United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-01/001A
February 2001
&EPA
US EFA Office o! Research jr-d Di«tojwipnt
Summary of Workshop on
Biodegradation of MTBE
February 1-3,2000
-------
EPA/625/R-01/001A
February 2001
Summary of Workshop on
Biodegradation of MTBE
February 1-3,2000
Workshop Sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
American Petroleum Institute
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Lexington, MA 02421-3136
Contract No. 68-D7-0001
Work Assignment 3-11
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
The views expressed in these Proceedings are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Scientists in EPA's Office of Research and Development have prepared the EPA sections and
those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA's peer and administrative review
policies and approved for presentation and publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-11-
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground
water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to
catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory
and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development
to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-m-
-------
Acknowledgments
The workshop entitled Biodegradation ofMTBE was organized and sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
Appreciation is given to all those who contributed to the workshop through presentations and
participation in the discussions.
This workshop report was prepared by EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL) with support from Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) and Battelle
Memorial Institute. Joan Colson, NRMRL, served as project officer. EPA wishes to acknowledge
the work performed by Lauren Lariviere of ERG and Andrea Leeson of Battelle Memorial
Institute for their contributions to the workshop and to the development of this report.
A special acknowledgment is made to the following people who provided technical
consultation for the planning and organization of the workshop and for the editorial review of the
report:
Fran Kremer, US EPA
Bruce Bauman, API
Kirk O'Reilly, Chevron
Benjamin Blaney, US EPA
-IV-
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
1.0 1
2.0 SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 2
3.0 CURRENT 4
3.1 Overview of MTBE Biodegradation 4
3.1.1 Aerobic Degradation of MTBE 4
3.1.2 Anaerobic Degradation of MTBE 6
3.1.3 MicrobialCometabolismofMTBE 7
3.2 Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation 8
3.2.1 Bioaugmentation 8
3.2.2 Stimulation of Indigenous Microorganisms 9
3.3 Natural Attenuation 10
3.4 Ex Situ Bioremediation 12
4.0 16
5.0 COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS 22
6.0 LITERATURE CITED 23
Attachment A -
Attachment B - List
Attachment C - Poster List
Attachment D - List
Tables
Table 1. State Drinking Water Regulations (Speth, 2000) 3
Figures
Figure 1. Proposed Degradation Pathway of MTBE by PM1 (Church and
Tratnyek, 2000) 5
-v-
-------
1.0 OVERVIEW
A workshop on biodegradation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)-contaminated soils and
groundwater was held in Cincinnati, OH, on February 1-3, 2000, and was sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) and the American Petroleum Institute (API). Researchers in academia, industry, and
government agencies were invited to attend and present current research. The goals of the workshop
were:
! To gain an understanding of the types of MTBE research that various organizations are
conducting and of the conclusions that this research is generating.
To identify the remaining research needs on MTBE biodegradability.
To understand what research is being planned for the future and to identify potential
opportunities for collaboration.
The following sections present information discussed during the Biodegradation of MTBE
Workshop and present a summary of the authors' written and oral presentations. These sections
include:
! Scope of the problem (Section 2.0)
! Current research (Section 3.0)
! Research needs (Section 4.0)
! Collaborative efforts (Section 5.0).
Numerous presentations are summarized in this report. The presentations referenced throughout
the report are those made at the February 2000 workshop.
-------
2.0 SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
MTBE has become the subject of significant attention in recent years due to public focus on several
sites where MTBE plumes are very large and are impacting drinking water sources. The attention has been
particularly acute in California where gasoline usage is the highest in the U.S. and the population density and
water usage results in increased potential for contaminant migration into drinking water wells. MTBE
production and usage in the U.S. has risen steadily since 1982, resulting in potential contamination in many
more areas (Bauman, 2000).
The National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQ A) of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
has assessed the extent of MTBE contamination in the U.S. and the role of non-point MTBE sources on
distribution. These studies have shown that MTBE is widely distributed in the hydrosphere, and that significant
regional patterns are present. In a national study of 2,948 wells during the period 1985-1995, approximately
20% of mixed well types located in areas using MTBE as the principal fuel oxygenate contained detectable
concentrations of MTBE (>0.2 |Jg/L). However, in areas where MTBE use was not widespread, less than
5% of wells contained measurable MTBE concentrations. This general pattern of MTBE distribution in
groundwater was confirmed by more localized studies (Chapelle, 2000).
At present, there is inadequate health effects data for the USEPA to set an oral reference dose for
MTBE. However, because MTBE has a very unpleasant taste and odor, the EPA has issued an Advisory
on MTBE in drinking water of 20-40 • g/L. Table 1 shows the Standards, Guidelines, and Action Levels as
currently set by individual states. Four states have health-based Primary Drinking Water Standards. At the
time of this workshop, three states have enforceable guidelines, while twelve more have guidelines, or action
levels, in place. The levels range from 5 • g/L (CA) to 240 • g/L (MI). The specifics of enforcement are
determined by each State (Speth, 2000).
-------
Table 1. MTBE State Drinking Water Regulations (Speth, 2000)
Primary Drinking Water Standards
Maine
New Jersey
New York
South Carolina
Concentration
•g/L
35
70
50
20-40
Health Based
Health Based
Health Based
Health Based
Enforceable Guidelines
California
Michigan
West Virginia
Guideline or Action Level
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Illinois
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin
5
240
20-40
35
13
70
70
20-40
10
70
15
20-40
20-40
40
60
Aesthetically Based
Health Based
EPA Advisory
Health Based
Health Based
Health Based
Health Based
EPA Advisory
Aesthetically Based
Health Based
Aesthetically Based
EPA Advisory
EPA Advisory
EPA Advisory
Health Based
-------
3.0 CURRENT RESEARCH
This section describes the current research on biodegradation of MTBE as described
during the workshop presentations. It has been divided into four general sections including an
overview of MTBE biodegradation, enhanced in situ bioremediation, natural attenuation, and ex
situ bioremediation.
3.1 Overview of MTBE Biodegradation
MTBE has been shown to biodegrade under various conditions including aerobic,
anaerobic, and cometabolic conditions, however it is not well understood under which
geochemical conditions degradation occurs.. A summary of the research in these areas is
provided in the following sections.
3.1.1 Aerobic Degradation of MTBE
Several researchers described successful mineralization of MTBE in laboratory-scale
research (Cowan, 2000; Morales and Deshusses, 2000; Salanitro, 2000; Scow et al., 2000;
Venosa et al., 2000: Suidan et al, 2000). Microorganisms were isolated from a variety of sources,
generally from petroleum or chemical plant wastewater bioreactors.
