EPA/600/R-92/043
March 1992
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES:
AN ANALYSIS OF VENDOR SUPPLIED DATA
by
Katherine Devine
DEVO Enterprise, Inc.
EPA Contract Number P.O. 5686
Project Officer
Gregory Ondich
Office of Environmental Engineering & Technology Demonstration
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Environmental Engineering & Technology Demonstration
Office Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
NOTICE
This report has been prepared as a part of the activities of the Data Identification and
Collection Subcommittee of the Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG). The BAG is an
affiliation of academia, government and industry representatives who share a common goal of
working collectively to expand the responsible use of biotechnology for the prevention and
remediation of environmental contamination. All data contained within are based on vendor-
supplied information. The data contains much variation in details and has not been verified
by the compilers. Due to the developing nature of the bioremediation industry and the lack
of standardized testing protocols, the report has not been formally peer reviewed by the
Agency; hence, the contents do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or of other Federal agencies.
The development of this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under contract (P.O. No. 5686) to DEVO Enterprises, Inc. Mention of company
names, trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for hire or use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The purpose of this report and its companion report, Bioremediation Case Studies:
Abstracts, EPA/600/R-92/044, is to provide users with reference information about 132 on-
going and/or completed field applications and studies from 10 different biotechnology
companies. About two-thirds of the cases were at full-scale clean-up level with the
remainder at pilot or laboratory scale. The information contained in these reports was
voluntarily submitted and was not the result of a formal survey. The report does not contain
information from all companies involved in bioremediation, only those companies who
responded to a request for voluntary submissions.
These reports were prepared in conjunction with the Data Identification and
Collection Subcommittee of the EPA-Industry Bioremediation Action Committee (BAC).
One of the objectives of the BAC is to promote the full potential of bioremediation to treat
hazardous waste and clean-up leaks, spills, and abandoned sites through research,
demonstrations, and technology transfer. Due to the relative newness of bioremediation for
hazardous waste clean-up, there is, in comparison to other more widely used treatment
technologies, little information currently available.
These reports were prepared to compile bioremediation studies in a variety of locations
and treating diverse contaminants, most of which were previously undocumented. All data
contained in this report are based on vendor-supplied information and there was no
opportunity to independently confirm its accuracy.
To assist the user in identifying the most useful sources of information, abstracts of
the 132 case studies have been entered into the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) data base to augment the already existing bioremediation
information it contains. ATTIC is an on-line, key word searchable, automated data system
which provides, with out charge, information on innovative treatment technologies for
hazardous waste clean-up. Another source of bioremediation case studies (focused primarily
on Federal and State managed clean-up) is contained in Bioremediation in the Field, a
bulletin published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
For more information about these reports, contact Dr. Curtis Harlin, RD-681, U.S.
EPA, Office of Research and Development, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,, D.C. For
information about ATTIC contact Ms. Joyce Perdek, U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., Edison, NJ.
111
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Notice
11
Foreword iii
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
Purpose and Goal
Methodology
Results
Limitations 14
Appendices 19
-------
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 Participating Companies and Number of Cases for ATTIC
Table 2 Cases by Stage of Cleanup
Table 3 Cases Reporting Treatment in Addition to Bioremediation
Table 4 Cases by Date of Treatment Commencement
Table 5 ..................................... Cases by Status of Completion
Table 6 Cases by State
Table 7 Cases by EPA Region
Table 8 Cases by Contaminants Treated
Table 9 Cases by Media Treated
Table 10 Cases by Treatment Method Used for Soil
Table 11.................................... Cases by Treatment Method Used for Groundwater
Table 12 Cases by Treatment Method Used for Sludge
Table 13.
. Cases by Treatment Method for Soil by Year of Treatment
Commencement
Table 14 Cases by Contaminants Treated by Company
Table 15 Cases by Media Treated by Company
Table 16 Cases by EPA Region by Company
Vll
-------
-------
I. Purpose and Goal of the Case Study Collection
A. Purpose
The major goal of the Bioremediation Action Committee's (BAG) Data Identification/Collection Subcommittee
is to collect bioremediation information that exhibits the technology's benefits and costs and make this
information available to the public and private sectors. (See Appendix A for more information on the origin,
purpose, and structure of the BAG.) One means of exhibiting such information is through an existing U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD) database, the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC).
ATTIC is an information retrieval network that provides technical information on innovative treatment methods
for hazardous wastes and other contaminants. ATTIC provides site remediation managers with information that
can assist them in making effective decisions on cleanup alternatives. The technologies in ATTIC are classified
as: thermal, biological, solidification/stabilization, chemical, and physical.
ATTIC information is provided in the form of an abstract of a report or case study. The abstract can include
information on: location (EPA region and state) where the technology was used, the target waste(s), the media
treated, the initial concentration(s) of contaminants), a short description of the use of the technology, the cost
of the technology, and the final contamination concentration after use of the technology. Copies of the reports
from which abstracts are derived are available on request. Currently, more than 1000 users access the system
each month. (See Appendix Bfor more information on ATTIC and an example of an ATTIC abstract.)
B. Goal
The general goal of the 1991 ATTIC Bioremediation Case Study Augmentation Project was to increase the
number of bioremediation case studies available in ATTIC. Prior to the project, there were approximately 250
cases in the biological treatment portion of the database. For purposes of the project, bioremediation was defined
as the process in which soil, sludge, water, or an air stream is managed to encourage optimal activity of
microorganisms in order to biodegrade or biotransform target contaminants. Based on resources dedicated to
the project, it was estimated that the number of bioremediation abstracts in ATTIC would be increased by 50-
100 cases.
