U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Office of Research
and Development
EPA/540/2-91/018 No.3 AUGUST 1991
BMWMM
IN THE FIELD
An information update on applying bioremediation to site clean-up.
UPDATE ON THE
BIOREMEDIATION
FIELD INITIATIVE
The Bioremediation Field Initiative was established to provide
EPA and State Project Managers, consulting engineers and indus-
try with timely information regarding new developments in the
application of bioremediation at hazardous waste sites. The
initiative will fully evaluate the performance of selected full-scale
field applications, provide technical assistance toRPMs andOSCs,
and develop a treatability database to be available through the
AlternativeTreatmentTechnolQgiesMormationCentia-(ArnC).
Six sites have currently been selected for field evaluation of
bioremediation: LibbySuperfundSite,Libby,Nfontana; ParkCity
Pipeline Spill,ParkCity, Kansas; MiedSignalSuperfundSite.Sl
Joseph, Michigan; Kelson Air Force Base, Alaska; Hill Air Force
Base, Utah; and Brookhaven Superfund Site, Brookhaven, MS.
A work plan for the field evaluation of the Libby Site has been
agreed upon by EPA, Utah State University and the Responsible
Party for the Libby Site and the evaluation is currently in process.
See page two for an update on current evaluation activities.
Asite characterization has been completed at theParkCity Pipeline
Site in support of thedesign of the field evaluation. Start-up of field
evaluation activities is anticipated by late summer.
A work plan for the Allied Signal Site is currently in preparation.
Two AirForce sites havebeenrecently added to the bioremediation
field evaluations, thanks to the Air Force's interest in and support of
innovative remediation technologies. The two sites involve
bioventing projects of JP-4 jet fuel and will be evaluated by EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. An
update on plans for these two sites is provided in the following
article.
A work plan is being finalized for the Brookhaven site, with start-
up scheduled for September 15.
Other bioremediation sites are still being screened as candidates for
field evaluation.
f i '\ [-1 VU'v'W''"'-1-'- ' '
'
TWO JET FUEL
CLEANUP
EVALUATIONS UNDER
BIOREMEDIATION
FIELD INITIATIVE
Two in-situ bioremediation projects, cooperative ventures
with the U.S. Air Force, were begun in July 1991 under the
supervision of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. Both projects involve the
bioremediation of JP-4 jet fuel contaminated soil. One
project, taking place at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) near
Fairbanks, Alaska, involves JP-4 cleanup of a shallow (5-7
ft) vadose zone in an extremely cold climate. The other
project involves JP-4 contamination extending to a depth of
nearly 100 ft below the surface at Hill AFB, just north of Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Bioventing is a process of injecting air into contaminated soil
at rates low enough to increase soil oxygen concentrations
and stimulate enhanced indigenous microbial activity without
inducing surface release of volatile emissions. Previous
work conducted by the Air Force at Hill and Tyndall AFBs
indicated that bioventing can be an effective technique for
bioremediating the hydrocarbons introduced to soil in jet fuel
spills. A conceptual layout of a low-intensity bioventing
installation is shown below.
Low rate air
injection
Surface monitoring
to assure no
emissions
\/
Monitoring of soil
gas to assure vapor
biodegradation
Biodegradalion
ofvapors
of Low Intensity Bioventing
• -...
- ; i.;ckicn uci: ,.«rdf lah floor
C,.:caSo,iL 60604-3590
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Page 2
BIOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
Bioventing is being utilized at both Eielson and Hill AFBs as
the remediation technology. At Eielson, a one acre contami-
nated area has been roughly divided into thirds as shown
below. The Air Force will conduct bio venting investigations
at ambient temperatures (i.e., no soil warming) in one of the
segments and with passive solar warming via the use of
insulation tarps in a second segment In the third segment,
EPA will sponsor a study to actively increase soil tempera-
ture to enhance bioremediation rates. The temperature will
be elevated by circulating ground water through an electric
heater and then reapplying the heated water below the
ground surface to the contaminated vadose zone.
Bioremediation performance will be compared over time
between the two forms of soil warming and the non-warmed
control plot. The three segments have been isolated from
each other with insulated vapor barriers. It is anticipated that
active soil warming on the EPA project component will be
able to increase annual average soil temperature from -2°C to
20°C.
Joint EPA/Air Force Bioremediation
At Eielson AFB
/Insulated Vapor Barrier
EPA Active
Heating __
Approximate Extent of
Contamination
Force Passive
Solar Warming
e
AirYorce O
*b Control _
®0 «P
• 9
•
Injection/Withdrawal Well
QGround Water Monitoring Well
OSoil Gas Monitoring Points
At Hill AFB, a bioventing operation was begun in January
1991 on JP-4 contaminated soil. EPA has installed addi-
tional wells (July 1991) to monitor bioremediation perfor-
mance over time in different parts of the contaminated zone.
EPA will evaluate performance at three different air injec-
tion flow rates. A major task of the joint project is to
effectively monitor bioremediation performances over the
entire 100-ft depth of the contaminated vadose zone.
In addition to periodic analysis of soil boring samples,
cleanup progress at the two sites will be monitored using a
variety of routine soil gas analyses, in-situ respiration tests,
and tracer tests. Both projects are scheduled to run through
September 1993. Annual progress reports will permit peri-
odic presentation of interim results in this bulletin and other
technology information documents. For further informa-
tion, contact Dick Brenner at (513) 569-7657, or FTS 684-
7657
RSKERL EVALUATES
BIOREMEDIATION AT
LIBBY SUPERFUND SITE
The Champion International Superfund Site in Libby,
Montana (Libby Site) is being evaluated as part of the
bioremediation field initiative by the Robert S. Kerr Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL). Champion
International agreed to cooperate with the RSKERL in car-
rying out the proposed performance evaluation studies for
the three types of biological treatment processes in operation
at the site. The RSKERL entered into an agreement with
Utah State University (USU) under a subcontract with
Dynamac Corporation, on-site support contractor for
RSKERL's Subsurface Fate and Transport Technology
Support Center, to carry out the project under the direction of
Dr. Ronald C. Sims, Director of the Environmental Engi-
neering Program at USU.
Implementation of the bioremediation field evaluation project
at the Libby Site involves two phases of activities. Phase I,
which is nearing completion, involves: 1) summarizing pre-
vious/current site bioremediation activities; 2) identifying
critical site characterization and treatment parameters im-
portant to evaluation of performance of each of the three
biological treatment units; 3) evaluating field performance
based on available design, operational and monitoring in-
formation; and 4) designing a Phase II study plan, including
a sampling/analytical plan required to supplement currently
available information. Phase II, which recently has been
initiated, involves implementing a field evaluation study
designed to fill information gaps identified in Phase I.
The Libby Site performance evaluation project addresses
three distinct biological treatment processes: 1) surface soil
bioremediation in a lined, prepared-bed land treatment unit
(LTU); 2) oil-water separation of extracted ground water
preceding aqueous phase treatment in an above-ground,
fixed-film bioreactor; and 3) in situ bioremediation of the
upper aquifer. Each treatment process is being addressed
with regard to design, operational, monitoring and perfor-
mance activities.
Two types of wood treating processes were used at the Libby
Site: penta (pentachlorophenol in a fuel oil carrier) and
creosote. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the
major contaminants of concern, are generally associated
with the soil phase, primarily through the process of adsorp-
tion. Contaminated soils from three primary source areas
-------
BIOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
PageS
(tank farm, butt dip and waste pit) have been excavated and
moved to one central location (waste pit). These soils are
pretreated in the waste pit area, then further treated in the
LTU. Planned activities associated with the field initiative
arc: 1) statistical sampling of the LTU, 2) field scale treat-
ment kinetics, 3) toxicity reduction, 4) clean-up levels
achieved, 5) influence of moisture and soil structure, and 6)
mass balance of contaminants by soil and leachate.
Statistical sampling has begun with a field visit on May 6
and 7 by USU to collect samples from the two lifts that were
applied in the Land Treatment Unit (LTU) in 1990. Five
hundred milliliter soil samples were collected at 32 loca-
tions from 0-9 inches in depth and 9-18 inches in depth.
A new lift was applied on May 8 and 32 additional samples
were collected from this new lift. The lifts were resampled
on June 27 at three depths at the 32 locations. Additional
samples will be taken until temperature changes begin to
limit the amount of biotic activity.
The upper aquifer above-ground treatment unit provides for
separation of LNAPL and DNAPL from extracted ground
water and for subsequent biological treatment via the fixed
film reactors that will be operated in series. The first reactor
is for roughing purposes while the second is for polishing
and reoxygenation of the effluent prior to reinjection through
the infiltration gallery. Planned activities include: 1) flow
composited sampling, 2) evaluation and prediction of reactor
performance, 3) analysis of biofilm dynamics, 4) mass
balance of contaminants, and 5) treatment optimization.
The in-situ bioremediation system involves addition of
hydrogen peroxide and inorganic nutrients to stimulate
growth of contaminant-specific microbes. Planned activi-
ties include: 1) dissolved oxygen profiles, 2) aquifer material
sampling to distinguish abiotic and biotic effects, 3) dissolved
oxygen uptake evaluation and correlation to the rate of
biodegadation, and 4) toxicity reduction.
For further information contact Bert Bledsoe or John
BIOREMEDIATION USED
TO TREAT COAST
GUARD AVIATION FUEL
SPILLS
The efficacy and relative costs of three distinctly different
approaches for bioremediation of fuel spills have been evalu-
ated at a U.S. Coast Guard Air Station in Traverse City,
Michigan. The water table aquifer underlying the Air Station
is in a medium grained sand. The ground water is relatively
hard, the pH is near neutral and the water is cold (10 to 12°C).
Two large plumes emanate from an aviation gasoline spill
and a jet fuel spill. The plumes are captured by a purge well
field, treated through activated carbon, then discharged to a
sanitary sewer.
A portion of the spill of aviation gasoline was remediated
using conventional practice with hydrogen peroxide, a por-
tion of the spill of JP-4 jet fuel was remediated using an
innovative technology that supplied nitrate as an electron
acceptor for microbial metabolism, and another portion of
the aviation gasoline spill was remediated through bioventing.
In the peroxide demonstration, ground water was amended with
500 to 1000 mg/L hydrogen peroxide, 380 mg/L ammonium
chloride, 100 mg/L disodium phosphate, and!90 mg/L potassium
phosphate.
Table 1
Comparison of Performance Evaluations for In-Situ Bioremediation of Fuel Spills, Traverse City, MI
SIZE OF DEMONSTRATION
Cubic meters of contaminated earth
in demonstration area
Liters of fuel in demonstration area
Hydrogen Peroxide
For Aviation Gasoline
200
3,200
REMEDIATION ACCOMPLISHED
Benzene in ground water
Residual Fuel
Vapor Emissions
Time Expended
<0.1 ug/L
>700 mg/kg
60% removed
<10ug/L
18 months
Nitrate
For JP-4
Jet Fuel
235
2,500
<0.1 ug/L
>2, 700 mg/kg
25% removed
<10ug/L
6 months
Bioventing
For Aviation
gasoline
354
83
<5ug/L
>1,000 mg/kg
60% removed
<1 ug/L
4 months
-------
Page 4
BIOREMEDIATION IN THE FIELD
Ground water in the nitrate demonstration was amended with
44 mg/L nitrate, 20 mg/L ammonium chloride, 10 mg/L
disodium phosphate, and 10 mg/L potassium phosphate.