Scow et al. (2000) and Salanitro (2000) have identified pure cultures capable of utilizing
MTBE as a sole carbon and energy source. Salanitro (2000) and other researchers (Cowan,
2000; Morales and Deshusses, 2000; Venosa et al., 2000) have also developed microbial consortia
capable of mineralizing MTBE under aerobic conditions. Microbial cell yields tend to be lower on
MTBE than those observed for aromatic hydrocarbons (0.1-0.2 g cells/g MTBE). In addition,
biodegradation rates tend to be slower than those observed for the aromatic hydrocarbons.
The microorganism, bacterial strain PM1, isolated by Scow et al. (2000) was further
studied by Church and Tratnyek (2000) to determine the degradation pathway. This study
confirmed the mineralization of MTBE by strain PM1 and ascertained that the degradation rates
of tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), tert-
-4-
-------
butyl alcohol (TEA), and tert-amy\ alcohol (TAA) were of the same order of magnitude as the
degradation rate of MTBE. Together with a consistency in product formation, these results
suggested that similar enzyme systems are responsible for all of the reactions. The proposed
aerobic degradation pathway for MTBE is shown in Figure 1.
The degradation pathway shown in Figure 1 contains some hypothesized steps in the
pathway. Clearly, aerobic biodegradation of MTBE is demonstrable. Additional research is
necessary to clarify the microorganisms involved in the process, factors that impact cell yield and
biodegradation rates, and the degradation pathway.
MTBE
CH3
H3C-C-O-CH3
CH3
1
t
ETBE
H3C-C-O-C-H
CH3
OPE CH3 H
H3C-C-O-C-CH3
H CH3
CH3
H3C-C-O-CH2CH3
CH3
I
TAME
H3CH2C-C-O-CH3
CH3
-c-o
CH3
3A
CH3
H3C-C-OH
IP
CH3
i
Y
y
CH3
H3C-C-OH =
H
™ CH3
H3CH2C-C-OH ^
CH3
i
Y
y
AT
O
=> H3C-C-CH3 --->
TAF CH3 O
1 II
H3CH2C-C-O-C-H
CH3
Acetaldehyde,
Acetate, etc.
Figure 1. Proposed Degradation Pathway of MTBE by Bacterial strain PM1 (Church and Tratnyek, 2000)
-5-
-------
3.1.2 Anerobic Degradation of MTBE
The majority of researchers have investigated MTBE biodegradation under aerobic
conditions, and in fact, Morales and Deshusses (2000) and other researchers were unable to
demonstrate any MTBE biodegradation under anaerobic conditions. However, Finneran and
Lovley (2000) and Kropp et al. (2000) have demonstrated biodegradation of MTBE under
anaerobic conditions.
In the study by Finneran and Lovley (2000), several sediments were investigated for
MTBE and TEA biodegradation potential. Results varied among sediments, with the most
success occurring when Fe (III) oxide and humic substances were added to the serum bottles.
Radiolabeled [14C] MTBE was added during investigation of two of the sediments and
conversion to carbon dioxide and methane was observed, although at low levels. TEA was
observed to biodegrade much more rapidly than MTBE under iron-reducing and methanogenic
conditions. Anaerobic TEA degradation is relatively rapid and extensive. Rates are comparable to
those seen for aerobic TEA degradation. Sediment adapted to degrade TEA converts 50% of the
added uniformly labeled [C-14] TEA to both [C-14] CO2 and [C-14] CH4 in 45 days.
Kropp et al. (2000) conducted a similar study in which sediment slurries were
investigated for anaerobic biodegradation of MTBE and other alternative gasoline oxygenates
such as methanol, ethanol, and isopropanol as well as several of the ethers such as TAME,
ETBE, and DIPE. Kropp et al. (2000) found that the simple alcohols were susceptible to
anaerobic biodegradation, but the effect of increased branching, as seen with TEA, was
increased recalcitrance to anaerobic decay. This same observation (that increased branching
tends to cause recalcitrance to anaerobic decay) was also seen with MTBE and its isomer butyl
methyl ether. In general, while Kropp et al. (2000) found definite evidence for anaerobic
degradation of MTBE and other ether oxygenates under methanogenic conditions, the
phenomenon was not widespread. Kropp et al. concluded that MTBE should be considered as a
compound for which anaerobic biodegradation is extremely difficult.
Information on the pathway of anaerobic MTBE has not yet been investigated.
Investigation of the anaerobic biodegradation of MTBE is still in the early stages and more
research is necessary to fully understand this process.
-------
3.1.3 Microbial Cometabolism of MTBE
Hyman (2000) provided a review of microbial cometabolism of MTBE. A summary of
this review is provided in this section.
Several aerobic microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi, have been identified that
are capable of cometabolically-degrading MTBE. There are also several primary substrates that
have been identified that can be used to stimulate MTBE biodegradation, including alkanes,
aromatics, and cyclic compounds. In general, MTBE cometabolism appears to be associated most
strongly with microorganisms that grow aerobically on the short chain alkanes (
-------
with iso-pentane as a primary substrate in laboratory-scale bioreactors. Field applications of iso-
pentane-degrading bacteria are currently being implemented by Stringfellow (2000). Field
evidence obtained by Butler et al. (2000) strongly suggests that cometabolism of MTBE was the
primary mechanism for MTBE removal from the aquifer.
3.2 Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation
The information in this section discusses the enhanced in situ bioremediation techniques.
This section is divided into bioaugmentation studies and studies in which indigenous
microorganisms were stimulated.
3.2.1 Bioaugmentation
Two studies were presented in which MTBE-degrading microbial cultures were
introduced into the subsurface (Salanitro, 2000; Scow et al., 2000). Scow et al. (2000) worked
with the bacterial strain PM1. The objectives of this study were to determine, both in laboratory
and field experiments, if strain PM1 was effective at removal of MTBE from a contaminated
groundwater aquifer at the Port Hueneme Naval Facility in Oxnard, CA. Microcosm studies were
first conducted to determine whether MTBE biodegradation by strain PM1 would occur in site
sediments. MTBE biodegradation was significantly higher in those microcosms inoculated with
strain PM1 than in those microcosms without inoculation. Initial concentrations of MTBE were
removed within 5 days, and subsequent concentration spikes were removed more rapidly.
Nutrient addition appeared to have no impact on biodegradation rates.
The field study was initiated in November 1999 and currently, the system has not
operated for a sufficient period of time to determine the effectiveness of the process. The field
study consists of two test plots located 610 m downgradient from the source of MTBE. Both
plots are aerated using an oxygen generator from which oxygen is injected into seven 20-gallon
tanks associated with each plot. Plot A receives only oxygen and Plot B receives oxygen and
was inoculated with strain PM1 (density of approximately 109 cells per ml in the final injection
solution).
