V-/EPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Office of Research
and Development
EPA/540/2-91/027 No. 4 December 1991
B/0MMA1M
IN THE FIELD
An information update on applying bioremediation to site cleanup.
Update on the
Bioremediation Field
Initiative
The Bioremediation Field Initiative was estab-
lished to provide the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and State Project Managers,
consulting engineers, and industry with timely in-
formation regarding new developments in the ap-
plication of bioremediation at hazardous waste
sites. The initiative provides evaluation of the per-
formance of selected full-scale field applications;
provides technical assistance to Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), through the Technical Support Centers;
and is developing a treatability data base to be
available through the Alternative Treatment Tech-
nologies Information Center (ATTIC).
Six sites have currently been selected for field
evaluation of bioremediation: Libby Superfund
(Continued on page 11)
In This Issue
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative 1
Bioremediation Being Evaluated at the
Brookhaven Wood Preserving Facility 1
Bioremediation Action Committee:
1991 Accomplishments 3
Interim Guidelines Issued for Preparing
Bioremediation Spill Response Plans 5
FTTA Offers Opportunities for Cooperative
Biosystems R&D with EPA 6
1991 Bioremediation Field Projects 7
RREL Provides Technical Support for
Bioremediation of Superfund Sites 8
Bioremediation Field Initiative Contacts 9
EPA Bioremediation Publications 10
EPA Athens Lab and GLNPO Demonstrate
Anaerobic Degradation of PCBs 10
Cleanup Information Bulletin Board 11
Field Applications of Bioremediation 12
Bioremediation Live Satellite Seminar 28
Bioremediation
Being Evaluated at
the Brookhaven
Wood Preserving
Facility
A treatability study evaluating the use of lignin-
degrading fungi to detoxify pentachlorophenol-con-
taminated soil is under way at the former
Brookhaven Wood Preserving Facility in Brook-
haven, Mississippi. The treatment technology is a
joint effort between the USDA Forest Service
Products Laboratory (FPL) and the EPA Biosystems
Technology Development Program. The field
evaluation is being supported through the
Bioremediation Field Initiative, the SITE Program,
and the Biosystems Technology Development
Program.
Escambia Treating Company (originally Mississippi
Wood Preserving Company) operated a pole treat-
ment facility at Brookhaven from 1946 to 1986. Both
creosote and pentachlorophenol were used for treat-
ment of poles. A hazardous waste management unit
(HWMU) that accumulated K001 sludge (i.e., bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters
from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol) and a solid waste
management unit are targeted for cleanup.
The HWMU, which was used for evaporation of
process wastewater, is an unlined impoundment
constructed of a 4- to 7-foot high earthen dike. The
HWMU covers about 2.78 acres and contains a waste
sludge pile at its southwestern corner (Figure 1).
Escambia Treating Company also formerly utilized
two surface impoundments, a condenser pond and a
sludge waste pit, which were located near the wood
treating process area. Sludge from these impound-
ments was excavated to a depth exceeding 8 feet, and
the sludge was placed in the southwest corner of the
(Continued on page 2)
Printed on Recycled Paper.
-------
Bloremedlation In the Field
GENERAL GROUNDWATE
FLOW DIRECTION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FORMER WASTE SLUDGE IMPOUNDMENT
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
AREA
RETORTS
GAUGE
SITE
A W-02
PROPOSED LOCATION OF
THE TREATABILITY STUDY
BULK
CHEMICAL
TANKS
D
-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FORMER CONDENSER POND
IMPOUNDMENT
A - MONITORING WELL
A
W-10
BROOKHAVEN WOOD PRESERVING
BROOKHAVEN, MS
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1. Brookhaven Wood Preserving Site Layout.
Bioremediation Being Evaluated at the
Brookhaven Wood Preserving Facility
(Continued from page 1)
HWMU. This excavated material constitutes the
bulk of the waste sludge pile.
The treatability and demonstration studies will be
conducted using soil from the waste sludge pile. In
June 1991, a flat, approximately 18-m by 18-m sec-
tion of the waste sludge pile was systematically
sampled. Samples were taken to a depth of 30 cm
along five rows that were approximately 18m long
and 4.6 m apart. Ten locations, approximately 1.80
m apart, were sampled along each row. Forest
Products Laboratory analyzed duplicates of each of
the samples for PCP concentration, which was
found to range from 25 p-g g"1 to 342 p,g g"1, and
averaged 143 jig g"1. A composite sample consisting
of soil from each of the sample locations was also
collected and analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile
organics by National Environmental Testing, Inc.
These samples contained elevated concentrations of
44 organic compounds, 12 of which are hazardous
constituents of K001 waste.
The treatments under evaluation consist of combina-
tions of three fungal species, three inoculum loading
levels, and the appropriate controls for a total of 10
treatments. The experimental design combines a
randomized complete block (RGB) without replica-
tion and a balanced incomplete block (BIB) with
treatment replicated four times (Figure 2). Eleven
10-ft by 10-ft plots, each plot holding about 4 tons of
soil, were constructed. Six of the plots were used for
the RGB design, with treatments applied for full
plots. The BIB design is being used to evaluate one
(Continued on page 3)
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
Bioremediation Being Evaluated
at the Brookhaven Wood
Preserving Facility
(Continued, from page 2)
of the RGB treatments and four additional treat-
ments. The five remaining plots were separated by
interior plot borders into four split-plots measuring
1.53 m by 1.53 m each.
Figure 2. Plots A—F: Randomized Complete Block (RGB).
Plots G—Z: Balanced Incomplete Block (BIB).
Soil was excavated to a depth of 30.5 cm from the
location that was originally sampled on the waste
sludge pile. After excavation, the soil was mechani-
cally sieved to pass a 1.9-cm screen, then used to fill
the plots to a depth of 25 cm. On September 18, the
plots were treated. Initial 1-, 2-, and 4-week samples
were collected, and the last sample (8-week) was col-
lected on November 13, at the termination of the
feasibility study.
This study will be followed by a larger scale
evaluation of fungal remediation of PCP-con-
taminated soil in the summer of 1992. For further
information, contact John Glaser at 513-569-7568 or
FTS 684-7568.
Bioremediation
Action
Committee:
1991
Accomplishments
An important component of EPA's activities in
bioremediation is the Bioremediation Action Com-
mittee (BAG). The committee was established on
the recommendation of participants at the
February 1990 EPA-Industry Meeting on Environ-
mental Applications of Biotechnology. Dr. John
Skinner, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Re-
search and Development, chairs this committee.
The BAC's Mission
The purpose of the BAG is to provide a forum by
which government, academic, and industry ex-
perts can facilitate the advancement of both the
science and the practical application of
bioremediation. The work of the BAG is ac-
complished through its six subcommittees. These
subcommittees and their accomplishments during
1991 are as follows:
» The Research Needs Subcommittee reviewed
the state of bioremediation research, through an
expert workshop held in April 1991, to deter-
mine needed research to advance both the
science and commercialization of bioremedia-
tion. The final report from this workshop is
entitled High Priority Research on Bioremediation.
The subcommittee is chaired by Dr. Martin
Alexander of Cornell University.
» The National Bioremediation Spill Response
Subcommittee, chaired by Steve Luftig of EPA,
is charged with the development and im-
plementation of a national bioremediation oil
spill response capability. To date, the subcom-
mittee has produced a report, Interim Guidelines
for Preparing Bioremediation Spill Response Plans,
which provides guidance to Regional Response
Teams on how to incorporate bioremediation
into spill planning and response. (See article on
page 5.) This guide is currently being used to
prepare a spill response plan for the Region VI
coastline.
» The Treatability Protocol Subcommittee
provides technical input into the development
of protocols for testing the applicability and
effectiveness of bioremediation as a cleanup
(Continued on page 4)
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
Bioremediation Action Committee:
1991 Accomplishments
(Continued from page 3)
technology for oil spills and hazardous waste
contamination. This subcommittee, chaired by
Dr, Edgar Berkey of the National Environmen-
tal Technology Applications Corporation, is
currently drafting protocols for testing oil spill
bioremediation products. Commercially avail-
able products are being used to validate the
draft protocols. These products were offered for
use by their vendors in response to a June 6,
1991, notice in the Commerce Business Daily.
» The Data Identification and Collection Sub-
committee identifies data on field applications
or tests involving bioremediation, assembles
these data in appropriate form, and provides
them to EPA for inclusion in the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Clearing-
house (ATTIC). Both industrial and govern-
ment sources of data are being sought. This
subcommittee, chaired by Jim Solyst of the Na-
tional Governors' Association (NGA), recently
produced a report entitled States' Use of
Bioremediation: Advantages, Constraints, and
Strategies. While this report is available free to
government agencies, there is a charge for other
organizations. To receive a free copy of the
report or for information on NGA's bioremedia-
tion program, contact Paul Thompson at 202-
624-5359. To purchase the report, contactNGA's
Office of Public Affairs at 202-624-7880.
* The Education Needs Subcommittee plans to
review existing approaches to bioremediation
education at all levels, with the goal of promot-
ing successful education strategies, This sub-
committee, chaired by Dr. Rashales Levine of
the Department of Energy, is charged with im-
proving the formal education of scientists and
engineers, as well as upgrading the under-
standing of concerned citizens.
• The Pollution Prevention Subcommittee,
chaired by Dr, Thomas Lewis of the Celgene
Corporation, is investigating applications of
biotechnology to industrial processes. These
applications are expected to result in reduced
generation of waste. Case studies documenting
successful approaches will be developed.
The large number of nongovernment participants
in these subcommittees attests to the importance of
cooperation among government, academia, and
industry. Four of the subcommittees are chaired
by leaders in industry or academia.
Second EPA-lndustry Meeting
On June 14, the B AC and the Office of Research and
Development sponsored the Second EPA-lndustry
Meeting on the Environmental Applications of
Biotechnology. Approximately 120 repre-
sentatives of government, academia, and industry
participated in this roundtable discussion with
Administrator Reilly on the accomplishments of
the BAG since the first EPA-lndustry meeting.
Prior to the 2-hour roundtable, attendees par-
ticipated in an informal poster session, which
highlighted the accomplishments of each BAG
subcommittee, as well as those of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
The roundtable discussion with the Administrator
proved to be an occasion for lively two-way com-
munication. Administrator Reilly charged the par-
ticipants to pursue three broad goals with respect
to bioremediation:
1. Development of a national response capability
for oil spills.
2. Development of effective treatments for haz-
ardous waste and for cleanup of contaminated
sites.
3. Development of an enhanced ability to prevent
pollution.
Additionally, the Administrator pledged to do
everything possible to ensure that EPA policies,
regulations, and rules build upon the recent
progress.
While the accomplishments of the BAG have been
significant, much work remains. The Ad-
ministrator offered these closing remarks:
I'm very impressed with the progress we've
made, the progress that you've made, the
developments now under way. I commend
everybody here, and urge you to continue on
the path you've laid out. I think the progress
that has been made is, as I took what was said
here, very much a collaborative progress of
industry, government, and the research com-
munity—and it indicates what can be ac-
complished when all of these involved sectors
cooperate.
