 1,000 Mg/L
Not reported
5 Mg/L
Not reported
4 Mg/L (average)
99% removal
Not reported
Less than the
detection limit
Less than the
detection limit
Not reported
Comments
Field demonstration;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
Pilot- and full-scale;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
Pilot- and full-scale;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
Field demonstration;
numeric remedial
goals not established.
21
-------
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)
Site Name
Avco Lycomiiig
Superfuiid Site,
Williamsport, PA
U.S. DOE.
Pinellas Northeast
Site, Largo, FL
U.S. DOE,
Savannah River
Site. M Area, SC
Media Treated
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Technology
Direct injection
(anaerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell (anaerobic
conditions)
Recirculating
cell
Additives
Molasses
Benzoate,
lactate, and
methanol
Nitrogen,
phosphorus,
methane
Contaminants
Treated
TCE
Cr+6
Cadmium
TCE
Methylene
chloride
DCE
VC
TCE
PCE
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
67 Mg/L
1,950 Mg/L
800 Mg/L
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
10 to 1,031 Mg/L
3 to 124 |jg/L
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
or Percent
Removal
6.7 Mg/L
(treatment
ongoing)
10 Mg/L
(treatment
ongoing)
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
< 5 Mg/L
< 5 Mg/L
Comments
Pilot- and full-scale;
concentrations of
TCE reduced by
90%, but did not
meet cleanup goal (5
Mg/L) in all wells;
cleanup goal for Cr+6
(32 Mg/L) and
cadmium (3 Mg/L)
met in some wells
Demonstration; VOC
concentrations
reduced 60% -91%
within four to eight
weeks after nutrient
addition.
Field demonstration;
all cleanup goals at
the site met.
In Situ Source Treatment
U.S. DOE,
Savannah River
Site, M Area, SC
Soil and
sediment
Recirculating
cell
Nitrogen,
phosphorus,
methane
TCE
PCE
0.67 to 6.29
mg/kg
0.44 to 1.05
mg/kg
Not detected
Not detected
Field demonstration;
all cleanup goals at
the site met.
22
-------
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)
Site Name
Media Treated
Technology
Additives
Contaminants
Treated
Initial
Contaminant
Concentrations
Final
Contaminant
Concentrations
or Percent
Removal
Comments
Ex Situ Source Treatment
Dubose Oil
Products Co.
Superfund Site,
Cantonment. FL
French Limited
Superfund Site,
Crosby, TX
Soil
Soil and sludge
Composting
Slurry-phase
bioremediation
NA
NA
VOCs
(including
chlorinated
VOCs)
PAHs
PCP
VOCs
(including
chlorinated
VOCs)
PCP
SVOCs
Metals
PCBs
0.022 to 38.27
mg/kg
0.578 to 367
mg/kg
0.058 to 51 mg/kg
400 mg/kg
750 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg
6 1 6 mg/kg
Not reported
3.3 to 49.9 mg/kg
Not reported
Not. reported
Not reported
Not reported
< 23 mg/kg
< 23 mg/kg
(cleanup goal for
total PCBs)
Full-scale cleanup;
each batch of soil
treated to
concentrations that
met cleanup goals
within 14 to 30 days.
Full-scale cleanup;
all cleanup goals at
the site met. Cleanup
goals established for
vinyl chloride (43
mg/kg), benzene (14
mg/kg),
benzo(a)pyrene (9
mg/kg). total PCBs
(23 mg/kg), and
arsenic (7 mg/kg).
Abbreviations: CC14 = carbon tetrachloride, Cr+6 = hexavalent chromium, DCE = dichloroethene, PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, PCB =
polychlorinated biphenyl, PCE = tetrachloroethene, PCP = pentachlorophenol, SVOC = semivolatile organic compound, TCE = trichloroethene, VC = vinyl
chloride, VOC = volatile organic compound
Sources: EPA 2000; FRTR 2001; McCarty and others, 1998.
23
-------
Cleanup goals were met for the three source treatment bioremediation projects: the Savannah River Site,
M Area, in South Carolina; the Dubose Oil Products Company Superfund Site in Florida, and the French
Limited Superfund Site in Texas, with final concentrations of TCE and PCE reduced to non-detectable
levels at the Savannah River Site.
Pesticides and Herbicides
Table 10 presents performance data for four sites at which bioremediation was used to treat media
contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. At the Novartis site in Ontario, Canada, the concentration of
metolachlor was reduced by nearly 99% using a composting process. At the Navajo Indian Reservation
Superfund Removal site in Window Rock, Arizona, a slurry-phase process reduced the concentration of
toxaphene from 4,000 mg/kg to 180 mg/kg (95%). At the Stauffer Chemical Company site in Tampa,
Florida, soil contaminated with seven pesticides was treated using a registered composting process.
Cleanup goals were met for four of the seven contaminants, with concentrations reduced to less than 9
mg/kg for DDE and DDT, and to less than 1 mg/kg for dieldrin and molinate. The concentrations of
ODD and toxaphene were reduced by 90%> but they did not meet their cleanup goals of 12.6 mg/kg and
2.75 mg/kg, respectively. Chlordane was reduced by nearly 90% but also did not meet its cleanup goal of
2.3 mg/kg. At the Creotox Chemical Products Superfund Removal site in Tennessee, contaminant
concentrations in the soil for aldrin, BHC, and lindane did not decrease as a result of bioremediation (as
reported in the source), although no numerical data were provided about final concentrations for these
compounds. The waste subsequently was sent off site for disposal.
Table 10. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and
Herbicides
Site Name
Novartis Site,
Ontario Canada
Navajo Indian
Reservation
Superfund Removal
Site, Window Rock,
Arizona
Technology
Daramend, a
composting process
developed by the
W.R. Grace
Company
Anaerobic slurry-
phase
bioremediation
Contaminant
Metolachlor
Toxaphene
Initial Concentration
84 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
Final
Concentration
1 mg/kg
180 mg/kg
24
-------
Table 10. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and
Herbicides (continued)
Site Name
Stauffer Chemical
Company Site.