Salanitro (2000) has demonstrated the use of biobarriers, also at the Port Hueneme Naval
Facility in Oxnard, CA and at a site in Tahoe City, NV. Salanitro (2000) worked with a mixed
culture, MC-100, and examined its MTBE biodegradation potential first in laboratory studies using
-------
site groundwater. MTBE biodegradation was much more rapid when microcosms were
inoculated with MC-100 than in uninoculated microcosms. MTBE concentrations of 10 to 12
mg/L were degraded to below detection limits within two weeks. MTBE (70-80 mg/L) and BTEX
(45 mg/L) in groundwater with high concentrations of gasoline (700 mg/L) were also completely
degraded in microcosms inoculated with MC-100.
The field studies at Port Hueneme consisted of creating three test plots: one with oxygen
injection only; one with oxygen injection augmented with MC-100; and one control (no treatment).
The experiment was conducted for one year. In the control test plot, no significant decline in
MTBE concentrations was observed. In the oxygen-injection-only plot, MTBE degradation
appeared to occur after a lag time of approximately 260 days. However, TEA was not degraded
in this test plot. In the inoculated test plot, MTBE biodegradation occurred soon after inoculation
and was non-detectable after 260 days. TEA was not detected in this test plot. Similar results
were obtained at a different field site in Tahoe City.
The results from both of these studies indicate that bioaugmentation has merit and
warrants further research. Additional research is needed to verify results and to determine the
effectiveness of bioaugmentation under different operating conditions and under different
hydrogeologies.
3.2.2 Stimulation of Indigenous Microorganisms
Stimulation of indigenous microorganisms was investigated by Mackay et al. (2000).
Laboratory and field experiments were conducted at an MTBE plume at Vandenberg Air Force
Base, CA. Microcosm studies with site sediments suggested that native aerobic MTBE-degrading
bacteria were present in the site sediments and could be stimulated to degrade MTBE solely by
adding oxygen (Wilson et al., 1999). In two separate field tests, dissolved oxygen was released
into the MTBE plume by diffusion through the walls of tubing pressurized with oxygen and in
contact with the groundwater flowing through unpumped well screens or permeable walls.
Upgradient concentrations of MTBE ranged from 100-400 ug/L. In both field tests, significant
reductions in MTBE concentrations (<5-100 ug/L) were measured downgradient of the diffusive
oxygen release systems in repeated sampling events, suggesting that oxygen release led to
stimulation of in situ biodegradation of MTBE. Appearance of TEA also indicated the activity of
MTBE-degrading microorganisms.
-9-
-------
Results from this research indicate that oxygen addition alone may be sufficient at some
sites to effect the biodegradation of MTBE. Further research is needed to optimize the process
and to determine factors that may affect the process.
3.3 Natural Attenuation Several field analyses of natural attenuation of MTBE were
presented. Some of the studies showed that natural attenuation of MTBE was possible, but the
degree of attenuation varied greatly from site to site. Evidence of biodegradation in groundwater
was demonstrated by Borden (2000), Butler et al. (2000), Landmeyer (2000), and Wilson (2000);
and by Baehr et al. (2000) in the vadose zone. In contrast, Hunter (2000) and Weaver (2000)
found no evidence of biodegradation; however, both of these studies were conducted in areas
with high groundwater velocity and, at Weaver's sites, high recharge rates. Happel et al. (2000)
presented preliminary results that also indicated fairly slow attenuation of MTBE as compared to
BTEX (two orders of magnitude lower).
Related to natural attenuation is the development of a new method for monitoring
petrochemical biodegradation as described by Mills and Haines (2000). In this method, the
isotopic composition of biodegradation products was analyzed. This method may allow the
differentiation between degradation of gasoline components, MTBE, and natural organic matter,
thereby offering the potential for more conclusive evidence of MTBE biodegradation.
Borden (2000) described an extensive three-dimensional field characterization that was
conducted to define the horizontal and vertical distribution of BTEX, MTBE, and indicator
parameters in a shallow coastal plain aquifer. Field-scale degradation rates were highest near the
source and declined further downgradient. Laboratory microcosm studies conducted under
aerobic and denitrifying conditions showed an identical pattern of biodegradation with high
biodegradation rates near the source and lower rates further downgradient. Mathematical
modeling studies using BIOPLUME II and a three-dimensional analytical solution showed that: 1)
the field data could not be adequately fitted using a spatially uniform first-order decay rate; and 2)
use of a spatial uniform first-order decay rate would substantially underestimate contaminant
concentrations and risks to downgradient receptors. Therefore, while biodegradation was
occurring in the aquifer, current models were inadequate to predict MTBE natural attenuation
accurately.
-10-
-------
Schirmer et al. (2000) conducted a natural gradient experiment in the Borden Aquifer,
CFB Borden, Ontario. MTBE was injected in 1988 in a 2,800 L slug at a concentration of 270
mg/L plus 19 mg/L BTEX and 515 mg/L Cl. It was found that approximately 3% of the initial
MTBE mass remained after eight years. MTBE was found where expected based on modeling,
but it was found sporadically and at concentrations much lower than predicted. The nature of the
aquifer, the characteristics of the contaminant, and the fact that the slug was introduced 1.5 m
below the water table, indicated that the processes of sorption, abiotic degradation, and
volatilization were not significant contributors to the observed MTBE attenuation (Butler et al.,
2000). The most likely explanation appears to be biodegradation. Additional laboratory studies by
Butler et al. (2000) demonstrated biologically-catalyzed MTBE degradation in the Borden aquifer;
however, this result appeared to be incidental and difficult to predict. Cometabolism was easily
initiated in laboratory microcosms and this may be the more likely mechanism for MTBE
biodegradation in the Borden aquifer.
Landmeyer (2000) conducted a study of the fate of MTBE in anaerobic aquifer
sediments. Very little biodegradation was observed under anaerobic conditions over a 7-month
period. However, recent evidence indicates that complete degradation of MTBE to carbon
dioxide is possible under mixed anaerobic/aerobic conditions, such as those present where
anaerobic groundwater discharges to aerobic surface waters. Other field evidence indicates
significant uptake of MTBE by oak trees.
Wilson (2000) is in the process of conducting a survey of existing underground storage
tank (UST) sites in association with BP/Amoco. Groundwater samples were analyzed for MTBE,
TEA, BTEX, naphthalene, methane, iron (II), total organic carbon (TOC), oxygen, sulfate, and
sulfide. Results are still being analyzed, but methane concentration doesn't appear to explain TEA
or MTBE concentration. There is generally more TEA than MTBE, possibly as a biodegradation
product from MTBE or possibly due to the higher solubility of TEA.