Copies of the summary of the June 14,1991, meet-
ing and the Research Needs Subcommittee report,
High Priority Research on 'Bioremediation, may be
obtained from Tom Baugh. He may be contacted
by telephone at 202-260-744$; by telefax at 202-260-
3861; or by mail at US. EPA, RD-681,401 M Street
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
-------
Bioremediatlon in the Field
••::::$
Interim Guidelines
Issued for
Preparing
Bioremediation
Spill Response
Plans
At its first meeting, in September 1990, the Subcom-
mittee on National Bioremediation Spill Response of
the Bioremediation Action Committee decided that
guidance should be provided to On-Scene Coor-
dinators (OSCs) to help them determine when
bioremediation is appropriate to use as an oil spill
cleanup technique. The Subcommittee decided the
first guidelines should be interim and be issued
quickly to Regional Response Teams (RRTs) through
the National Response Team. The Interim
Guidelines were developed to help each Regional
Response Team revise its Regional Contingency
Plans to incorporate bioremediation as a potential oil
spill response technique.
The guidelines are intended to assist RRTs in assess-
ing the threats to human health and the environment
posed by bioremediation agents or application
methods and the effectiveness of bioremediation
agents and techniques. (Bioremediation agents in-
clude both enhancers, or fertilizers, and additives, or
exogenous microorganisms.) These guidelines also
should help RRTs determine when and where
bioremediation may provide incremental benefits
over other cleanup alternatives, especially in those
response situations where mechanical cleanup
means are inappropriate or ineffectual.
The guidelines stress three major activities: data
gathering and feasibility assessment, logistics, and
monitoring and followup after bioremediation ac-
tivities.
Data Needs for Feasibility Assessment
The guidelines specify data needed for assessing the
feasibility of bioremediating oil spills, which include
applicable regulations and policies (federal, state,
regional, and local) that would restrict the use of
bioremediation. In addition, RRTs must identify
critical resources, such as sensitive species and
habitats, that might possibly be affected by the
spilled oil and/or bioremediation agents. They also
must identify candidate locations within each
Region where spills are likely to occur along with
areas where bioremediation might be allowed or con-
sidered. In areas where bioremediation might be al-
lowed, the conditions for use need to be defined.
Vendors must supply specific information on
bioremediation agents prior to a spill occurrence, and
the quality of that information must be evaluated,
especially any claims vendors make regarding the ef-
ficacy of their products.
Logistics
The guidelines discuss the need to assess each pos-
sible spill situation as to whether initiation of
bioremediation would be time-critical, as well as the
role bioremediation would play in the overall spill
response strategy. In the actual proposed implemen-
tation phase, RRTs must delineate resources and
analytical laboratory capabilities required to imple-
ment bioremediation. In addition, a written plan of
action for each area considered for bioremediation
should be developed.
Monitoring and Followup
Because of the lack of evidence confirming the safety
and effectiveness of some bioremediation agents, the
guidelines stress development of comprehensive
monitoring plans. These monitoring plans should
contain objectives, including endpoints and ap-
propriate controls for evaluating test results. Em-
phasis is placed on the importance of having defined
data quality objectives that are statistically accept-
able and scientifically defensible. RRTs should
select analytical methodologies that will meet the
monitoring program objectives, and develop a
mechanism for overseeing the sampling, data collec-
tion, and reporting activities.
The guidelines also recommend implementing an
information feedback system for reporting back to
the On-Scene Coordinator, so that he or she can more
effectively make response decisions concerning fur-
ther use of bioremediation for a particular spill.
Synopsis
Addressing all of these elements in advance will
reduce the number of questions and issues that RRTs
and OSCs will face at the time of an actual spill. This
process should expedite decisions regarding the
possible use of bioremediation and assure proper
monitoring, information documentation, and timely
feedback regarding remediation progress and test-
ing results.
For further information regarding the Interim
Guidelines, contact Karen Sahatjian at 202-260-1354
or FTS 260-1354, or Royal J. Nadeau at 908-321-6743
or FTS 340-6743, Emergency Response Division.
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
The Federal
Technology
Transfer Act Offers
Opportunities for
Cooperative
Biosystems R&D
with EPA
Both EPA and private industry seek new, cost-effec-
tive technologies to prevent and control pollution.
In the past, however, legal and institutional barriers
have prevented government and industry from col-
laborating in developing and marketing these tech-
nologies. Also, the efforts of many companies to
develop new technologies have been held back by a
lack of resources, such as scientific experts in the
particular fields, or highly specialized equipment.
The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA)
removes some of these barriers to the development
of commercial pollution control technologies.
The FTTA makes possible cooperative research
and development agreements (CRDAs) among
federal laboratories, industry, and academic in-
stitutions. CRDAs set forth the terms of govern-
ment/industry collaboration to develop and
commercialize new technologies. These agree-
ments will, according to the Act, foster the tech-
nological and industrial innovation that is
"central to the economic, environmental, and so-
cial well-being of citizens of the United States."
The advantages of collaboration have prompted
EPA and industry to set up CRDAs in areas rang-
ing from reducing air pollution to cleaning up oil
spills.
CRDAs in Bioremedlation Technologies
Bioremediation has proved to be a particularly fer-
tile area of collaboration. CRDAs have resulted in
the field application of this technology, providing an
ever-expanding data base of chemicals known to be
biodegradable. This technology is, therefore, an ex-
cellent example of the benefits of government and
industry working together to develop new means of
pollution prevention and control.
EPA has several CRDAs on bioremediation tech-
nologies, including:
• A CRDA between ORD and Exxon Corporation,
USA, to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of
accelerating the rate of biodegradation of oil spill
residues on the shores of Alaska.
• An agreement between EPA's R.S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory and Coastal Biotech-
nology, Inc. to develop a bioremediation process to
remove contamination by alkylbenzenes.
• An agreement between EPA's Gulf Breeze Environ-
mental Research Laboratory and Southern Bio-
Products, Inc. to develop microbial isolates to
degrade toxic substances.
• A CRDA between EPA's Risk Reduction En-
gineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, and
Levine-Fricke, Inc. on the use of resources from a
centralized wastewater treatment plant to sup-
port soil and sediment treatment of contaminated
soils.
What Industry Can Gain from Signing a CRDA
with EPA
FTTA cooperative agreements offer many benefits to
industry, such as:
• Access to high-quality science. EPA's 12 re-
search laboratories employ over 1,200 scien-
tists and engineers and operate on a budget of
approximately $450 million per year. Many of
these laboratories combine world-class exper-
tise with state-of-the-art equipment and fully
permitted testing facilities. Certain types of
environmental research, such as pollution
prevention and control, require the collabora-
tion of experts in many different fields. This
type of interaction is readily accomplished at
EPA laboratories, which employ a range of pol-
lution control experts.
• Expanded communication channels between
government and the private sector. CRDAs build
working relationships between the government
and the private sector. The different perspectives
that government scientists bring to an applied
R&D project can provide a knowledge base that
can significantly reduce the time spent on
problem-solving tasks during technology
development.
• Exclusive agreements for developing new tech-
nologies. Under some CRDAs, companies are
given exclusive rights to market and commercial-
ize new technologies that result from the col-
laboration. Until recently, industry had little
incentive to cooperate with federal laboratories
because any technologies developed during joint
research remained in the public domain for all to
use. Now, exclusive rights can be negotiated for
some projects, although other arrangements of
rights are also possible, depending on the type of
CRDA.
(Continued on page 7)
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
The Federal Technology Transfer Act Offers
Opportunities for Cooperative Biosystems
R&D with EPA
(Continued from page 6)
The procedure for setting up a cooperative R&D or
licensing agreement under the FTTA is designed to
encourage collaboration between industry and EPA
laboratories. For industry, the key advantage of the
process is the speed and ease with which the agree-
ments can be negotiated and signed. CRDAs are not
subject to federal contracting or grant regulations.
In addition, each laboratory director has the
authority to establish CRDAs for that particular lab,
and this decentralization of the decision-making
process reduces the administrative procedures
involved.
Another important advantage is that CRDAs are
flexible enough to fit the goals of many different
sizes and types of companies. For example, under
the FTTA, a company can support applied research
at an EPA laboratory while reserving first rights to
involvement in any technology that results. Or, if
the scientific mechanism by which a company's
product works is unclear, the company can
cooperate with an EPA laboratory to identify this
mechanism. A company can also share space and
equipment with EPA (as well as with a third party,
such as a university or another company) in a com-
bined effort to develop a new technology. If a CRDA
results in a patentable technology, that invention can
be patented by either the federal laboratory and / or the
company (depending on the agreement).
Under CRDAs, EPA may provide technical expertise,
facilities, equipment, staff, or services. EPA may not
provide direct funding to the outside cooperator, al-
though the cooperator may provide funds to EPA.
The FTTA, therefore, provides a potent mechanism for
EPA laboratories to work with the private sector in
developing new pollution control technologies and
bringing them to the marketplace. The achievements
of CRDAs in bioremediation have aided EPA in its
mission to remove or minimize the effects of pollutants
in the environment, while at the same time catalyzing
the development of the emerging biosystems industry.
The CRDAs already in place suggest that cooperative
agreements between industry and government will
prove highly successful.
How could a CRDA help your company develop a
pollution prevention or control technology? For fur-
ther information on EPA's Federal Technology Trans-
fer Act (FTTA) Program, contact Mr. Larry Fradkin,
U.S. EPA FTTA Coordinator, or Ms. Susan McKenzie,
Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Sup-
port, Office of Research and Development, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
1991
Bioremediation
Field Projects
This year to date, 124 sites have been identified
across the country as considering, planning,
operating, or having completed bioremediation
projects. Details about the projects at these sites
are presented in the table, Field Applications of
Bioremediation, on pages 12 to 27. This table is
updated with new sites and new information in
each quarterly bulletin. Significant advancements
in bioremediation technology at these sites are
featured in the bulletin as well.
Bioremediation is being undertaken for a number
of different contaminants. Data compiled by the
Bioremediation Field Initiative, however, indicate
that the majority of bioremediation projects are
being carried out on three major waste categories:
petroleum, creosote, and solvents. Together, these
three waste types make up almost three quarters
of the waste undergoing bioremediation (see
Figure 1).
Creosote 29%
Petroleum Products 29%
Other 26%
Solvents 16%
Figure 1. Major Waste Types Being Remediated.
The sites covered in this assessment include Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Under-
ground Storage Tank (UST); and Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) sites.
Figure 2 shows the legislative authority under which
each site is categorized. As the figure indicates, al-
most two-thirds of the information comes from Su-
perfund sites.
Figure 3 shows the Regional distribution of the
bioremediation sites, with Region V leading the way
(Continued on page 8)
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
1991 Bioremediation Field Projects
(Continued from page 7)
CERCLA
RCRA UST Other
12%
6%
figure!. Legislative Authority of Bioremediation Sites.
with 33 sites or 27 percent of the total. This analysis
includes sites with federal and state leads.
Figure 4 depicts the stage of implementation for the
sites. Nearly 40 percent are in the predesign phase,
which includes treatability studies, feasibility
analyses, and planning. Ten projects have been suc-
cessfully completed.
Region IV 14%
Region III 6%
Region II 7%
Region V 27%
Region VI 5%
Region VII 8%
Region IX 19%
Region VIII 3%
Figure 3. Distribution of Bioremediation Projects by Region.
Predesign Being Installed Completed
In Design Operational
Stage
Figure 4. Stage of Implementation of Bioremediation Sites.
RREL Provides
Technical Support
for Bioremediation
of Superfund Sites
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
provides Superfund support activities to the Regional
Offices and States through the Superfund Technology
Demonstration Division's Technical Support Branch.