-------
H. Methodology
A. Call for Data
1. Telephone Communication
In order to guarantee a certain level of participation, a few companies, who were known to have field-level
experience and known to have the resources necessary to participate in the project, were contacted by telephone
and questioned as to their interest in participation. A follow-up letter was issued to these companies. (See
Appendix C for follow-up letter.)
2. In—person Communication
In June 1991, a meeting was held at which the BAG delivered a progress report to EPA Administrator William
K. Reilly. More than 100 representatives of industry, government, and academia attended this meeting, which
provided the opportunity for industry representatives to comment to the Administrator on EPA's activities
concerning bioremediation.
Prior to the Administrator briefing, a poster session was held at which the BAG subcommittees displayed
information concerning their activities. For this data collection effort, information on ATTIC and a list of
bioremediation information that would be of value to ATTIC users was distributed to potential participants.
Because the list of information which would be of value to ATTIC users was fairly extensive, it was stressed
that this list was for orientation purposes only. Companies were urged to provide such information, or
information of a similar nature, that was readily available. (See Appendix D for information handout.)
3. Written Communication
a. Federal Register Notice
On August 7,1991, "Expansion of Bioremediation Data in the Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center," appeared in the Federal Register, alerting readers to the ATTIC bioremediation case study augmen-
tation project. (Appendix E contains the Federal Register notice.)
b. Industry News
A story, "EPA Calls for Bioremediation Case History Information," was published in the July 1991 issue of the
industry newspaper, Biotreatment News.
-------
B. Review information submitted
1. Extent and quality of information received
The amount and quality of information initially received from the call for data was highly variable. Case study
information ranged from one to two sentences to technical reports of more than 30 pages. Sources of information
included corporate statements of qualifications, papers either presented at conferences or submitted for journal
publication, abstracts of papers presented, and descriptions of cleanup activities that were not sourced to a
specific publication.
More than 240 cases were received. However, based on established ATTIC database acceptance criteria, many
of these had too little pertinent information to warrant further investigation and were dropped from the study
at the outset. For the remaining cases, companies were contacted with questions on every case in order to ensure
that as many cases as possible were suitable for inclusion in ATTIC.
2. Quality Assurance Fields
There are five fields in ATTIC that address quality assurance: site characterization, representative samples
taken, data quality objectives met, QA/QC objectives met, and peer review of report. The EPA definition of
each is:
site characterization - the contaminated site was characterized for the extent and nature of contaminants
present;
representative sampling - a sampling strategy was designed that provided a statistical basis for estimating
the contamination before and after the remediation activity;
data quality objective process - the objectives for data quality were established prior to the onset of the
study or remediation;
QA/QC conducted - QA/QC steps, such as audits, replicate analysis, calibration of instruments, and
training of personnel, were used in sampling and analysis; and
peer review - the report or the data were sent out to be reviewed by knowledgeable peers.
If definitive information is lacking, the field can be entered as "not reported."
In many cases, it was not possible for reviewers of the submitted bioremediation case study information to
ascertain the status of the data quality assurance parameters. Therefore, when information on each case was
incorporated into the ATTIC format and sent back to the participating companies for a final review, each
company was asked at that time to provide information (in a Y/N format) for the data quality assurance fields.
(See Appendix Ffor cover letter sent to participants concerning final review of cases.)
-------
HI. Results of Information Collection
A total of 132 cases concerning bioremediation resulted from this project. A hard copy of all 132 cases submitted
through the 1991 ATTIC Bioremediation Case Study Augmentation Project, in the ATTIC abstract format, is
available in a separate publication, "1991 Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC)
Augmentation: Bioremediation Case Studies." A copy of this publication is available by calling Dr. Curtis
HarlinofOEETD/ORD/EPAat (202)260-9642; faxing(202) 260-3861; or writing Dr. HarlinatOEETD(RD-
681), Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Information from these collected case studies has been extracted and loaded into a database. The following are
statistics derived from this information.
A. Companies Participating and Number of Cases
There were a total of 10 companies who submitted information that was suitable for ATTIC. From these
companies, as stated above, a total of 132 abstracts were prepared for the ATTIC database. These 132 cases
increase the number of biological treatment cases in ATTIC by more than 50 percent. Table 1 lists the
participating companies by name, the location of the coordinating office for the project, the number of cases for
each participating company, and percentage of total number of cases contributed by each company.
Company
ABB Environmental
GET Environmental Services
ECOVA Corporation
Environmental Remediation
Groundwater Technology
IT Corporation
OHM Corporation
Remediation Technologies
Roy F. Weston
Woodward-Clyde
Total
siation Case Study A*
parties and Number <
•»•.% .. % v... v"x s£ >
Location of
Coordinating Office
Wakefield, MA
Long Beach, CA
Redmond, WA
Baton Rouge, LA
Concord, CA
Knoxville.TN
Walnut Creek, CA
Chapel Hill, NC
West Chester, PA
San Diego, CA
jgmentationPr
rt Cases f or js
v X V % ' \ v- "• -1
Number
of Cases
7
5
17
20
33
10
12
15
6
7
132
3S5*rX '-'
•^ f v
Percent
of Total
5.3
3.8
12.9
15.2
25.0
7.6
9.1
11.4
4.5
5.3
100.0%a
•Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
B. Stage of Cleanup
About two-thirds of the cases reported (86 cases) were at full field-scale cleanup level. Fifteen percent of the
cases (20 cases) were reported at the field pilot stage while the remaining 20 percent (26 cases) were laboratory
studies. Therefore, more than 80 percent of the cases were either at field pilot level or full scale (Table 2).