Baehr et al. (2000) conducted a study investigating the concentration of MTBE measured
in the unsaturated zone. Concentrations indicated that degradation of MTBE in the unsaturated
zone in southern NJ is sufficient to eliminate the atmosphere as a viable source of MTBE present
in shallow ground water. This may have some implication on natural attenuation at gasoline-spill
sites. Degradation of BTEX compounds within the capillary zone has been shown to greatly
enhance the transport of BTEX mass from the water table to the unsaturated zone due to
-11-
-------
volatilization and upward diffusive transport, resulting in a significant natural attenuation pathway.
Given that MTBE is degraded in the vadose zone, a similar pathway may exist for MTBE natural
attenuation.
Hunter (2000) presented data on a small gasoline spill (7-12 gallons of reformulated
gasoline [RFG]) that contaminated bedrock drinking water wells. MTBE concentration in the
reformulated gasoline was estimated to be 11% by volume. Contaminated soil was removed and
households were provided with point-of-entry filtration. Otherwise, no other remedial efforts were
employed. Initial MTBE concentrations were approximately 6,500 ug/L. Within two years, all
wells were below the 35 ug/L health standard. It is believed that removal was due to rapid
groundwater flow and dispersion rather than biodegradation.
Weaver (2000) characterized four plumes on Long Island, NY. The aquifers all had high
groundwater velocities and recharge rates. In general, the MTBE plumes were thousands of feet
long. All plumes were documented to "dive" into the aquifer possibly due to recharge. Inadequate
site characterization would have missed the plumes if groundwater monitoring well screens were
only screened across the water table.
Happel et al. (2000) conducted an analysis of compliance data from over 500 Leaking
Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT) sites in CA. Approximately 7,000 sampling events were
conducted on these 500 wells. Approximately 50% of the sampling events detected MTBE.
Preliminary data indicate that MTBE attenuated at a rate two orders of magnitude lower than
BTEX.
These studies illustrate both the potential of MTBE natural attenuation as well as the
inadequacy of natural attenuation. Natural attenuation of MTBE is highly sensitive to site
characteristics and may simply not be feasible at some sites. In addition, Borden (2000)
demonstrated that existing models are not adequate to predict MTBE natural attenuation and may
significantly underestimate the plume size over time. In particular, these studies illustrate the need
for additional research into the factors that influence natural attenuation.
3.4 Ex Situ Bioremediation
Several researchers are investigating the potential for ex situ bioremediation of MTBE.
Ex situ bioremediation of MTBE could be applied as part of a pump-and-treat approach for
-12-
-------
remediation of contaminated groundwater, or it may be used as part of the treatment train for
drinking water. The majority of the investigations that were presented are currently at the
laboratory-scale; however, Chang et al. (2000) presented data from a pilot-scale test.
Cowan et al. (2000) examined the kinetics of an MTBE-degrading microbial culture. The
microbial growth rate was slower than for most heterotrophs, with maximum specific growth
rates ranging from 0.017 to 0.057 h-1 at 30°C. Consequently, the low growth rates limited the
types of bioreactors that could be used for water treatment. Reactors that were examined
included a sequencing batch reactor (SBR), a submerged attached growth air-lift (SAGAL), and
a cyclically operated submerged attached growth bioreactor (COSAG). With the SBR, effluent
concentrations were sustained at <20 ug/L; however, two shocks occurred to the system during
the experiment and recovery times were quite long (1.5-2 months). The SAGAL reactor
performed well, also sustaining effluent MTBE concentrations <20 ug/L. Variations in reactor
temperature impacted the reactor performance. The COSAG bioreactor is currently in operation
and data is currently being evaluated; however, results to date are promising, with no MTBE
detected in the reactor effluent at a hydraulic residence time of 4.5 hours.
Venosa et al. (2000) described results from four bioreactors operated for over one year
to determine MTBE biodegradation under different substrate/co-substrate conditions. The
reactors used were porous pot reactors. The reactor conditions were as follows:
! influent MTBE concentration of 150 mg/L with MTBE the only organic carbon
source;
! influent MTBE concentration of 75 mg/L with ethanol also added at a
concentration of 75 mg/L;
! influent MTBE concentration of 75 mg/L with diethyl ether also added at a
concentration of 75 mg/L; and
! influent MTBE concentration of 75 mg/L with diisopropyl ether also added at a
concentration of 75 mg/L.
Results showed that at high biomass concentrations, MTBE was biodegraded in the
presence or absence of other carbon sources. Mineralization of MTBE occurred, as confirmed
through chemical oxygen demand (COD) and carbon analysis. Little loss occurred from the
control reactor, confirming system integrity. This bioreactor design was useful for laboratory
-13-
-------
situations, but would probably be ineffective in the field due to limited flow rates. Future research
includes pilot-scale evaluations using commercially available membrane bioreactors.
In a related study by Suidan et al. (2000), the kinetics of MTBE biodegradation of
cultures developed in the Venosa et al. (2000) studies were examined. Studies were conducted in
batch reactors and several parameters were investigated including MTBE, TEA, total and
inorganic carbon, dissolved oxygen, pH, and gaseous carbon dioxide and oxygen. MTBE was
mineralized to 1 • g/L within 24 hours with initial concentrations at 5, 15 and 40 mg/L. Results
indicated that biotransformation of TEA was the rate-limiting step in the mineralization of MTBE
In addition, the presence of ethanol competed with TEA biodegradation, but not MTBE
degradation.
Morales and Deshusses (2000) conducted microcosm and column studies with an
MTBE-degrading consortium. Biodegradation was only observed under aerobic conditions and in
the presence of the MTBE-degrading consortium. No degradation was observed under anaerobic
conditions or with indigenous microorganisms. In the presence of the consortium, complete
degradation of 20-25 mg/L MTBE was observed in approximately 10 days. The degradation rate
decreased with successive MTBE spikes, possibly due to toxic levels of nitrite. Column studies
were operated for 6 months with an approximate 100% MTBE removal efficiency for loadings of
0.25 - 3 g/rrf-h for columns packed with soil and 0.25 - 3 g/m?-h for columns packed with perlite.
Microcosm studies showed 70% conversion of MTBE to carbon dioxide, with a lower conversion
in columns. A new treatment technique Deshusses called "pump and trickle" where groundwater
is brought to the surface and reinjected in an infiltration trench seeded with MTBE degrading
micro-organisms was proposed.