Tampa, Florida
Creotox Chemical
Products Superfund
Removal Site,
Tennessee
Technology
Xenorem, a
composting process
registered by
Stauffer
Management
Company
Not reported
Contaminant
Chlordane
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Molinate
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Aldriii
BHC
Lindane
Initial Concentration
Chlordane - 47.5 mg/kg
DDD -162, 5 mg/kg
DDE- 11. 3 mg/kg
DDT - 88.4 mg/kg
Dieldrin -3.1 mg/kg
Molinate - 10.2 mg/kg
Toxaphene - 469 mg/kg
596 mg/kg
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Final
Concentration
Cleanup goals met
for DDE -8. 91
mg/kg; DDT -8. 91
mg/kg; dieldrin -
0.19 mg/kg; and
molinate - 0.74
mg/kg; DDD and
toxaphene
concentrations
reduced by 90% but
did not meet
cleanup goals - 12.6
and 2.75 mg/kg,
respectively;
chlordane reduced
by nearly 90% but
did not meet
cleanup goal - 2,3
mg/kg
(at end of 64 day
demonstration)
77.3 mg/kg
No decrease
No decrease
No decrease
Abbreviations: DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, DDE =
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene, BHC = -benzene hexachloride
Source: Frazar 2000, FRTR 2001
Research efforts are underway to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation of soils and groundwater
contaminated with pesticides and herbicides, including research into techniques to minimize or eliminate
harmful by-products that sometime occur (for example, DDD and DDE by-products of DDT
biodegradation), and into ways to shorten the treatment time. A pilot test at 9 sites used white-rot fungus
treatment and cycling between aerobic and anaerobic phases to treat organochlorine pesticides in soil gas
(the same class of pesticides that were not treated successfully at the Creotox Chemical Products
Superfund removal site). Organophosphate pesticides, such as malathion and parathion, can be treated
successfully by composting, land treatment, and use of aerobic bioreactors. (Frazer 2000)
25
-------
Explosives
Bioremediation has been used to treat soils and groundwater contaminated with explosives, with varying
degrees of success. At Umatilla Army Depot in Oregon, composting was used successfully at full scale to
treat explosives in soil. Initial concentrations of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine
(RDX) were 88,000 ing/kg (5,250 mg/kg in the blended soil prior to treatment) and 1,900 mg/kg,
respectively. Concentrations of both contaminants after treatment were less than 30 mg/kg.
The U.S. Army recently completed a demonstration and evaluation of 5 innovative bioremediation
technologies on soils contaminated with explosive compounds. Soils excavated from Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant (JOAAP) were contaminated with TNT and N-methyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline (tetryl).
The initial average concentrations of TNT and tetryl in the soil were approximately 3,000 mg/kg and
7,500 mg/kg, respectively. Table 11 provides a description of the technologies used and the results of the
pilot-scale demonstrations. Results ranged from little or no removal of contaminants to almost complete
removal. For example, the pilot-scale project performed by Midwest Microbial achieved only a 31%
reduction of TNT and a 3% reduction of tetryl. In contrast, the pilot-scale project performed by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies achieved a 97% reduction of TNT and an almost 100% reduction of tetryl.
26
-------
Table 11. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Explosives
Technology Vendor
Midwest Microbial
Bioremediation
Technology Services
Institute of Gas
Technology
GRACE Bioremediation
Technologies
EarthFax Engineering
Technology Description
Soil was compacted and mixed with potato waste.
A blend of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and
microbial nutrients was sprayed onto the soil every
two weeks.
Soil was mixed with BTSฎ, a patented humic
substance that contains large numbers and
varieties of microorganisms.
Under anaerobic conditions, nutrient sources were
added to enhance the degrading abilities of die
indigenous microbes. Biological treatment was
followed by treatment with chemical oxidation
using Fenton's Reagent (hydrogen peroxide and
iron salt).
Powdered iron and DARAMENDฎ, an organic
amendment that alters the physical and chemical
properties of the waste to enhance biological
activity, were mixed with the soil. Conditions
cycled between aiioxic and oxic conditions during
remediation.
Substrate inoculated with white-rot fungus was
mixed with soil at a ratio of 4: 1 by volume.
Contaminant
TNT
Tetryl
TNT
Tetryl
TNT
Tetryl
TNT
Tetryl
TNT
Tetryl
Initial Concentration
3,000 mg/kg
7,500 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
7,500 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
7,500 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
7.500 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
7,500 mg/kg
Final Concentration
(Percent Removed)
2,070 mg/kg (31%)
7,275 mg/kg (3%)
3,000 mg/kg (0%)
2,700 mg/kg (64%)
480 mg/kg (84%)
(includes chemical
oxidation performance)
1,875 mg/kg (75%)
(includes chemical
oxidation performance)
90 mg/kg (97%)
Not detected ( 100%)
1,1 70 mg/kg (61%)
3,525 mg/kg (53%)
Abbreviations: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, Tetryl = N-methyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline, TNT = trinitrotoluene
Source: U.S. Army 2000
27
-------
5.0 COST OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Cost data for bioremediation projects at Superfund and other sites is limited. This section summarizes
available cost data for 22 bioremediation projects involving in situ and ex situ soil and in situ
groundwater, and for 45 bioventing projects from the Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year
2000 (EPA 2001 a).
Cost Data for 22 Projects Using In Situ Bioremediation (Soil and/or Groundwater) and Ex Situ
Bioremediation (Soil)
Table 12 summarizes the available cost data for the 22 bioremediation projects with fully-defined cost
data.7 The table includes information about project status, contaminants treated, start date, volume
treated, total cost, and unit cost. Thirteen of the projects (59 percent) are ex situ source treatment projects,
primarily land treatment. The remaining projects are in situ source treatment projects (14 percent) and in
situ groundwater projects (27 percent).
Total technology costs for the 22 bioremediation projects range from $48,700 for a project mainly
consisting of plowing and tilling 1,786 cy of soil at the Havre Air Force Station to $26,810,000 for slurry-
phase bioremediation of 300,000 cubic yards of soil and sludge at the French Limited Superfund site.
Unit costs ranged from $12.50/cy for a project mainly involving tilling 4,800 cy of soil at Glasgow Air
Force Base to $l,220/cy for extensive technology demonstration activities on 1,048 cy of soil at the
Bonneville Power Administration Superfund site. Projects where bioremediation was used to treat soil in
an ex situ treatment system, such as land treatment or composting systems, had unit costs ranging from
$13/cy to more than $500/cy, with most sites less than $300/cy.
Cost Data for 45 Bioventing Projects
Table 13 summarizes the available cost data for the 45 bioventing projects performed at multiple sites by
AFCEE, including total cost, volume treated, and unit cost. As Table 13 shows, total costs for the 45
AFCEE bioventing projects ranged from $37,500 at Randolph Air Force Base, TX, to treat 4,700 cubic
yards of soil, to $622,000 at McClellan Air Force Base, CA, to treat 53,200 cubic yards of soil. Unit
costs ranged from $1.36/cy at Davis Monthan, AZ, to treat 311,500 cubic yards of soil, to $333/cy at AFP
4, TX, to treat 1,800 cubic yards of soil.