Stage of Cleanup
Full Scale
Pilot (Field) Scale
Laboratory Study
Total
Number
of Cases
86
20
26
132
Percent
of Total
65.2
15.2
19.7
100.0%b
•In instances where more than one level of effort may have been reported in the same case study, the
highest level of effort was recorded.
"Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
C. Additional Non-Bioremediation Treatments
For 29 percent of the cases reported (38 cases), it was stated that there were treatment technologies used on a
particular media in addition to bioremediation (Table 3). However, it should be noted that a case study may not
necessarily have listed treatments performed in addition to bioremediation.
19BI AtliO ti^rBttieaiajfton^s* Study Augnisntata
Cases fgeporjigg Ting&nent in Addition to Bioremedjation
Additional
Treatment
Yes
No
Total
Number
of Cases
38
94
132
Percent
of Total
28.8
71.2
100.0%
-------
D. Date Bioremediation Treatment Started
One-quarter of the cases (33 cases) reported bioremediation activity commencing earlier than 1989,12 percent
(16 cases) commenced in 1989,24 percent (32 cases) commenced in 1990, and 4.5 percent (6 cases) were started
in 1991. More than one-third of the cases (45 cases) did not specify when treatment started (Table 4).
™\*V^o ^>i&M*'ATjflC* SSireit^p^lifttib^i^ft^
- * I l!c "1 •; "1^ &M*i^*^ & Trial
s ^ \ s s 1*1 ^ i^si^^j. •^S'j-&' ' "• \. v^,^f^> s -..".'..• f v. v.
Start Date of
Bioremediation Treatment*
1988 or Earlier
1989
1990
1991
Not Provided
Total
•Year that bioremediation activities commenced,
equipment.
"Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
v sv .w s f f f
e Study Augment
R^t'Cominsflbi
^ ^ < .x....rri..'
Number
of Cases
33
16
32
6
45
132
including installation
atiO«J l*lrB^Ot:^ s ; ''-,,-
&ft$tfi , , ' "'
f.f. .'.' •:..... «....Sr -:
Percent
of Total
25.0
12.1
24.2
4.5
34.1
100.0%b
of bioremediation-related
E. Status of Completion
About 68 percent of the cases (90 cases) reported that bioremediation activities were completed as of the end
of 1991, with about 24 percent (31 cases) still in progress. Another 5 percent (7 cases) are on-going and have
no completion date as they are intended to treat a continual flow of contaminants (Table 5).
Status of Completion*
Project Completed as of 1992
Project In-Progress as of 1992
On-Going Project"
Not Provided
Total
Number
of Cases
90
31
7
4
132
•Completion of bioremediation activities.
"No completion date; intended to treat continued flow of contaminant.
Percent
of Total
68.2
23.5
5.3
3.0
100.0%
-------
F. Location of Cleanup Activity
The cases reported media that were the focus of bioremediation activities in 31 states. Almost half of the cleanup
activities reported involved media from only five states: California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
Texas accounted for 44.8 percent of the total number of cases (Table 6).
•' ' ~ ,! ' '"""' "" t*l>6>* - / "';,••,- *>
1991 ATTIC Bioremediatfon Case Study Augmentation Project:
- ; - . ' Cains *>y Staf** s : * .
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Indiana
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Non-U.S.
Not Applicable/
Not Provided
Total
Number
of Cases
1
3
1
2
22
2
3
4
1
12
8
2
3
3
4
3
9
4
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
8
1
1
3
1
1
4
15
132
"Laboratory studies were included in these statistics if the location
identified.
"Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
Percent
of Total
0.8
2.3
0.8
1.5
16.7
1.5
2.3
-3.0
0.8
9.1
6.1
1.5
2.3
2.3
3.0
2.3
6.8
3.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.5
2.3
1.5
0.8
6.1
0.8
0.8
2.3
0.8
0.8
3.0
11.4
100.0%b
of the media used in the study was
-------
The corresponding EPA Regions for these states are Region 1 (Massachusetts), Region 2 (New Jersey), Region
6 (Texas and Louisiana), and Region 9 (California) (Table 7). Figure 1 shows the U.S. by EPA Regions.
EPA Region"
1
2
3
4
5
Q
7
8
9
10
Non-U.S.
Not Applicable/Not Provided
Total
Number
of Cases
18
14
4
6
7
24
4
8
23
8
4
1 2
132
Percent
of Total
13.6
10.6
3.0
4.6
5.3
18.2
3.0
6.1
17.4
6.1
3.0
9.1.
100.0%°
•Laboratory studies were included in these statistics if the location of the media used in the study was
identified.
"Some cases provided the EPA Region without providing the state.
"Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
8
-------
G. Contaminants Treated
Of the 132 cases, more than 62 percent (82 cases) reported treatment of a petroleum-related waste. In seven
of these cases, petroleum-related contaminants were treated in addition to other contaminants. Twenty-five
cases, 19 percent of the total 132 cases and 31 percent of the petroleum-related cases, were reported as
underground storage tank (UST) sites. Almost 9 percent (11 cases) involved treatment of solvents. Agricultural
(pesticides) and wood-preserving chemicals constituted 5.3 percent (7 cases) and 9.8 percent (13 cases),
respectively, of the total 132 cases. Munitions and coal tar/tar each comprised 4 percent (5 cases). Other
contaminants were reported in 7 percent of the cases (9 cases) (Table 8).
