Perchlorate Treatment Technology
Update
FEDERAL FACILITIES FORUM ISSUE PAPER
Section
1.0 Introduction.
1.1
Page
.1
Overview of Perchlorate Contamination
and Environmental Occurrence 4
1.2 Overview of Human Health and
Environmental Concerns for
Perchlorate 1
1.3 National Academy of Science Review
of Perchlorate Toxicity 1
1.4 Overview of Regulatory Status of
Perchlorate 10
2.0 Physical and Chemical Properties and
Analytical Methods 11
2.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of
Perchlorate 11
2.2 Selected Analytical Methods for
Perchlorate 11
3.0 Treatment Technologies 16
3.1 Ion Exchange 16
3.2 Bioreactor 26
3.3 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption 36
3.4 Composting 41
3.5 In Situ Bioremediation 45
3.6 Penneable Reactive Barrier 55
3.7 Phytotechnology 59
3.8 Membrane Technologies 62
3.8.1 Electrodialysis 62
3.8.2 Reverse Osmosis 64
3.9 Recent or Planned Treatment
Technology Research 67
4.0 References 69
Appendix A Selected Perchlorate Web Sites
Appendix B Federal Facilities Forum Members
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Perchlorate contamination is becoming a more
widespread concern in the United States as sources
of such contamination continue to be identified and
as more sensitive analytical methods are developed
that can detect this compound in soil and
ground-water. Perchlorate contamination is of
particular concern because of the persistent and
toxic nature of this chemical and because its
physical and chemical properties make it
challenging to treat. In addition to its use as an
oxidizer in propellants and explosives, perchlorate
has a wide variety of uses in areas ranging from
electronics manufacturing to pharmaceuticals.
A number of issues associated with perchlorate
contamination are being discussed by government,
private, and other organizations and interested
parties. These issues include health effects and
risks, regulatory standards and cleanup levels,
degradation processes, and treatment technologies.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Federal Facilities Forum
(http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/fedfomm.htm - see
box) has prepared this issue paper to provide
information about technologies available for
treatment of perchlorate contamination in
environmental media, including technologies that
have been used to date and others that show
potential for treating such contamination. A brief
overview of key perchlorate issues is provided to
give the reader context; however, these issues are
not addressed in depth in this paper.
Federal Facilities Forum
The Federal Facilities Forum supports the federal
facilities programs in each of the ten EPA regional
offices. The group was organized in 1996 to
exchange up-to-date information related to federal
facility remediation issues at Superfund and RCRA
sites. The Forum promotes communication between
the regions and Headquarters and works primarily to
communicate the current policy issues to each
regional office as it is developed through the Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) at
EPA Headquarters (http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/).
Disclaimer: Use or mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Standards of Ethical Conduct do not permit EPA to endorse any private sector product or
service.
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (5102G)
EPA 542-R-05-015
May 2005
www.epa.gov/tio/tsp
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
AFB
AFCEE
AWWARF
bgs
BOD
Cal EPA
CERCLA
C1O4
C1O3
C1O2
cr
Cr6+
CRREL
CTAC
°C
DCE
DO
DoD
DOE
DVB
DWEL
EDR
EOS
EPA
ERDC
ESI-MS
ESTCP
FBR
FDA
FeCl3-HCl
FFRRO
FRTR
ft
FY
op
Acronyms and Symbols GAC
GAC/IX
Air Force Base GEDIT
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence gpd
American Water Works Association gpm
Research Foundation GWRTAC
Below ground surface
Biochemical Oxygen Demand FiDPE
California Environmental Protection FiFMBfR
Agency
Comprehensive Environmental FIFTW
Response. Compensation, and Liability FiMX
Act HRC
Perchlorate IC/MS
Chlorate
Chlorite IHD
Chloride IRIS
Hexavalent chromium IRZ
Cold Regions Research and ISB
Engineering Laboratory ITRC
Cetyl Trimethyl Ammonium Chloride
degrees Celsius LANL
Dichloroethene Ib
Dissolved oxygen LFIAAP
United States Department of Defense LOQ
United States Department of Energy MBR
Divinyl benzene MCL
Drinking water equivalent level rng/kg
Electrodialysis reversal mg/L
Edible oil substrate MMR
United States Environmental Protection MNA
Agency MRL
United States Army Engineer Research MTBE
and Development Center NAS
Electrospray ionization mass NAVFAC
spectrometry NaCl
Environmental Security Technology NaOH
Certification Program NCEA