Bioventing was applied to an area of the aviation gasoline spill
where mostof the fuel was trapped in the capillary fringe above
the water table. Two configurations were evaluated. In the
simplest configuration, air was simply injected across the fuel
contaminated interval. In the second configuration, air was
injected across the contaminated interval, recovered in a sec-
ond pipe, then reinjected at mid depth in the unsaturated zone.
The rate of injection allowed 8 to 24 hours residence in the
unsaturated zone before the air was vented to the atmosphere.
All three technologies successfully reduced the concentration
of carcinogenic alkylbenzenes in ground water below Federal
Drinking Water Standards (Table 1), and air emissions from
the demonstrations were acceptable, however none of the
technologies reached Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Standards
(eg., 10 to 100 mg/kg) commonly required for underground
storage tank cleanups.
Contrary to the general perception, bioremediation was ex-
pensive at this particular site (Table 2), although bioventing
is very cost competitive compared to the other techniques.
The demonstration will continue until December 1991, and
the Coast Guard plans to go to full scale with a system of
hybrid wells that can be used to deliver nitrate and peroxide
when the water table is high, and used for bioventing when the
water table is low. This design is due to the seasonal variability
of the depth to the water table. There is a reasonable chance
that bioventing with the hybrid system will reduce total
petroleum hydrocarbons below 100 mg/kg by the end of the
project period.
For further information contact John Wilson at FTS: 743-2259
or (405)-332-8800
Cost
Table 2
Comparison for In-situ Bioremediation of Fuel
Hydrogen Peroxide
Spills, Traverse
Nitrate
City, MI.
Bioventing
(Total Costs, S per cubic meter of contaminated earth)
Construction*
Labor/ Monitoring
Chemicals
Electricity
Total
45.0
72.0
500.0
24.0
641.0
118.0
96.0
300
12.0
256.0
26.0
40.0
0.44
6.8
73.0
(Operating Costs, $ per cubic meter per month)
Labor Monitoring
Chemicals
Electricity
Monthly Total
4.0
28.0
1.3
33.0
9.6
3.0
1.2
14.0
10.0
0.1
1.7
12.0
* Prorated to a five year service life on buildings, pumps, and blowers.
Figures for bioventing only reflect the first four months of an ongoing demonstration.
Use of a No Migration
Petition for Land Disposal
Prohibitions at the Libby
Superfund Site
The U.S. EPA, Region VIII, Montana Operations Office
approved a No Migration Variance to the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) in October 1990. The petition applies to the Land
Treatment Unit (LTU) located on the Champion International
property in Libby, Montana. The LTU is part of the selected
remedial action for the contaminated soil at the Libby
Groundwater Superfund Site.
A remedial action was selected for the Libby Superfund Site in
a December 1988 ROD. The response action for contaminated
soils includes excavation and placement of soils into a lined
land treatment unit. Treatment consists of enhanced biodeg-
radation of the contaminants and the treatment unit will act as
the final disposition location. The selected remedy stated that
a federal requirement, the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(40 CFR Part 268 and RCRA Section 3004 (d), (e), and (g)),
must be complied with during the cleanup activities.
According to EPA LDRs for First Third Scheduled Wastes,
land disposal of RCRA K001 wastes is prohibited after August
8,1988, unless certain maximum concentration levels are met
-------
BlOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
Pages
prior to land disposal. Because bottom sediment sludge
from treatment of waste water from wood preserving pro-
cesses containing creosote and/or pentachlorophenol are
present at the waste pit area at Libby, and these are considered
K001 wastes, this restriction is considered applicable to
Libby, after August 8, 1990 (40 CFR Section 268.33 (c)).
Field tests of the remedy for soils treatment show that
contaminants are above the maximum concentration limits,
but can be reduced to below best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) concentrations for all currently regulated
K001 compounds, after the land disposal and treatment.
Placement of contaminated soils into the land treatment unit
will occur after the August 8,1990 deadline, and therefore
land disposal restrictions are applicable for the Libby site. A
No Migration Variance is a formal decision that can be
rendered by EPA to allow the land disposal at a particular
facility of specific, prohibited wastes not meeting the
treatment standards established by EPA. The statutory
language requires anyone pursuing a No Migration Variance
to demonstrate "to a reasonable degree of certainty that there
will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous." EPA codified this language on November
7,1986 (40 CFR 268.6). EPA has interpreted the slatutory
language to mean that it must be demonstrated, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that hazardous constituents will not
exceed Agency-approved human health-based levels (or
environmentally protective levels, if they are appropriate)
beyond the boundary of the disposal unit.
EPA anticipated the need for No Migration Variance and
approved construction of a Land Treatment Demonstration
Unit (LTDU), April 1989, to assess the possibility of migra-
tion of contaminants from the unit during the treatment
processes. The LTDU was operated above an engineered
liner and leachate collection system and an evaluation was
conducted of air, soil, surface water, leachate and groundwa-
ter. The data collected were analyzed and presented to EPA
by the PRP in the No Migration Variance Report.
According to current agency policy, CERCLA review and
approval of No Migration Variances is conducted by the
Regional offices. Site information to demonstrate no migra-
tion of contaminants from the unit boundary was presented
to EPA in a draft petition February 1990. The petition was
reviewed by EPA, Montana Operations Office, Superfund
Branch, EPA's oversight contractor, and the Montana De-
partment of Health and Environmental Services. Meetings
were held with Champion International and written com-
ments were provided. A revised Final Petition and a written
response to comments were submitted to EPA September
1990. In addition to the review process, EPA announced its
intention to grant a No Migration Variance with a 30 day
public comment period. Final approval for the petition was
given by the Regional Administrator October 1990
Use of the No Migration Variance was an effective means
for meeting the RCRA LDRs for a land treatment unit using
bioremediation. The factors which contributed to the suc-
cess of the approval of the petition included anticipation of
the need for a variance in the ROD, use of a demonstration
unit to collect data to assess whether migration of contami-
nants would occur, and open dialogue and review between
the PRP and EPA.
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
PERMITTING FOR
BIOREMEDIATION
UNDER TSCA
EPA's PCB disposal permitting program began with the
passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in
1976. TSCA Section 6(e) required that PCBs be disposed of
and that the disposal be approved by EPA officials.
Although a TSCA permit can be issued for bioremediation
as an alternative technology to incineration, crafting a com-
mercial operating permit for a bioremediation process pre-
sents a substantial challenge. In order to write a permit for
bioremediation as an alternate disposal method, EPA must
make the finding that the process not only destroys PCBs,
but produces no toxic by-products or toxic emissions, and
that any microorganisms used as inoculum pose no unrea-
sonable risk to human health or the environment.
In the original PCB disposal regulations, EPA Regional
Administrators were given sole authority to approve PCB
disposal facilities. Since 1983,PCBdisposalapprovalshave
been issued by each of the ten Regions and by Headquarters.
The Regions enforce compliance by companies whether
TSCA approvals are issued by Headquarters or by the
Region. Headquarters permits are valid anywhere in the
United States, and most are for disposal technology alter-
natives to incineration that involve destruction of PCBs in
transformer oils and in other oils.
EPA issues two types of PCB disposal permits, the Com-
mercial Operating permit and the Research and Develop-
ment (R&D) permit. If a technology is relatively new(e.g.,
bioremediation), and has never been used to destroy hazard-
ous wastes, a company may be asked to apply for an R&D
permit to obtain data of known quality to properly evaluate
the technology. Regional R&D permits, under the PCB
regulations, involve small scale laboratory research on less
than 500 pounds of material. Headquarters permits involve
research on more than 500 pounds of material.
Applying for a PCB disposal permit is a multi-step process.
The permit application must contain a complete and accept-
able written description of the permitted activities. This
includes: the material to be treated; the concentration of
PCBs in the material; the location of the activities; the
-------
Page6
BIOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
equipment operators; parties responsible for operations; and
the closure plan.
The length of time from permit application to permit issuance
should take less than one year, but varies with the permitting
authority. When the permitting authority is EPA Headquar-
ters, a draft PCB disposal permit is written as soon as the
permit application is acceptable. The length of time from
permit application to draft permit can take from three to six
months. The time from draft to issuance depends on condi-
tions at the location of activities.
At the time of this writing, 16 permits had been issued under
TSCA by both the EPA Regions and EPA Headquarters for
the bioremediation of PCBs. All permits, except one, were
forR&D.
Six of the current TSCA R&D permits were issued by EPA
Headquarters for pilot scale and in-situ research on
bioremediation of PCBs in soils and sediments. Research on
in-situ remediation of PCBs in river sediments is of particular
interest because it neatly solves many problems, both eco-
nomic and aesthetic, associated with dredging and incinera-
tion. On May 14,1991, General Electric (GE) was granted
an R&D development approval by EPA Headquarters to
conduct R&D on bioremediation of PCBs in-situ in sedi-
ments in the upper Hudson River in Saratoga County, New
York. On July 23,1990, an R&D permit was issued to GE by
EPA Headquarters for a similar in-situ facility to be located
in Woods Pond, Massachusetts on the Housatonic River.
While the design of both facilities is similar, the factors
affecting anaerobic degradation of PCBs in river sediments
will be studied in the Woods Pond facility, and the factors
affecting aerobic degradation of PCBs in river sediments will
be studied in the Hudson River facility.
In addition, EPA Headquarters has issued four other TSCA
bioremediation permits. In May of 1991, Texas Eastern was
granted approval to conduct R&D on a pilot scale on a
biodegradation process to treat soils containing PCBs at a
compressor station site at St. Francisville, LA. In 1988, the
first Headquarters R&D permit was issued to Safetec, an
Australian Company, to remediate PCBs in soil with white
rot fungus at a Richfield, Utah site.
Other Headquarters TSCA R&D permits were issued to
International Technologies Corporation, for a process that
uses UV light and bioremediation to clean-up PCBs in soils,
and to GE, for use of a bioreactor to treat PCBs in soils and
sediments. Except for Safetec (now Pacificorp), all
bioremediation processes permitted from EPA Headquarters
are in the initial stages, and none have yet produced any
conclusive data. While bioremediation shows greatpromise,
it has yet to be demonstrated that it can be used successfully
on a large scale for remediation of PCBs in the environment.
For further information on bioremediation of PCBs or on
PCB Disposal Permitting, contact Joan Blake FTS 382-6236
or (202) 382-6236.
TREAT ABILITY EXCLUSION AND
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PERMITS
UNDER RCRA
EPA's RCRA permitting program provides different oppor-
tunities to do treatability studies pertaining to biotechnology.
The regulated activities range from bench scale studies to
pilot scale treatability demonstrations.
The Treatability Exclusion Rule (40 CFR 261.4(e)) was
promulgated on July 19, 1988, as a RCRA exemption for
small scale treatability studies (53 FR 27290). The rule
allows for the generation or collection of samples and stan-
dards for treatability studies for 1 kg of acute hazardous
waste, 250 kg of soils, water or debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste, and 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous
wastes. A request for an additional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste and 250 kg of soils, water or debris contami-
nated with acute hazardous waste and 1 kg of acute hazardous
waste may be granted by the Regional Administrator or State
Director (in an authorized State). For the purpose of
treatability studies, neither the RCRA regulatory require-
ments pertaining to listing, generating and transporting haz-
ardous waste (40 CFR Parts 261 through 263), nor the
notification requirements of Section 3010, are required.