,',,,"", - '-' ----^-"•'f*bl«8 " '"", % _ „ --_ - f ~
1991 ATT^Bioremediation Case Stufcly Augmentation Project:
-, *, *%- - "" """'; t ^de^byjpbntanifeftai^'Tfeatecl '
Contaminant/
Contaminant Use
Petroleum-Related3
Wood Preservatives'5
Solvents
Other
Agricultural Chemicals
Coal Tar/Tar
Munitions
Petroleum-Related/Other
Petroleum-Related/
Wood Preservatives
Petroleum/Solvents
Munitions/Agricultural Chemicals
Solvents/Other
Total
Twenty-five cases (1 9 percent of the total and
reported as UST sites.
•Creosote and pentachlorophenol.
cDoes not add to 1 00% due to rounding.
Number
of Cases
75
13
10
9
7
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
132
31 percent of the
Percent
of Total
56.8
9.8
7.6
6.8
5.3
3.8
3.0
2.3
1.5
1.5
0.8
0.8
100.0%c
petroleum-related cases) were
-------
H. Media Treated
The predominant media treated was soil. In more than 74 percent of the cases reported (98 cases), soil was at
least one of the media that was bioremediated. Treatment of soil alone constituted 46 percent of the cases
reported (61 cases), while soil and groundwater bioremediation at a single site accounted for 23 percent of the
total number of cases (30 cases). Almost 5 percent of the cases (6 cases) involved soil and sludge bioremediation
at a single site.
Cases involving bioremediation of only groundwater/water made up 16 percent of the sites reported (21 cases)
while bioremediation of groundwater/water in addition to other media comprised 39 percent (52 cases).
Treatment of sludge constituted more than 14 percent of total cases (19 cases) (Table 9),
, f«44 ^^"^^^^^?^^;
>' /Sfl^^'l^^
i % s «. \* »
-------
/. Methodof Treatment Used by Media
More than 60 percent of the cases (48 cases) that involved soil at field pilot or full scale involved solely the use
of solid phase/land treatment while in more than 25 percent (21 cases), soil was treated in situ. Four percent (3
cases) reported bioreactor/bioslurry usage for soil treatment and another 5 percent (4 cases) utilized both in situ
and some type of above-ground treatment.
Method
Number
of Cases
21
In Situ?
Above-Ground
Solid Phase/Land Treatment" 48
Bioreactor/Bioslurry0 3
Solid Phase/Land Treatment
And Bioreactor/Bioslurry 3
In Situ And Above-Ground 4
Total
79d
Percent
of Total
26.6
60.8
3.8
3.8
5.1
100.0%e
•Contaminated medium is treated in place usually through the delivery of oxygen and other nutrients.
"Contaminated medium is spread over a prepared area and treated through optimization of microbial
requirements forbiodegradation. Includes composting.
"Contained systems, typically used for treatment of aqueous and slurry media.
"Percentages based upon total numberoffull-scaleandfieldpilot-scalecasesinvolving soil treatment.
•Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
11
-------
Of the 36 cases that registered the treatment of groundwater/water at field pilot or full scale, in 53 percent (19
cases), treatment included bringing the water to the surface and reinjecting without the use of a bioreactor.
Forty-seven percent (17 cases) indicated the use of a bioreactor for treatment. Twelve percent (5 cases) involved
treatment of groundwater totally below the surface.
Treatment Method
No Bioreactor/Recirculationb
Bioreactor/Bioslurry0
Other*
Total
Number
of Cases
19
17
5
41e
Percent
of Total
46.3
41.5
12.2
100.0%
•Includes water
"Treatment includes bringing groundwater to the surface and making amendments priorto reinjection.
eContained systems typically used for treatment of aqueous and slurry media. Water treated can be
reinjected.
•Water fully treated in place, below the surface.
•Percentages based upon total numberof full-scale and field pilot-scale cases involving groundwater
treatment.
Almost two-thirds of the cases (10 cases) that dealt with sludge reported bioreactor/bioslurry-type treatment.
The remainder (6 cases) were treated by either slurry followed by land treatment or land treatment alone.
Treatment Method
Solid Phase/Land Treatment?
Bioreactor/Bioslurry*
Bioreactor/Bioslurry And
Solid Phase/Land Treatment
Total
Number
of Cases
3
10
3
16°
Percent
of Total
18.8
62.5
18.8
100.0%"
•Contaminated medium is placed in a prepared area and treated through optimization of microbial
requirements for biodegradation. Includes composting.
"Contained systems, typically used for treatment of aqueous and slurry media.
"Percentages based upon total number of full-scale and field pilot-scale cases involving sludge
treatment.
12
-------
J. Treatment Method for Soil by Year of Commencement of Treatment
Due to the large number of cases involving soil treatment, the treatment method for soil was assessed by the year
that treatment commenced. Only those cases for which a starting year was reported are listed (Table 13).
^^O'^'^:^^ '-^r*;^
" „' - 1£&|A7]ni£B^ ; ;-r' ,,7-*
• '• 4J*\y***.A*» &>&•£<£ T**MJfci^iiAfcAJA4%t, «t A'£(t>fc£|ft •&&*.-& ££j^ui& 3t%*> \£-i&3&&1 '&*£ >y'frJJli>tl|.t|fr>&jlJu1j.''Cii'' l**r'^t.M^1AAlLilliJ/iA'^J^JAJyt*iiAA1jil( •*
, \^S^» py Tf«lllinw«l wlwwlOCf fl« bOll Uy T^if vf TrwHsflwIil yO^SRineli^jSHl^fia _„
Years
Treatment Method
In Situ*
- Above-Ground
Solid Phase/
Land Treatment?5
Bioreactor/Bioslurry0
Solid Phase/Land
Treatment And
Bioreactor/Bioslurry
In Situ And
Above-Ground
Total
pre-1989
7 33.3
11 52.4
0 0.0
2 9.5
1 4.8
21 d 100.0%
1989
1 8.3
9 75.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
2 16.7
12d 100.0%
1990
5 22.7
16 72.7
1 4.5
-
0 0.0
rf
0 0.0
22" 100.0%e
1991
2 66.7
1 33.3
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
3d 100.0%
"Contaminated medium is treated in place usually through the delivery of oxygen and other nutrients.