In addition to the engineering and scientific support
provided by the branch, eight technology teams have
been established within RREL to ensure that technol-
ogy expertise is made available to those involved with
hazardous waste site remediation. The Technical Sup-
port Branch and the technology teams have provided
engineering support to approximately 150 Superfund
sites in fiscal year 1991.
RREL's areas of expertise include treatment of soils,
sludges, and sediments; treatment of aqueous and
organic liquids; materials handling and decontamina-
tion; and mining and contaminant source control.
Typical problems that RREL handles are:
• Site characterization for treatment technology
selection.
• Screening of technology options.
• Review of treatability study proposals and results
of studies.
• Oversight of treatability studies.
• Review of RI/FS reports.
• Assistance with studies of innovative technologies.
• Design reviews and full scale startup testing.
Biological treatment of soils and waste streams is one
of the areas where RREL has significant involvement
in site-specific support, technology transfer work, and
treatability assistance.
Site-Specific Support
In the area of site-specific engineering support, RREL
recently oversaw treatability studies involving
bioventing to remove acetone and anaerobic degrada-
tion in a constructed wetland to treat mine drainage.
At the Buckeye Superfund site in St. Clairsville, Ohio,
and the Clear Creek Superfund site in Colorado, con-
structed wetlands using anaerobic treatment were
evaluated for mine drainage. At the Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill, screening-level treatability tests
showed that constructed wetlands look promising for
treating leachate high in mineral acidity. The screen-
(Continued on page 9)
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
RREL Provides Technical Support for
Bioremediation of Superfund Sites
(Continued from page 8)
ing-level (laboratory) test developed for this effort can
be used to evaluate wetlands applicability for other
sites. On the Clear Creek site, remedy selection
treatability tests performed in the field supported the
selection of constructed wetlands as one of the tech-
nologies to remediate acid mine drainage with high
levels of toxic metals.
A bioventing/soil venting treatability test was con-
ducted for the Greenwood Chemical site in Albemarle
County, Virginia; the site, especially around the
production building and lagoons, is contaminated
with chemical products and production feed materials
such as arsenic, cyanide, volatiles, and semi-volatiles.
Acetone was detected in depths of up to 40 feet. The
purpose of the test was to determine if bioventing
should be considered for remediation of the acetone.
Test results are expected in November.
Technology Transfer
RREL is developing a number of technology-specific
treatability guidance documents for use by the Super-
fund program. The guides discuss the steps necessary
to evaluate a biological treatment technology, from
prescreening the technology for potential applicability
through use of treatability data in evaluating various
alternatives. Two of these guidance documents deal
with biodegradation.
The first document, which discusses remedy screening
biodegradation treatability testing, describes the
screening tier of testing. This guide discusses the
important aspects of screening testing, the main
focus of which is to determine whether further test-
ing is warranted to evaluate a potential biological
treatment remedy in more detail. Therefore, the goal
of screening biological testing is not to demonstrate
whether contaminants are being reduced to a
"cleanup level/' but rather to demonstrate that
biodegradation is taking place. Screening testing
would not by itself lead to selection of a biological
treatment remedy. (This document, Guide for Con-
ducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, is now
available. See EPA Bioremediation Publications on
p. 10 for ordering information.)
RREL is just beginning a project to develop a guidance
document that will discuss remedy selection treatability
testing for aerobic biodegradation. This document
will address the types of testing necessary to actually
select a biodegradation remedy in a record of decision,
and will discuss how to determine whether
biodegradation will meet site cleanup goals. The test-
ing will depend on the specific type of biodegradation
being addressed. The exact scope of the document is
still being formulated.
Screening Tests for Treatability Assistance
RREL has developed a series of screening tests that
will give the Regions a preliminary assessment as to
the appropriateness of a given technology for
remediating a site. These screening tests include
biotreatability along with eight other test proce-
dures. The objective of the biotreatability test is to
degrade organic contaminants in soil samples to
harmless levels. Samples will be mixed in an aerobic
slurry with nutrients and microbes, and tested for
the disappearance of the contaminants over a 3-
week period. These tests are being offered to the
Regions beginning in fiscal year 1992; notices have
been sent to the Regions informing them of the oppor-
tunity to select sites for screening-level tests.
For more information about the screening tests, please
contact Eugene Harris at 513-569-7862 or FTS 684-7862.
For general information about technical support,
please contact the Technical Support Branch at 513-
569-7406 or FTS 684-7406.
Technical support activities in bioremediation
provided by the R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory will be presented in the next issue.
Bioremediation Field
Initiative Contacts
Fran Kremer, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Bioremediation Field Initiative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7346
FTS 684-7346
Nancy Dean
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OS-HOW
Technology Information Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8797
FTS 398-8797
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
EPA Bioremediation Publications
The Federal Technology Transfer Act: Opportunities for Cooperative Biosystems Research and
Development with U.S. EPA (CERI-90-114)
A Field Evaluation of Bioremediation of a Fuel Spill Using Hydrogen Peroxide (NTIS PB88-130257)
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste (EPA/600/9-90/041)
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soil (NTIS PB90-164047)
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxygen (NTIS PB90-183435)
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy Screenings
(EPA/540/2-91/013a)
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals During Land Treatment of Oily Wastes:
Ritz User's Guide (NTIS PB88-195540)
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks (NTIS PB89-219976)
Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds (EPA/600/S2-90/018)
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor (NTIS PB88-170568)
Transformation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds (NTIS PB88-249859)
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook 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.
To be added to the mailing list to receive Bioremediation in the Field, call (513)^569-7562.
EPA Athens Lab
and GLNPO
Demonstrate
Anaerobic
Degradation of
PCBs
The EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in
Athens, Georgia, has been investigating the anaerobic
degradation of a variety of chlorinated aromatic com-
pounds including PCBs and a number of pesticides.
As part of these studies, the Athens laboratory has been
cooperating with the Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) to demonstrate the use of-anaerobic
degradation of PCBs in wastes disposed of in Confined
Disposal Facilities (CDFs). Current efforts have
centered on laboratory studies investigating the
degradation of PCBs in contaminated sediments from
the Saginaw River and the Sheboygan River. The
thrust of this work is to test the use of alternating
anaerobic and aerobic conditions in achieving the com-
plete degradation of PCB-contaminated wastes.
Contaminated sediment remediation has generally in-
volved dredging followed by disposal in a CDF. Treat-
ment of these wastes has not been considered until
recently with the inception of the GLNPO. A primary
goal of this group has been the demonstration of sedi-
ment treatment technologies. In the summer of 1992,
a field demonstration of the biological treatment of
PCBs will be conducted under the auspices of GLNPO.
The use of nutrients as well as aerobic cycling will be
tested. For further information, contact John Rogers at
404-546-3592 or FTS 250-3592.
This initiative is a cooperative effort among the Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS)
and Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD), Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Major contributors to this initiative include the waste programs in the EPA Regional
Offices and the following laboratories in ORD: Ada, OK; Athens, GA; Cincinnati, OH; Gulf Breeze, FL; and
Research Triangle Park, NC.
10
-------
Bioremediatton In the Field
f/EPA
CLU-IN
vvEPA
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, researchers, community groups, and in-
dividual citizens. CLU-IN can be used to find information
about innovative technologies, consult with other users
online, and access data bases.
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, descrip-
tions of EPA documents and training programs, or direc-
tories of EPA experts on hazardous waste cleanup).
• Files that can be downloaded and used on the user's
own computer (such as documents, directories, data
bases, and models).
• Online data bases that can be searched on CLU-IN (such
as a data base on OSWER 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 current-
ly 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 on to 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.
Update on the Bioremediation Field initiative
(Continued from page 1)
site, Libby, Montana; Park City Pipeline Spill, Park City, Kansas; Allied Signal Superfund site, St. Joseph,
Michigan; Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; Hill Air Force Base, Utah; and Brookhaven Superfund Site, Brook-
haven, Mississippi.
* Work is under way at the Brookhaven Wood Preserving Facility. Field studies were initiated this fall to
evaluate three fungal species, with differing loading levels. The fungi are being used to treat contaminated
soil from waste sludge piles. See the article on page 1 for an update on current evaluation activities.
• At the Allied Signal site, which is contaminated with solvents, additional site characterization is being
undertaken.
• The bioventing project for remediation of jet fuel contamination at Hill Air Force Base has been initiated.
Three soil-gas wells have been installed. Time zero soil samples were collected during the well drilling and
are being analyzed.
• For the bioventing evaluation at the Eielson Air Force Base, which is also contaminated with jet fuel, venting
and gas monitoring wells have been installed along with ground-water monitoring wells. Soil samples
taken during well drilling are currently being analyzed and air injection has been initiated. The first
biodegradation rate study was completed in September.
• At the Libby site, final samples for this season were being taken of the last lift in the land treatment unit.
• Site characterization data are being evaluated at the Park City Pipeline site.
Other bioremediation sites are still being screened as candidates for field evaluation.
11
-------
Bioremediation In the Held
i
o
"•
TREATMENT
0.
§ EJ
Uj g:
U J
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
i..
ill
SITB
LOCATION/
LEAD
i
i
z
Ground water: activated shldge
and chemical extraction. Soil:
incineration.
i>
I
•S
s
0
§'
Installation: full scak.
Remediation start: June 19
Remediation expected
compktion: March 1992.
Ground water: pesticides
(chlordane), arsenic.
Volume: 200 gpm.
Lederer
573-5738
833-1738
all'
Baird & McGuire*
Holbrook, MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
-
S
z
Activated sludge with metals
precipitation; activated carbon
and inorganic polishing being
considered.
,
1*
s a
! Ji
H
o S
Predesign: pilot scak.
Remediation expected star
1994. Remediation expecu
completion: 2020.
Ground water: pesticides
(chlordane), dioxin, arsen
Vohime: ultimately, 30 g]
ground water and leachat
Dickerson
573-5735
o O
ll
=3
Charks George Landl
Tyngsboro, MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
-
jj
Z
Aerobic attached growth process,
anaerobic attached growth
process, and in situ
bioremediation.
,
J
1
|
In design: laboratory scak
Planning pilot scak for FY
3
Sediments: PAHs, creoso
en Carlson
242-5680
ti
•a
T> <2
Charfcstown Navy Ya
Boston NHP National
Service
Boston, MA
CERCLA State Lead
-
S
Z
Biotrcalmenl. Other
technologies: treatment train
(metal precipitation, air
stripping). Ground-water
treatment: source control about
50%.
.a"
if
• s
II
!§
IS
0 Z
Predesign. Remediation
expected start: 1994.
Remediation expected
compktion: 2000.
Ci j
s]
Ground water: ammonia,
Vohime: 100 gallons per
lit!
6 S~S S"
x S-Q&
«
_
Coakley Landfill*
North Hampton, NH
CERCLA Enforcemer
-
0
In situ bioremediation Other
technologies: bioreactor and
flotation separation.
S.
S
§:
8
Operationat pilot scak sin
May 1941.
^
Pond/river sediments: PC
Volume: 250 gallons of
sediment and water.
Blake
260-6236
260-6236
III
If
0-
•3 .
General Electric (Wo
Pittsfcld, MA
RCRA Lead (Federal
_
S
*
Batch or bioreactor. Other
technologies: flotation separation.
8.
S
&
C*
8
Operational: pilot scak sin
November 1, 1990. RCRA
corrective action.
a
Sofl and river sediments:
Volume; 12 cu. m.