However, the transportation of each sample shipment must
comply with U. S. Department of Transportation, U. S.
Postal Service, or any other applicable shipping require-
ments. Facilities must comply with recordkeeping require-
ments and the Agency or State may conduct inspections. The
laboratory or testing facility conducting the treatability study
must have an EPA ID Number. No more than 250 kg of an
"as received" hazardous waste can be subjected to initiation
of treatment in all treatability studies conducted in a single
day. Unused samples and residues from a treatability study
must still be managed as a hazardous waste.
The Treatability Exclusion Rule can be implemented by the
Regions in those States that do not have final RCRA autho-
rization. In a RCRA authorized State, this regulation will not
be applicable until the State revises its program to adopt
equivalent regulations under State law and is granted autho-
rization by EPA. Asof Augustl, 1991,fourStates have been
granted treatability exclusion authorization: Connecticut,
Georgia, Mississippi and Ohio. Minnesota is pending final
authorization with an Immediate Final Rule Federal Register
Notice.
RCRA Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D)
Permits (40 CFR 270. 65) can apply to a pilot scale study.
Since these regulations are optional, States are not required
to become authorized for them, however, RD&D permits can
be issued by a Region in an unauthorized consenting State.
This RD &D permit may require dual administrative permit
procedures for both a Federal and State permit.
The RCRA RD&D permits were created to develop and
demonstrate treatment technologies, and were not intended to
-------
BlOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
Page?
treat or cleanup a whole unit RD&D permits may be issued
by the Regional Administrator or State Director (in an
authorized State). For the purpose of expediting review and
issuance of RD&D permits, the Regional Administrator may
modify or waive permit applications and permit issuance
requirements; however, statutory requirements and regula-
tions pertaining to procedures regarding public participation
and financial responsibility (including insurance) may not
be waived or modified, and may be costly and time consum-
ing to implement.
The RD&D permit provides for the construction of the
facility and its operation for no longer than one year unless
the permit is renewed. A permit may not be renewed more
than three times. The one year time frame pertains to the
days of operation. Therefore, if a facility is in operation for
seven days in a month, only the seven days and not a month
are accrued to the total days of operation.
As of August 1,1991, thirteen states have been authorized
for RD&D permitting authority: Colorado, Connecticut,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, North Da-
kota, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas and
Utah.
Subpart X ("Miscellaneous Units," 40 CFR 264.600) pro-
vides another avenue for issuing RCRA permits to the
diverse universe of innovative technologies. The preamble
to the Subpart X regulations (52 FR 46961) describes this
policy and discusses acceptable SubpartX permitting options
for a multi-stage demonstration project, where the outcome
of one stage may radically change the subsequent stage, as
is common in testing an innovative technology. Subpart X,
therefore, can be used as a complement to the RD&D permit
program. As of August 1,1991,8 States have been autho-
rized for SubpartX permitting authority: Colorado, Georgia,
Minnesota,Mississippi.NewMexico.North Carolina,Ohio
and Oklahoma.
Treatability variances may be granted to a facility for which
the Land Disposal Restrictions' Best Demonstrated Avail-
able Technologies standards (BOAT standards were based
on data from the treatment of industrial process wastes) for
that waste can not be achieved. Recently, the authority to
grant a presumptive site specific treatability variance for
contaminated soils and debris has been delegated to the
Region. These variances may prove to be extremely useful
in implementing bioremediation activities in the RCRA
Corrective Action Program.
In the Corrective Action Program, the facility and EPA, in
collaboration with the State, can implement a variance for
onsite demonstrations through two mechanisms: Temporary
authorization under the Permit Modification Rule, or 3008(h)
orders for interim-status facilities.
Temporary authorizations may be granted for up to 180 days
to initiate or complete certain activities, such as corrective
actions and closures. These activities must conform with the
applicable waste management regulations. The facility must
notify the public within seven days of making the request.
A facility may renew a temporary authorization only by requesting
a permit modification. There would be either a public hearing or
public meeting, in addition to a public comment period.
Section 3008(h) of RCRA allows EPA to issue an order requiring
corrective action at an interim status facility where there is evidence
of a release of hazardous waste or constituent into the environment.
For further information, contact Michael Forlini, TIO, (703) 308-
8825 or FTS 398-8825
EPA Bioremediation Publications
The Federal Technology Transfer Act: Opportunities for
Cooperative Biosystems Research and Development with the
US.EPA(CER1-90-114)
A Field Evaluation of Bioremediation of a Fuel Spill Using
Hydrogen Peroxide (NTISPB88-130257)
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste (EPA/600y9-90/041)
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soil (NTIS PB90-
164047)
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a
Supplemental Source of Oxygen (NTIS PB90-183435).
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals
During LandTreatment of Oily Wastes :Ritz User's Guide
(NTISPB88-195540)
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage
Tanks (NTIS PB89-219976)
MicrobialDecomposition ofChlorinatedAromatic Compounds
(EPA/600/S2-90/018)
RemovalqfVolatileAliphaticHydrocarbonsinaSoilBioreactor
(NTISPB88-170568)
Transformation of Halogenaled Aliphatic Compounds
(NTIS PB88-249859)
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guide Book for Citizens
(EPA 540/2-91/002)
For EPA documents call (513) 569-7562 or FTS 684-7562
For NTIS documents call 1-800-553-6847
Bioremediation Field Initiative Contact
Fran Kremer, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7346
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Baird & McGuire*
HoIbrook,MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Charles George Landfill*
Tinsboro.MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Charlestown Navy Yard*,
Boston NHP National
Park Service Boiton, MA
CERCLA State Lead
Coakley Landfill**
North Hampton, NH
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
OtBeral Electric (Wood!
P<*W*
Pins field, MA
RCRALrad (Federal
G«er*l Electric*
Pitt.field.MA
•reCA Lead (Federal)
Hraihcm Standard
Waa»t Io*k», CT
RCRALoad
Iron Horse Park*
Billerica, M A
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Pine Street Canal*
Burlington, VT
CERCLA Fund Lead
Sylvester*
Nashua, NH
CERCLA State Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Paula Fitzsimmons
(617) 573-5738
(FTS) 833-1738
Dave Dickerson
(617) 573-5738
Stephen Carlson
(617)242-5680
Steve Calder
(617)573-9626
Dan Coughlin
(617) 573-9620
Join Blake
(202) 382-6236
(FTS) 382-6236
JosnBWte
(262)382-6236
JT5S) 382-6236
GinaSnyder
(617) 573-9674
;FTS) 833-1874
Don McElroy
(617)223-5518
;FTS) 833-1518
Ross Gilleland
(617) 573-5766
(FTS) 833- 1766
Chet Janowski
(617) 573-9623
(FTS) 833-1623
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground water Pesticides
(chlordane), dioxin, arsenic.
Volume: 200 gpm
Ground water Pesticides
(chlordane), dioxin, arsenic.
Volume: ultimately, 30 gpm
ground water and leachate.
Creosote/sediments: PAHs.
Groundwater Ammonia,
BOD. Volume: 100 gallons
per hour
PonoVriver sediments: PCBs.
VoJwwK 250 gallons of
sediment and water.
Sol] and river sediments:
PCMi. Volume: 12 per
Soil: PCBs, Petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Soil/sludges: Petroleum
hydrocarbons. Volume:
20K+ cu. yd.
Ground water/Soils/
Sediments: PAHs, VOCs,
BTX, Cyanide. Volume:
100,000 cu. yd. to 800,000 cu.
yd.
Ground water Phenols,
VffiK, acetone, toluene,
lenzene, vinyl chloride,
chloroform. Volume (ground
water): 3,000 gpm by air
stripping, 50 gpm by activated
sludge.
STATUS
Installation: Full-scale. Remediation start:
June 1990. Remediation completion:
January 1992.
Pre-design: Pilot-scale. Remediation
expected start: 1994. Remediation expected
completion: 2020.
In -design Laboratory scale. Planning pilot
scale for FY91.
Pre-design. Remediation expected start
1994. Remediation expected completion:
2000.
Operational: Pilot scale since May ,991 .
Operational; Pilot scale since November 1,
1990. RCRA corrective action.
Planning to conduct treatabtUty studies in
FT9I,
In-design stage: to be completed by Summer
1991. Treatability studies completed.
In-design. Laboratory-scale. Started July
1990 and completed May 1991
Operational: Full-scale. Remediation start
;une 1986. Remediation expected
completion: July 1994. Costs: $2.5 million
wry ear.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Ground water: MCLs
Ground water: Arsenic, 30
ug/1; benzene, 5 ug/1
Not yet established
NH3, Biotreatment used
only to meet NPDES
requirements
2ppm per peak
2ppm per peak
Not yet established
PAH, 60-80% removal or
ess than Ippm; PHCs, 50-
60% removal;
nC17/pnstane ratio <0.2
Not yet established
State of NH drinking
tudies
TREATMENT
Ground water: Slurry-phase bioremediation
(bioreactor) and chemical extraction. Soil:
Incineration
Activated sludge with metals precipitation; activated
carbon and inorganic polishing being considered
Aerobic attached growth process, anaerobic attached
growth process, and in-situ bioremediation
Biotreatment. Other technologies Treatment train
(metal precipitation, atr stripping)
tn-situ bioremediation; with 2-3 years of sediment
where flotation separation is permitted; Other
technologies: incineration
Shiny-phase bioremediation; Other technologies;
incineration
In-situ bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation: excavate to treatment
cell-surface treatment, land farming within treatment
cell-optimizing natural microbes
Soil: In-situ bioremediation and solvent extraction.
Groundwater: Aerobic attached growth process (fixed
Him reactor). Other technologies: solidification,
incineration, oil/water separation, metals removal by
slag, carbon adsorption
Slurry-phase bioreactor by activated sludge with
extended aeration; Other Technologies: vacuum
extraction
PROBLEMS
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Effective operation
occurs only in warm
easons.
•lone
•lone
CD
00
I
1
31
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
**Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
n
n
n
n
n
0
n
n
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Alcoa
Massena, NY
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
American Linen*
Stillwater, NY
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
FAA Technical Center*,
Atlantic County, NJ
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
GEMS Landfill
Camden County, NJ
CERCLA State Lead
General Electric*
Hudson River
TSCA Lead (Federal)
General Motors - Central
Foundry Division*
Massena, NY
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Kiuojiel Construction
Site*
Howhe«d«,NY
UST Lead (Slaw)
Mobile Terminal**
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Nascohte*
MiHville, NJ
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Lisa Carson
(212)264-6857
(FTS) 264-68857
Frank Peduto
NYSDEC
(518)457-2462
Carla Struble
(212)264-4595
(FTS) 264-4595
Matt Westgate
(212)264-3406
Jim Harrington/
Ajay Shroff
NYSDEC
(518)457-3957
William Ports
(518)457-5677
Lisa Carson
(212)264-6857
(FTS) 264-68857
Frank Peduto
(NYSDEC)
{518)457-2462
Bob Leavy,
Mike Hinton
(716)847-4590
Prank Peduto
(NYSDEC)
(518)457-2462
Farnaz Saghafi
(212)264-4665
(FTS) 264-4665
iim OConnell
(FTS) 264-8127
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
River sediments: PCBs
Soil- BTX, PAHs, VOCs,
VTX Volume: 4375 cu yd
Soil/ground water/floating
product: JP-4 jet fuel, BTEX-
Napthalene, phenols Volume
360,000 gals of free product
Volume(soil): 33,000 cu yd
Ground water/1 each ate.