"Contaminated medium is spread over a prepared area and treated through optimization of microbial
requirements for biodegradation. Includes composting.
•Contained systems, typically used for treatment of aqueous and slurry media.
"Percentages based upon total number of full-scaleand field pilot-scale cases involving soil treatment.
•Does not add to 1 00% due to rounding.
13
-------
K. Company Specific Information
It is interesting to note that of the cases reported, there were contrasting statistics, on a company basis,
concerning parameters such as contaminant treated, method of treatment, and location.
It should be stressed, however, that the information presented below is based solely on the 132 cases described
above. Therefore, these cases do not necessarily reflect the total range of capabilities of any participating
company and should not be construed as totally representative of company services.
L Contaminants Treated
Of the cases described above, all companies except for one (Roy F. Weston, Inc.) reported activity involving
petroleum-related waste. For six companies (ECO VA Corporation; Environmental Remediation, Inc.; Ground-
water Technology, Inc.; FT Corporation; OHM Corporation; and Woodward-Clyde), petroleum-related
contaminants constituted the majority of work reported. The remaining companies (ABB Environmental, GET
Environmental Services, and Remediation Technologies, Inc.), had activity more dispersed among the various
contaminants (Table 14). •
2. Media Treated
Of the cases described above, treatment of soil alone or soil and groundwater/water comprised the majority of
mediafor all companies except for one (Environmental Remediation, Inc.), in which case sludge and soil/sludge
were the predominant media treated (Table 15).
3. Location of Treatment
Most company activity was concentrated in one region or section of the country. However, one company
(Groundwater Technology, Inc.) registered activity in eight out of ten regions (Table 16).
IV. Limitations of the Project
Terminology was not consistent among companies, and thus in some cases, assumptions were made concerning
the parameters reported.
These cases do not necessarily reflect all cleanup efforts of any one company. These cases are, instead, only
those cases on which information existed and was readily available. Consequently, individual company profiles
may be skewed.
14
-------
E
§1
gl
81
ll
> *
II
11
§
3
o
o
*-H O *H
t-;
VO
§
P
si
§
§
o
o
o
o
CO
8
o
C5
o
o
O O
o o o
o d • d
o
o
o o o
odd
§
<=>
s
o
o
o
c>
o
o
o
c>
o
o
p
C3
=2
s
O rt
o
c>
o
o
p
CO
p
CO
o
o
o
c5
§
rt O
o. o. p
Q V> VI
o
c>
p
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
s s tf ^ a °"
0» i-< O O N O
o
o
o
o
1
s
H • -a
s-
a
I
>
•s
S
<=>. <=>.
d o
S g
=5
O vo c
§
o
2
i
a a
1
-------
^r JWW^M
- ^ 'S2s-««
'•S *» *!*••''
•s^^f t>S*^
•»'
•t
u.
tl
II
El
ul
Si
»
s
Soi
<*i
•*
o
d
§
o
d
p
d
^ w
° i
o
d
§
o
d
o
d
o
d
o
o
0
8"
o
o
o
=5
a
o
0
a
01
vi
0
o
o
0
§
o
d
p
8*
p
d
o
d
o
d
vo
a
o
C3
o
o
o
C5
o
d
S
13
f
53
5
I
udge/
K s
Sludg
§
a
§
o
d
a
o o
d d
P
o
0
o o
d d
<=>. <=>.
0 §
o
d
o
§
§
o
o
I 1
> H
1
S
I
S
W ir -
1 fi
•ABB-ABBEnvI
CET-CET Envirc
ECO-ECOVAC
ERI-EnvIronmen
-------
pcopppcopcopo*co
o^'ooo^o^yoo)'^
o
d
OrHOOOrHOrHOCOrH
S § § §
<-; p <-; p
«
OOOOrHOrHOrHO
•*! **: °. °. **! •": ^
CO >O O O CO VO CO
C3 rH O O CJ rH CJ
O O O
d d d
rH O O O
pcocococoppppp
If) 00 OO 00 OO C^ O IO O ^?
rHCOrHrHrHr-IOOCOOO
CO
CO
t|
PPPPPPPpppp
doooooodddd
CO rH CN rH CN rH
O
d
d
O CO IH
O O O O
S
§
§i
COC^rHrHOrHOOC^prH
f^oovdvdcoosdcooodos
rH CO O rH
§
O
O
o
PPPPPPPPPPP
viddvidpvidpdd
P
O O rH O •* rH O
O
d
p
d
oooo
o
d
rH O ^
Si
Opppppppppp
ddddddddddd
S
OOOOOOOOVJOO
o
d
p
o
o
o
d
o
AS
cccc:
rHOOOCOOOOCOOO
!;ddd-
-------
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A Origin, Purpose, and Structure of the BAG
Appendix B Information on ATTIC and Example of ATTIC Abstract
Appendix C Letter to Participating Companies
Appendix D............................. Information Handout at June 14,1991, EPA/Industry Meeting
Appendix E Federal Register Notice on ATTIC Augmentation Project
Appendix F............................. Final Letter to Participants
19
-------
Appendix A
The Bio remediation Action Committee (BAG):
Origin, Purpose, and Structure
BAC's Origin and Purpose
In February 1990, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William K. Reilly and the
Assistant Administrators of the Offices of Water, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Research and Development met with representatives of industry, government, and academia. The
purpose of this meeting was to prepare an agenda for the 1990s that identified roles of the public and private
sectors and specific actions for each sector to increase environmental applications of biotechnology. As a result
of this meeting, the Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG) was formed to evaluate progress on implemen-
tation of meeting participants' suggested actions to facilitate the usage of bioremediation and to provide a
coordinated forum for continuing dialogue and action.