Blake
260-6236
260-^236
Ill
General Ekctric*
Piltsfield, MA
TSCA Lead (Federal)
-
O-
a
z
I
1
s
•J
a
•s
1
1
s
z
2-
Planning to conduct treafa
studies in FY 1991
Soil; PCBs, petroleum
hydrocarbons
Spydct
573-9674
»33-W74
III
Hamilton Standard
Windsor Locks, CT
RCRA Lead
-
e
If
Jl
i*
tti o
Solid-phase bioremediation:
excavate to treatment
cell— surface treatment; land
farming within treatment
cell— optimizing natural microbes.
10% to 20% of site under
bioremediation.
a
I
af
5
0 1
& &
i.
Installation. Remediation
October 1991. Remediatio
expected compktion: 1996
SouAmidges: petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Vohime: 20K+ cu. yd.
II
ll
•g
-
Iron Horse Park*
Billerica, MA
CERCLA Enforcemei
~
I
Z
Soil: in situ bioremediation and
solvent extraction.
Ground water: aerobic attached
growth process (fixed film
reactor). Other technologies:
•g
i
1
•s
3
Z
oiVwater separation, metals
removal by shg, carbon
adsorption.
lit
JJ
Ur
III
a 1 S
Ground water/sous/sedinu
PAHi, VOCs, BTEX. cyi
Vohime: 10DKcu.yd.to
cu. yd.
I**
!!*
. 3
9 5 n)
(Sou
«
§
Activated sludge biotreatment
with extended aeration. Other
technologies, vacuum extraction.
1
.a
X
z
*O fl
a 2
VI %
£> •£
Operalionat full scak.
Remediation start: June 19
Remediation expected
compklion: July 1994. Co
S2.5M per year.
•?. s-
H ' * S
^ .f « &
Ground water: phenols, ]
aoetoae, toluene, benzene
chloride, chloroform.
Volume (ground water):
gpm by air stripping, 50 g
activated sludge.
a « S
"1 2 ^
m
Sylvester
Nashua, NH
CERCLA Stale Lead
-
a .3
12
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Z
O
CO
2;
o
I-H
ss
o
u
b
oa
O
*•
TREATMENT
CLEANUP
LEVELS
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
r^.
§US
HZ"
iii
o S z
z
o
H
s 3 j
«
o
Z
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Contaminated soil is applied in 2-
ft layer, nutrients are added and
soil is tilled by mechanical means
100% of site under
bioremediation.
"S
S 8
•I
•5 *
a -a
«l
S a*
y a J8
Operational: full scale.
Start: Jury 1991. Expected
completion: Fall 1992.
Bioremediation of first lift
section complete; preparation
beginning for second lift
$i
Soil: BTEX, PAHs, V
VTX. Volume: 4,375
2 3
3 a
Sag
i|s
£ £ ^
I
g
j z u)
1*3
i 9 U
I J *
s 3 a
< 55 U
s
O
z
In situ bioremediation. Other
technologies: free product
extraction, cement kiln
incineration, and addition of
nutrients for subsequent
jreinjection; soil venting; off-gas
treatment with catalytic
incinerator combustion or
activated carbon absorption of
VOCs
>-» *•
!i
ra *"'
o ^
VI -J
2 s
J
In design: laboratory scale.
Design expected completion:
December 1991. Expected
capital cost: S286K. O&M co
$200 K.
> a* Q
jgf
1 ^ s
J v_ X ^^
•s
,3
if!
a g W
< "3 w
rt •< u
K
i
.s
1
J3
'I
D
In situ bioremediation
•8
f
.O
3
u
13
>.
'o
5
Installation: treatability study
(expected start; August 1991;
expected completion' Noveml
1991). Laboratory scale.
Expected cost: S2.6M.
Rivet sediments PCB
Volume; 150 cu. yd.
,
^a S S 8
111 III
3 is ^
t .£ -w
«*a
' s
!l^
osS
B
||l|
iiSi
TJ s a ""
«^ir
o .sa '£ a
Sequencing batch reactors; slurry
phase bioremediation. Other
technologies: chemical extraction,
thermal desorption, and chemical
treatment will be considered in
the event that bioremediation is
unsuccessfuL
Si|
I- S«
= il-
~ 3 5 a
~ .§ .1 8:
-•a 73 -o _
5 .SJS S
>t
Treatability studies: laboratoi
scale. Several full-scale
treatments being considered.
Expected start: Spring 1993.
Soil/shldge/sediment:
Volume: 350K cu. yd.
R2
** S T
1 i «
III
•a
3- 1
llgl
||l1
0 n, S o
~
g
55
In situ bioremediation.
Infiltration trench used to inject
nutrients and hydrogen pyroxide.
Three 80 gpm recovery weds used
to draw nutrients and Hf>t
through contaminated woe.
rffc
a4 «•>
sl I
rt *
* rf L »
!"fl
o ja -S a
o £o 2
1 -s
Remediation start: January 1
Remediation completed: Octc
1989. Cost $250K+ with 1-4
years of pump and treat
«5
as a.
Soil/ground water. BT
gasoline. Site area: 2(
volume (ground water
shallow.
a S
= OV
' u -*
p- a t
111
tSSE
i
a
S >• 3"
|S5
1 J3 ^
1^
o a 5)
i2 S 3
-
|
2
SoM phase bioremediatioii;
contaminated soil removed when
clean and placed on adjacent
property. Other technologia:
vacuum extraction added April
1991. 100% of site under
bioremediation.
Bu
>8^S
3*1 si
iiii
|§°a^
iMil
OpcratioaaL FiiO scale: July
1991. Started: August 1990.
a U
5 I*
£ s 8
Soil gasoline, BTEX,
VOC.
Vokime: 2 acre bioren
cell approximately 5K
per treatment phase.
erǤ2 S
** Q P >£• *"
•^ >? K 2 B^ P
Sill II
s
i
3 ^ Ul
111
° a tfl
a « D
~
g
Z
Ground water, rotating biological
contactor; source of
microorganisms not yet
determined.
a ** e ^.
O . <^ -| ^
•5 o .. Q S
ffU
l,llll
Jit Vs^
2 * I &&S *
s
Predesign. Treatability stud
on soil completed September
1990; studies on ground-wate
underway. Remediation
expected start: June 1994.
Remediation expected
completion: March 1996.
1
I
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
tf]
i
-J
O
£
TREATMENT
CLEANUP
LEVELS
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
a
ae
g
Z
Solid-phase bioremediation. 30%
of site under bioremediation.
,
*>
S.
"o
Z
Operational: full scak.
Remediation start: September
1990. Expected costs: S125K,
Soil: creosote, fuel oil
Vohlme: 670 cu. yd.
Jim Harrington
Ajay Shroff
NYSDEC
(518) 457-9357
Osmose
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA State Lead
_!
ll
1-3
IS * ri
•Sl-s
111
1 3 B
J3 8 'S
Solid-phase bioremediation: soil
removal at other half of site.
Jfl
I
r
NYSoflClea
Operational: full scale.
First phase: started July 1990,
compkted Spring 1991. Second
phase; started Spring 1991;
expected completion; Pall 1991.
t
Soil: petroleum hydroc
jet fuel
Vohlme: 5 to 6K cu. yi
Harry Warner
(315) 426-7519
Syracuse
Syracuse, NY
UST Lead (State)
„
o
Z
Bioaugmentation abovegrdund,
bioventing, Olher technologies:
pump and treat, possibly soil
shredding. 5% of site underwent
bio remediation.
i
1
i-
*,*
i§
Completed: ftlU scak. Started
October 1989. Completed June
1991.
Soil: chlorobenZene.
Vohlme: 2K. cu. yd
Robert Stroud
(215) 597-6688
(FTS) 597-8214
ARC*
Gainesville, VA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
S
-i
5 a
•3 a
2 2
•2 * g
39°
si?
£|JS
Soil/sediments: solid-phase
bioremediation. Other
technologies being considered:
soil washing, thermal desorption,
incineration.
|
•I
Not yet cstab
RVFS ongoing. ROD start date:
2nd quarter FY 1992.
a
&
Soil/sediments: PCP, P
wood preserving, dioxi
(furans)
Drew Lausch
(215) 597-1286
(FTS) 597-1286
•s
Atlantic Wood*
Portsmouth, VA
CERCLA Enforcement
B
3
Z
Biological and chemical
wastewater treatment.
iJ!»*l.
Will!
^.J*! gi-21
smilJ
In design. Expected start: 4th
quarter of 1992. Expected cost:
S9M.
* 1
a I
•a -f
Ground water: arsenic,
lead, carbon disulfidc,
hydrosulfide, phenol, c
|||
,
Avtex Fibers
Front Royal, VA
CERCLA Enforcement
O
Z
Aerobic attached growth: BACT.
•5
1
S.
*o
Predesign: laboratory scak.
Start May 1991. Expected
compktion: April 1992.
vf
1
Soil/ground water: pes
DCE, fenac (herbicide
Roy Schrock
(215) 597-0517
(FTS) 597-0517
Drake Chemical*
Lock Haven, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
a
g
o
Sofl: in situ bioremediation;
creosote recovery. Other
technologies: sofl flushing. 25%
of site under bioremediation.
•8
1
Not yet estab
In design: pilot scak. Started:
November 1991. Expected
installation: 1992. Cost: J23M
for entire site.
Sofl: creosote.
Vohlme: 119K cu. yd.
IS
Is
II
1
L.A. Clarke & Son*
VA
CERCLA Enforcement
H
8
Z
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Other technologies: solidification
of inorganics.
3
1
•a
0°
ll
Treatability studies planned. RD
start date: August 1990.
Expected compktion: March
1993. Phummg laboratory scak.
Unilateral administntive order
issued June 1990. Expected cost
$8.3 M.
•d
.3 3
Soil: carcinogenic PAI
Volume: Approx. 42K
ii
v 1
Ordnance Works
Disposal Area (O.U. #
WV
CERCLA Enforcement
a
8
o
Biological treatment (treated soils
will be disposed of off site).
Other technologies: chemical
treatment. Less than 10% of site
under bioremediation.
i!..?» i!?!
<.2c£,£££ aPvS'.ti^ «
Predesign. Limited treatability
study compkted June 1990.
Remediation expected start: June
1993. Negotiation with PRPs
begun.
a £ -*>
ijij
111
•is
f"
ll
. J
HI
Us
_.
i
«
S3
.1
.S
13
2
.s
s-
I
x»
I
o
•s
5
14
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
=
o
o
s_^
^
O
hH
§
Q
fe
O
cc
S5
O
cu
<
Q
Q
i
c
C
£
TREATMENT
CLEANUP
LEVELS
STATUS
Z
ll
u 5
S 0
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
Z
SITE/
LOCATIO
LEAD
X
u
S
3
a
M *
fll
In
"S U .a . .
'S * jj 3 fr.2 •&
Ground water: aerobic atti
growth process on creosote
in situ bioremediation on 1
PCP and creosote. Sou: s<
phase bioremediatiott, Slu
phase bioremediation may
used if levels are low enou
100% of the site is under
bioremediation.
T!
1
Z
Predesigw full scale began
December 1990.
^
5
A*
|
if
^ w
3 o
o§
|||
[ll
S
n
*
1> a
•§ O
? "5 x
t V- t>
I II
' S « a!
a ^
"8 a^l
s .8 -3 s
a a * S 4
I 8. S " i
JSIH
lli"!