Various organic and inorganic
compounds
River sediments. PCBs
Volume: 150 cu. yd
Soil/ground
water/slud ge/sed im en t
PCBs, PAHs, volaules,
phenols Volume: 350Kcu.
yd.
Soil/ground walcr: Gasoline,
benzene, Site area: 200 fi2;
Volume (ground water). 10
ft. shallow at 74 cu. yd
Soil: BTEX, PAH, VOC
Volume: 2 acre
bioremediation cell,
approximately 5K cu. yd. per
treatment phase.
Ground water/soil: Volatiles,
methylmethacrylate, serm-
volaules. Volume: all
underlying ground water
under biotreatment.
STATUS
Pre-design Currently in RJ stage.
Operational Full-scale Start: July 1990.
Expected Completion- Fall '92.
Bioremediation of first lift section complete;
preparation beginning for second lift.
In-design Laboratory scale Capital cost:
$286K.O&Mcost S200K
Design Phase I (Feasibility studies
underway), Phase n (Construction of
remedial action)
Installation: Treatability Study (Expected
start August 1991. Expected completion
November 1991). Laboratory scale.
Expected cost S2.6M
Treatability studies Laboratory -scale.
Several full-scale treatments being
considered Expected Start. Spring 1993
Completed October 1989. Cost: $250K+
with 1-4 years of pump and treat
Operational Full-scale Started" August
1990
Pre-design Treatability studies-soil
completed September 1990 and ground
water underway. Remediation expected
Start. June 1994. Remediation expected
completion: March 1996.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not yet established
TCLP extract compared to
meet groundwater
standards
NJ Soil Action Level, NJ
MCLs for Drinking Water
Not yet established
Not yet established
Soil 1-lOppmPCBs
Sednment: 1 ppm PCBs
Sediment on reservation.
0 1 ppm PCBs
Drinking water standards
Soil: Benzene,!. 5 ppb;
Toluene, 37.5 ppb;
Ethylbenzene, 137.5 ppb,
Xylenes, 30.0 ppb; VOC,
212. 5 ppb. Ground water-
Drinking water standard.
Volume: 2 acre
bioremediation cell,
approximately SjOOO yd3
per treatment phase
NJ interim soil action
levels for
methylmethacrylate; 5
ppm(surface soil); 50 ppm
(subsurface soil); and 350
ppb (groundwater)
TREATMENT
Undetermined may consider bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation, 100% of site under
bioremediation
In-situ bioremediation (free product extraction, cement
kiln incineration, and addition of nutrients for
subsequent remjection); Soil venting: off-gas
treatment with catalytic incinerator combustion or
activated carbon absorption of VOCs
Phase I cap, Phase JJ: groundwater pre-treatment and
disposal at publicly owned treatment works
In-situ bioremediation
Sequencing batch reactors, slurry phase
bioremediation, Other Technologies: Chemical
extraction and thermal desorption will be considered in
the event that bioremediation is unsuccessful
In-silu bioremediation; Other technologies: Pump and
Treat
Solid-phase bioremediation, 100% of site under
bioremediation
Soil: Aerobic attached growth process
(extraction/solidification or soil washing),
Groundwater: undetermined, but considering
bioremediation
PROBLEMS
None
Odor detection level
was a concern due to
the leaking of semi-
volatiles, however the
odors are no longer
present and are under
contro I.
None
None
Dechlonnation of
PCBs
Oil and grease in
samples is hindering
efficiency of
bioremediation;
Material may require
pretreatmenL
None
None
None
CD
I
ii
31
tn
w
to
CD
CD
Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
**Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
n
n
n
n
m
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Osmose*
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA State Lead
Renora Inc.*
Edison.NJ
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Reynolds Metals Co *
Massena, NY
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Syracuse*
Syracuse, NY
UST Lead (State)
ARC*
Gainesville, VA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Atlantic Wood*
Portsmouth, VA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Avtex Fibers*
Front Royal, VA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Drake Chemical*
Lock Haven, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
L.A. Clarke & Son*
VA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Ordnance Works
Disponsal Area
WV
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Whitmore Labs
Myerstown, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Jim Harrington/
Ajay Shroff
NYSDEC
(518)457-3957
Joyce Harney
(212)264-6313
(FTS) 264-63 13
Lisa Carson
(212)264-6857
(FTS) 264-6857
Harry Warner
(315)426-7519
Robert Stroud
(215)597-8214
(FTS) 597-82 14
Drew Lausch
(215)597-1727
(FTS) 597-1727
Bonnie Gross
(215)597-9023
(FTS) 597-9023
Roy Schrock
(215)597-0517
(FTS) 597-0517
Gene Wingert
(215)597-0517
Drew Lausch
(215)597-1727
(FTS) 597-1727
Tony Dappolone
(215)597-3153
(FTS) 597-3153
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil: Creosote, fuel oil.
Volume. 670 cu. yd.
Soil: PAHs, petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Sediments PCBs Volume.
80K cu. yd
Soil; Petroleum
hydrocarbons, jet fuel
Volume- 5K-6K cu. yd.
Soil; Chlorobenzene. Volume,
2K Ctt, yd.
Soil/Sediments: PC P, PAH
from wood preserving,
dioxins (furans), heptaoxane.
Ground water: Arsenic, zinc,
lead, carbon disulfide,
hydros ulfide, phenol,
cadmium
Soil/ground water
Pesticides, DCS, fenac
(herbacide).
Soil: Creosote Volume
119Kcu.yd.
Soil: PAHs.
Soil/ground water/sludges:
Arsenic, aniline, still bottom
wastes (only certain soils are
targeted for bio remedial! on)
STATUS
Operational: Full-scale. Remediation start:
September 1990 Expected costs: S125K.
Treatablllty study completed in January
1991. Phase n feasibility study m progress
Incurred Cost: S129K
Pre-design RI/HS Stage. No treatability
study under way
Operational. Full scale. First Phase: Started
July 1990 Completed Spring 1991. Second
Phase: Started Spring 199) Expected
completion Fall 1991.
Completed Full-scale Started October
1989. Completed June 1991
Pre-design Rl/FS on-going laboratory-
scale. ROD Second Quarter FY 1992.
In-design Expected start 4th Quarter of
1992 Expected cost $9 million
Pre-design Laboratory-scale Start May
1991 Expected completion. September
1991.
In-design- Pilot-scale. Started August 1991.
Installation- 1992. Cost: $23 million for
entire site.
Currently conducting treatibihty studies.
Unilateral administrative order issued June
1990.
Limited treatability study completed June
1990.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not yet established
Soil: lOppm PAHs, 100
ppm petroleum
hydrocarbons
Not yet established
NY Soil Cleanup Levels
Not yet established
Not yet established
0.05 mg/1 arsenic; 5 mg/1
zinc, 005 mg/1 lead, 0.7
mg/1 carbon disulfide, 0 3
mg/1 phenol, 0.01 mg/1
cadmium; not established
MCLs
10 ppm carcinogenic PAHs
Carcinogenic PAHs, 45
ppm
Arsenic above backgound
levels; Saturated soils
(mg/kg): benzene, .002;
trichloroethene .004,
tetrachlorothene .012;
aniline .002 ; Unsaturated
soils (mg/kg): benzene
.009; trichloroethene 017;
tetrachloroethene .05 1 ;
aniline .009
TREATMENT
Solid-phase bioremediation; 30% of site under
bioremediauon
Solid-phase bioremediation, Slurry-phase
bioremediauon
Undetermined. Considering bioremediation, chemical
extraction, chemical treatment and thermal desorption.
Solid-phase bioremediation. soil removal at other half
of site
Bio augmentation aboveground, volaaze, 5% of site
under this treatment Other technologies pump and
treat, soil shredding technology
Soil: Solid-phase bioremediation, m-situ
bioremedation, white rot fungus Sediments Solid
phase bioremediation
Biological and chemical waste water treatment
Aerobic attached growth BACT
Soil: In-situ bioremediation, Creosote recovery, soil
flushing, 25% of site under bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation
Biological treatment (treated soils will be disposed of
offsite); clay and soil capping
PROBLEMS
None
Bioremediation
ineffective for site.
Oil and grease in
samples hindering
efficiency of
bioremediation
Material may require
pretreatmenu's')
Late start for first
phase, cold weather
slowed use of
bioremedjation.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
TJ
0)
(5
CD
00
3i
i-
o
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
M»b«m« Sure Docks'
Mohfle,AL
RCRALe*d
(Fedcraiysoil
RCRALcad
(StateVground water
American Creosote
Works* (OU. 1)
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
American Creosote
Works* (O.U. 3)
Jackson, TN
CERCLA Fund Lead
American Creosote
Works*
Pensacola, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Brown Wood Preserving*
Live Oaks , FL
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving*
Fayetteville, NC
CERCLA Fund Lead
Carolawn
Carolawn, SC
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
JuonDtrfay
(OOt) 347-3433
{FITS} 257-3433
Tony DeAngelo
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 257-7791
Tony DeAngelo
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 257-7791
Madolyn Streng
(404) 347-2643
Secondary Beverly
Houston
Martha Berry
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 347-2643
Jon Bomholm
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 347-7791
Al Cherry
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 347-7791
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Ground wmter/soil: PCP,
creototc.
Soil: Creosote. Volume.
50K+ cu. yd with 50K+ cu
yd later
Soil: Creosote Volume-
SOK+cu yd with50K+cu
yd later
Soil Creosote, PAHs, PCP,
dioxin. Volume 20,000-
20,000 cu. yd
Soil: Creosote, PAHs, PCP,
dioxms. Volume. 9K cu. yd
Soil/gound water: PAHs,
arsenic, creosote, chromium
Volume: 2K to 4K cu yd
Gound water: VOCs.
STATUS
Pre-d«ign: Fnll»tale begat) Deosnlxsr •
1990.
Completed by!991. Partial removal of
sludges (creosote) and highly contaminated
soils for off-site incineration has occurred
Planning Partial removal of sludges
(creosote) and highly contaminated soils for
off-site incineration has occurred
In-design Laboratory-scale Remediation
expected start: October 1992. Remediation
expected completion: September 1994.
Expected cost- $5 million.
Operational Full-scale Monitoring for 3
yrs Treatabihty study completed
Remediation start. October 1988
Remediation expected completion-
December 1991
Trealabihty studies completed. Design
completed ESD to be prepared, capacity
assurance issue to be resolved
Planning bench-scale studies, on-going
remedial design.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not yet established
100 ppm for 6-8 indicators
100 ppm for 6-8 indicators
Soil PCP,30mg/kg,
PAHs, 50 mg/kg, dioxin
on-site, 2,5 ug/kg; dioxin
off-site, 1 0 ug/kg
Soil 100 ppm PAHs
Soil (mg/kg) arsenic, 94,
carcinogenic PAHs, 2 5;
total PAHs, 100,
Chromium, 88;
Goundwater (ug/1):
carcinogenic PAHs, 10;
noncarcinogemc, 14,350;
Surface water arsenic, 12
ug/1; Sediments (mg/kg):
arsenic, 94; total PAHs, 3
Acetone, 7 10 ug/1; cis-
DCE,70ug/l; trans-
DCE, 120 ug/1; TCA.200
ug/1; TCE, 5 ug/1; Pb, 5
ug/1
TREATMENT
Ground water: Aerobic attached growth process on
creosote and tn-situ biorejjtediation on both PCP and
creosote. Soil: Solid-phase bioremediauon. Shiny-
phase bioremedialion may be Used if levels are low
enough, 100% of the site under bioremediatioiL
Solid-phase bioremediation, Other technologies:
Partial removal of sludges (creosote) and highly
contaminated soils for off-site incineration has
occurred.