BAG Structure
The BAG is chaired by Dr. John H. Skinner, Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
Stephen A. Lingle, Deputy Office Director of the Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Demonstration, oversees the Committee's progress. Currently, there are six BAG subcommittees, each
consisting of several representatives from industry, government, and academia and a chair who reports to the
full committee.
The'current subcommittees and their respective functions are listed in Table A-l.
20
-------
**" The-BAC's Subcommittees tm& Furjctlons
Subcommittee
Data Identification/
Collection
Education
National Spill Response
Plan
Pollution Prevention
Protocols
Research
Function
Identify and collect case study information which exhibits
the benefits and costs of bioremediation for public and
private sector usage.
Propose solutions to the need for technically-trained
people.
Investigate the potential for bioremediation to be utilized
as a spill response technique.
Identify applications of biotechnology to industrial pro-
cesses, resulting in reduced waste streams.
Provide technical input for the development of protocols
for testing the applicability and effectiveness of
bioremediation as a cleanup technology at specific sites.
Review Federal, state, and university research on
bioremediation to determine consistency, overlap, and
needs.
21
-------
Appendix B
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC)
ATTIC is an information retrieval network providing up-to-date information on innovative treatment
technologies. ATTIC provides site remediation managers with the information necessary to make effective
decisions on hazardous waste cleanup alternatives. It can be accessed with a PC and modem 24 hours a day and
there are no user fees.
How ATTIC Helps Its Users
ATTIC helps users
Find innovative solutions for permanent remedies at hazardous waste sites.
Save time and resources by providing a single source for information on alternative treatment options.
Streamline searches for information by providing searchable abstracts that allow users to quickly screen
hundreds of source documents.
Communicate with peers and learn from their experiences in applying innovative technologies.
Identify technical experts who can assist them in selecting appropriate technologies and vendors who can
help implement the remediation.
How ATTIC Provides Information
Information contained in ATTIC is available from four types of sources:
On-line databases - Using a PC equipped with communications software and a modem, users can access
the ATTIC databases which include the ATTIC Database, the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Treatability Database, the Technical Assistance Database, and a Calendar of Events.
Electronic bulletin boards - PC-equipped users can also access a message center, retrieve bulletins
containing the latest news "on alternative treatment technologies, and participate in on-line special
interest groups.
Hotline - Users who do not have access to a PC and modem can request searches be run for them by
contacting the ATTIC System Operator.
Repository - Full-text copies of the source documents abstracted in the ATTIC Database are available.
Source: EPA/600/M-911049, November 1991
22
-------
SAMPLE ATTIC ABSTRACT
ATTIC CONTROL NUMBER : EH00052
DATE ENTERED : 03/30/89
LAST UPDATED : 12/14/91
LAST REVIEWED : 12/15/91
TITLE : In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air
Force Base: Vol. I Site Characterization
PUBLICATION DATE :
NTIS NUMBER :
GOVT. PUB. NUMBER :
GOVT. CONTACT :
GOVT. ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPER CONTACT
ORGANIZATION :
REGION/STATE :
04/01/86
Edward Heyse (904) 283-4628
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
06TX
QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA :
The site was characterized.
Representative samples were taken.
Data quality objectives were met.
QA/QC objectives were met.
' The report was not peer reviewe
SITE NAME(S)/LOCATION(S):
Kelly AFB, San Antonio, TX ,
SUMMARY:
This is a report of in situ pilot-scale bioremediation at a site
contaminated with electroplating wastes and solvents. Contaminants
were found at varying concentrations: hydrocarbons~220-880 ppm,
ketones~l-26 ppm, benzene and chlorobenzene~0.5-116 ppm. Chromium
was also present. Soil samples were taken and mixed with groundwater.
Microcosm and nutrients were added and incubated for 100 days. Tests
were done under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Microbial
degradation took place in both the aerobic alkane, aromatic, and
polar hydrocarbon fractions. Chromatographic profiles for the
anaerobic microcosm and anaerobic sterile control show similar
chromatographic profiles with very little or no evidence of any
hydrocarbon degradation. Purge and trap GC/MS were used to monitor
anaerobic microbial degradation of chlorinated solvents. Tests
revealed that tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE)
degraded rapidly under anaerobic conditions. Laboratory studies
indicate in situ biological degradation of the Kelly Air Force Base
23
-------
site is feasible. It should be noted that direct comparison cannot be
made between total hydrocarbons before treatment and total
hydrocarbons after treatment. Pre-treatment samples were analyzed
using oil and grease extractions. Post-treatment samples were
analyzed by gas chromatography. Oil and grease analysis quantify a
larger category of organic compounds present in the soil, and
therefore, concentrations should be higher than those resulting from
GC/FIA analysis.