Cost data for the bioventing projects were sufficient to perform a quantitative analysis of unit cost versus
quantity of soil treated (Figure 12). A reverse-exponential linear fit with a 68% confidence interval was
calculated and plotted on decimal and logarithmic scales. Economies of scale in unit cost were observed
for relatively large volumes of soil treated. Appendix B provides additional information about the
statistical analyses used to develop the cost curves.
7 "Fully-defined" cost data refers to projects where the costs directly related to the technology application were
distinct from the total cost for the remediation project and where data about quantity treated was available.
28
-------
Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Program
Status
Contaminants
Start
Year
Area
Cost
Factor
Technology
Cost (S)1
(Source)
Volume
Treated
(cy)
Unit
Cost
($/cy)
Comments
Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Land Treatment
Brown Wood
Preserving Superfimd
Site
Dubose Oil Products
Co. Superfimd Site
Fort Greely LIST Soil
Piles
Fort Wainwright,
North Post Site Soil
Remediation
Glasgow Air Force
Base UST Removal
Havre Air Force
Station, Remove
Abandoned USTs
Lowry AFB
Matagora Island Air
Force Base
Scott Lumber
Company Superfimd
Site
Urnatilla Army Depot
Activity (FS)
FL
FL
AK
AK
MT
MT
CO
TX
MO
OR
Superfimd
Superfund
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Superfimd
Other
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Ongoing
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
PAHs
BTEX, cVOCs,
Other SVOCs,
Other VOCs
BTEX. PHC
BTEX
PHC
BTEX
BTEX. PHC
BTEX
PAHs
Other SVOCs
1989
1993
1994
1993
1994
1992
1992
1992
1990
1994
0.87
0.87
1.60
1.60
1.14
1.14
1.03
0.82
0.96
1.15
635,000
4.990,000
749,000
433.000
60.000
48,700
130,000
77,600
6,580,000
5,260.000
8.100
13.137
9.800
4,240
4.800
1.786
5.400
500
10.641
10,969
78.4
380
76.4
102
12.5
27.3
24.1
155
618
479
Constructed lined treatment
system: moderate initial
contaminant concentrations
Composting treatment system
constructed in building, including
leachate collection, inoculant
generation, vacuum extractions,
and wastewater treatment
O&M only in summer months; no
liner
Activities included liner
construction, drainage, tilling,
and addition of nutrients
Application mainly consisted of
soil tilling
Application mainly consisted of
soil plowing and tilling
Conducted on plastic sheeting,
nutrients added once and aerated;
interim costs
Cost of entire project including
excavation, treatment, and
monitoring
Constructed lined treatment area,
irrigation and drainage system,
and addition of nutrient and
culture
Composting conducted in
building: one of first
biotreatments for soil
contaminated with explosives;
maintained high moisture content
29
-------
Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data (continued)
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Program
Status
Contaminants
Start
Year
Area
Cost
Factor
Technology
cost ($y
(Source)
Volume
Treated
(cy)
Unit
Cost
($/cy)
Comments
Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Slurry-Phase
French Limited
Superfund Site
Southeastern Wood
Preserving Superfund
Site, OU 1
TX
MS
Superfund
Superfund
FS Complete
FS Complete
cVOCs, Other
SVOCs, Other
VOCs, PAHs, PCBs
PAHs
1992
1991
0.82
0.87
26.810,000
2,550,000
300.000
10.500
89.4
243
Extremely large volume
Slurry-phase hioreactor system
constructed; high initial
contaminant concentrations:
extensive pretreatrnent
Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Solid-Phase
Bonneville Power
Administration
Superfund Site
WA
Superfund
FS Complete
PAHs, Other
SVOCs
1995
1.07
1,280.000
1,048
1.220
Included extensive technology
demonstration activities
In Situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Bioventing
Dover AFB, Area 6
Hill AFB. Site 280
Hill AFB. Site 914
Lowry AFB (in situ)
DE
UT
LIT
CO
Superfuud
Not
Specified
Other
Other
DS Complete
FS Ongoing
FS Complete
FS Complete
cVOCs, Heavy
metals
BTEX, PHC
BTEX, PHC
BTEX. PHC
1996
1990
1989
1992
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.03
551.000
271.000
863.000
75,300
1.667
NR
5.000
NR
331
NC
173
NC
Direct injection of air and
propane; cornetabolic aerobic;
pilot test
Interim costs
Early biovenling application;
combined with SVE
Interim costs: high initial
contaminant concentrations; used
horizontal trenches
In Situ Bioremediation (Groundwater)
Avco Lycorning
Superfund Site
Edwards AFB
Pinellas Northeast Site,
Anaerobic
Bioremediation
PA
CA
FL
Superfund
Superfuud
RCRA CA
FS Ongoing
DS Complete
DS Complete
cVOCs, Heavy
metals
cVOCs
cVOCs
1997
1995
1997
1.03
1.15
0.87
455,000
445.000
359,000
NR
1.5172
1.2382
NC
293
290
Direct injection of molasses;
anaerobic; air sparging, with SVE
Recirculation between two
aquifer systems: aerobic
Recirculation with addition of
benzoate, lactate, and methanol;
anaerobic; intended to
supplement active pump-and-
treat system
30
-------
Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data (continued)
Site Name
Texas Gulf Coast Site
Department of Energy,
Savannah River Site,
M Area Process
Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
State
TX
SC
Cleanup
Program
Other
Superfund
Status
FS Complete
DS Complete
Contaminants
cVOCs
cVOCs
Start
Year
1995
1992
Area
Cost
Factor
0.82
0.87
Technology
cost ($y
(Source)
630.000
729,000
Volume
Treated
(cy)
NR
NR
Unit
Cost
($/cy)
NC
NC
Comments
Recirculation with addition of
rnethanol; anaerobic; intended as
a precursor to monitored natural
attenuation
Direct injection of cornetabolites;
aerobic: SVE employing
horizontal wells
Notes and Cost Sources:
1 Technology costs for the selected sites were adjusted for the location of the site (location adjustment) and for the years in which costs were incurred (inflation adjustment).
Costs were adjusted for location by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an Area Cost Factor (ACF) Index published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in PAX
Newsletter No. 3.2.1, dated March 31, 1999 and available on the web at . The inflation factor used for this
analysis was based on the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News Record. The most current year that had an annual average inflation adjustment factor
available at the time of preparing this report was 1999. Costs were adjusted to 1999 dollar's by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an inflation adjustment factor
for the year in which the costs were incurred. For capital cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the actual year the costs were incurred was used. For
annual operating cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the median year of all year's over which the costs were incurred was used. The Cost Construction
Index is available at http://www.enr.com/cost/costcci.asp.