Solid-phase bioremediation dealing with process area
contained soils and "fixed" creosote sludges in a large
capped lagoon
Soil Slurry-phase bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation- Surface treatment lined
with clay berms 5-6'
Sequencing batch reactor preceeded by soil washing
Not yet established
PROBLEMS
Regulatory cleanup
levels have not been
detennined.
Remedial action
contingent upon
receiving 10% cost
share from State Funds
available for treatabihty
studies only.
Remedial action
contingent upon
receiving 10% cost
share from State Funds
available for treatabihty
studies only.
Bioremediation not
effective for
remediation of dioxms
None
None
None
I
il
31
P
o
CO
CD
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Cabot Koppers**
Gainsville, FL
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Celanese Fibers
Operations*
Shelby, NC
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
City Industries*
Winter Park, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead/
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Coleman-Evans*
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Dubose Oil*
Cantonment, FL
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Koppm/Florence*
Florence, SC
RCRA Leal (Federal)
Uugdale Facility
Sw«*wat«vTN
RCRALead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Martha Berry
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 347-2643
Ken Mallary
(404)347 7791
(FTS) 257-7791
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil PAHs, Organics
(phenols, naphthalene, florine
pyrene, pentachloro-phenol,
etc., Melals (arsenic,
chromium) Volume 6700
cu yd.
Ground water Ethylene
glycol, benzene, acetone
chromium. Soil chromium,
STATUS
In-design Laboratory scale Design work
plan started April 1991 Expected
completion October 1991
Treatability studies complete Bioreactor
on-line since August 1989
antimony, acetone
Sediments Bis(2-
j ethylhexyl)pthalate. Volume
Diane Scott
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 257-2643
Tony Best
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 257-2643
Mike McKibben
(404) 347-2643
Mike ATOM
(40*)34?-7«»
{FES} 257-7603
Chuies Burroughs
(6J5) 741-3424
(soil): 2Kcu yd
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Carcinogenic PAHs, 0.59
ppm; Organics: phenols,
|4 28 ppm, naphthalenes,
211 ppm, florine, 323 ppm
pyrene, 673 ppm, PCP,
2 92 ppm, Metals arsenic,
27 ppm; chromium, 927
ppm
State of North Carolina
MCLs, ground water all
RCRA constituents, both
slate and federal levels
Ground water Acetone, Pre-design Treatability study to be initiated Groundwater 200 ug/1
MEK, TCB.TCA second Quarter FY 1991. Remediation ,TCA, 5 ug/1 Mcthylenc-
expected start June 1992 Remediation
expected completion March 1995
Soil/ground water/sediments
PCP. Voume: 27 K cu yd
Soil: PCP, oil. Volume: 15K
cu. yd.
Soil/ground water Creosote*
PCP, arsenic.
Soils/sludges: creosote (K001
waste).
Chloride, Varied based on
reference dose limits and
federal and state drinking
\ water standards 700ug/l
In-design. September 1990 to June 1992
Laboratory-scale with pilot study planned
Remediation expected start
Septemberl992. Remediation expected
completion: March 1994. Remedial action
expected cost $8.6 million
Pre-design. Currently in technology
selection phase Treatability study within a
year. Remediation expected start.
December 1992. Remediation expected
completion: March 1995 Expected cost-
SB million
Prc-desigri started March I. 1991.
Contaminated soil and sludge excavated.
Site capped nfter Wwreatment,
acetone, 200ug/l MEK; 3 0
ug/1 TCE
Soil/Sediments. 25 ppm
Ground water: 1 ppm
50mg/kg Total TPNA; 50
mg/kgPCPs; 1.5mg/kg
xylene; 10 mg/kg benzene,
0.05 mg/kg TCE, 0.07
mg/kgDCE
Not y« established
Not yet established
TREATMENT
In-situ bioremediauon. PAHs and organics;
Institutional controls' arsenic and chromium, Other
technologies. Soil washing with bio remediation or
solidification, 50% of site under bioremediation
Sequencing batch reactor O U 1 In addition to
bioremediation, carbon adsorption and air stripping are
used for groundwaler remediation O U 2
Implements rotary kiln incineration,
solidification/stabilization to treat sludges/soils
PROBLEMS
None
Biomass upsets
decreasing operating
efficiency of treatment
system Cause of upset
unkown to date COD
removal efficiency for
seventh operational
quarter was 92% for
wells located close to
source TOC was 87%
removal efficiency
Aerobic attached growth process pump and treat by Biological oxygen
air stripping, carbon absorption, and/or biological demand may not be
oxidation The treatabihty study to be used has noi
adequate
been determined. Other Technologies Chemical
oxidation, filtration being considered
Slurry-phase bioremediation m treatment train, soil
washing, bioremediation, solid stabilization, Landfill
100% under bioremediation; Operations 50% under
bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation
Soil: Bioremediation treatment not y«t determined^
3round water Pump and treat; preliminary treatment
before discharge to sanitary sewer system, 33% of site
under baoretnedittuwi
Solid -phase bioremediation; tand treatment using
*cieria, nutrients, and comctabolitc
Wood chip removal
from soils, dioxins have
been identified and are
being evaluated.
None
Vbne
None
"0
0)
CQ
CD
00
I
Ik
I
p
O
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
**Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Shaven Fum
Shelby County, GA
Removal Lead
Salhrartl Tmbtr»
BoBriot.AL
RCRAUxt
(Fedarel^oil
RCKALout
(SurteXjrouDdwitttr
White House Waste*
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Allied Chemical*
Fronton, OH
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Allied Signal/Bendix*
St Joseph, MI
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Atistttch Chemicals
HavcrhiH,OH
RCRA (Federal) Lead
Atuonyte
Kratwood.MJ
USTJU»d(St«ft)
B&F Trucking
Company*
RociettW.MN
UST Lead (State)
BPOflCompmy*
Lima, OH
ICRA Lead (Federal)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Chuck Eger
(404)347-3931
(FTS) 257-3931
}aton Darby
(404)347-3433
CFTSJ 257-3433
Tony Best
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 257-2643
Jim Van der Kloot
(312)353-9309
(FTS) 353-9309
John Kuhns
(FTS) 353-6556
JimSaric
(332)*86-7569
Bomie White
{616)456-5071
PatHamon
t«2) 297-8578
DooHeliw
(312)353-1248
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil: Dicamba, benzoic acid,
dichlorosalicyclic acid,
benzonitrile.
Ground water/Soil: PCP,
creosote. Volume (toil): 1
acre wth uncertain depth.
Volume (ground water): 5
acres with contaminated
phune.
Ground water/soil/sediments:
Acids, PCB, waste oil,
creosote. Volume: Re-
evaluation underway @ 120K
cu. yd. and may be reduced
by half.
Soils and wastes: PNAs
Volume: SOOKcu yd.
Ground water- TCE, DEC,
VC.
Gound water/soil: Cumene,
phenols
SoiVOround water BKTX,
gasoline.
Soil: Petroleum
STATUS
Pilot bench-scale treatabihty studies being
reviewed Workplans in place, comments to
go over in Apnl/May 1991.
Pre-design: Full-scale.
Pre-design: Laboratory-scale completed.
Risk and treatability study ongoing.
Expected start of design: January 1992.
Remediation expected start' March 1993.
Remediation expected completion: March
1995.
Pre-design. Pilot studies (April 1992-
Summer 1992). Enhance bio availability
through use of surfactants, and to facilitate
the delivery of oxygen to the waste matrix
Incurred cost for testing >$1 million-
Expected cost: $2 million
Pre-design Treatabihty study to be
completed end of 1992. Pilot Scale
Remediation expected start late 1993.
Remediation expected completion date.
1998.
Conducting treatability studies
Operational: Foil-scale. Started June 1991,
additional equipment needs to be installed.
Incurred Cd$t: $34 IK.
Pre-design: discussing bioreinediation as an
option; no studies underway;. Expected
Start: 1992, Expected costs: $2.50-3.50
perlOGO gallon! of water; $75-125 per yard
o£ soil.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
25 ppm for all constituents
Not yet established
Not yet established
Soils/waste 1-100 ppm 1
ppm total carcinogenic
PAHs
Not yet established
Phenol, 4.1 mg/kg;
Cumene, 4,67 mg/kg
Not yet established
Not yet established
TREATMENT
Undetermined
Solid-phase bioremediation on soil. Sequencing batch
reactor on ground water. Considering slurry-phase
bioremediation. 100% of the site under
bioremediation^
Treatment Train Soil washing, bioremediation, solid
stabilization 100% under bioremediation (laboratory
scale)
In-situ bioremediation and prepared pad
bioremediation Lab testing of surfactants Other
technologies: Incineration with onsite reuse of waste
heat (waste fuel recovery), ground water pump and
treat, 50% of site under bio remediali on
In-situ bioremediation: using indigenous
methanotrophs , 75% of site under bioremediation
Undetermined
Aerobic attached growth process
In-situ bioremediation; pump and treatment;
reinfiltration gallery; 100% of she under
bioremediafipn
Solid-phase bioremediation
PROBLEMS
None
Regulatory cleanup
levels have not been
determined.
None
None
None
None
None
Increase in iron
concentration in ground
water is causing iron
bacteria and resulting in
"stone" to accumulate
on the surface of pipes
and other process
equipment.
None
co
1
6
TJ
(D
(5
CD
CO
Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
BPOHCwnpwy*
Toledo, OH
Burlington Northern*
MN
RCRA Lead (Mate):
Pennitting;
CERCLA State Lead:
Remediation
Cliff/Dow Dump*
MI
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Duel! and Gardner*
Muskegan, MI
CERCLA State Lead
FUher-Calo*
LaPorte, IN
CERCLA Fund Lead
Galesburg/Koppers
IL
CERCLA State Lead
Hentt&eUi*
Tjrav«r»Ctty,MI
UST Lead (State)
Jbsyln MFG*
Brooklyn Center, MN
CERCLA State Lead
whet Anfcry j&nuinuulion
nmf*
3)»ood, n.
Federal Pacflity
KAL Avenue**
MI
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
5teph«nBt>ucib«ttl
(312)886-7569
Tony Rutter
(312)886-8961
Fred Jenness
(612)297-8470
LidaTan
(312)886-5993
Karla Johnson
(312) 886-5993
Brad Bradley
(312)88^4742
Brad Bradley
(312)886-4742
BobKettner
<616) 775-9729
Anne-EnifflgLon
Cliff Twaroski
;612) 296-78 27
Fohn Belcher
(MPCA)
;612) 296-7821
Zarl Grabinski
(312)454-2865
DionNov«k
(3J2)»»M737
Jan Cozza
(312)886-7252
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil: Petroleum,
Soil/ground water
carcinogens, non-carcinogens
creosote. Volume: 10K cu.
yd.