Fluidized bed reactor
United States Food and Drug NDMA
Administration NGWA
Ferric chloride-hydrochloric acid NFL^OH
Federal Facilities Restoration and NIROP
Reuse Office
Federal Remediation Technologies nm
Roundtable NRC
Foot NSWC
Fiscal year NWIRP
degrees Fahrenheit
Granular activated carbon
Granular activated carbon/ion exchange
Gaseous Electron Donor Injection
Technology
Gallons per day
Gallons per minute
Ground-Water Remediation
Technologies Analysis Center
High-density polyethylene
Hollow-Fiber Membrane Biofilm
Reactor
Horizontal flow treatment well
Cyclotetramethylene Trinitramine
Hydrogen release compound
Ion Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry
Indian Head Division
Integrated Risk Information System
In situ reactive zone
In situ bioremediation
Interstate Technology Regulatory
Council
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Pound
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Limit of quantification
Membrane bioreactor
Maximum contaminant level
Milligrams per kilogram
Milligrams per liter
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Monitored natural attenuation
Minimum reporting level
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
National Academy of Sciences
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Sodium chloride
Sodium hydroxide
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
Nitrosodimethylamine
National Ground Water Association
Ammonium hydroxide
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
Nanometers
National Research Council
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory SAMNA
ORP Oxidation reduction potential
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and SBA
Technology Innovation SDWA
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency SERDP
Response
O2 Oxygen TCA
PER Packed bed reactors TCE
PCE Tetrachloroethene TDS
PCL Protective cleanup level TNT
PHG Public health goal TSS
ppb Parts per billion UCMR
ppm Parts per million
PQL Practical quantification limits USAGE
PRB Permeable reactive barrier USAF
psi Pounds per square inch USGS
PWS Public water supply UV
QC Quality control VOC
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery WQCB
Act W/cm2
RDX Royal Demolition Explosives Mg/kg
RfD Reference dose (ig/L
RO Reverse osmosis ZVI
Surface Application and Mobilization
of Nutrient Amendments
Strong-base anion
Safe Drinking Water Act
Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Total dissolved solids
Trinitrotoluene
Total suspended solids
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Air Force
United States Geological Survey
Ultraviolet
Volatile organic compounds
Water Quality Control Board
Watts per square centimeter
Micrograms per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Zero-valent iron
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Appendix A to this paper provides a list of web
sites and resources pertaining to perchlorate, and
Appendix B identifies the members of the Federal
Facilities Forum.
1.1 Overview of Perchlorate Contamination
and Environmental Occurrence
Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and
manmade anion that is typically found in the form
of perchloric acid and salts such as ammonium
perchlorate, potassium perchlorate, and sodium
perchlorate. Ammonium perchlorate, an oxidizer,
is the most prevalent form of mis compound; has
been widely used in solid propellants, fireworks,
and flares; and is a constituent of many munition
components. Perchlorate compounds are also used
in a number of other manufacturing operations,
including electroplating, production of
Pharmaceuticals, paints and enamels, and tanning
and leather finishing (EPA FFRRO, 2005). Other
compounds that contain perchlorate are Chilean
nitrates and manufactured sodium chlorate, which
contain perchlorate as an impurity (Urbansky,
2000). Listed below are several uses of perchlorate
(ITRC, 2005).
Table 1-1. Example Uses of Perchlorate (EPA
FFRRO, 2005)
Example Uses of Perchlorate
Air bag initiators for
vehicles
Bleaching agent
Chemical laboratories in
analytical testing
Ejection seats
Electroplating operations
Electropolisliing
Engine oil testing
Etching of brass and
copper
Fireworks
Flash powder for
photography
Leather tanning
Oxygen generators
Paints and enamels
Perchloric acid
production and use
Production of matches
Propellant in rocket
engines
Road flares
Perchlorate was first manufactured in the U.S. in
1908 at the Oldbury Electrochemical plant in
Niagara Falls, New York. Manufacture of
ammonium perchlorate began in the 1940s,
primarily for use by the defense industry and later
by the aerospace industry. Other perchlorate-
containing salts were more common before 1953.