For in situ bioremediation (groundwater) applications, volume treated is the volume of aquifer material reported treated.
AFB Air- Force Base NR
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Other VOCs
Xylenes
CA Corrective Action OU
cVOCs Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds PAHs
DS Demonstration scale PCBs
FS Full scale PHC
NC Not calculated RCRA
Source: EPA 2001 a
Not reported
Other' Volatile Organic Compounds (for
example, ketones)
Operable Unit
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
LIST Underground Storage Tank
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds
cy Cubic yards
31
-------
Figure 12. U.S. Air Force Bioventing Applications: Unit Cost Versus Volume Treated
(68 % Confidence Interval)
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)
o
Log-Scale View
Volume of Soil Treated (yd )
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 45
bioventing projects are shown in the plots above. The line of best fit and confidence limits were calculated using linear
regression of the natural-log transformed data. The upper plot was prepared by back transformation of the log-transformed
data to show the line of best fit and confidence limits in original units. (The upper plot .shows projects under which less
than 80,000 cubic yards of soil were treated and the unit cost was less than $50 per cubic yard.)
2 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 80 percent.
4 Appendix B presents the methodology and other statistical information related to the plots above.
Source: EPA 2001a
32
-------
Table 13. U.S. Air Force Bioventing Projects
Site Name
McClellan AFB
AFP 4
Davis-Monthan
Vandenberg AFB
Fail-child AFB
Pease AFB
Hickam AFB
Plattsburgh AFB
Elinendorf AFB
Beale AFB
Offutt AFB
Hill AFB
Nellis AFB
K.I. Sawyer AFB
LA AFB
Edwards AFB
Patrick AFB
Cape Canaveral AFB
Kelly AFB
Cannon AFB
Charleston AFB
March AFB
Travis AFB
USCG Supp. Cen. Kodiak
Eglin AFB
Shaw AFB
Boiling AFB
Camp Pendeleton
Grissorn AFB
McGuire AFB
Rutland AFB
Malrnstrom AFB
Pope AFB
Westover AFB
Ft. Dram
Ellsworth AFB
Mt. Hope AFB
Little Rock AFB
Battle Creek ANGB
FE WaiTen AFB
Dyess AFB
Flanscom AFB
AFP PJKS
Tinker AFB
Randolph AFB
Site Location
California
Texas
Arizona
California
Washington
New Hampshire
Hawaii
New York
Alaska
California
Nebraska
Utah
Nevada
Michigan
California
California
Florida
Florida
Texas
New Mexico
South Carolina
California
California
Alaska
Florida
South Carolina
Washington DC
California
Indiana
New Jersey
New Mexico
Montana
North Carolina
Massachusetts
New York
South Dakota
Idaho
Arkansas
Michigan
Wyoming
Texas
Massachusetts
Colorado
Oklahoma
Texas
Ireatment
Volume (cy)
53.200
1.800
311.500
29,000
8.000
14,800
13.700
63.800
19.000
42.100
14,800
77.700
26,200
71.300
20.600
4.300
1.350
4.900
33.000
13,500
1.600
1,200
600
4.500
12.300
5.200
10,200
4.100
6,000
2.800
3.100
1.400
1.700
5.800
1.900
3,700
1.900
1,000
8.700
2.800
2.000
3.600
2,100
1.800
4,700
Total Cost1 ($)
622,000
599.000
423.000
380,000
310.000
293,000
270,000
255,000
237.000
232,000
219,000
207.000
181,000
179.000
176,000
168,000
146,000
131.000
130.000
128,000
120.000
113,000
112,000
110,000
105.000
104,000
99,000
97.900
87,400
82.400
77,500
71,900
69,600
69.200
68.800
68,000
58.700
55,500
53,600
53,000
49.000
48,500
47,600
41,500
37,500
Unit Cost
($/cy)
11.7
333
1.36
13.1
38.8
19.8
19.7
4.00
12.5
5.51
14.8
2.70
6.91
2.50
8.54
39.1
108
26.7
3.94
9.48
75.0
94.2
187
24.4
8.54
20.0
9.71
23.9
14.6
29.4
25.0
51.4
40.9
11.9
36.2
18.4
30.9
55.5
6.16
18.9
24.5
13.5
22.7
23.1
7.98
1 All reported costs were adjusted for site location, as described in the text.
Source: U.S. Air Force 1996
33
-------
6.0 VENDORS OF BIOREMEDIATION
Information about vendors of bioremediation technologies is available in the EPA REACH IT database.
As of August 2001, 175 vendors offered 344 types of bioremediation technologies, of which 294 were
full scale, 15 were pilot scale, and 12 were bench scale. Of the vendors identified, 17 were classified as
large businesses. The vendors provided information about 559 specific applications of their technologies,
of which 514 were full scale.
The number of bioremediation vendors submitting information to EPA has increased significantly over
the past 9 years. In 1992, EPA VISITT, the predecessor to EPA REACH IT, contained information about
30 bioremediation vendors. The larger number of bioremediation vendors in EPA REACHIT probably
results primarily from an increase in service providers, along with increased awareness of the REACHIT
database.
34
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
FRTR. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation (Volume 1). EPA-542-R-95-002, PB95-
182911. . March.
FRTR. 1997. Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation and Vitrification (Volume 5). EPA-542-R-97-
008, PB97-177554. . July.
FRTR. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent
Extraction, Thennal Desorption) (Volume 7). EPA-542-R-98-011. .
September.
FRTR. 2001. FRTR Cost and Performance Remediation Case Studies and Related Information. Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C.
EPA542-C-00-001. . August.
FRTR. 2001a. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 3.
.
Frazar, C. 2000. The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites.
.
McCarty, P.L. and others. 1998. "Full-scale evaluation of in situ cometabolic degradation of
trichloroethylene in groundwater through toluene injection." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 32. Pages 88-100. .
Tulis, D. and others. 1998. Study Points to New Trends in Use of Alternative Technologies at LUST sites:
Soil & Groundwater Cleanup. July.
U.S. Army. 2000. Multiple Biotechnology Demonstrations of Explosives-Contaminated Soils.
http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/et/restor/ecsoils.htm.