Illll
Not yet established
100 ppm for 6-8
indicators
.3
JS
ft.
a
.8
1
op
o
3
•a
Tony DeAngelo
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 257-7791
.9
)
•i -a
! *
•s
u. z£
K*3
D J X
1° 38
a -2
!a u •*•
8 a| I
H a > Ji
-| 8. 1 1 1
- f 11^,
Ui*f
S « * 3 !
(2 8 2 S S
Not yet established
,*. a
1 .s
100 ppm for 8 p
carcinogenic md
Hydrogeologic investigation
underway.
&
CU
-
1 -a
3 j t^
|1-
1 II
3^9
oS i
Tony DeAngelo
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 257-7791
]
!
* 1
1 1
u. zl
is*:5
is-jBS
1 n 2 w
| ^^ u
« s
1 ait
£ o ^ M
P d **" 5
.0 o g « 'J
•- 'a — fl **
Iflll
•s
&
8 g
Solid-phase bio re media tio i
deahng with process area
contained soils and "fixed1
creosote sludges in a large
lagoon 0% currently und
bioremediation
100 ppm for 6-8
indicators
a
Planning. Partial removal of
shidges (creosote) and highly
contaminated soils for offsite
incineration has occurred. St
no feasibility studies.
•A
-i
•^
3 «
+ -3
\ i i
&>%
Tony DeAngelo
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 257-7791
3
)
^ 13
1 J
<3. Ss
g£*S
isJ.g
1° J-g
a
.S
- - S
o *w
S fa
n 2 o
.2 s w
I*-!
II i
|I2
woo
fl
o
.a
i
.2
Ji
s
5
cu
£-
1
o
c«
.§•§
»|4
» tt h& oo
Ipt
a »n o
?tS « "
a. „)• a" a"
ll ii
1
In design: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start:
October 1992. Remediation
expected completion: Septeml
1994 Expected cost: $5M.
J
^ 13
1 ^
P* O
1 1
Sal
^ S ^
Madoh/n Streng
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 257-2643
1
)
r -a
4
y
ns
Us
-
1
>i
•s
y fl
Solid-phase bioremediatioi
surface treatment lined wi
berms 5-6 ft.
a
^
&.
3
1
'o
$
Operational full scale.
Monitoring for 3 yrs.
Treatability study completed.
Remediation start: October 1
Remediation expected
completion: December 1991.
&"
o*
5 •»'
< >.
«• '
i o
3 | a
•a '1 3
5^^
Martha Berry
(404) 347-2643
(FTS) 257-2643
•s
*j
a -
i
' §
1 i
i*a
itf<
s* « j
; O U
i JS S
o
•«
^
•1 -3
8 <•
** *!
s a
i 8
ll
JS-
^
g.
!!,
Ill
its
.- M ..
'^ 21 ^ d $ 3- *" * ?^
ujS **§.^S^^ & *" ^
2 ^ g s ^-^ ^ .rf * j3"3
"^ *> S = ^ ° -S * "3 *
fliUliliL
TS f „ -a » a
HiHili,
llllll^l
-iM l^sii
tl^alllll
1.§l^iitf|
SaS.aglSg'gS
H£53SOSS^s5
1
8 v t
3^ £
|2 1 1
!j3s
' say
i| | J
« S 8>
III
„
1
j
! -^
!«]
o pj
* i«* u3
K O
1
Not yet established
Ji .If
i*rf*
«( SP«
Acetone, 710 ug
DCE, 70 ug/L; I
DCE, 120 ug/L;
200 ug/L; TCE.
Pb, 5 ug/L
Planning bench scale studies,
ongoing remedial design.
I
s
i
3
o
Al Cherry
(404) 347-7791
(FTS) 347-7791
•s
JS
1
§
0^
M a
III
c3 S
a
1
1
15
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
tn
i
§
£
TREATMENT
1.
3 »i
2 ^
U J
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
§ «|
§11
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
i
$
z
la situ bioremediation. Other
technologies: soil washing will
biorcmediation or solidificatioi
50% of site under
bioremediation.
«
j£ 3 Ji m 3 °- ^
5 M 3 rf sR £
5 * 3 •§ g
!'Jis|1iI
•SgdgaggSu
|| |l S frS S £
aS'?-s5!si'
lgl|oi|so-is
sf'S'o8.s§Jg!2
^ o 2
Sequencing batch reactor: O.L
#1: in addition to
biorcmediation, carbon
adsorption and air stripping ar
used for ground-water
remediation. O.U. #1:
implements rotary kiln
incineration,
solidiiication/stabukation to tr
sludges/soils.
1 S
2 J B
|=||
"° jj-i 2
TJ o 3 "o
(rt S 8 A
Treatability studies complete.
Bioreactor on-line since August
1989.
Ground water: ethylene gh/col,
benzene, acetone, chromium.
Soil: chromium, antimony,
acetone. Sediments: bis(2-
elhylhcxyl)phthalatc.
Volume (soil): 2K cu. yd.
tgg
1^
III
a ?
2 -J
& a
° 1
fc
Jill
7 *
I S S
O "O
B.3 •
'•sl|l
*8:8l
Slurry-phase bioremediation it
treatment train: soil washing,
bioremediation, solid
stabilization.
Landfill: 100% under
bioremediation.
Operations: 50% under
bioremediation.
la
" ™
1 i
11
••S g
« 0
In design: September 1990 to
June 1992. Laboratory scale with
pilot study planned.
Remediation expected start:
September 1992. Remediation
expected completion: March
1994. Expected cost: S8.6M.
Sou/ground water/sediments:
PCP. Volume: 27Kcu.yd.
i|
1^1,
III
Coleman-Evans
White House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
&
111
•«5-a
S-fi
fi =
«• a a
^ o "a
2-i s
s
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Other technologies: carbon
absorption. Approx. 90% of tl
site will be bioremediated.
o
if S M
|f «|
2 6 s °. s
~ 51 8 " °-
^ M J* ^ U
S 8 B>J! t-
Predesign. Currently in
technology selection phase. Pilot
study before design.
Remediation expected start:
December 1992.
Remediation expected
compktion: March 1995.
Expected cost: S3M.
t
__ 8
O v)
ij
o r--
ss
II
2
^
Dubose Oil*
Cantonment, FL
CERCLA Enforcemen
fc
g
^
? ..
Soil: tn iitu bioremediaiion, ta
treatment. Other technologies
ground-water extraction,
pretreatment, discharge to a
POTW. 37% of site under
bioremediation.
,
•I
^
1
«,
—
2
Predesign started March 1, 1991,
Soit PCPi, PAH,
«!*
Koppeis/Borence*
Florence, SC
RCRA Lead (Federal)
s
g
*
Solid-phase bioremediation: lai
treatment using bacteria,
nutrients, and cometabolite,
•s
3
A
S,
z
Installation. Contaminated soil
and sludge excavated. Silo
capped after biotrealment.
Soils/sludges; creosote (KOOI
waste) -
S
Bfr
If
1*
at
Laagdab Facility
Swtetwater, TN
RCRALead
fe
§
*
Undetermined
o a
a a
»• a
M 8
Pilot bench scale treatability
studies being reviewed. Work
plans in pbce.
Soil: dicamba, benzoic acid,
dlchlorosalicyclic acid,
benzoaitrile
gs
as "
«^s
111
Shavers Farm
Shelby County, GA
CERCLA Fund Lead
*
&
z
It
o
Solid-phase bioremediation on
soil, sequencing batch reactor
ground water. Considering
slurry-phase biorcmediation.
100% ol the she under
bioremediation.
•s
1
J-J
£
•£
*
Ptedesiga: full scale
Ground vatct/soifc PCP,
creosote. Volume (soil); 1 acxt
with uncertain depth. Volume
(ground Water): 5 acre* with
Contaminated phi me.
all
|,s§
III
s
s
1
g
Stalkvorth Timber*
Beatrice, AL
RCRALead
(Federal/soil
RCRA Lead (Stateygr
s
Q
O
i— i
ffl
fa
O
CG
w
hH
fa
16
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
O
hH
§
Q
H
^
W
tf
O
HH
M
fa
O
OJ
Z
O
§
O
S
u
I
S
a
a.
TREATMENT
a.
isl
ij S
U -i
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINA^^T
o Z z
^
o
a j j
a
o
jT
Slurry reactor, continuous fla
completely mixed. Treatmen
train: soil washing,
bioremediation, solid
stabilization. 100% under
bioremediation (laboratory sc
•3
•^
a
^
2
J
Predesign. Laboratory scale
completed. Expected start of
design: April 1992. Remedia
expected start: March 1993.
Remediation expected
completion: March 1995.
.. ^
If ,
Ground water/so il/sed
acids, PCB. waste oil.
Volume: 56,900 cu. yd
r*i
III
| J
ill
113
Z Z 0
-
00
1 Si
.is-.B 2
sis
iff
-o a
S o - . -r;
In situ PAH bioremediation a
prepared pad bioremediation.
Other technologies: inanerat
with onsite reuse of waste he
(waste fuel recovery); ground
water pump and treat. 10% <
site under bioremediation.
.S
a
s | r ,
1 »jf ji
^ ^i 3 a»
3 s 2 s
a » .2 .
Predesign. Pilot studies: Apr
Summer 1992. Enhance
bioavailability through use ol
surfactants, and facilitate the
delivery of oxygen to the was
matrix. Incurred cost for test
>$1M. Expected cost: $20M
3
Lagoon sediments: PA
Volume: 500K cu. yd.
^ S R
" " £.
•s
i
8
Ixl
Q d j
i i a
< £ 0
>
p S 1 «
•a •§ -s - 1
•35 II s
«'8,!s'i
S 81 83 *
"3 « s.5 o s
S J fa S .&
9 * = | 1 -B
*M 8 Jf2
*
In situ bioremediation: using
indigenous methantrophs. 75
of site under bioremediation.
•3
1
^
W
Z
2 ^^
Predesign. Treatability study
be completed end of 1992.
Laboratory scale and pibt sa
Remediation expected start:
1993. Remediation expected
completion: 1998
O
>
tf
Ground water: TCE, I
8
ll
It
•3
* i
g s
ls|
< X 8
>
o
1
S
3
U
'a
In situ bioremediation.
Indigenous and exogenous
bacteria are tilled into the so
Less than 1% of site (only
drainage ditch area$) is unde
bioremediation.
£ $
i-Si
"O _r tf ta
= § a -
2 | 1 «
0 o. 3 J
•S
Operational. Full scale.
Remediation start: Jury 1991.
Incurred cost: S100K. Expect
cost: J200K.
W" *Q
if
Ground water/soil: cu
phenols. Volume: 80C
drainage ditches.
p-i
s i
11
5 •§
1 ffi ^
y _r J
' jjj (^
>
1
I i !.
Aerobic attached growth proc
submerged fixed fibn reactor.
Other technologies: vacuum
extraction! soQ vapor cxtractk
for product recovery and soil
treatment 100% of ground v
at site u under bio re media tjo
•3
i
1
4>
FuU scale. Operational:
September 11990.
«r
5 •£
Ground water/soils; sc
aromatic ketones, also
Volume: 15-20 gpm,
II
it
s
ft]
III
< (2
J3 "8 u
_ M u 3
2 g ,a -g 2 i
*>£ * "5 5,
g ,g » g | a &
•a|Sl||1s
S 1 -a -S S .° S S
1 8 S 1 « g 8 •£
g lllll-S-i
i-« O S Ji ** ^ Q. O
1
In situ soil bioremediation;
external bioreactor. 75% of :
under bioremediation.