Over the years, the number of perchlorate
manufacturers has varied. Before the mid-1970s,
there were at least five perchlorate manufacturing
plants in the U.S., but from 1975 through 1998,
only two plants manufactured the compound
(American Pacific in Henderson, Nevada, and then
in Cedar City, Utah, and Kerr-McGee in
Henderson, Nevada). Currently mere is only one
U.S. manufacturer of ammonium perchlorate,
American Pacific's Western Electro Chemical
Company (WECCO) Plant in Cedar City, Utah
(http: //www .american-pacific-
corp.com/utali/index.html) (EPA FFRRO, 2005).
Perchlorate continues to be used in a variety of
operations. As shown in Figure 1-1, mere were
more man 100 perchlorate users located in 40
states as of April 2003 (Mayer, 2004).
Because of historical issues associated with the
detection of perchlorate contamination, the
nationwide occurrence of this compound in the
environment is still being determined. Figure 1-2
shows mat, as of September 2004, 35 states and
Puerto Rico had reported perchlorate
contamination in groundwater or surface water
(EPA FFRRO, 2005).
Figure 1-2 was compiled using data collected by
EPA's FFRRO for the following types of sites:
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) facilities,
facilities of other federal agencies, private sites,
locations of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR) detections, and Texas Tech
University's West Texas Study locations. For each
site identified, the compilation includes data about
perchlorate concentrations in drinking water,
groundwater, surface water, and soil, as available.
The maximum concentrations reported were as
follows: drinking water was 811 micrograms per
liter (jig/L); groundwater was 3,700,000 (.ig/L;
surface water was 120,000 ug/L; and soil was
2,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The list of
sites includes more than 40 sites on the National
Priorities List (Superfund sites); however, it should
be noted that perchlorate concentrations at some of
these sites were relatively low compared with other
sites in the compilation (EPA FFRRO, 2005).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 1-1. Perchlorate Manufacturers and Users, April 2003 (Mayer, 2004)
Pcrchloratc Manufacturers and Users
Major Rivers
State does not contain a known manufacturer or user
State contains a known manufacturer or user
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 1-2. National Perchlorate Detections by EPA Region, September 23, 2004 (EPA FFRRO, 2005)
\)
Legend
Perchlorate Detections at:
• A Department of Defense (DOD) Facilities
O A Other Federal Agency Facilities:
Department of Energy (DOE)
National Aerona utics and Space Agency (NASA)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
9 A Privately-owned Sites
O A Un regu late d Co ntam inant Mo nito ring Rul e (U CMR) Detect! ons
O A Texas Tech University- West Texas Study Detections
O Point Contains One Site
A Point Contains Multiple Sites
Note: This map presents data available as of September 2004. Please visit the EPA FFPJIO web site (http:/A\ww.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/perchlorate.htm) for
updated information about perchlorate detections.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Based on data in the UCMR database, as of August
2004, 145 public water supply (PWS) systems had
reported at least one detection of perchlorate based
on 583 samples that tested positive for the
compound. The August 2004 update of the
UCMR database provides perchlorate sample
analytical data from 3,460 PWSs. The database is
available at
http ://www .epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/data/ucmrgetdata.
html (Mayer, 2004).
In addition to national data on perchlorate
detections, more detailed information is available
for specific regions of the country. For example,
EPA Region 9 has compiled a summary of
perchlorate releases in the region (see Figure 1-3)
mat covers drinking water contamination,
monitoring well detections, and Colorado River
contamination as of September 2004. As shown in
Figure 1-3, these releases involved 28 sites,
including 11 Superfund sites. The lower Colorado
River, which stretches from Lake Mead (near Las
Vegas) to the border with Mexico, had measurable
concentrations of perchlorate over its entire length.
In California, more man 6,500 water supply wells
were tested for perchlorate, with detections
reported in 354 wells, or 5.4 percent (Mayer,
2004). Figure 1-4 shows perchlorate detections
and manufacturers and users in EPA Region 6.
This figure shows approximately two dozen
confirmed perchlorate detections in that region
(Villarreal, 2004).