U.S. Air Force. 1996. Bioventing Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air Force Test Sites,
Technology Demonstration, Final Technical Memorandum. AFCEE Technology Transfer
Division, . June.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Bulletin In Situ Biodegradation Treatment. EPA-540-S-94-502. April.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents:
Fundamentals and Field Applications. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C. EPA 542-R-00-008. .
July.
U.S. EPA. 2001. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition).
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington,
D.C. . EPA 542-R-01-004. February.
U.S. EPA. 200la. Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C. EPA 542-R-01-009.
September.
35
-------
U.S. EPA. 2001b. REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT)
database (DRAFT). Database under preparation; will be available at
.
36
-------
8.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INFORMATION SOURCES
Additional information about selected sources of information about bioremediation are presented below:
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR) (Tenth Edition) -
This report documents the status of remediation technologies for soil, other solid wastes, and
groundwater at sites in the Superfund program. Information in the ASR is collected annually
from EPA and state project managers by EPA's Technology Innovation Office. The tenth edition
of the ASR, which includes data collected through Summer 2000, was published in 2001 at
.
EPA's REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT)
online database - EPA REACH IT contains site-specific
technology data from the ASR, and vendor-supplied information about innovative treatment and
characterization technologies. Information includes technology descriptions, performance, and
cost, The database is searchable by key words.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) cost and performance reports - The
FRTR has prepared over 270 cost and performance reports that present available information for
full-scale remediation efforts and large-scale demonstration projects. They describe a wide
variety of above-ground and in situ cleanup technologies, along with a variety of contaminants
treated. The reports describe actual clean up projects, and contain project information on site
background and setting, waste source, contaminants and media treated, technology design and
operation, performance, cost, regulatory requirements, points of contact, and lessons learned.
Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals
and Field Applications - This report provides an overview of the fundamentals and field
applications of in situ bioremediation to remediate chlorinated solvents in contaminated soil and
groundwater and 9 case studies of chlorinated solvent cleanup. This report is available at
.
Multiple Biotechnology Demonstrations of Explosives-Contaminated Soils - This document
presents the cost and performance results of five innovative laboratory- and pilot-scale
bioremediation projects performed on explosives-contaminated soils at Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant (JOAAP). The document is available on the United States Army web site at
.
The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites - This report was
prepared for EPA by Chris Frazar, a National Network of Environmental Studies (NNEMS)
Fellow. The report provides a summary of bioremediation and phytoremediation technologies for
treatment of pesticide-contaminated media. This report is available at .
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000 - This report wasprepared by EPA to
provide information about costs of the following remediation technologies: bioremediation,
thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, on-site incineration, groundwater pump and treat, and
permeable reactive barriers. It is available at .
37
-------
Some of these sources (e.g., ASR, FRTR reports, and Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation
of Chlorinated Solvents) can be ordered free of charge from the National Service Center for
Environmental Pollution (NSCEP) by telephone at (513) 489-8190, by facsimile at (513) 489-8695, or on
line at . NSCEP also can be contacted in writing at:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
38
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation)
Contact Name
Ex Situ Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites)
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
Atlantic Wood Industry - OU 1
Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown - OU 2
Naval Weapons Station -
Yorktown OU 13
Tonolli Coip
Beufield Industries
Brown Wood Preserving
Burlington Northern Railroad
Tie Treating Plant
Galesburg/Koppers
Jennisou Wright Corporation.
Inc.
Joslyn Manufacturing and
Supply Co.
Ritari Post And Pole - OU 1
Atchison, Topeka. & Santa Fe
Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - TPH
Lake Sediments
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services -
OU 1
VA
VA
VA
PA
NC
FL
MN
FL
FL
MN
MN
NM
LA
1995
1999
1999
1999
1995
1988
1986
1989
1999
1989
1994
1988
1995
2,3.7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins
(TCDD)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)
2.4.6-Trinitrotolueue (TNT)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH)
Creosote
Creosote
Creosote
Phenol
Creosote
PCP
Phenol
TCDD
Benzene
Beiizo(a)a[ithracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Carbazole
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Indenod ,2. 3-cd Ipyrene
Naphthalene
PCP
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Naphthalene
PCP
PCP
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Predesign/Design
Operational
Operational
Predesign/Desigu
Operational
Completed
Completed
Operational
Predesign/Desigu
Completed
Predesign/Desigu
Completed
Operational
Ronnie M. Davis
EPA
(215) 814-3230
Robert W. Stroud
EPA
(410) 305-2748
Robert W. Stroud
EPA
(410) 305-2748
John Banks
EPA
(215)814-3214
.Ton Bornholm
EPA - Regiou 4
(404) 562-8820
Randall Chaffins
EPA
(404) 562-8929
Linda Kern
EPA
(312)886-7341
Fred Nika
Illinois EPA
(217) 782-3983
Fred Nika
Illinois EPA
(217)782-3983
David Douglas
Minnesota Pollution
Control Authority
(651) 296-7818
Miriam Horneff
Minnesota Pollution
Control Authority
(651)296-7228
Petra Sanchez
EPA
(214)665-6686
Kathleen Aisling
EPA
(214) 665-8509
A-l
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
Ex Sihi Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites, continued)