Chang et al. (2000) described the use of a mixed culture and bacterial strain PM1 in a
biotrickling filter unit used to treat MTBE-contaminated groundwater. The biotrickling filter unit
consisted of seven granular activated carbon (GAC) packed-bed columns with a diameter of 14
inches and a depth of six ft. Start-up and operation of the columns was not steady, but shut down
periods were unrelated to problems with the biotrickling filter. One column was inoculated with
the strain PM-1 from a pure culture grown on ethanol. Influent concentrations of MTBE ranged
from 290-460 |Jg/L, with removal efficiencies of greater than 90%.
-14-
-------
A pilot-scale, compost-based biofilter for treatment of MTBE vapor also has been
investigated. To date, the removal efficiency approaches 100% for loading rates less than about
300 g/irf-d.
-15-
-------
4.0 RESEARCH NEEDS
Historically, there has been concern regarding the recalcitrance of MTBE. While all researchers
presented data and agreed upon the biodegradability of MTBE, it was apparent that additional research was
necessary to more fully understand both the basic microbiology of MTBE biodegradation, as well as develop
effective technologies for remediation of MTBE-contaminated groundwater and soils and to understand the
environmental conditions under which MTBE is degraded. It is critically important that this research on
MTBE biodegradation be conducted to improve the understanding and performance of MTBE remedial
technologies.
The following areas appear key for further research into the microbiology of MTBE biodegradation:
! The influence of various environmental parameters on MTBE biodegradation, including
geochemical factors and temperature should be investigated.
! The effect of BTEX on MTBE biodegradation in moderate to low BTEX concentrations and
high BTEX concentrations needs to be understood.
! The by-products of MTBE biodegradation, such as TEA, should be studied since they are
often detected at sites.
! A better understanding of the cause for low growth rates and low cell yields on MTBE
should be developed. Adequate biomass must be maintained for efficient degradation of
MTBE.
! Given that evidence has been shown for MTBE biodegradation under aerobic, anaerobic, and
cometabolic conditions, identification of the microorganisms involved in these processes may
provide a link between research conducted in different laboratories.
16
-------
! Likewise, given the variety of conditions under which MTBE biodegradation has been
observed, more research is needed on the mechanism of MTBE biodegradation, including
pathways and regulators of MTBE metabolism under aerobic, anaerobic, or cometabolic
conditions. This may have an impact on ex situ bioreactor performance and provide
information on the potential for and predictability of in situ bioactivity.
Prior to implementing MTBE remedial technologies, it is also apparent that there needs to be a better
understanding of the scope of the problem nationwide and the state-of-the-art for treatment technologies.
These research needs are summarized as follows:
! Develop a database containing information on MTBE-contaminated sites nationwide
representing various environmental conditions. Site data should ideally include contaminant
concentrations and distribution, geochemical data, and hydrogeological information. The EPA
and BP/Amoco have formed a collaborative effort to obtain this information from a number
of petroleum-industry sites. Additional input from other sources would be beneficial.
! Assess ability of various technologies to achieve different target levels and associated costs
to achieve the target level.
! Develop a database of technologies that are at pilot- or full-scale and may work for MTBE.
As much cost and performance data as possible should be included.
Detailed suggestions for research needs on specific technologies were discussed during the
workshop. The technologies under discussion could be broadly categorized by monitored natural attenuation,
enhanced in situ treatment, and ex situ treatment. In addition, a number of research needs were apparent
in the area of site characterization. In the following paragraphs, the research needs for these specific areas
are discussed.
17
-------
Site Characterization. Site characterization is a critical component of the site cleanup. If site
characterization is not adequately performed, site cleanup may not be achieved and serious health and
environmental impacts could occur later. Conventional site characterization strategies that have been
implemented at BTEX-contaminated sites may not be adequate to delineate the MTBE plume or to identify
and quantify MTBE biodegradation indicators. The following research needs have been identified:
! Sites must be more comprehensively characterized. Plumes may be deeper and longer than
expected.
! Source mass should be better characterized since this impacts treatment.
! Understand the effect recharge has on the downward movement of an MTBE plume.
! Guidance in the form of a protocol should be developed on the proper site characterization
methods and analytical methods.
Monitored Natural Attenuation. Monitored natural attenuation may be applicable under specific site
conditions; however, a significant amount of research is still needed to fully understand the processes that
impact natural attenuation of MTBE. The following research needs have been identified:
! Determine data needs beyond those obtained for BTEX assessments. Microbiological studies
may help determine these data needs.
! Screen a large number of sites to better understand how prevalent MTBE biodegradation is
and how significantly MTBE biodegradation contributes to natural attenuation of MTBE. This
is also necessary to determine in situ MTBE biodegradation rates.
! Determine specific site conditions conducive to or inhibiting biodegradation of MTBE. This
data could come from a combination of microbiological studies and assessment of a database
of site data.
! Understand the role of groundwater/surface water interfaces.
18
-------
! Develop a protocol for conducting natural attenuation assessments of MTBE.
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation. Enhanced in situ biodegradation is being investigated in the field
and promising results have been demonstrated. Additional research needs are as follows:
Conduct additional pilot-scale field trials and assess the following parameters:
! Life cycle costs and reliability
! Achievable degradation rates
! Biomass required and maintained
! Electron acceptor delivery methods
! Adequate methods to evaluate performance
! Development of techniques for effective electron acceptor delivery
! Study of enhanced in situ MTBE biodegradation under a variety of conditions including
different hydrogeological conditions, different contaminant concentrations, and mixed
contaminant systems
! Development of aggressive source area technologies. It is unknown whether enhanced
biodegradation will be effective for residual nonaqueous phase liquids.
! Compilation of case studies of enhanced in situ bioremediation to find determinants of
success or failure
! Development of techniques for determining the presence of MTBE-degrading bacteria and
identify what factors may be limiting their activity. Microbiological studies would provide
information to assist in this determination
! Development of protocols for conducting and monitoring in situ MTBE bioremediation
technologies
19
-------
Ex Situ Bioremediation. Ex situ bioremediation techniques have shown successful biodegradation
of MTBE under a variety of conditions. In addition to some additional research at the laboratory-scale level,
there are several areas of research to be explored at the field-scale. Additional research needs are as follows:
Conduct pilot-scale field trials and assess the following parameters:
! Life cycle costs and reliability
! Achievable degradation rates
! Biomass required and maintained
! Adequate methods to evaluate performance
! Long term performance data with shock loadings and other operational performance
requirements
! Mechanisms and processes to control degradation in aboveground water treatment reactors
! Reactor performance and costs under different influent conditions, including varying MTBE
concentrations, loadings, and mixed contaminants
! Existing GAC systems for biological activity and evaluate efficacy and cost of inoculating
existing GAC reactors with MTBE-degrading cultures
! Biotreatment as cost competitive compared to existing technologies such as GAC treatment
! State-of-the-practice database providing operational information of various reactor types
! Protocols for conducting and evaluating ex situ bioremediation of MTBE
Overall. A combination of technologies is likely to be the most appropriate choice for site
remediation. As such, it is important to examine the best treatment train technologies that bring MTBE
concentrations to low levels (i.e. thermal destructive technologies combined with air sparging or SVE followed
20
-------
by biodegradation). This is an important area of research since a treatment train approach may likely be
necessary at many sites.