1.2 Overview of Human Health and
Environmental Concerns for Perchlorate
Perchlorate exerts its most commonly observed
health effect on or through the thyroid gland in the
form of a decrease in thyroid hormone output. The
thyroid gland takes up iodide ions from the
bloodstream and uses the iodide to regulate
metabolism along with other functions. In this
iodide uptake process, the presence of ions larger
than iodide, such as perchlorate, can reduce thyroid
hormone production and thus disrupt metabolism.
This property of perchlorate makes it useful as a
medical treatment for Graves" disease
(hyperthyroidism), but can also make perchlorate a
health concern (Urbansky, 1998; EPA NCEA,
2004).
Primary pathways for exposure to perchlorate in
humans include ingestion of contaminated drinking
water and food (EPA FFRRO, 2005). Recent
studies have detected perchlorate in samples of
lettuce and milk. Additional studies of perchlorate
uptake in food crops are currently being conducted
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA,
2004).
1.3 National Academy of Science Review of
Perchlorate Toxicity
In January 2005, the National Research Council
(NRC) of the National Academy of Science (NAS)
published the results of its review of perchlorate
toxicity in a report titled "Health Implications of
Perchlorate Ingestion." The NRC reviewed the
adverse health effects of perchlorate ingestion from
clinical, lexicological, and public health
perspectives as well as EPA's 2002 draft toxicity
assessment for perchlorate
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11202.html).
The NRC found that daily ingestion of up to
0.0007 milligrams of perchlorate per kilogram of
body weight can occur without adversely affecting
the health of the most sensitive populations. The
committee that wrote the NRC report did not
include a corresponding drinking water
concentration with its reference dose (RfD)
because the assumptions used to derive drinking
water standards involve public policy choices that
were beyond the committee's charge. On February
18, 2005, EPA adopted the findings of the NRC
and established an official RfD of 0.0007
mg/kg/day of perchlorate in the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1007.htm). This
RfD equates to a drinking water equivalent level
(DWEL) of 24.5 ^ig/L (EPA IRIS, 2005).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 1-3. Perchlorate Releases in EPA Region 9, April 2003 (Mayer, 2004)
PERCHLORATE RELEASES
Drinking Water Contamination
Monitoring Wells Only
h Colorado River Contamination
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
8
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 1-4. Perchlorate Detections and Manufacturers/Users in EPA Region 6, November 2002 (Villarreal, 2004)
REGION 6 PERCHLORATE DETECTIONS AND MANUFACTURERS/USERS
Fort Windate Army D&poi
McAfester Army ^.munition I
Me I rose Range* •£ ulovis
Lonqhom Manufacturin
Red River Army Depo
I \^~ Unshorn
Gaines CouTit^t * *Borden County Harrison '—•*^=—"—'"-^ -*
White Sands Missile Range A^dre^s County u^-^r^^T- ^naped Charge Specialist RTF
Midland Ctun_. _
rtin County TEXAS
Army Ammunition Plant
Naval Weapons*1^ & M
Industrial Reserve PWnt
Confirmed Perchlorate Detection
Unconfirmed Perchlorate Detection
Perchlorate User
/\/US Interstate
Major River
Major Lake
Urbanized Area
| | State Boundary
* Infofmation Provided by DoD
As of N ovember 2002
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
9
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
The NRC emphasized that the reference dose
should be based on inhibition of iodide uptake by
the thyroid in humans, which is not an adverse
effect but the key biochemical reaction that is
caused by exposure to perchlorate. The NRC
called this a "conservative, health-protective
approach to perchlorate risk assessment/' The
adverse effect for which this is a precursor is
hyperthyroidism, which may occur at much higher
doses. The NRC also found mat humans are much
less susceptible to disruption of thyroid function or
formation of thyroid tumors than rats, and therefore
the effect of perchlorate on rats is not a good
indicator of its effects on human health (NRC.
2005; EPA, 2005d).
1.4 Overview of Regulatory Status of
Perchlorate
At this time, there is no federal cleanup standard
for perchlorate in groundwater or soil such as a
maximum contaminant level (or MCL, an
enforceable drinking water standard under the Safe
Drinking Water Act [SDWA]). Rather, cleanup
levels have been identified on a site-specific basis
under federal statutes such as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and SDWA. In
addition, several states have identified advisory
levels for perchlorate, as shown in Table 1-2.
Based on review of the available toxicological
information. Health Canada recommends a
drinking water guidance value of 6 (.ig/L (Health
Canada, 2005).