CONTAMINANT(S): non-volatile/volatile organic compounds (VOCs), non-
volatile metals (electroplating wastes, sediments)
MEDIA: soil, groundwater
TECHNOLOGY: biological treatment, aerobic/anaerobic biodegradation,
white rot fungus controls
REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS: hydrocarbons~220-880 ppm; ketones~l-26
ppm; benzene and chlorobenzene--0.5-116 ppm
REPORTED % REDUCTION: One sample contained 0.071 ppm total
hydrocarbons. Remaining samples had no detectable quantities.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall
AFB, FL, (904) 238-4628
COST DATA: Total cost of demonstration site: $281,850, includes
system construction, sampling, analysis, chemicals, other direct costs
and labor
HISTORY:
This is an electroplating waste disposal site; early-mid 1960's as
chemical evaporation pit for waste solvents and other organic
compounds.
24
-------
Appendix C
V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Stephen A. Svendsen
Environmental Remediation, Inc.
PO BOX 45212-210
Baton Rouge, LA 70895
Dear Mr. Svendsen:
As environmental pollution continues to escalate in our
nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's mission to
identify cost effective solutions becomes increasingly important.
To fulfill this mission, the Agency actively encourages the use
of promising innovative technologies through the dissemination of
benefits and cost information on such technologies.
Two years ago, the EPA Office of Research and Development
created an information system on alternative innovative
technologies designed to increase communication among all parties
involved in site remediation. This system is the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center, ATTIC (see enclosed
"Information Sheet on EPA's ATTIC").
Because bioremediation is increasingly being used for
addressing pollution problems, the Office of Research and
Development is making a special effort to augment the
bioremediation information that currently exists in ATTIC with
case study information voluntarily submitted by companies such as
yours. The EPA would be pleased to include information on any
clean-up activities in which your company has been involved. See
enclosure, "Bioremediation Case History Information of Value for
ATTIC".
By registering with the ATTIC system, you provide site
remediation managers with information that promotes effective
clean-up decisions. Additionally, your organization's
contributions to site clean-ups and other pertinent company
information becomes internationally available to the average 680
monthly users of the system.
25
-------
Should you choose to participate, we suggest several information
transfer methods:
* written response: information for each case study can be
drafted and faxed or mailed.
* telephone communication: information of interest can be
discussed with a telephone interviewer.
* transmittal of hard copy text: a copy of a paper or
presentation on a clean-up activity that may have been given in a
conference or seminar, or published in a trade journal, can be
mailed. Relevant information will be extracted by the project
staff.
* on-line information transmittal: specifics of this method can
be discussed with EPA representatives.
* any combination of these suggested data transfer options.
If information is incomplete for any given clean-up, please
keep in mind that even partial data can be of value.
Additionally, information from clean-ups that may not have
yielded expected results are also of value. If arrangements of a
proprietary nature seemingly preclude participation, we recommend
that you consider either de-sensitizing the information of
concern or leaving certain elements of the case study
undiscussed, so that you will not have to forego this opportunity
for inclusion in ATTIC.
If you would like to participate in this bioremediation
information collection, please call the EPA contractor
representative, Ratherine Devine, of DEVO Enterprises, Inc., at
(202) 543-2752. Arrangements for information transfer will be
made.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Ondich
Director, Program Development Staff
Enclosure
This letter was mailed with a copy of the information handout on ATTIC which is included in this
report as Appendix D.
26
-------
Appendix D
Information Sheet on EPA's ATTIC
What is ATTIC?
ATTIC is an acronym for Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center. The ATTIC is
an information retrieval network that provides up-to-date technical information on innovative
treatment methods for hazardous wastes and other contaminants. ATTIC provides site remedia-
tion managers with the information necessary to make effective decisions on clean-up alterna-
tives. The technologies in ATTIC are classified as: thermal, biological, solidification/stabiliza-
tion, and chemical/physical.
Who uses ATTIC?
The ATTIC user community includes
* EPA:
on-site coordinators,
remedial project managers,
RCRA corrective action permit writers,
EPA contractors — ARCS (alternative remedial contracts strategy), REMs (remedial
engineering management), ERCS (emergency response cleanup services);
Other federal agencies;
State agencies;
Academia;
Private sector;
International agencies.
Currently, an average of 300 users access ATTIC information each month.
What are the information transfer mechanisms employed by ATTIC?
* Hotline/system operator — provides a telephone link to the ATTIC system for all users
without access to a PC or Macintosh.
* On-line system — electronic link to the ATTIC system databases and document ordering.
It is accessible by any PC or Macintosh equipped with communications software and a
modem.
* Reference library — hard copy collection of all technical documents and reports in the
ATTIC system containing the most up-to-date information on alternative^treatments.
* Outreach efforts — general and specific information on alternative treatment methods,
conferences and workshops, user bulletins, fact sheets, and updates.
Sidel
27
-------
Bioremediation Case History Information of Value For
ATTIC
* Status of clean-up
(field, pilot, or treatability study)
* Principal treatment for clean-up
(bioremediation or other)
* Remediation system employed
(e.g. above-ground, in situ saturated,
in situ unsaturated, bioreactor)
* Bioaugmentation or biostimulation
* Genera/species
* Location of clean-up
* Media in which contaminants found
* Type of soil or geologic setting
* Contaminants
* Initial conditions:
initial contaminants, number of samples
taken, technique used for initial sampling
* Final results:
final level of contaminants, number of
samples taken, and technique used for
final sampling
* Number of interim samples taken
* Action level
* Oxygen source
* Water disposal method
* Tune period of cleanup
* Estimated volume of contaminated material
* Government involvement
(e.g. Superfund, RCRA, or UST site)
* Clean-up cost
* Cause of contamination
* Brief description of clean-up
* Company information:
range of services provided, availability of
supporting material, company contact's name
and phone number
If you would be interested in having your company's
bioremediation information included in ATTIC,
contact Katherine Devine at (202) 543-2752.