•3
1
S
13
•3-3 •»
— O « J*
Operational: full scale.
Remcdiatioa stark June 1991
additional equipment needs t
installed. Remediation cxpe<
completion: Summer 1992.
rncurred cost: $341 K. Expect
cost: J20K.
e
a
i
^ 3
^ i
a
£ S-w S.
1 ff
ill.
s ifs
• "* u
25 fe
« P
>
.is
a
-a _,
Land tteatme
permit denie<
Solid-phase bioremediation
•S
i
!
•5
2
i
Predesign: discussing
bioremediatiott ai an option;
studies underway. Expected
start: 1992.
Sou: petroleum
H!I
S S-o S-
/
. 1
I 1
ip
« 3 «
>
1
5 o
.a -2
« -2
a 'u Ji a
•S §* 8 'i
II 1 1
i
Treatment train: in situ and s
phase bioremediation.
Other technologies: thermal
desorption, ground-water
monitoring, 20% of the 4-aa
site under bioremediation.
S ^ !*
• £
., oo jj — S
o u O
*" of OO . Q
1 f § j i
0 8 § S -8
.s *
Operational: full scale startec
1987. Expected completion:
1995. Incurred cost: S725K.
Expected costs of O&M: $38
per year for 30 years.
^
o
8
Soil/ground water: oil,
carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PAHs, cr
Volume: lOKcu.yd.
if 1$
Illl
2 "3
s —
rj
(0 S U
>
g"
I
1
•3
I
I
I
17
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Q
O
hH
PQ
fa
O
X
Z
O
cu
<
Q
VI
i
1
TREATMENT
CLEANUP
LEVELS
a
In situ forced aeration. 10% of
site under bioremediation.
Not yet established
-li §!
aboralory
. Novembe
a 3
.§•"
8 «
II
a „
1? 3
I a.
- 8
|J
S *
II
Fan
886-1842
886-1842
III
•g
J
Cliff/Dow Dump*
MI
CERCLA Enforcement
>
a _
^ & ; "S
o 2 J* *
8 .3 ** "2
•|*-J.d
Illll
In situ biodcgradation: involves
using native or mutant strains of
aerobic bacteria to degrade
organic compounds in the soils.
Nutrients and oxygen supplied to
contaminated soils to enhance
microbial degradation.
Not yet established
8
£
ll
ll
S «
IB
A jf
g-s
ll
Ii
3 v%
1*
2 ^
s2 £•
Duell and Gardner
Muskegan, MI
CERCLA Slate Lead
^
1
Undetermined. 1% of site may
be under bioremediation.
5 ppb TCE; 70 ppb
DCE; 200 ppb DCE;
drinking water standards
used where possible
Ji
S
£•
|
•1
1
j?
§
tf
s
•a a
2 O
ti
Bradley
886-4742
886-4742
1?H
« as,
Fisher-Calo
LaPorte, IN
CERCLA Fund Lead
>
|
Solid-phase bioremediation; in
situ with amendments. 100% of
soil at site will be bio re media ted.
Not yet established
jj
i
•o
Ul
. •
J>g
8 2
ll
_,
J8
§•
•8 <
Jf.
i U
U
fl §! Q
£-? ^ 1
£ t 1 i "9
« S S * S
5 S s Q S
a $& I S~
« S,&« 5,
Galesburg/Koppers*
IL
CERCLA State Lead
.a |
5I
IE
tw
-•8
Closed loop in situ
bioremediaton. Enhancing
microbial growth through
addition of ammonium chloride,
monosodium phosphate, disodium
phosphate, and oxygen to ground
water.
Nondetection levels
»•*- ffl
1 !_« 1 1
|S|||
t-1 § "s -^ §
8--5PI
SJ-ilfl
3
s
1
s
|
I
o
ga
tt, *"*
S1*
IS
a «"
a,|i jj
I|jj&8 |
£ 5
„
1 1
•sis
«3 g* S
Ijl
Ills
Solid-phase bioremediation. 10-
acre Und treatment unit Other
technologies: ground-water pump
and treat 33% of site
undergoing bioremediation.
Soil: 100 ppm total
PAHs; 130 ppm total
PCP; dermal contact
standards
S 1
a i.
. ajf
1*8
ll|
3 •§
•|||
o^lll
t.
Jg
£ §
'I!
lllllll
§11 fill
loslyn MFC*
Brooklyn Center, MN
CERCLA Slate Lead
>
•3
S 2 ^ a> 3
Jf 3 Je
tlfll
ll'l-gg 1
Aerobic attached growth process;
submerged fixed film. Other
technologies; carbon polish unit
to ensure compliance with
NPDf-S permit. 100% of
captured ground water at site is
under bioremediaUonr
Ground water; gasoline
(background
nondetectioB levels or
risk-based levels)
*
il
ii
3-S
£ S
OB*
!
**
$
to s
3
Jl
i s
is
*£
a •*
ll
'8
Marathon St»tian-Ervin
Kentwood,MI
State Lead
^
Bioremediation using oxygen with
no addition of nutrients.
Soil; 10 ppb BTBX.
Ground water; 1 ppb
BtEX,
3
•S
1
i
s
s
1
1
,j
III
s
MayviBe Fire Depwtmi
MayviUe, MI
UST Lead
>
«
5
.1
.?
I
J
S
"8
.2
"S
18
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
Q
b
Q
i
TREATMENT
3.
2 w
< b
1!
STATUS
Z
MEDIA/
CONTAM
L|
ill
o
H
8§i
i
8
Ground water: aerobic attached
growth process; fixed film. Other
technologies; soil incineration in
consideration.
•s s
*i
-D £
HI
!§!
Predesign. Treatability studies
and pilot completed December
1989. Full scale. Remediation
expected start March 1993.
Remediation expected
compktion: November 1995.
Cost for Phase 1: $600K to
S800K.
&
"l
Oi
S
rt
*
1
i
o
a 1
i* V"
fs.
•3
* «
0 *
1 d
1 > &
>
8
1
Slurry-phase bioremediation:
bioreactor using indigenous
bacteria. Other technologies: soil
washing.
to
M
•a
u S °o
|1»1
1 1 i1 s
>• tj r? ^
8 .2 S
ItlJi
O B.'H. * U
Ground water: rotating biological
reactors, fixed film. 100% of the
site under bioremediation.
J
5 x
Is- -83
u ^!s s
fsll
ls'13^
Jli^
Installation/operational:
conducted pilot-scale study in
January 1988. Remediation
expected start: November 1991.
Expected cost: $5M to S6M.
8
|
la
ll
* 8
*£
1*
1 8
P
|i
-o ™
H 5,
1
§ JS
in
Hi
; £ (j
>
1 '
Q 33
0 S
8 2
tl
In situ bioremediation. Other
technologies: ground-water pump
and treat. 3 of 11 acres under
bioremediation.
1
1
1
o
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Remediation expected start:
Summer 1992. Remediation
expected completion: Fall 1993.
^
s ^
a T
s|
Ji S
A *
5 «
fl
n
__ | 5 S
3 ^ "8 r«-
9 s— - .3 y— \
i
•3 „ -a
i* j
in
i?g
I3i
>
Jtt
iL
J X m
.a •Si-
III
Q S.S
Pump and treat as interim action
until levels of organks are
reduced.
•s
1
.Q
S,
o
Z
Predesign: February 1992.
Design: waiting for feasibility
study to do remediation on TCE
and toluene. Working on
additional work plan for oil
Ground-water pump and treat
expected start: September 1992.
,•
3
jj
13
£j
iS
i ^
' 6,
•3
S ^
i ^
! S
la 8
>
I
Considering pump and treat air
stripping/carbon absorption
treatment with added
microorganisms and nutrients;
fixed fihn reactor, immobilized.
Other technologies: chemical
treatment and air stripping.
100% of site under
bioremediation.
8"
if *
<* a i ***
S" 5 «ii *o
.-?*•".
* N 8 a
ll"!
Jill
£
i."
iU
*t
3 |
i'^t I
illi
55 g g
i
D ^
2 5,
3
^ i
*• i
aj|
111
>
I
1
•g
J
|
i
•8
Z
(h
II
1!
i s
tg
ll
i;j
ili
>
z
Soil: in situ bioremediation;
surface and subsurface; using
additional nutrients (N,F).
Ground water: pump and treat
with discharge to POTW. Other
technologies: carbon adsorption.
•s
|
i
0
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Treatability study expected start
September/October 1991.
T.S. expected completion:
September/October 1993.
Expected cost for treatabillty
studies: S140K.
£
8
.|
!l
M)
all a a
siffili
till ill
•s
I s
I z §
^1
1^8
>
#
* 'd
M H 3
•So rs ^
I? M § 1
t— «* ••* BO .^
- u • .!
5la-Sa
« s -i - o
S 8 1.2 S
Ground water: sequencing batch
reactor, continuous flow. 100%
of site under bioremediation.
•g
1
^
a
r
o
Z
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Remediation expected start:
December 1991. Expected cost:
$15M.
1
a |
it^
\ a*
ilii
R
!|
II
1
1
p
tu
! S
^ a!
Is8
>
i
1
1
tf
O
fa
O
I
1
I
i
I
I
4)
i
19
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
S3
O
tt
~
tf
O
I-H
M
05
Z
o
hH
I
3
a
WJ
Cu
m
O
EL.
TREATMENT
0.
Z u
ss
STATUS
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
CONTACT;
PHONE
NUMBER
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
I
Z
In situ bioremediation: VC, TCE,
DCE Other technologies:
vacuum extraction, chemical
treatment
f
8 -3
Q <4
uf I
f* *•
$t
A
Operation*): full
Remediation star
Expected comple
Incurred cost: $1
Expected cost: $1
Ground water: VC, TCE, DCE,
benzene, chloroelhane.
Volume: JOOK gallons.
S!
gl
0 ?L
•* to
1
Seymour Recycling
(Unit 1)*
IN
CERCLA Enforcemc
>
|
Z
In situ bioremediation. Other
technologies: vacuum extraction.
1
1
^
o
Z
scale.
t: June 1991.
ecled
Incurred cost:
cost: HOOK.
Operational full
Remediation star
Remediation exp
completion: 1993
S750K. Expected
Soil VC, TCE, DCE. Volume:
lllKcu.yd.
N
a 2
3
Seymour Recydkg
(Unit 2)*
IN
CERCLA Enforccme
>
Pit
f -8 » -
Jlli
'* a 51
•a '9 g
•3 H a J
& 3 3 „
In situ bioremediation: capped
sediments; natural and enhanced
biode gradation in enclosed
structure. Contained treatment
facility with possibly aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Other
technologies: chemical extraction
and treatment, thermal
desorption, sediment capping.
•S
1
3
V
o
2;
Illl
||l|l
3 frfri 1
1 S 8 *• 8
Ililll
Sediments: PCBs. Volume:
2,700 cu. yd. in capped disposal
facility. Approximately 10K Ib
PCB.
1-1
i] « g
u S
« ^2
s 1
- 1
itl
5- |-0
slg
»i
g
Z
Soil: in situ bioremedialian,
passive natural bioremediation.
100% of site under treatment.