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
North Cavalcade Street
Oklahoma Refining Co. -
Hazardous Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Co. -
Nonhazardous Landfill
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Popile
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Vogel Paint & Wax
Broderick Wood Products -
OU 2 (Soils)
Burlington Northern (Somers
Plant)
Idaho Pole Company
Libby Groundwater
Contamination
Montana Pole and Treating
Plant
Wasatch Chemical
TX
OK
OK
LA
AR
NM
IA
CO
MT
MT
MT
MT
UT
1988
1992
1992
1984
1993
1992
1989
1992
1989
1996
1989
1993
1991
Creosote
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
Ethylbeuzene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Creosote
PCP
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Toluene
Xylene
Toluene
Xyleue
PCP
Creosote
Phenol
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chryseue
PCP
Phenol
Benzene
Creosote
PCP
Anthracene
Naphthalene
PCP
Pyrene
Toluene
Xyleue
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Predesign/Desigu
Completed
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Completed
Dan Switek
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation
Commission
(512) 239-4132
Earl Hendrick
EPA
(214)665-8519
Earl Hendrick
EPA
(214)665-8519
Tom Stafford
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
(504) 765-0487
Shawn Ghose
EPA
(214) 665-6782
Gregory Lyssy
EPA
(214)665-8317
Bob Drustrup
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources
(515) 281-8900
Armando Saenz
EPA
(303) 312-6559
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150, ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150. ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150, ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150. ext. 260
Erna Waterman
EPA
(303) 312-6762
A-2
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
Ex Sihi Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites, continued)
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
Fort Ord - Fort Orel Soil
Treatment Area (Fdsta), OU 4
Luke AFB - OU 2/Dp23
Mather AFB - Soil and
Ground water OU. Mather Soils
Biofarm
Mather AFB - OU 04
Bonueville Power
Administration - OU A
Elmendorf AFB - OU 5
Pacific Car and Foundry
CA
AZ
CA
CA
WA
AK
WA
1994
1994
1996
1998
1993
1995
1992
Benzene
Diesel fuel
Ethylbenzeue
Gasoline
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Toluene
Xylene
Beuzo(a)pyrene
Benzene
Diesel fuel
Ethylbenzene
Gasoline
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Toluene
Xylene
Petroleum-related solvents
Creosote
PCP
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
TPH
Completed
Completed
Operational
Operational
Completed
Operational
Completed
John Chesnutt
EPA
(415) 744-2324
Sean liogan
EPA
(415) 744-2384
Debbie Lowe
EPA
(415) 744-2206
Debbie Lowe
EPA
(415) 744-2206
Nancy Haruey
EPA
(206) 553-6635
Kevin Oates
EPA
(907) 271-6323
Lynda Priddy
EPA
(206)553-1987
Ex Situ Source Treatment - Composting (8 sites)
4
4
4
5
5
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
- OU 3 & 4. Industrial Soil
Stauffer Chemical Company
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
Soil and Groundwater (LAP)
OU
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
Soil and Groundwater-MFG
OU
FL
TN
FL
IL
IL
1990
1996
1996
1999
1999
1.1-Dichloroethene (DCE)
Acenaphthylene
Benzene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
PCP
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Xyleue
TNT
1.3.5-trinitro-1.3.5-triazine
(RDX)
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Organochlorine pesticides
TNT
Dinitrotoluene
RDX
Tetryl
Trinitrobenzene (TNB)
TNT
Completed
Operational
Design
Completed/Being
Installed
Operational
Operational
Mark File
EPA
(404) 562-8927
Peter Dao
EPA
(404) 562-8508
Brad Jackson
EPA
(404) 562-8925
Diana Mally
EPA
(312) 886-7275
Diana Mally
EPA
(312) 886-7275
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
Ex Sihi Source Treatment - Composting (8 sites, continued)
10
10
10
U.S. Naval Submarine Base -
OU 6 Site D & OU 2 Site F
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Umatilla Chemical Depot
(Lagoons) - Soil OU
WA
OR
OR
1994
1992
1992
TNT
Cyclotetramethylene
tetranitramine (HMX)
RDX
TNT
HMX
RDX
TNT
HMX
RDX
Operational
Completed
Completed
Craig Thompson
Washington Department
of Ecology
(360) 407-7234
Harry D. Craig
EPA
(503) 326-3689
Harry D. Craig
EPA
(503) 326-3689
Ex Sittt Source Treatment - Biopile (3 sites)
4
5
9
Stauffer Chemical (Cold Creek
Plant) - OU 2
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell
Lumber and Pole -OU-1
Jasco Chemical Co.
AL
MN
CA
1995
1999
1992
Butylate
Cycolate
Molina te
Pebulate
Thiocarbonate
Vemolate
PCP
PAHs
1. 1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Operational
Predesign/Design
Completed
Michael Arnett
EPA
(404) 562-8921
Darryl Owens
EPA
(312) 886-7089
Ellen Manges
EPA
(415) 744-2228
Ex Situ Source Treatment - Slurry Phase (2 sites)
4
6
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Sheridan Disposal Services -
Source Lagoon OU
FL
TX
1990
1989
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
PCP
Phenanthrene
Benzene
Grease
Oil
Phenol
Toluene
Predesign/Design
Predesigu/Design
Maher Budeir
EPA
(404) 562-8917
Gary A. Baumgarteu
EPA
(214) 665-6749
Ex Sim Source Treatment - Other (3 sites)
3
3
4
Naval Weapons Station -
Yorktown - OU 03
Standard Chlorine Of
Delaware. Inc.
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
(Montgomery - OU 02)
VA
DE
AL
1998
1995
1998
Not reported
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Not reported
Operational
Predesigu/Design
Predesign/Desigu
Robert W. Stroud
EPA
(410) 305-2748
Hilary Thornton
EPA"
(215) 814-3323
Brian Farrier
EPA
(404) 562-8952
In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites)
1
Loriug AFB - OU 9, Auto
Hobby Shop Area
ME
1995
Diesel fuel
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Solvents
Operational
Mike Nalipiuski
EPA
(617)918-1268
A-4
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites, continued)
2
3
3
5
5
6
6
8
9
9
9
9
9
Naval Air Engineering Center -
Site 16 Under Area C
Delaware Sand & Gravel
Landfill - OU 4 and OU 5
Dover AFB - Target Area 3 of
Area 6
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Penta Wood Products - OU 01
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. -
OU2
Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek
and Building 3001
Broderick Wood Products -
OU 2 (Ground-water)
George AFB - OU 3 FT19a
George AFB - OU 3 OT51
J.H. Baxter- Area B
Mather AFB - OU 04 (site
18,23 & 59)
Tracy Defense Depot (U.S.