21
-------
5.0 COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS
The need for collaborative efforts into investigating bioremediation of MTBE became evident during
the workshop. Different research groups have different strengths, and combining these strengths would bring
the most powerful approach to solving the problem of MTBE contamination. A work group comprised of
government agencies (e.g., EPA and USGS), industry representatives (e.g., the American Petroleum
Institute), and academia would be the most productive. Additional suggestions are as follows:
1. Many different areas of expertise were evident during the workshop. These can be grouped
into three broad categories: microbiology, bioreactor design, and field expertise. The team
could include a combination of these areas of expertise. The microbiology of MTBE
bioremediation is not fully understood and researchers working with MTBE-degrading
microbialconsortia or those examining field biodegradation would benefit from the input from
microbiologists. Likewise, researchers involved with bioreactor design and implementation
could create a strong team if working with researchers with significant field experience.
2. Lead organizations should be aware of the need to create this combination of experts when
developing new programs. The best way to create this awareness is through widespread
dissemination of current research and existing research needs.
3. In order to disseminate the current information on MTBE bioremediation, workshops
designed for lead organizations could be developed. Government agencies with experience
conducting these types of workshops could collaborate with various experts in the field of
MTBE bioremediation.
4. An organization is needed that would take the lead on disseminating information on MTBE
remediation. A combination of government agencies, industry, and academia would provide
an appropriate forum for this activity.
22
-------
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Baehr, A.L., E.G. Charles, and R. J. Baker. 2000. Field Evidence for Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Degradation in the Unsaturated Zone at Low Concentrations. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation
Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Borden, R.C. 2000. Transport and Fate of a BTEX and MTBE Plume - What Do We Know? Presented at
the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Butler, B.J., M. Schirmer, and J.F. Barker. 2000. The Fate of MTBE in the Borden Aquifer. Presented at
the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Chang, D.P.Y., E.D. Schroeder, K.M. Scow, B.M. Converse, J. Scarano, N. Watanabe, and K. Romstad.
2000. Experience with Laboratory and Fi eld-Scale Ex Situ Biodegradation of MTBE. Presented at the MTBE
Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Chapelle, F.H. 2000. The Distribution and Environmental Fate of MTBE in the Hydrosphere: The Approach
of the U.S. Geological Survey. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February
1-3.
Church, C.D. and P.G Tratnyek. 2000. Process Level Investigations of the In Situ Degradation of MTBE.
Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Cowan, R.M., J.K. Truskowski, and K. Park. 2000. MTBE Biodegradation Research at Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Da Silva, M.B., N. Lovanh, C.S. Hunt, and P.J.J. Alvarez. 2000. The Effects of Ethanol on BTEX Natural
Attenuation: Pure Culture and Aquifer Column Experiments. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation
Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Finneran, K.T. and D.R Lovley. 2000. Anaerobic Degradation of Methyl terf-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and tert-
Butyl Alcohol (TEA). Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Hanson, J.R., C.E. Ackerman, and K.M. Scow. 1999. Biodegradation of Methyl tert-butyl ether by a
Bacterial Pure Culture. Appl Environ. Microbiol 65:4788-4792.
Happel, A.M., E.H. Beckenbach, and K.N. Emerson. 2000. Evaluating Attenuation of MTBE: What We
Have Learned From LUFT Data and Laboratory Studies. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop,
Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
23
-------
Hunter, B. 2000. Natural Attenuation of MTBE at a Site Where 24 Bedrock Wells Were Contaminated by
a 10-Gallon Gasoline Spill. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Hyman, M. 2000. Microbial Cometabolism of MTBE. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop,
Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Kropp, K.G., M.R. Mormile, and J.M. Suflita. 2000. Anaerobic Biodegradation of MTBE and Alternative
Gasoline Oxygenates. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Landmeyer, IE. 2000. MTBE Attenuation Processes: Ambient and Enhanced Redox Conditions, Stream Bed:
Groundwater Interactions, and Plant Uptake. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati,
OH, February 1-3.
Mills, M.A. and J.R. Haines. 2000. Monitoring Petrochemical Biodegradation by Continuous-Flow Isotope
Ratio Mass Spectrometry. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Morales, M. and M. Deshusses. 2000. Research in Bioremediation of MTBE at UC Riverside: Lessons from
Laboratory Experiments. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Salanitro, J. 2000. In Situ Control of MTBE Plumes with Inoculated Biobarriers. Presented at the MTBE
Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Schirmer, M., C. Hubbard, B. Butler, R Devlin, and J. Barker. 2000. The Borden Field Experiment - Where
Has the MTBE Gone? Demonstrating In Situ Remediation - The Borden Aquifer Research Facility.
Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Scow, K.M., A. Smith, J. Leung, D. Mackay, and E. Lory. 2000. Bioaugmentation of MTBE-Contaminated
Groundwater with Bacterial strain PM1. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH,
February 1-3.
Speth, T. 2000. Drinking Water Issues. Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH,
February 1-3.
Stringfellow, W.T. 2000. Using iso-Pentane to Stimulate Biodegradation in Groundwater Treatment Systems.
Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Suidan, M.T., GJ. Wilson, AP. Richter, and A.D. Venosa. 2000. Kinetics of MTBE Biodegradation.
Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Venosa, A.D., M.T. Suidan, G.J. Wilson, and A.P. Richter. 2000. Aqueous Mineralization of MTBE.
Presented at the MTBE Biodegradation Workshop, Cincinnati, OH, February 1-3.
Wilson, R.D. et al. 1999. Laboratory-Scale Evaluation of In Situ Aerobic MTBE Biodegradation Options for
Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Proceedings of the Conference "Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection and Remediation ", cosponsored by the API
and NGWA, November 17-19, Houston, TX.
24
-------
Attachment A
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop Agenda
-25-
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
L
) American
Petroleum
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop
Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
February 1-3, 2000
Agenda
Meeting Goals
Ben Blaney, US EPA
OVERVIEW OF ISSUES
MTBE and Underground Storage Tanks
Sammy Ng, US EPA
EPA's ORD Current and Future Research on MTBE Bioremediation
Fran Kremerand Stephen Schmelling, U.S. EPA
MTBE Biodegradation: API and Industry Perspectives
Bruce Bauman API
The Distribution and Environmental Fate of MTBE in the Hydrosphere: The Approach of the U.S.