Wood tar, Acetic acid,
Phenol, Benzene, PAHs.
Soils: Volatiles, semi-
volatiles, pesticides, PCBs,
inorganics.
Soil/ground water: TCE,
DCE, DCA, PCBs.
Soil: Phenols, chlorophenol,
PNAs, PCP, PAHs.
Ground water Gasoline.
Soil: PAHs, PCP, dioxin,
furans. Volume: 67K cu yd.
Soil; Explosives; Org«mics.
Ground water (Organic!)
acetone, benzene, vinyl
chloride, toluene, xylene,
trans- 1,2-DCE, ethylbenzene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-
dkhloroethene.
STATUS
Permit for Jand fanning denied;
Iwoireatanent no longer being considered.
Operational: Full-scale started in 1987.
Expected completion: 1993. Incurred cost
S725K. Expected costs of Operation &
Maintenance: S38.6K per year for 30 years.
Pre-Design: Laboratory-scale. Actual start:
7/91.
Pre-design
Design* Laboratory -scale
Pre-design Pilot-scale.
Completed: Full-scale started September
1985, Completed; March 1989. Some
contamination remains. Agency requested
further cleanup.
Operational: Full-scale remediation started:
August 1989. Expected completion:
September 1992.
Pre-design. Solid-phase treatment In -design
rot Sluny-flbwe writ plan. Pitot-Scate,
feeraediftttoD expected start: June 1992.
•temediatictt expected completion; July
1SW,'
In -design: Expected start in October 1991.
Expected cost: $2.2 million.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not ^established
Ground water:
carcinogens, 28 mg/1; non-
carcinogens, 300 mg/1.
Soil: detoxification levels
Not yet established
Not yet established
5ppb TCE, 70ppb DCE;
200 ppb DCE, drinking
water standards used where
possible
Not yet established
Mon-detection levels
150 ppm total PAHs; 100
ppm total PCP
Not yet established
Acetone & 1,1-
)ichloroethane, 700 ppb;
xnzene, 1.0 ppb; 1,2-
>ichloroethane,0.4 ppb;
Vinyl Chloride, 0.02 ppb;
Xxylene, 20 ppb; Toluene,
40 ppb; Trans- 1,2-DCC,
100 ppb; Ethylbenzene, 30
ppb
TREATMENT
Solid-phase bioremediation
Treatment train: In-shu and solid-phase
bioremediation. Other technologies: Thermal
desorption, ground water monitonng; 20% of the site
under bioremediation
In situ forced aeration; 30% of site under
bioremediation
In-situ biodegradation* involves using native or mutan
strains of aerobic bacteria to degrade organic
compounds in the soils. Nutrients and oxygen supplier
to contaminated soils to enhance microbial degradation
Undetermined; 1 % of site may under bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediaton; in -situ with amendments
which have not yet been determined
In-sku bioreraediation (air sparging; nutrient addition;
jn-situ pump and reinfiltration gallery; pursuing final
cleanup of residue at leading edge of plume. Alsoneec
soil verification
Solid-phase bioremediation, 35% of site undergoing
>ioremediation
Soil; Solid-phase, 4 months; slurry phase, 3 months; 4
Out of 23,040 acres tfadef feiorcmedifltion in pilot
rognini
Aerobic attached growth process. Other technologies:
depending on the results of ground water samples
luring the pump test, precipitation of metals, and a
carbon filter for the vinyl chloride may need to be
added
PROBLEMS
None
Degradation rate is
longer than expected foi
the more complex
containments.
Volume increase
(100%); Temperature
control; Mixture
efficiency
Degradation can be
inhibited by
lalogenated orgamcs,
and elevated levels of
metals and inorganics
None
None
None
Extreme rainfall in May
caused flooding and
.jft 2 soil treatment
delayed.
None
Treatment of vinyl
chloride, handling of
water after treatment,
no POTW (passable
with 3 miles of sewer
ine), no surface water
available, need to
reinject.
TJ
0)
CO
CD
I
31
P
o
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD-
MttwhroSwioD-
&vinet»»
Keotwood,MJ
UST lead (SttW)
MayviQe Fire Department
•M«yvfll»,MI
USTlead
McGillis Gibb*
MN
CERCLA Fund Lad
Moss American
Milwaukee, WI
CERCLA Fund Lead
New Lyme Landfill*
New Lyme, OH
CERCLA Fund Lead
Onalaska Municipal
Landfill**
La Crone County, WI
CERCLA Fund Lead
Organic Chemical*
MI
CERCLA Fund Lead
Rannusseo**
Livingston County, MI
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
mwm'"'".
H allow
regrowth of cultures.
rfas only occurred once.
None
None
None
None
Adjacent landfill
generates CH4
None
None
None
1
1
31
§
(Q
CD
O1
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Reilly Tar & Chemical*
St. Louis Park, MN
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Reilly Tar*
IN
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Seymour Recycling
(Unit 1)*
IN
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Seymour Recycling
(Unit2)»
IN
CEKCLA Enforcement
Lead
Sheboygan River and
Harbor*
Sheboygan, WI
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Sleeping Bear Duna
Httionai UJcethOre*
R&dtiftl fticflfty
%*!#»*» LwdfilP*
Livingston County, MI
Federal FaciBjy
St Louil River
Dulum.MN
CERCLA State Lead
Union Carbide, OH
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Atchinson*
Santa re, NM
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
DarylOweni
(312)886-4071
Secondary:
Doug Beckwith
(612)296-7301;
Mike Scott
(612)296-7297
Dion Novak
(312)886-4737
Jeff Gore
(312)886-6552
Jeff Gore
(312)886-6552
Bonnie Eleder
(312)886-4885
John Wilton
(405) 332-8*00
Secondary:
OuySewell
KtnGlrtZ
(312)886-1434
Debbie Siebers
(312)353-6756
Cliff Twaroiki
(612)296-7821
Kathleen Warren
(312)353-6756
Suian Webster
(214)655-6730
(FTS) 255-6730
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil: PAHs. Ground water:
Creosote.
Soil: creosote, PAHs, metals,
semi VOAs. Ground water:
benzene, ammonia, pyridme,
chlorinated organics. Volume:
1.6 mgd extraction rate.
Ground water: VC, TCE,
DCE, benzene, chloroethane
Volume- 500K gallons
Soil: VC, TCE, DCE,
benzene, chloroethane.
Volume: lllKcu.yd.
Sediments: PCBs.
Softf&rouaA water; gasoline.
Volume: 1,000 gal.
Ground water: 2-butinone, 2-
besumone. Volume: 140K
cu.yrf.
Soils/Sediments: VOCs,
PAHs.
Soil/ground water VOCs,
dioxin, monodichlorinated
Wpheyli.
Soil£ludge: Hydrocarbons,
diesel. Volume: 28Kcu.yd.
STATUS
Pre-Design: Laboratory -scale. Remediation
expected start September/October 1991.
Remediaton expected completion:
September/October 1993. Expected cost for
treatability studies S14OK
Pre-design: Laboratory-scale. Remediation
expected start: December 1991. Expected
cost: S25M.
Operational. Full-scale Remediation start:
June 1991 Expected completion date.
1996 Incurred Cost $1M Expected Cost-
SIM
Operational: Full-scale Remediation start-
June 1991. Remediaiton expected
completion date. 1993.
RI/FS* Laboratory-scale bioremediation to
DC completed by Summer 1991 Pilot-scale
sioremediation to be completed by
Fall/Winter 1992.
Full-scale: Remediation start; February
1991, Remediation expected completion;
February 1992.
Pre-dwign,
Pre-design: RI/FS. Remediation expected
start. 1993.
Remedial investigation completed.
Operational: expected start: October 1991.
Pilot scale being planned. Expected costs:
$3M.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not yet established
Not yet established
VC, TCE, DCE, Benzene
Drinking water standards;
Chloroethane - Not yet
established
Not yet established
Not yet established
Hot yet established
2-btttattonO30 PP*H 2-
hexanone, 50 ppb
Not yet established
Not yet established
Not yet established
TREATMENT
Soil. In-situ bioremediation; surface and subsurface;
using additional nutrients (N, P). Ground water: pump
and treat with discharge to POTW. Other technologies
carbon adsorption
Ground water: In-situ bioremediation
Aerobic attached growth process: TCE, DCE, benzene,
chloroethane In-situ bioremediation VC, TCE, DCE,
benzene, chloroethane. Other technologies: Vacuum
extraction, chemical treatment
In-situ bioremediation Other Technologies- Vacuum
extraction
In-situ bioremediation capped sediments; natural and
enhanced biodegradation in enclosed contaimments
structure Other technologies in consideration-
chemical extraction and treatment, thermal desorption,
sediment capping
Soil; In-situ Bioremediation, passive natural
>ioremediation, 100% of site under treatment
Pump and air stripping/<*rbofl absorption treatment
with added micro-organism* and nutrients; 100% of
site considered for bioremediation
Undetermined
Undetermined
In-situ and combined bioprocesses: surface and
subsurface, sludges treated separately. 100% of the site
under bioremediation
PROBLEMS
None
None
None
None
Evaluation of process
and data difficult; goals
difficult to determine
and not yet developed
None
N
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
vn
vn
vn
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
PfttKh LtaUWd • :
QB«ty,tX
Hudson Refuting
Coup*!*
ftOfetPK
RCrMLead (fttferal)
North Calvakade*
Houston, TX
CERCLA State Lad
CHdlnger*
Darrow, LA
CERCLA Sute Lead
Sheridan Disposal
Service!
Houston, TO
CERCLA Enforcement
Lad
Atno• :•; : .
Cooscrvmon QicQiicftl*
Kansas City, MO
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
FurfieldCotlAOfs*
Fairfield, IA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lad
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Jtxty Stack
&i4fy6i&GttS
CRE»)«SM0aS
m^mi*
&uyess#uo
9*I$)2S$#t»
8reetli«kow|ki
Deborah Oriswold,
Larry Wright
(.214)655-6715
(FTS)255-6715
Paul Sieminski
(214)655-6710
(FTS)255-6710
Steve Cilrein
Ruthlzneli
(214)655-6735
(FTS) 255-6735
Frank Doltt
P«)75i-Sl76
Secondary. .
(«S^S5l-7647
: . • '•'•' • '• '•
Steve Auchterkmie
(913) 551-7778
(FTS) 276-7778
Steve Jones
(913)551-7755
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
SMtPttHWtWM *attr:
benzene, vinyl chloride, DCE,
Soil/ground watdi: OIL,
ftvjaae tfrdjocwtiQiu PAIb
htsssene. VfthWMK 145,500
<*•**
Ground water: carcinogenic
PAHs, benzene. Soil:
carcinogenic PAHt. Volume
(toil): 22,300 cu. yd. above
10.
Soil/sludge: Hydrocarbons.
Volume (sludge): 600K
gallons. Volume (soil): 200K
cu. yd.
Soil/sludge/surface water
benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, phenol, PCBs.
Sail/Sludge: K049. K050,
)£D5i,oa,PAH.,rtfmery
siudgM, metals. Volume:
IJ7Kw.ya;«27*to40%
oil aod grease.
V:
Ground water Phenols.
Volume: 1 50-200 gpm for
approx. 30 yean.
Ground water: benzene, ethyl
benzene, toluene, xylene,
PAHs.
STATUS
In-design.
Opmuional: Full-scale since April 1988,
ongoing.