Army) -OU 01
NJ
DE
DE
WI
Wl
TX
OK
CO
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
1996
1993
1995
1990
1998
1998
1990
1992
1999
1999
1998
1998
1998
2-Methylnaphthalene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
1 ,2-dichloroethane
Benzene
bis-2-chloroelhyl ether
Methylene Chloride
DCE
1 ,2-Dichloroacetic acid
(DCA)
Tetrachloroetheue (PCE)
TCE
Naphthalene
Toluene
PCP
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
TCE
PCP
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
Toluene
TPH
TCE
Xylene
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
Toluene
TPH
Xylene
Not reported
Diesel fuel
Gasoline
VOCs
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Operational
Operational
Design
Completed/Being
Installed
Completed
Predesign/Design
Predesign/Desigu
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Predesign/Design
Predesign/Design
Paul Ingrisano
EPA
(212) 637-4337
Philip Rotstein
EPA
(215) 814-3232
Darius Ostrauskas
EPA
(215) 814-3360
Tim Prendiville
EPA
(312) 886-5122
Anthony Rutter
EPA
(312) 886-8961
Chris Villarreal
EPA
(214) 665-6758
Hal Cantwell
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
(405) 702-5100
Armando Saenz
EPA
(303) 312-6559
James Chang
EPA
(415) 744-2158
James Chang
EPA
(415) 744-2158
Beatriz Bofill
EPA
(415) 744-2235
Debbie Lowe
EPA
(415) 744-2206
Michael Work
EPA
(415) 744-2392
A-5
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites, continued)
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Williams AFB - OU 3
Eielson AFB - OU 1 (Power
Plant)
Eielson AFB - OU 1
(Refueling Loop)
Eielson AFB - OU 2 (Fuel
Area)
Eielson AFB - OU 3
(Refueling Loop USTs)
Elmeudorf AFB - OU 4
Fairchild AFB - Priority 1 OUs
(OU 2) Ft-1
Fairchild AFB - Priority 2
Sites, OU 3, Sub Area Ps-1
Naval Air Station Whidbey
Island - Ault Field, OU 5,
Areas 1,31, and 52
Union Pacific Railroad Tie
Treatment - Vadose Zone Soils
AZ
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
WA
WA
WA
OR
1996
1994
1992
1994
1994
1995
1993
1996
1996
1996
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
JP-4 fuel
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
JP-4 fuel
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
Chrysene
Diesel fuel
Ethylbenzeue
JP-4 fuel
Naphthalene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
Chlorobeuzene
Chloromethaue
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
TPH
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
JP-4 fuel
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Diesel fuel
Gasoline
JP-4 fuel
Benzene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Solvents
Benzene
Ethylbenzeue
Toluene
TPH
Xylene
Chrysene
Creosote
Naphthalene
PCP
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Predesign/Design
Sean Hogau
EPA
(415) 744-2384
Mary Jane Nearman
EPA
(206) 553-6642
Mary Jane Nearman
EPA
(206) 553-6642
Mary Jane Nearman
EPA
(206) 553-6642
Mary Jane Nearman
EPA
(206) 553-6642
Kevin Gates
EPA
(907) 271-6323
Ali Raad
Washington Department
of Ecology
(360) 407-7181
Ali Raad
Washington Department
of Ecology
(360) 407-7181
Nancy Harney
EPA
(206) 553-6635
Brian McClure
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
(541)298-7255. ext. 32
In Situ Source Treatment - Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration (2 sites)
6
French Limited
TX
1988
1 . 1 -Dichloroe tha ne
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCP
PAHs
Polychloriuated bipheuyls
(PCBs)
Volatile chlorinated organics
VOCs
Completed
Ernest R. Frauke
EPA
(214) 665-8521
A-6
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
In Sihi Source Treatment - Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration (2 sites, continued)
7
Pester Refinery Co. - OU 1 .
Burn Pond Site
KS
1992
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Operational
Catherine Barrett
EPA
(913)551-7704
In Sitti Source Treatment - Other (9 sites)
2
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
9
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter
Co., N.I
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Helena Chemical Company
(Tampa Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston
Plant) - OU 01
Peak Oil/Bay Drum - OU 1
Seymour Recycling Corp.
American Creosote Works,
Inc. - Winnfield Plant
(Groundwater)
Peoples Natural Gas
J.H. Baxter
NJ
FL
FL
SC
FL
IN
LA
IA
CA
1994
1990
1996
1998
1993
1987
1993
1991
1998
Bis(2-elhylhexyl)phthalate
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Creosote
PCP
Pheuanthrene
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroetha
ne (ODD)
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroetha
ne (DDT)
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Toxapheue
Not reported
Benzo(a)authracene
Ethylbenzeue
Naphthalene
Pyrene
PCE
Xylene
Halogenated volatiles
Non-halogenated
semivolatiles
Creosote
PCP
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Toluene
PCP
Operational
(aerobic)
Predesign/Design
Predesign/Design
Design
Completed/Being
Installed
Predesign/Desigu
(aerobic)
Completed
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Predesigu/Design
(aerobic)
Design
(aerobic)
Completed /Being
Installed
Gweu Zervas
New Jersey Department
of Environmental
Protection
(609) 633-7261
Maher Budeir
EPA
(404) 562-8917
Brad Jackson
EPA
(404) 562-8925
Craig Zeller
EPA
(404) 562-8827
Caroline Robinson
EPA
(404) 562-8930
Jeffrey Gore
EPA
(312) 886-6552
John Meyer
EPA
(214) 665-6742
Diana Engeman
EPA
(913)551-7746
Beatriz Bofill
EPA
(415) 744-2235
In Situ Groimdwater - Biosparging (3 sites)
5
Fisher-Calo
IN
1990
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Naphthalene
Operational
Jeffrey Gore
EPA "
(312)886-6552
A-7
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
In Situ Groimdwater - Biosparging (3 sites, continued)
5
6
Wayne Waste Oil
Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek
and Building 3001
IN
OK
1990
1990
DCE
Benzene
PCE
Toluene
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Petroleum hydrocarbons
TCE
Operational
Operational
Jeffrey Gore
EPA
(312) 886-6552
Hal Cautwell
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
(405)702-5100
//( Situ Grouiidwater - Other (17 sites)
1
2
2
2
3
3
Hocomonco Pond - ESD
FAA Technical Center - OU 1,
Area D - Jet Fuel Farm
Naval Air' Engineering Station
Areas I and J Grouiidwater OU
26
Shore Realty (formerly
Applied Environmental
Services) - Groundwater OU
Avco Lycoming
Dover AFB - Target Area 2 of
Area 6
MA
NJ
NJ
NY
PA
DE
1985
1989
1999
1991
1997
1995
Benzene
Creosote
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
VOCs
Xyleue
Benzene
JP-4 fuel
Naphthalene
Toluene
1.1,1 -Trichloroe tha ne
1, 1-Dichloroe thane
1 . 1 -Dichloroethe ne
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
PCE
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Ethylbeiizene
Toluene
Xylene
Chromium
1 . 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroetheue
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylbenzeue
PCE
Toluene
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Xyleue
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(anaerobic)
Predesign/Desigu
(anaerobic)
Derrick Golden
EPA
(617) 918-1448
Julio Vazquez
EPA
(212) 637-4323
Paul Ingrisano
EPA
(212)637-4337
Maria Jon
EPA
(212) 637-3967
Jill Lowe
EPA
(215) 814-3123
Darius Ostrauskas
EPA
(215) 814-3360
A-8
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
Region
Site Name
State
ROD
Year
Contaminants Treated
Project Status1
(type of
bioremediation )
Contact Name
In Situ Groundwater - Other (17 sites, continued)
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
9
American Creosote Works,
Inc. - OU 2, Phase 2
Kummer Sanitary Landfill -
OU 3 - Amendment
American Creosote Works,
Inc. (Winnfield Plant)
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. -
OU2
Popile
Ace Services
Burlington Northern (Somers
Plant) - Groundwater
Idaho Pole Company
Libby Groundwater
Contamination
Montana Pole and Treating
Plant - Groundwater OU
Koppers - Oroville Plant
FL
MN
LA
TX
AR
KS
MT
MT
MT
MT
CA
1994
1996
1993
1998
1993
1999
1989
1992
1989
1993
1999
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyreue
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chryseue
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
PCP
Phenanthrene
PAHs
Pyrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethei-
Methane
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Creosote
PCP
Benzene
Ethylbeuzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xyleue
Creosote
Chromium
Creosote
Phenol
Anthracene
Beuzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
PCP
Phenol
Benzene
Creosote
PCP
Anthracene
Naphthalene
PCP
Pyrene
Creosote
PCP
Predesign/Design
(aerobic)
Completed
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Predesign/Design
Predesign/Design
(anaerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Operational
(aerobic)
Mark File
EPA
(404) 562-8927
Gladys Beard
EPA"
(312) 886-7253
John Meyer
EPA
(214) 665-6742
Chris Villarreal
EPA
(214) 665-6758
Shawn Ghose
EPA
(214) 665-6782
Bob Stewart
EPA
(913)551-7654
.Tames C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150. ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150, ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150, ext. 260
James C. Harris
EPA
(406)441-1150. ext. 260
Charles Berrey
EPA
(415) 744-2223
A-9
-------
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial
Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)