Geological Survey
Francis Chapelle, USGS
EPA Region 9 Perspective on MTBE Response
Steve Under, US EPA
PRESENTATIONS
I n Situ Treatment
Transport and Fate of a BTEX and MTBE Plume: What do we know?
Bob Borden, NCSU
Bioaugmentation of MTBE-Contaminated Groundwater with Bacterial Strain PM1
Doug Mackay, University of Waterloo
Microbial Cometabolism of MTBE
Michael Hyman, North Carolina State University
-26-
-------
Anaerobic Biodegradation of MTBE and TEA
Kevin Finneran, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
In Situ Control of MTBE Plumes with Inoculated Biobarriers
Joseph Salanitro, Equilon Enterprises
In Situ Treatment of MTBE by Biostimulation of Native Aerobic Microorganisms
Doug Mackay
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Evaluating Attenuation of MTBE: What we have Learned from LUFT Data and Laboratory Studies
Anne Happel, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
The Fate of MTBE in the Borden
Aquifer/Barbara Butler, University of Waterloo
MTBE Attenuation Processes: Ambient and Enhanced Redox Conditions, Stream-Bed-Ground-Water
Interactions, and Plant Uptake
James Landmeyer, USGS
Field Evidence for MTBE Degradation in the Unsaturated Zone at Low Concentrations
Arthur Baehr, USGS
Natural Attenuation of MTBE in the Subsurface Under Methanogenic Conditions
John Wilson, US EPA
Comparative Evaluation of MTBE Sites on Long Island
Jim Weaver, US EPA
Ex Situ Treatment
Drinking Water Issues
Thomas Speth, US EPA
MTBE Biodegradation: Kinetics, Reactor Engineering, and the Potential for Ex-Situ Treatment of
Groundwater
Robert Cowan, Rutgers University
Mineralization of MTBE in Continuous Flow High Biomass Bioreactors
Albert Venosa, US EPA
Kinetics of MTBE Biodegradation
Makram Suidan, University of Cincinnati
Research in Bioremediation of MTBE at UC Riverside: Lessons from Laboratory Experiments
Marc Deshusses, University of Califormia-Riverside
Experience with Laboratory and Field Scale Ex-Situ Biodegradation of MTBE
Daniel Chang, University of California-Riverside
-------
POSTERS
The Effects of Ethanol on BTEX Natural Attenuation: Pure Culture and Aquifer Column Experiments
Pedro Alvarez, US EPA
The Borden Field Experiment - Where Has the MTBE Gone? Demonstrating In Situ Remediation - the
Borden Aquifer Research Facility
Jim Barker, University of Waterloo
Process Level Investigations of the In Situ Degradation of MTBE
Clinton Church, Oregon Graduate Institute
Research in Bioremdediation of MTBE at UC Riverside: Lessons from Laboratory Experiments
Marc Deshusses
Biodegradation of MTBE in Soil Monitored by I RMS
John Haines, US EPA
Natural Attenuation of MTBE at a Site where 24 Bedrock Wells were Contaminated by a 10-Gallon
Gasoline Spill
Bruce Hunter, Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Anaerobic Biodegradation of MTBE and Alternative Gasoline Oxygenates
Kevin Kropp, University of Oklahoma
Using Iso-Pentane to Stimulate MTBE Biodegradation In Groundwater Treatment Systems
William Stringfellow, Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory
Structure and Behavior of the MTBE Plume at Port Hueneme, CA
John Wilson
-28-
-------
Attachment B
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop Speaker List
29
-------
x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
American
Petroleum
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop
Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
February 1-3, 2000
Speaker List
Arthur Baehr
Water Resources
U.S. Geological Survey
Mount View Office Park
810 Bear Tavern Road
West Trenton, NJ 08628
609-771-3978
Fax:609-771-3915
E-mail: abaehr@usgs.gov
Michael Barcelona
Research Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan
1221 1st Building
Ann Arbor, Ml 45109
734-763-6512
Fax:734-763-6513
E-mail: mikebar@engin.umich.edu
Bruce Bauman
American Petroleum Institute (API)
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-682-8000
E-mail: bauman@api.org
Ben Blaney
Assistant Laboratory Director
for Waste Research
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7852
Fax:513-569-7680
E-mail: blaney.ben@epa.gov
Bob Borden
Department of Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University
Box 7908
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
919-515-1625
Fax:919-515-7908
E-mail: rcborden@eos.ncsu.edu
Barbara Butler
Research Associate & Adjunct
Assistant Professor
Department of Biology
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue
Waterloo, ON N21 3G1
CANADA
519-885-1211
Fax:519-746-0614
E-mail: bjbutler@uwaterloo.ca
30
-------
Daniel Chang
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616-5294
530-752-2537
Fax: 530-752-7872
E-mail: dpchang@ucdavis.edu
Francis Chapelle
U.S. Geological Survey
720 Gracern Road - Suite 129
Columbia, SC 29210
803-750-6116
Fax:803-750-6181
E-mail: chapelle@usgs.gov
Joan Colson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (G75)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7501
Fax:513-569-7585
E-mail: colson.joan@epa.gov
Robert Cowan
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551
732-932-8750
Fax: 732-932-8644
E-mail: cowan@envsci.rutgers.edu
Marc Deshusses
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemical and
Environmental Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Bourns Hall B321
Riverside, CA 92521
909-787-2477
Fax: 909-787-2425
E-mail: mdeshuss@engr.ucr.edu
Carl Enfield
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7489
E-mail: enfield.carl@epa.gov
Kevin Finneran
Department of Microbiology
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Morrill Science Center
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-9649
Fax:413-545-1578
E-mail: finneran@microbio.umass.edu
Anne Happel
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
700 East Avenue L-542
Livermore, CA 94550-9234
925-422-1425
Fax: 925-423-7998
E-mail: happel1@llnl.gov
Michael Hyman
Department of Microbiology
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7615
919-515-7814
Fax:919-515-7867
E-mail: hymanm@mbio.ncsu.edu
Fran Kremer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agncy
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (481)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7346
E-mail: kremer.fran@epa.gov
James Landmeyer
U.S. Geological Survey
720 Gracern Road - Suite 129
31
-------
Columbia, SC 29210-7651
803-750-6128
Fax:803-750-6181
E-mail: jlandmey@usgs.gov
Steve Linder
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (WST-8)
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2036
Fax:415-744-1026
E-mail: linder.steven@epa.gov
Doug Mackay
University of Waterloo
744 Frenchman's Road
Stanford, CA 94305
650-324-2809
Fax: 650-324-2259
E-mail: d4mackay@uwaterloo.ca
Hugh McKinnon
Associate Lab Director
National Risk Management Risk
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (225)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7689
E-mail: mckinnon.hugh@epa.gov
Sammy Ng
Acting Director, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5401G)
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-9900
Fax:703-603-0175
E-mail: ng.sammy@epa.gov
P.O. Box1627
Richmond, CA 94802-0627
510-242-5365
Fax:510-242-1954
E-mail: kito@chevron.com
Joseph Salanitro
Equilon Enterprises
3333 South Highway 6 - P.O. 8ox 1380