Li-design: (October 1991 - October 1993).
Pilot Scale. Expected start October 1993.
Expected completion: September 1996.
Expected cost: S4.7M.
Installation- Full-scale. Remediation
expected start: April 1992. Remediation
expected completion: 1997 or 1999. Design
completed 1986. Supplemental ground
water RI being conducted. Costs: $10M.
In-design. Pilot study.
Operational; Full-scate, Remedied on start:
July 19%, Remediation expected
coraptoion: 1999. Expected cost; $23 JM.
Operational: Full Scale. Remediation
started: April 1990. Incurred Costs:
S100K.
In-design: Pilot-scale planned (to Full-scale
if successful). Remediation expected start
June 1992. Expected cost for construction:
S149K.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
SoUt am) «ludge«: BAP, 9
ppm; PCB,23 ppm;
VOCj.43ppro; araenic,?
fQOtf befiKettt^ 14 ppn)r
Ground water: MCLs
Ground water 30-50%
reduction of contaminants
through ground water
recovery syitem
Ground water: benzene,
.04 ppm; Ground
water/soils: carcinogenic
PAHs, 1 ppm
Not yet established;
expected to have standard
dischard requirements;
objective is to reduce
containment concentration
from 76% to 4%
PCBs, 25 ppm (PCBs as
an indicator of other
organics)
Tou.1 PAHs, less than 300
mgAtg; Potentially
carcinogenic PAHs, lent
than 160 mg/Vg
MO Drinking Water
Standards
Soil: Carcinogenic PAHs,
1 00 mg/kg; Total PAHs,
500 mg/kg; benzene, 241
mg/kg (not treated by
bioremediation). Ground
water Benzene, 1 ug/1;
Carcinogenic PAHs, 0.2
ug/1
TREATMENT
Soilsftmdges: Treatment in * lagoon; Ground water:
in-ritu bjoremediation and/or pump and treat
Solid-phase bioremodiation (three phases). 1) active:
requires monthly application of nutrients and monthly
tilling; 2) enhanced: annual application of nutrients
and no ttQJng; 3) augmented: no addition of nutrients
or tilling
Composting: PAHs in soil. Other technologies: Pump
and carbon absorption treatment; 50% of site under
bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation with GAC, 70% of site
under bioremediation
Slurry-phase bioremediation: Aqueous bioreactor
Soil/Sludge: Solid-Phase bioremediation; Sequencing
Batch Reactors; Liquid/solid reactor followed by land
treatment cell; 5% of site under bioremediation
Aerobic attached growth process: Fixed film
bioreactor (2 in series). Other technologies: Treatment
train (carbon adsorption, lime precipitation, sulfide
precipitation).
Ground water In-smi bioremediation (subsurface);
thermal treatment of contaminant source areas; pump
and treat of ground water using carbon adsorption with
polymer injection and settling
PROBLEMS
None
Lack of micro-
organism; stale order
failed to Jpecify clean-
up levels;
reeontamination at
newby refinery.
None
None
None
Material handling
problems related to
siting the facility and
the rate of reaction to
the full-scale; oxvgen
transfer has been jlowa
than expected.
None
None
5
eg
CD
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. """Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
vn
vn
vn
vn
vn
vn
vn
vra
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
TwitnftfrwtT PttW
I«oMtioaaF.per
tQ.V.*2)»
topi*,MO
RC3SAU»d(SttW)
international Paper
«Wt4$*
fopiia.MO
RiCRALMd {State}
International Paper
10.BLttp
fcplta,MQ
RCRA Lead (State)
ftafcCiiy*
KA
life (4*4
Scott Lumber*
Alton, MO
CERCLA Fund Lead
Vogel Paint* Wax
Maurice, IA
CERCLA State Lead
until Octber 1991, then
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Burlington Northern'
Somen, MT
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Frank Do|«n
<3M*7St4l%
Stxoaitry:
BobSiewart
(9U)5Sl-7654
Frank Dolan
Plfjfti-iift
Frank Do tan
C31*)7»-JW
Frank Dolan
014)951-41%
lohaWibon
(40J)3J2-8W»
Secondary:
Loom* Kennedy
Bruce Morrison
(913)236-3881
(FTS) 276-3881
Steve Jonei
(913) 551-7755
Jim Harris
(406)449-5414
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
309: 24 organic eowtiwew
invxa-creoiote^iaciudin^
PAHh,PCP. Volume 20 WO
«, yd,
Sail; 24 organic) constituents
fttun -craovobtv iocludlnc
f Mb, VCt. Votarasi 20,000
«,yd.
Soil: 24 organic constituents
6cnj creosote, tactadijig
PAHl, PCP. Volume: 20J300
cu, yd.
Soil: 24 organic eonttitueau
bora creoiott, including
PAH..PCP, Volume: 20^)00
«*•**
Aquifer So lidi/Wioer:
benzene, BTEX. Volutoe:
700,€OOft3 coMaminiled
aquifer («cm«l volume will be
te»*).
Soil: Creosote compounds
(PAHs, benzo-a-pyrene).
Volume: 15,900 tons.
Soil:BETX,MEK. Volume:
710K cu. yd.
Soil: PAHs, zinc, phenol.
Ground water PAHs.
Volume: (soil) Solid-Phase:
12,000 cu. yd., In-iitu: 70,000
cu. yd.
STATUS
Installation; Pfl«-«*J* A FulHk»lrerae*auoo; in-situ soy Hushing.
Other technologies: chemical treatment;. 20* of site
under bioreroediatjon
Solid-phase bioremediation: Land treatment (covered
facility)
Solid-phase bioremediation: Land treatment (covered
facility)
Solid-phase bioremediation: Land treatment (covered
facility)
Aquifer solids/Ground water: ]n-situ bioremediation;
to-silu soil flushing; bioremediation will be initiated
using nitrate as well as oxygen to enhance rates of
degradation
Solid-phase bioremediation (no nutrients added); 75%
of site under bioremediation
Solid-phase (Land treatment). Air stripping of
contaminated ground water
Soil: Solid Phase bioremediation; In-situ soil flushing.
Sediment and ground water In-situ bioremediation;
100% of site under bioremediation
PROBLEMS
Biorernediation failed at
this site due to lack of
temperature and
moisture control; the
units were flooded,
blocking oxygen
transfer; steps are being
taken to control
moisture and
temperature by coverinf
basins ( 10+ acres under
roof).
None
None
None
None
None
None
Soils are silty, fine-
gained with low
transmissivity.
TJ
Q)
CQ
CD
00
Q)
I
I
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
vm
vm
vm
DC
DC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Libby Ground water Site*
Libby.MT
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
JS^'Service*
Denver, CO
OSTLe»d(Si»te)
Union IKicir«* :.""'"
Lertttws,WY
RCRA Lead (Federal}
BKK Landfill
WestCovina, CA
CERCLA Enforcement
lad
CUIRASS*: : i
l^eportiOartwiH^
CA':-'. :: '.; . : •
CSTU*i(S*»}
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Julie Duioglio
(406)449-5414
(FTS) 585-54 14
Suzanne Stevenson
(3W?)29W51J
^infteca^
C30J>mj«» ;
Carmen Santoi
(415)744-20'"
KtoSaurfcel :
(916}SB-3«0
JonnWesnowiki :
OJS>toMS07 •'•!
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil/Oround water PA Hi,
PCPi. Volume (soil): 45K
cu. yd.
Soil/ground water, benzene,
*yTeoe,w!uene. Voiwtte
5,921,330 g«l. per y«r.
Sou^jround water* Creosote
a*fj?AH*,W«B*;.
7»k cu.yd. Volume
(creosote in soil): 6M
galoot.
Ground water anenic,
cadmium, chromium lead
mercury, dichloromethane,
chloroform, 1-2
dtchloropropane, carbon
tetrachloride, TCE, benzene,
phenol, toluene, cyanide,
heavy metals.
Stfh Qil(pwrofe
1
I
31
§
CD
(O
: Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
"""Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Om Heights Irr»»itk**
Onus Heights, CA •
USTte*J(S«e)
Converse Mootabello
CotfcY***
Mo«abelto,CA
USTiaad (State)
<^flijghtM«tt«»
SK,(.to.^CA
OSTJLostltSMte}
Former Service Station*
Lw Angela, CA
OSTJ*rt{Swt*J
Fort CM Army Hue*
Montery, CA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
[QfowtrtAft
Service/Universky of CA
D,vi.,Mcd!ockFiclfl»»rt,CA
TSCA lad (State)
Harmon Field
Tu lire County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Hercule* Incorporated
Hercules, CA
CERCLA Sute Lead
I.H. Baxter
Weed.CA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Ktttt stgfctot
&$*&•»&
JotaWetflowski
(9!6)324-l»07
PaulHadtey
(916) 324-1807
M«*Btr.chad
(?i6>32242$4
Toaytpalagyi
(818^505-2703
Joha Baldwin
John Cheimutt
(415)744-2387
Vance Fong
(415)744-2392
John Wesnvosky
(916)324-1807
JohaMenke
(9i«>32*-3773
TonyLuanCADept
of Heahh Service
(916) 322-6872
Tony Luan CA Dept
of Health Service
(916)322-6872
Mary Mailers
(415)744-2370
Secondary.
leffRosenbloom
(415)744-2362
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soil: Dieiel foe! (Petroleum
hyjrocartxjn»>.
Soil:fliaio8ne.Dieiei.
Soil: Diesel.
SoiyOround water: gasoline,
benzene, HCS comtittienu.
Vehwi«(»olf): Ww-yi.
Volume (groundirater): 800K
gallon i.
Soil: Hydrocarbons.
Soil (PeaicidM): Auioine,
BRAVOcblorotanol,
(tac&il, (bindine Ii2, DDT,
TMsdineiulfiue, tri&hialin.
ne&yl parathkn^ malathton,
pmithioo, methyl trilhion,
Ihion, thithiott pMtxoc.
Soil: 10 organic pesticides.
Soil: TNT.DNT,
trinitrobenzoie, nitrobenzene.
Soil/sediments/leachate/
ground water arsenic,
chromium, benzene, PCP,
PAHs, dioxin, carcinogenic
PAHs, furans, non-
carcinogenic PArU, zinc,
TCP. Volume: organic soils,
12,500 cu. yd.; mixed
organic/inorganic, 9375 cu.
yd-
STATUS
Complete* Full-icale. Remediation iuul:
Mtj-1989. Semedka'oii completed:
August }9>9.
ln-des^n since January 1991. Pilot-scaie.
Optnuiomil: Pilot scale wnce October 1990.
Completed: Remediation starti November
1988. Remediation completed: March
199t,lacurfed Costs: $1.6M.
Installation: Pilot scale. Remediation
expected completion- FY 1993
Completed. October 1988 Report
available.
Pilot project completed. Evaluating field
study results.
Pilot project completed. Evaluating field
study results.
Pre-design; In-design: March 1992;
Expected Installation: March 1993.
Operational: March 1995. Pilot-scale.
Remediation expected start: March 1993.
Remediation expected completion: March
1995 following 3 years of monitoring.
Expected cost: S3.5M.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Petroleum hydrocarbons,
lOOpptn
Not yet established
Not yet established
Soil: Total Petroleum
rlydrocarbons.lOOppm;
Ground wttter: benzene, 5
ppb
Soil: Not yet established.