1 The project status listed in this table is the project status as of Summer 2000.
Abbreviations: DCA = 1,2-dichloroacetic acid: DCE = dichloroethene: DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane; DDT =
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HMX = cyclotetrarnethylene tetranitrarnine; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCS =
polychlorinated biphenyl; PCE = tetrachloroethene; PCP = pentachlorophenol; RDX = l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine; TCDD =
2,3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxins; TCE = trichloroethene; TNB = trinitrobenzene; TNT = 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; TPH = total
petroleum hydrocarbons: VOC = volatile organic compounds
Source: EPA 2001
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
Additional Information about Development of Cost Curves for U.S. Air Force Bioventing
Applications
The following approach was used in developing the cost curves for the cost compendium (EPA 200la).
1. Both independent and dependent variables for each set of data (for example, volume of soil
treated and unit cost, respectively) were transformed to their corresponding natural log values.
2. A linear best fit of the log-transformed data was determined. A statistical summary of the fit,
including the coefficient of determination (r), provided a measure of how well the data fit the
model, was prepared.
3. Residuals from the linear fit using the log-transformed data were examined to determine if they
were distributed normally. The Shapiro-Wilk W test (goodness-of-fit test), in which the null
hypothesis (Ho) is that the data are distributed normally, was used in that examination. If the
probability of obtaining a value less man the value calculated using the W test (probability W)
was less than 0.05, Ho was accepted, and it is concluded that the residuals were distributed
normally.
4. Individual predicted values, along with two sigma (95-percent) and one-sigma (68-percent) upper
and lower confidence limits were calculated from the linear model (log-transformed scale).
5. The values then were plotted on a linear X-Y scale, and a subset of the plot enlarged to show
clearly the smaller quantities of material treated. That step provided the decimal-scale view of
the cost curves.
6. To portray the data in a linear manner, the predicted values were plotted on a Iog10-log10 scale, to
provide the log-scale view of the plot.
The approach was developed on the basis of the cost data for bio venting applications. The coefficient of
variation for the linear fit of the log-transformed data was 0.80, meaning that 80 percent of the variability
in the data is explained by the model. Exhibits B-l and B-2 present the log-scale view of the plot and
detailed statistics used to develop the cost curves, respectively.
B-l
-------
Exhibit B-l. AFCEE Bioventing Applications - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
u
p
Log Scale View
10,000
Volume of Soil Treated(yd')
Notes:
1 The above plot shows a solid line based on a best fit of available data for 45 bioventing applications, and dashed lines for
the upper and lower confidence intervals, using 95 percent and 68 percent degrees of confidence.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location, as described in the text.
The coefficient of determination is 80 percent.
Source: EPA 2001 a
B-2
-------
Exhibit B-2. Detailed Statistics Used to Develop the AFCEE Cost Curves
Linear Fit
log(Cost/CY) = 8.9310144 - 0.7002108 log(CY)
| Summary of Fit |
RSquare 0.799508
RSquare Adj 0.794845
Root Mean Square Error 0.494289
Mean of Response 2.760522
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 45
| Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 18372.596
Root Mean Square Error 20.670503
RSquare 0.6044654
Sum of Residuals 194.95537
| Analysis of Variance
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
43
44
41 .894246
10.505814
52.400060
41 .8942
0.2443
F Ratio
171.4720
Prob > F
<.0001
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
log(CY)
Estimate
8.9310144
-0.70021 1
Std Error
0.476946
0.053473
t Ratio
18.73
-13.09
Prob>ltl
<.0001
<.0001
1UU
80 -
"ra 60 ~
^ 40 -
0)
DC 20 -
.
.
[.
V
75000
150000
225000
300000
CY
Residual
1.0
0.5
-0.5
-1.0
6
f
.--"
"
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
log(CY)
| Distributions
| Residuals log(Cost/CY)
I
i
' " ' ./f ' .10-
./ ''
' ' .01-
'
. D2D
, . . ( i
1 ' t ^ * ''
^HT.TtTVn
r3 -s i | Quantiles |
t 100.0%
-2 ~ 99.5%
S 97.5%
= : 90.0%
"' S 75.0%
E : 50.0%
-0 * 25.0%
i 10.0%
2.5%
"~1 . 0.5%
: 0.0%
maximum 1.0791
1.0791
1 .0500
0.7424
quartile 0.31 31
median -0.0931
quartile -0.3259
-0.5663
-1.0529
-1.0932
minimum -1 .0932
Moments
Mean
Std Dev
Std Err Mean
upper 95% Mean
lower 95% Mean
N
Sum Wgts
Sum
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
CV
-l.Se-15
0.4886394
0.0728421
0.146803
-0.146803
45
45
-6.6e-14
0.2387685
0.2063083
-0.25874
-3.31e+16
; fGoodness-of-Fit Test |
-5 a
Shapiro-Wilk W Test
W Prob
-------
LU
0)
CO
Z>
0> ฐ>
II
1ฐ
ซฃ
3= 0)
O Q-
CD
cr
^
LO
<
Q.
LLJ
-------
O)
------- |