1
.a
3
V
—
I
of passive
Start: February
ample tion:
Full scale. Study
bioremediation
1991, Expected c
February 1992.
Ground water: gasoline.
Volume: IK gal
of §0 §
J S 5 &• S
s If Iff
>
3
2
Pump and treat, air
stripping/carbon absorption
treatment with added
microorganisms and nutrients.
100% of site considered for
bioremediation.
ri
u J" *•
* tf JJ
* § 1
1 a a
0.2 JS
I
Ground water: 2-butanone, 2-
hexanone. Vokime: 140K cu.
yd.
5
3 5
al
Speigelberg Landfill*
Livingston Township,
CERCLA Enforceme
>
\
Z
Undetermined
•3
I
I
;ation/fea$ibility
on expected
Remedial invest!
study. Remedial
start: 1993.
Soils/sediments; VOCs, PAHs
•111
Debbie Sie
(312) 353-9
Cliff Twaro
(612) 296-7
a
CO
St. Louis River
Interlake/Duluth Tar
Duhlth, MN
CERCLA State Lead
>
a
Z
Ground water, activated shidge.
Soil in situ biomediation. Other
technologies: GAC.
•s
1
1
•s
o
Z
Tleatability
T.S. expected
ary 1992.
Laboratory scale.
study underway.
completion: Janu
Sou/ground water. VOCs,
dioxin, monodichlorinated
biphenyls, PCBs
Ith
Kathleen V
(312) 353-6
Terry ROUI
(312) 353-3
Union Carbide*
OH
CERCLA Enforceme
>
_L°8|
Ji^rl^ g g>5
° • ^ 5 ' 2 a ^ *•
1^-^3-^s
85|ga s5^
fS-S*a..iS*S
Aerobic attached growth process.
Other technologies: depending on
the results of ground-water
samples dunng the pump test,
precipitation of metals, and a
carbon filter for the vinyl chloride
may need to be added.
**!5Jgf
5 **! "fe t- ° I- - a
^ dp « TJ S, « *5
SwS'S-g -i"'C^
Illl It? Is
,*, 1
i°ilii^
Ground water: (organic:)
acetone, benzene, vinyl
chloride, toluene, xylene, trans-
1,2-DCE, ethyfcenzene, 1,1-
dichlorethane, 1,2-
dichloroethene
„
Ji
ll
* "«
o g
|sl
J 9 W
>
s
i
1
I
2J
I
i
.s
20
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
f
A «
•8-3
bined
ccsscs: surface and
face, sludges treated
tely. 100% of the sit
ioremediation.
g
s.
iatio
lo
es.
tio
opr
bsur
sepa
und
tr
. Other tec
ilization of res
under biorem
dges:
Sl
la
ite
Solid-phase bioreinediatio
phases): (1) active; requires
monthly application of nutrie
and monthly tilling; (2) enhat
annual application of nutrien
nd no tilling; (3) augmente
ddition of nutrients or tilli
Land treatment, composting:
PAHs in soil. Other
technologies: pump and treat
tion of ground
of site under
carbon absor
water. 100%
bioreediatio
Solid-phase bioremedia
Other technologies: G
Slurry-phase bioremediation:
aqueous bioreactor. Other
technologies: stabilization of
residues.
I
So
bio
rea
bio
udge
PCB, 2
ppm; a
benzen
Soils: benzene, 0.04
carcinogenic PAHs,
ppm
orga
S fr 2
IJlM
| HIS
"* 2<8 «
d 3 I a 8
S -o 3 -5
•i*14
" § IB-
B! 8 ia
Install
expect
l Full scale
ongoing.
Ope
April
2°|
Ml
•§
199
ost:
In design:
1993. Expe
1993. Expecte
Septe
Expec
8
ll
tudy.
cted
In de
Reme
tio
6.
993. Re
ompletio
28M.
111
lit
tional:
diation
Ope
Rem
Incu
MEDIA/
CONT
Sou/sludge: hy
dieseL Volume:
ic PAHs
5,500 cu.
m,
600K gallon
K cu. yd.
Ground water:
PAHs, benzene.
Soi ogen
Vo
il: carcino
hime (soi
ve 10 ft.
Soge: petr
hydrocarbons.
Volume (sludge)
Vohlme (soil): 2
Soige/surface water:
benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, phenol PCBs
ebster
655-6730
255-6730
ck
655-6735
655-6735
lll
Rg
•3?5
iss
ION
S3
Ifi
— 2 ui
< <3 u
i
I
rench
Crosby,
CERCL
13
|B^
III
IsS
•8
s
1 5
i
§
'« "3
P W
ida
ston
21
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
PROBLEMS
TREATMENT
a.
s v>
5 u
U J
STATUS
$
MEDIA/
CONTAMINA
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
5E
O
i
I
Ground water: in situ
bioremediation (subsurface).
Other technologies: thermal
treatment of contaminant source
areas; pump and treat for ground
water using carbon adsorption
with polymer injection and
settling.
8
.u
*|-
II s
a ** $
! 8:3
O r- £
In design: pilot scale planned (to
full scak if successful).
Installation: September 1991.
Remediation expected start June
1992. Expected cost for
construction: S149K. Additional
$1.5M if fully implemented.
^
a
S
1
ii
o £
Steven Jones
(913) 551-7755
(FTS) 276-7755
,
• ^
1 1
8 < a
11^
lie
5
tt
•S -S.I 8 S.-f |
3| I * || 1^4^
t»Q f»*§.s<*"o M aS
iHifillf!
nlasislsiS
Soil: solid-phase bioremediation;
in situ soj] flushing. Other
technologies: chemical treatment,
20* of site under
btorenxediatlon.
.3
iff!
a S a a
* S i!
a H 3
W 0 « ^
Installation.- pilot scale and full
scale. Remediation expected
stwt June 1W2. Remediatioa
expected completion; 2004.
Expected cost J9.5M.
$ +
n frt *-
5»|
If §
s|J
S o^
US
j.|S |
!f*Ist
s. ^
(2 SS'
"* "^
Hi!
s
1
Solid-phase bioremediaiion: land
treatment (covered facility).
•s
f
1
4)
f.
5
Operational; pilot scale
4*
B S ^
I a>^
a '•S i
111
•a '"- »
a 1^
II
| f
a _ "3
I?83
«g<8
5 5,5 ot
^
1
Solid-phase hioremediation. land
treatment (covered facility).
jj
w
£
o
Ji
§
.2
'E.
i
o
4 .
S£ =?
3 »|
a f s
.a . •.;
Soil: 24 organ
from creosote
PCP, Vokinw
Frank Dolan
(314) 751-3176
S J?
1 i
"3 *S
jf||
S
1
Sotid-phase bioremediationf land
treatment (covered facility).
•8
I
S,
I
Operational pilot scale
„ 5^
!£*•
a»«
sis
.« 'I 1!
Soil; 24 organ
from creosote
PCP. Volume
Frank Dolan
(314) 751-3176
S J?
f i
1 n"8
l^i>3
£3 •** JZ *->
iifl
s
«1
a
"> .2 3
2 Si i
si'is
10 ts -3
ijiil
2 s j2 s
Ground water: in situ
bioremediation. Other
technologies: in situ soil flushing;
denitrification of BTEX; possibly
bioventing.
f!
1 si
^ ej "
S f, »
Installation: September 1991.
Full scale. Remediation
expected start Jan.-Feb. 1992.
Remediation expected
completion: February 1993.
Incurred cost- J275K- Expected
wsteMSOKl
ii-s -
S •! 3
«f | *
a i|
lift
1 III II
^ 1
•s ^ s
3
g
1
Solid-phase bioremediation. 75%
of site under bioremediation.
r.
1 i
- 1
3 |
^ a
fr £
86
~ a
Operational: full scale.
Remediation start: June 1990.
Completed: October 1991.
1?
8 T S
SoO: creosote
(PAHs,benzo
Volume: 15,91
Bruce Morrison
(913) 551-5000
(FTS) 276-3881
•
ndLead
J« *
|Ji
S
.a
1-
S .a
Volatilkatiou
monitoring be
evaluated.
Solid-phase (land treatment).
Other technologies: air stripping
of contaminated ground water.
.
H
tit
'a 2 °
S>~c J!
S f|
111!
Installed: Jury 1991. Full scale.
Actual start July 1991.
Cost $2M.
s
o
4
* S
Steven Jones
(913) 551-7755
(FTS) 276-7755
,
1 i
« i
tji
5
.a
in
T3 -2 > «
1 1 1 1
.s g "8 •§
ill I
i, J j= i
Soil: solid-phase bioremediation.
Sediment and ground water: in
situ bioremediation Other
technologies: in situ soil flushing.
80% of site under
bioremediation.
9
0
ei> 0
rf 1 •«
5 * &
2| §
•S i'g^
« O 8 ™
In design: 3Q/92. Installation:
1Q/93. Operationat 1Q/93.
Laboratory scale since May 1991.
Full scale in 1992. Expected
start 3Q/92. Expected
completion: 5-10 years from
start Expected cost SUM.
«i
O 3
^^ J
S "j ***
"^"^ "^ "i
llfj
iill
lim Harris
(406) 449-5414
•8
B 1
1 1
2 t- ua
a 3? j«
S3
S £ o
- S 2
lls
?
fe
O
cc
I
S
22
-------
Bioremediation in the Field
E -2 .a
a
11
Ill
ation, combined
nt gallery
recovery weHs.
es: chemical
* 'S "3 o
-ill
« *
-" »*
8
n/pu
chnolo
t
In s
biopro
reinfect
Other
treatm
o »a
Z
O
a.
"
ll
If
s g
ffl
fa
O
cc
Z
O
I
3
3
s *
8 2 § •
a .a u S £
ii*4j
1 ? * -a s
allfl
iiii%
Op
Re
Re
Jlrliil
2til1.il
.a
M
C
ACT
E
ER
•si
II
II
Soil/gro water: benze
tylcne, ouene. Volume:
9.921,330 gab per yeat.
Suzanne Steve
(303) 293-1311
11
0
3 3
s 1 2-
llfll
Smar
(916) 322-
John Wes
(916)
23
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
s*+*.
•
0
O
M
§
Q
W
w
Q2
o
hH
PQ
O
0
1
&
a
H
|aH
fe
i
o
£
TREATMENT
LEANUP
EVELS
U -1
STATUS
IV
TAMINANT
!§
SM
j a. z
SITE/
LOCATION/
LEAD
£
ee
g
*
0
In situ bioremcdation. Less tha
10% of site is undet
bio re mediation.
'S
of yet establis
X
S
1
11
1
1
§
:SJ
ll
Converse Moatabello
Corp, Yard*
Montabcllo, CA
UST Lead (Stale)
jj
S
*
Combined bioprocesses: sprinkle
system to apply bioculture
. formulation; collected leachate
treated in an aerobic biological
reactor before circulation. 100$
of site undergoing
bk>rcme-a 2
ya u a
u o o
si*
•s^.|
•f-i -S.
(3 si
In situ bioremediation; closed
loop system; hydrogen peroxide
as oxygen source; aboveground
holding tank foe nutrient
addition. Other technologies: in
situ soil flushing, vacuum
extraction. 65% of site under
hioremedtatiqn.
is"
a 2 |
JS j
Hi.
|tli
SI
•3
s
Fort Ord Army Base
Monterey, CA
CERCLA Enforcement I
B
g
i2
d
In situ solid-phase bioremediatio
"8
i
V
s.