Ground water: MCLs
Not yet established
Not yet established
TNT,30ppm, DMT,
nitrobenzene, 5ppm
Soil (mg/kg): arsenic, 8;
chromium, 500; PCP, 17;
carcinogenic PAHs, 0.51;
dioxin, 0.001; furans,
0.001; Sediments (mg/kg):
arsenic, 8; chromium, 18;
zinc, 26; carcinogenic
PAHs, 0.5; PCP, 1; TCP, 1
TREATMENT
Solid-phase bioremediation
In-situ bioremediation
Combined bioprocesses; sprinkler sysuzn to apply
biocutture formulation; collected leachate treated in an
aerobic biological reactor before circulation.
In-stai bioremediation; closed loop system; hydrogen
peroxide as oxygen source; above ground holding tank
for nutrient addition. Other technologies: In-situ soil
flushing, vacuum extraction; 65% of siteunder
bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation for MEK. Other
technologies: Pump and carbon absorption treatment
In-s&j and solid-phase bioremedtation
Solid-phase bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation
Soil/sediment: (organics) solid-phase bioremediation.
(inorganics) cement fixation; ground water (organics)
aerobic attached growth process, followed by GAC, if
necessary, (inorganics) chemical precipitation,
activated alumina, if necessary for arsenic
PROBLEMS
Noae
None
None
During channeling
overload reduced the
reinjection process rate.
None
None
None
None
None
CD
ro
o
I
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. **Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
I.H. Baxter
(confd)
JASCO*
Mt View, CA
CERCLA Fund Lead
KopperCo. Inc.*
Orville,CA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
Liquid Gold*
Richmond, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Montroie Chemical Corp
of California
Torrance, CA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
(^•IclvaEnsmeenng'1
tKbottttdty
ft»vpuMwn«,CA
CTflttK*
CMseACa&e*.
DSTlje*aCS6«*}
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Rose Marie Caraway
(415)744-2235
Fred Schauffler
(415)744-2365
(FTS) 484-2365
ROK Marie Caraway
(415)744-2235
Nancy Woo
(415)744-2394
tig&ttiNi'eX
8*pfc«£H«Mi
Service.
(916>3224224
(916)^2-3*10
J0*a.W«»t»W*m
SHQ}3».»e,«te«elfuel,
trafn4»Hm. flnij, aviation
&nnL
50% di^Mtftmfem
faydnxarfMu), Volume: 70ft
BfcjA'
STATUS
Treatability itudy being conducted while FS
it on hold. Final FS will be produced
following final treatability itudy.
Laboratory-icale. Lab treatment itudy coit
$30K.
Pre-design: Pilot scale. Remediation
expected stare Fill 1992. Remediation
expected completion: Spring 1994.
Currently in the lait itage of the content
decree for RD/RA. Treatability itudiei to be
done late 1991. Expected costs: S12.2M.
Site is in preUmmary stages of considering
the bioremediation technology; no decisions
have been made and start of a treatability
study is not planned.
Pre-daign: Pilot scale. Treatability study
completed. Laboratory-scale for ground
water proved ineffective for DDT, follow
up planned.
Beoci jcale tef 1« completed in October
Navy for ^pprov«l; pilot U»U are befaj
planiwd; Wriffllg on pflot design.
Operwto»«ir)M-»cale»wrte4Avigl(«lS88.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Leachate (mgfl): arsenic, 5;
chromium, 5; PCP, 1.7;
carcinogenic PAHs, 0.005 ;
non-carcinogenic PAHs,
0.15; dioxin, 0.001;
Ground water (ug/1):
arsenic, 5; chromium, 8;
benzene, 1; PCP, 2.2;
PAHs, 5; dioxin, 0.000025
Not yet established
Soil: arsenic and
chromium, background
levels; PAHs, 0.19mg/kg;
PCP, 17 mg/kg; dioxins,
30ppt; Ground water
arsenic and chromium,
background levels; PAHs,
0.007ug/l; PCP,2.2ug/l;
dioxins, 0.53 ppg
Not yet established
Not yet established
Kotyettiiaftu&ed
P<*tt,<10»g*g:
•1
TREATMENT
Soil/ground water solid-phase, In-siui bioremediation,
composting technologies being evaluated in treatability
study. 75% of site under bioremediation
In-litu bioremediation. Other technologies: soil
washing, fixation of metal contaminated soil, pump and
carbon absorption treatment
Not yet established
In-situ bioremediation:
Hydrocarbon aeration
^S4-I*a»e_«orBned>a*in, icp*of fttiwder:
favomnn&ilscn
PROBLEMS
None
None
Metals contamination
on-lite.
None
None:
Tn(,(S»lOTled«t
fffce&tQ. $D rj^dttf^ng- -"
the coHtamineBt level as
toxi^, . : C
l
TJ
0)
CO
CD
ro
* Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. """Indicates a new site. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
REG
IX
DC
DC
K
DC
IX
K
X
X
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Rtt&fcCittRtieiuft'*
EMI fVlo Alto, CA
ROUl*tf(3fcda»a
San Diego Gas and
Electric* Mwn Street
Fttitfty
San Diego, CA
O&f Lead (State)
Seaside High School*
Se»ide.CA
NoLMd
SEGS Solar Project
Kramer Junction, CA
CERCLA State Lead
Solvent Service**
CA
CERCLA State Lead
Southern California
Ediion
Visalia,CA
CERCLA State Lead
Southern Pacific
Transportation Co.*
SPTC Maintenance Yard
Rosevffle,CA
CERCLA State Lead
American Crossarm*
Chahailii.WA
CERCLA Fund Lead
EanlSh-StteoSnvtat
Statim*
Anchorage, AK
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
JjMtitBftlcit1
(41SJ744-2036
GknaHeyman
1415)744-2044
PwilHadley
(9J6>324-«07
EtetBnctson
<«6)J22-7W6
Secondary:
Alaalnj$uan
Bruce La Belle
(916) 324-2958
Ron Jervason
[415)464-0688
Secondary: Martie
Lacey
Dave Roberts
(415)744-2227;
New contact to be
assigned
David Wright
(916) 332-3910
Lee Marshall
(206)553-2723
TooyPatagyl
(S18)50$-270)
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Sofl: toluene, PCE. zyleno,
MEK.VC, «»*>«. Ground
w»len acetone, DCE,
toluene, VC,zyJtne«,MEK,
MffiK.nethykBe chloride.
Soil&nwnd water: petroleum
fcek. Volume: 1^00 cu. yd.
Soil: Diael fuel. Volume:
JOOCT-yd,
Soil: Biphenyl, Diphenyl
ether.
Ground water P001, over 30
industrial solvents.
Ground water PCP.VOCs.
Soil: Hydrocarbons, Diesel
fuel Volume: 240 tons.
SoU: PCP.
-
STATUS
Pre-d«ign. Treaubility studies late FY
1992.
Operational since October 1989. Full-scale.
Full-scale bioremetiiation completed 1988.
Full-scale operational since July 1990
Operational since January 1991 Full-scale.
Remediation expected completion: 2001.
Incurred cost: S399K. Expected cost
S844K.
Pre-design RI/FS currently in progress.
Full-scale bioremediauon system completed
January 1991. Cost:$310K.
Rl/FS still underway. Expected completion:
1992.
Jn-de»ign.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
Not yet esttbhshed
Not yet established
Soil: Diesel fuel, 500
mg/kg
Soil: Biphenyl, Diphenyl
ether, 1000 mg/kg
Ground water (ug/1): 1 3>-
DEC, 5; Cis-U-DEC, 6,
trans-l^-DCE, 10;
ethylbenzene,400; 1,1,1-
TCA, 200; Freon 1 13,
1200; Benzene, 0.7;
Acetone, 400.0; 1,1-DEC,
1.0; Naphthalene, 2000
Not yet established
Soil: Hydrocarbons, Diesel
fuel, 5000 mg/kg
Not yet established
Not yet established
TREATMENT
Soil: In-iiw bioreraediation (under consideration).
Ground water: aerobic attached growth process, in-ito
btoreroediotiDn, combined bioprocesses. 100*of>ile
under bioremediMion. OOwr techoologics: Vacuum
txtraction, activated carbon, t!V peroxidation.
Tn-situ faioremediation: emphasis on reducing levels of
gasoline in soil rather than ground water. 100% of site
under biofemediation.
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Composting
Vacuum extraction; steam enhancement of vacuum
extraction
Not yet established; Considering bioremediation
Solid-phase bioremediation
Not yet established
la-«iiu bwremediatioo
PROBLEMS
High total
-------
CERCLA/RCRA/UST SITES PLANNING, OPERATING, OR CONSIDERING BIOREMEDIATION
o
01 ^ v
Co
en
REG
X
X
"\
j
7
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
Utah PC wand Light*
fctahoEUb.lt)
RCRA Lead (State)
Wyckoff Eagle Harbor
Puget Sound, WA
CERCLA Enforcement
Lead
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Andrew Pentccy
Secondary:
Randy Sieger
Rene Fuentes
(206)553-1599
(FTS) 399- 1599
Lori Cohen
(206)553-6523
(FTSJ399-6523
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
Soft CrtWOte. Volume 725
K). yd; £2-3 feet deep).
Soil/ground water/surface
water: Creosote, PCPs.
STATUS
In Design; 199t, Uboratoiy and Riot-scale,
Expected completion: October 1991 .
Operational: Full Scale started January
1990.
CLEAN-UP
LEVELS
SoU:PAHi,50ug/V«
Not yet established
TREATMENT
Soil: In-situ bioremediaUon. Alicraativc cap, Ground
water pump and treat 33% of site under potential
bioreme
-------
Page 24
BlOREMEDIATION IN THE FlELD
CLU - IN
Cleanup Information Bulletin Board
Number: (301)589-8366
Help Line: (301) 589-8368 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST
The Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN) is
designed for hazardous waste cleanup professionals, including
EPA, other Federal Agency and State personnel, consulting
engineers, technology vendors, remediation contractors, research-
ers, community groups, and individual citizens to use for finding
information about innovative technologies, consulting with one
another online, and accessing databases.
Features of CLU-IN
CLU-IN provides the following features:
• Electronic message capabilities
• Bulletins that can be read online (such as summaries of
Federal Register notices on hazardous wastes, descriptions
of EPA documents and training programs,
directories of EPA experts on hazardous waste cleanup)
• Files that can be downloaded and used on the user's
own computer (such as documents, directories,
databases and models)
• Online databases that can be searched on CLU-IN
(such as a database on OS WER training courses)
Special Interest Group Areas
CLU-IN also has a number of special interest groups (SIGs) or
sub-areas with all the capabilities listed above, but limited to a
specific subject area Examples of SIGs currently on CLU-IN are:
• Innovative Technologies
• Ground water and Engineering Forums
• Ground water Workstations
• Superfund Analytical Services
• On-Scene Coordinators/Removal Actions
• Air/Superfund Coordinators
How to Log On
To log onto CLU-IN, you need a computer, a modem, a phone
line, and telecommunications software (such as CrossTalk™,
Procomm™, or SmartCom™). Set your communications
parameters to 8 data bits, no parity, and 1 stop bit The phone
number is 301-589-8366. If you have trouble logging on, contact
the System Operator (SYSOP) at 301-589-8368.
The CLU-IN Bulletin Board was formerly known as the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Bulletin Board.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/2-91/018
------- |