Houston, TX 77251-1380
281-544-7552
Fax:281-544-8727
E-mail: jpsalanitro@equilon.com
Stephen Schmelling
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
919 Kerr Research Drive - P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74821
580-436-8540
Fax: 580-436-8581
E-mail: schmelling.steve@epa.gov
Thomas Speth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (B24)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7208
E-mail: speth.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
Makram Suidan
Water Quality Processes Program
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Cincinnati
P.O. Box210071
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071
513-556-3695
Fax:513-556-4003
E-mail: makram.suidan@uc.edu
Kirk O'Reilly
Senior Environmental Specialist
Chevron Research & Technology
Albert Venosa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
32
-------
513-569-7668
Fax:513-569-7105
E-mail: venosa.albert@epa.gov
Jim Weaver
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecosystems Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605-2700
706-355-8329
Fax: 706-355-8302
E-mail: weaver.jim@epa.gov
John Wilson
Research Microbiologist
Office of Reserch and Development
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kerr Research Laboratory
919 Kerr Research Drive
Ada, OK 74820
580-436-8534
Fax: 580-436-8703
E-mail: wilson.johnt@epa.gov
33
-------
Attachment C
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop Poster Presenters
34
-------
x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
American
Petroleum
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop
Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
February 1-3, 2000
Poster Presenter List
Pedro Alvarez
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
4116 Seamans Center
Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
319-335-5065
Fax: 319-335-5660
E-mail: pedro-alvarez@uiowa.edu
Jim Barker
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1
Canada
519-885-1211
Fax: 519-746-7484
E-mail: barker@cgrnserc. uwaterloo. ca
Clinton Church
Oregon Graduate Institute
20000 Northwest Walker Road
Beaverton, OR 97006
503-690-1651
Fax: 503-690-1273
E-mail: church@ese.ogi.edu
Marc Deshusses
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Bourns Hall B321
Riverside, CA 92521
909-787-2477
Fax: 909-787-242
E-mail: mdeshuss@engr.ucr.edu
John Haines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (420)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7446
E-mail: haines.john@epa.gov
Bruce Hunter
Hydrogeologist
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
207-287-7672
Fax: 207-287-7826
E-mail:
bruce.e.hunterstate.me.us
35
-------
Kevin Kropp
Post Doctoral Research Associate
Department of Botany & Microbiology
University of Oklahoma
770 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019
405-325-3771
Fax: 405-325-7619
E-mail: kevinkropp@ou.edu
William Stringfellow
Research Engineer
Center for Environmental Biotechnology
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(MS-70A-3317)
Berkeley, CA 94720
510-486-7903
Fax: 510-486-7152
E-mail: wstringfellow@lbl.gov
John Wilson
Research Microbiologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Kerr Research Laboratory
919 Kerr Research Drive
Ada, OK 74820
580-436-8534
Fax: 580-436-8703
E-mail: wilson.johnt@epa.gov
36
-------
Attachment D
MTBE Biodegradation Workshop List of Attendees
37
-------
x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
American
Petroleum
MTBE Biodegradation
Workshop
Marriott Kingsgate Conference
Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
February 1-3, 2000
Attendee List
Steven Acree
Office of Research & Development
Subsurface Protection & Remediation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Kerr Environmental Research Center
P.O. Box1198
Ada, OK 74821-1198
580-436-8609
E-mail: acree.steven@epa.gov
Gilberto Alvarez
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (DU-7J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-6143
Fax:312-353-3159
E-mail: alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov
David Ariail
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sam Nunn Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-9464
Fax: 404-562-9439
E-mail: ariail.david@epa.gov
John Brophy
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (6406-J)
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-9068
E-mail: brophy.john@epa.gov
Tom Conrardy
Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road (MS-4530)
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
E-mail: tom.conrardy@dep.state.fl.us
Linda Fiedler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5102-G)
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-7194
E-mail:
fiedler.linda@epa.gov
38
-------
Annette Gatchett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (481)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7697
E-mail: gatchett.annette@epa.gov
Joe Haas
Engineering Geologist
New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
Building 40-SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
631-444-0332
Fax:631-444-0373
E-mail:jehaas@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Douglas Heath
Hydrogeologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
One Congress Street - Suite 1100 (CNH)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1585
Fax:617-918-1505
E-mail: heath.doug@epa.gov
Ravi Kolhatkar
BP-Amoco
150 West Warrenville Road (H-7)
Naperville, IL 60563
630-420-3824
Fax: 630-420-5016
E-mail: kolhatrv@bp.com
William Kramer
Principal Hydrogeologist
Handex Environmental
P.O. Box 451
500 Campus Drive
Morganville, NJ 07751
732-536-8667
Fax: 732-536-7751
E-mail: bkramer@handexmail.com
Andrea Leeson
Research Leader
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
614-424-6424
E-mail: leeson@battelle.org
Ernie Lory
National Environmental
Technology Test Site Manager
U.S. Navy
NFESC-ESC411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-1299
Fax: 805-982-4304
E-mail: loryee@nfesc.navy.mil
Norm Novick
Technology Assessment
and Enhancement Coordination
Exxon Mobil
8280 Willow Oaks II - Room 6W117
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, VA 22037
703-849-4968
Fax:703-849-5217
E-mail: norman_j_novick@email.mobil.com
Rey Rodriguez
Subcommittee Chair, MTBE Partnership
California MTBE Research Partnership
653 Michelle Street
West Covina, CA 91790
626-917-7747
Fax:626-917-7847
E-mail: mapper3d@aol.com
Laurel Staley
Chief
Treatment & Destruction Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (420)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7863
Fax:513-569-7105
E-mail: staley.laurel@epa.gov
39
-------
Curt Stanley
Senior Staff Hydrogeologist
Equilon Services
West Hollow Technology Center
P.O. Box1380
Houston, TX 77251-1380
281-544-7675
Fax:281-544-8727
E-mail: ccstanley@equilon.com
Hal White
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(5403-G)
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-7177
Fax:703-603-0175
E-mail: white.hal@epa.gov
Richard Willey
Hydrologist
Region 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
One Congress Street (HBS)
Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1266
Fax:617-918-1291
E-mail: willey.dick@epa.gov
40
------- |