5
Z
u
i,
H
>estiddes): atrazine,
VO chkMolhalonil,
al, Ihiadine 1 & 2. DOT,
inc. suttate, ttifluralia.
yl parathion, mabulgpn,
Won, toMpiene, trilhion,
ton, methy) trillion,
n.
aillUU
*i e
llli
J S'JSf
o c^« ^
Growers Air
Service/University ofCA
Davis, Medtock Field
Woodland, CA
TSCA Lead (State)
*
£
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Pilot-scale tests on 13, 5-gallon
buckets of soil
4
ot yet establisl
Z
^
a
if
h
Pilot project
Evahiating f
10 organic pesticides
id
S
II
Harmon Field*
Tuhiare County, CA
CERCLA State Lead
S
g
2
Solid-phase bioremediation.
POot-scak tests with 1 cu. yd.
boxes of soil
n ^*
s|
s a
J
3
N
Pilot project
Evaluating 1
TNT, DNT,
robenzeoe, nitrobcazene
II
R
ll
2 s*.
Hercuks Incorporated*
Hercuks, CA
CERCLA State Letd
a
.3
ir
1
!
I
U
.s
1
24
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
fc
O
Q
a
O
GO
Z
O
I-H
Q
HH
fa
0
u
a
C
a
3.
TREATMENT
a.
i "
S it
u -
| STATUS
3
MEDIA/
CONTAMIN
§UU
S z g
z O S
8Si
2
2
gB^
a:
u
1
•g
5 ^ a
"a "a < ~°
i J 1 1 i
1 1 1 ~ "
$ e" O S "S * rf -|a s""' 3 o a ^ o ^ J^vi
w> oil o ^ •• 8> .Ji '§ -9 oG*rn ** «****)
f^'i .8^5 2 '§ ^ j- " ^'g « pd
8 SffS'S|yg3g^2p'f§
« « o -« o ^-8 8 a, J *f -4 d ft, d ^-3 a. '-S
ijjllii
}!iiiifl
llfjij}
.a >,
if h B
a o a >o
s
* g • r w"
|> B 1
* . BO
•2 •» S o
[S3|
M
1 - S a -< 4
X rN *^* .. 5 N I
^. •* gj* g J, V(
Is1^! is^s
w SfeliSSfe
•s
Jj
i
8
,0
t3
! J <
-; Z u
-
u
o
•a 3" - -a
Soil/ground water: solid-phase,
situ bioremediation. Compostii
technologies being evaluated ii
treatability study. 75% of site
under bioremediation.
!
w
U
n.
O
Z
_
Treatability study being
conducted while FS is on hold.
Final FS will be produced
following final treatability study
Laboratory scale. Lab treatmen
study cost: S30K.
1
I
A
•o
a
I
^
Jg
j ^
II
^
>2
'S
u £
rfi
§p
-
g
o
k. ^i
J3 « •g 0
SJfU|
|!f"l
till!
S 8 3 TJ 8
.a -a 's S T> s
Ijl^I
" -9 s ^ S 2
J5 S <3 S a n
3 rf5 S^^^S*^
SSO*3o'f
• 1 Ji "- S. '1 I" 4 *
••a S g pf °" S *" < M" •°"
^•S_fl,Ss^o.«S:
Predesign: pilot scale.
Remediation expected start: Pal
1992. Demonstration, Phase 1,
remediation expected
completion: Spring 1994.
Remediation, Phase 2, ongoing
for 10+ years. Consent decree
expected for RD/RA.
Treatability studies to be done
early 1992. Expected cost:
J12.2M.
..
l§j
1 8
sjsj
fill
Is*
3 N jj
III
•a
Jj
i
Q ^, \£
^ U ^
Ml
-
a
o
a
•S
a
I
a
II
Not yet established
"8
3
2,
o
Z
Site is in preuminary stages of
considering bioremediation
technology; no decisions have
been made and start of a
treatability study is not planned
j.
ii
i ^
• •§
\\
i*
I
h
v N
is
5 *-
II
,
»2
|
8
< £
1 " U)
I a <
i 1 q
r"S 8
2 3, B
B
u
z
il
Aboveground bioremediation
system over a liner with leacha
collection and induced air
infiltration systems.
"3
1
S
u
i
'o
Z
« 13
Design completed. Navy
submitted final report to
Department of Toxic Substance:
Control. Navy classified soil as
nonhazardous waste and planne
full-scale aboveground
bioremediation.
a
•2
8 •!
! "a
i
il
a
U
' it
!i
i
' ^ ts
^ ^
i i •*
; 5 <2 "3
S* 2 S t£
? S
ills
a
u
z
^?
In situ bioremediation: land
treatment; considering white ri
fungus treatment.
|
1
U
IJ
>t
o
z
Predesign: pilot scale.
Treatability study completed.
Considering pilot scale test,
feasibility study.
u
a
1
i
S
1
3
i
S
n
K-^
Is
' 5.
•s s
U >4
- I
i 1
1 J
1 . O W
8 *8 8 i
i s § ri
mi
*
1
I
u
O
1
S
8
1
25
-------
Bioremedlation In the Field
a
o
l-H
cc
fa
o
CO
OH
5!
Q'M
-S
1 &
|| rf
f"5!
'•f S.a
« .-* ^
1
a
o-
O
Operational Fu]l scale start:
August 1988,
li
si
It!
^
||l!
g s'-o 2~
P
III
K
4 1" f s „
l^flll«
^* ° ^ ^ w •§
i^iiilsi
i-kN^JboA » * C
-8 *?1 *
2 o o *s o S
.2 -a j, 8 fl 5 9 .3
Soil; in situ bioreauliat
consideration). Groun
aerobic attached growl
in situ bioremediation.
bioprocesscs. Other te
vacuum extraction, acti
carbon, UV peroxidatk
of site under bioiemed
1
.0
a
Z
Predesign, Treatability studies
Ute FY 1992.
ill-
*jij(
*" * S uf "tt
S d" f S §
Ilift
ill
III
Romic Chemicals"
East Palo Alto, CA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
^
I
^
&
*•* d
Q
In situ biorcmcdiauoq
site vnder bk> re media t
|
S
S
0
£
Operational since October 198
Full scale.
I
|
•3
-•a "**
4 a
ll
^4
a»
•3 «^
£2^
*
s
San Diego Gas and Ek
Mau) Street Facility
San Diego. CA
UST Lead (Federal)
><
u
1
1
.1
1 i
Solid-phase bioremedia
100% of the site was re
VTi
J
8
II
Full scale bioremediation
completed: 1988. Diesel
contaminated soil was
successfully remediated aad
placed as a road-base material
prior to paving.
a
s.
g
s.
"5
»8 3
g
III
5 S M a
*• » a
us* 14
6&&S
Seaside High School'
Seaside. CA
UST Lead (State)
K
1
Waste pile treatment
1-
J""'
1!
Pull scale. Operational since
July 1990.
u
1-
1
"^
J
*
i
" 00
2s
JS
i $
« s-
SEGS Solar Project
Kramer Junction, CA
CERCLA State Lead
K
00
.9
&
a „
1 =
SC 1
Fixed fihn reactor. Ot
technologies: vacuum e
steam enhancement of
extraction.
g- Q o Z!" 2" Q §
s ° H u " s" *" •*
^5 v"? r«i o *> S 3
i - *-? N sf 9 ^ ?s
1 ui a j * Ji » f
Ji-f-tSlH
Operational since January 199
Full scale. Remediation
expected completion: 2001.
Incurred cost: S399K. Expecte
cost S844K.
aS
- a
f!
8 ~
•M
*i 3
* 1
Is
||f I
Illl
Solvent Service*
CA
CERCLA State Lead
^
I
z
BO
•a
Not yet established; co
bio re mediation.
1
ii
a
?
z
Predesign: RI/FS cunently in
progress.
c
>
B"
s
*
Ground
S
i s
&i
i ^
•^ ^
(2 2,
I
Southern California Ed
Visalia, CA
CERCLA State Lead
B
i
.2
Solid-phase bio re media
|
i*
If
8 a
ll
a ^
Full scat bioremediation syste
completed: January 1991. Cos
S310K.
bons, diesel fuel
tons.
8 $
1?
ll
O
a &
S,
•o
Southern Pacific
Transportation Co.
SPTC Maintenance Ya
Rosevdle, CA
CERCLA State Lead
a
i
Not yet established
|
il
M
7>
£
RI/FS still underway. Expecte
completion: 1992.
ft.
i
=3 S
Is
|K
o 2
J Q,
American Crossarm
Chahailis. WA
CERCLA Fund Lead
X
5
g
1
I
4>
J
26
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
1
^^^
§
fi
fa
S
H
£
O
hH
M
fa
O
cc
§
Q
g
fa
"
MEDIA/
i
I
w
a
b
00 ppm
li
I't
r
!
£•„ ?
ng
n,
re
te
fu
rence
ation,
, of co
nitorin
dditio
ing. P
re det
volat
dilution,
No mon
water a
and dryi
tests
be
i"T "1 Z
llll
i*hj
*ll*i
•*lfii
*1&-8
a"!
t
<
3|8
3 S BJ
•o •a -
.2 2 1 S :
** rt ^ «
jJj-s
M 5 9
iii
U
|S
ir
II
J
I
s _.
g^
11
rt «
^ C
ll 8§
I 1
! < 8
|li
Its
E
I!
5
J I
III 5
°
2
* -
-
27
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Bioremediation: The State of Practice in Hazardous Waste Remediation Operations
A Live Satellite Seminar
HWAC and the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) in cooperation with EPA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Water
Environment Federation, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the National Solid Waste Management Association, the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee of EPA's National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology present the first in a series of live satellite broadcasts on innovative hazardous waste remediation technologies.
This seminar will be broadcast on January 9,1992, to over 70 cities across the United States and Canada.
The seminar, featuring leading bioremediation experts, will examine the applicability of bioremediation of hazardous wastes from various media.
The expert panel will:
Examine the theory behind bioremediation.
Review various applications of biotechnology in hazardous waste
remediation efforts.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of bioremediation.
Outline a framework for evaluating the use of bioremediation at a site.
Review the regulatory requirements that govern cleanup operations.
Provide case studies of bioremediation cleanup operations.
Schedule—January 9,1992
Eastern
Central
Mountain
Pacific
Registration
National Telecast Begins
National Telecast Ends
11:30 a.m.
12:00 noon
4:00 p.m.
10:30a.m.
11:00 a.m.
3:00 p.m.
9:30 a.m.
Ift00a.m.
2:00 p.m.
8:30 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
1:00 p.m.
Registration Information
Tuition
Preregistrarion
(before December 27,1991)
Onsite Registration
(after December 27,1991)
Standard $140.00
Government Employees $100.00
$160.00
$125.00
You may register for the seminar in one of four ways:
1. Mail registrations must be received in the A&WMA office by December 20,1991.
2. Telephone registrations will be accepted by calling Debbie Reichert at 412-232-3444 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. through December 27,1991
(Visa or MasterCard).
3. Fax registrations will be accepted at 412-232-3450 through December 27,1991 (Visa or MasterCard).
4. Onsite registrations will be accepted by cash, check, Visa, or MasterCard.
Note: Any registrations received after December 27,1991, will be charged the onsite tuition.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA PERMIT NO. G-35
EPA/540/2-91/027
AGSMCY
•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 - 648-003/40654
28
-------
|