Side 2
Distributed at the Second EPA -Industry Meeting on Environmental Applications of Biotechnology, June 14,1991
28
-------
Federal
Appendix E
. No. 152 / Wednesday. August 7. 1991 /
37543
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-3932-2]
Expansion of Bioremediation Data fn
the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: EPA's Office of
Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration (OEETD) of
the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) is expanding the bioremediation
data in the Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Center
(ATTIC). Bioremediation, for this
purpose, is defined as the process in •
which soil, sludge, water, or an air
stream is managed to encourage optimal
activity of microorganisms in order to
biodegrade -or biotransform target
contaminants. ATTIC is a computerized,
on-line, information network that
provides up-to-date technical
information on innovative treatment
methods for hazardous wastes to ail
members of the Federal, State, and
private sector involved in site
remediation. The information contained
in ATTIC consists of a wide variety of
data obtained from Federal, State, and
private sector sources.
ADDRESSES: All interested parties may
submit information on bioremediation to
the following address: {Catherine Devine.
DEVO Enterprises, Inc., 704 9th Street
SE, Washington. DC 20003-2804, (202)
543-2752, FAX (202) 547-2909.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Curtis C. Harlin, OEETD KD-681,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401M Street SW., Washington. DC
20460, (202) 479-9842.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As
environmental pollution r-jmtin^tp^ to
escalate in our nation, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's
mission to identify cost effective '
solutions becomes increasingly
important. To fulfill this mission, the
Agency actively encourages the use of
promising innovative technologies
through the dissemination of benefits
and cost information on such
technologies.
Two years ago. the EPA Office of
Research and Development created an
information system on alternative
innovative technologies designed to
increase communication among ail
parties involved in cite remediation.
This system is the Alternative 29
Treatment Technology Information
Center. '
Because bioremediation is
increasingly being used for addressing
pollution problems, ORD is making a
special effort to augment the
bioremediation information that
currently exists in ATTIC with case
study information voluntarily submitted
by the public and private sector
involved in bioremediation efforts.
Interested parties, including
•bioremediation companies, may submit
information, such as case studies, on'
technologies used for site clean-up for
transfer to ATTIC by: (1) Mailing or
faxing written material; (2) providing the
information by telephone; (3) sending a
copy of a report or a paper or
presentation, on a clean-up activity, that
may have been given at a conference or
seminar, or published hi a trade journal.
and relevant information will be
extracted by ATTIC staff; (4) entering
information on-line (contact {Catherine
Devine or Curtis Harlin for method); or
(5) a combination of the above.
At the present time, the ATTIC
database contains over 1.600 technical
documents and reports collected into a
keyboard searchable format
Documentation includes Records of
Decisions (RODs) from the Superfund
program, SITE project summaries,
reports from other Federal agencies.
State agency reports, and industry
studies. ATTIC is available through both
the ATTIC System Operator and an
easy-to-use online computer system and
will provide technical assistance,
conduct searches, and assist in
document retrieval at no charge to the
user. Currently, there is an average of
over 600 monthly users of the system.
Dated: August 1.1991.
Alfred W. Lindsay.
Director, Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology Demonstration.
[FR Doc. 91-18735 Filed 6-6-91; 8:45 am]
ntum CODE *M»-s»4i
-------
Appendix F
DEVO Enterprises, Inc.
704 9th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2804
(202)543-2752 • FAX (202)547-2909
November 14, 1991
Dr. William R. Mahaffey
ECOVA Corporation
3820 159th Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Dear Bill:
Thank you for participating in the "EPA's ATTIC bioremediation
information augmentation project. Enclosed you will find the final
draft hard copy version of your company's bioremediation case study
information, that is slated for inclusion in ATTIC. Do not be
concerned if most of the initial 10 fields are blank, as such
fields are either for the system operator's use or do not apply to
your particular case(s) . Please review this material to ensure
that there is no proprietary, or incorrect information, included
in these abstracts.
Additionally, we would like to draw your attention to the abstract
fields under "quality assurance data" and the EPA definition for
site "characterization - the contaminated site was characterized for
the extent and nature of contaminants present;
representative sampling - a sampling strategy was designed that
provided a statistical basis for estimating the contamination
before and after the remediation activity;
data quality objective process - the objectives for data quality
were established prior to the onset of the study or remediation;
QA/QC conducted - QA/QC steps, such as audits, replicate analysis,
calibration of instruments, and training of personnel, were used
in sampling arid analysis; and
peer review - the report or the data were sent out to be reviewed
by knowledgeable peers.
These fields have been entered as "Y/N" (yes/no) on your abstract.
accuracy for the database, these have
If applicable and, if known, please
Otherwise, "not reported" will be
In order to ensure maximum
been intentionally left blank
circle either "Y" or "N" .
submitted.
We would like to receive your comments by December 13. After that
time, we will assume that there is no additional input on the
enclosed cases. If you find that you will require more time to
30
-------
review the enclosed, please contact us at the number above.
Again, your interest in increasing the amount of publicly-
accessible bioremediation information is appreciated. Please do
not hesitate to contact us in the future as pertains to submission
of more bioremediation case study information to the ATTIC system.
Sincerely,
Katherine Devine and Mari Hotchkiss, Consultants
ATTIC Bioremediation Information Augmentation Project
.Enclosure (s)
•fru.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 - 75O-O02/6O137
31
-------
------- |