Table 1-2. State Advisory Levels for
Perchlorate (EPA FFRRO, 2005; Cal EPA,
2005)
State
Arizona
California
Massachusetts
Maryland
New Mexico
New York
Nevada
Texas
Advisory
Level
14ng/L
6ug/L-
public
health goal
(PHG) for
perchlorate
in drinking
water
1 ug/L
lug/L
1 ug/L-
only for
monitoring
5 and 18
ug/L
18 ug/L-
public
notice
standard
17 and 51
ug/L
Comment
1998 health-based
guidance level;
based on child
exposure: to be
reviewed after EPA
issues final
Reference Dose
(RfD)
Emplia sized human
clinical study:
includes 10X
uncertainty factor:
California EPA (Cal
EPA) is anticipating
a proposed
maximum
contaminant level
(MCL) in 2005
Precautionary
recommendation to
local water districts
for children and at-
risk populations
None
Drinking water
screening level
5 ug/L for drinking
water planning level:
18 ug/L for public
notification level
For contaminated
groundwater
17 ug/L for
residential
protective cleanup
level (PCL); 51 ug/L
for industrial/
commercial PCL
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
10
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
2.0 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES AND ANALYTICAL
METHODS
This section provides information about select
physical and chemical properties of several
perchlorate compounds as well as information
about analytical methods for perchlorate in various
media.
2.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of
Perchlorate
Perchlorate is a highly soluble, mobile compound
that dissolves and moves like a salt in water. Table
2-1 summarizes select physical and chemical
properties of three common perchlorate salts as
well as perchloric acid. As this table shows, the
densities of the salts range from 1.95 to 2.53 g/cnr\
The solubilities of perchlorate salts are relatively
high, with ammonium perchlorate"s solubility
reported as 200 g/L at 25°C.
2.2 Selected Analytical Methods for Perchlorate
The chemistry of the perchlorate ion, especially the
relatively high solubility of its salts in water,
creates challenges in sample analysis for this
compound (Urbansky, 1998). Prior to 1997, the
perchlorate detection limit achieved by standard
ion chromatography was >400 (ig/L. However,
analytical methods now available can achieve
detection limits of 4 (ig/L or lower. Table 2-2
summarizes selected analytical methods for
perchlorate along with their target reporting limits.
Current EPA Methods
The two EPA methods currently available for
analysis for perchlorate in drinking water and other
waters are Method 314.0 (EPA, 1999) and Method
9058 (EPA, 2000). Both methods are based on use
of an ion chromatography instrument, but they
differ in the preferred columns. Method 314.0 has
more alternatives for cleanup (pretreatment)
procedures to cope with interfering ions. Both
methods include requirements for matrix spikes
(also called 'laboratory fortified sample matrices")
to verify the performance of the method for the
sample matrix involved. Such quality control (QC)
samples are used to confirm that acceptable sample
detection limits are attained. The main limitations
of the methods stem from interference from other
ions mat can cause raised sample detection limits,
false negatives, and false positives.
In addition, variations of the two current EPA
analytical methods are being studied. For example,
EPA (200la) conducted a study using a method
similar to Method 314.0 to measure trace
perchlorate in dissolved or leached fertilizers. This
study demonstrated that careful use of matrix
spikes for each fertilizer material to verify the
perchlorate detection limit for mat material enabled
Method 314.0 to be extended to non-drinking
water matrices. Ellington and Evans (2000) used a
variety of cleanup techniques to determine low
concentrations of perchlorate in plant materials.
Kang and others (2003) developed online
preconcentration methods for removing interferents
as a substitute for the offline procedures included
in EPA methods.
Magnuson and others (2000) used a different
technology for perchlorate analysis. An organic
salt of the perchlorate was extracted from an
aqueous sample and then determined by
electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-
MS) without a chromatographic separation step.
Urbansky and others (2000) then used both this
ESI-MS procedure and the Method 314.0
procedure to analyze bottled waters and found that
the methods produced comparable results.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
11
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Selected Perchlorate Compounds
Property
CAS No.
Formula
Formula Weight
Color/Form
Melting Point
Density
Solubility-
Additional
Solubility
Information
Ammonium
Perchlorate
7790-98-9
NH4C1O4
117.49
White,
orthorhombic
crystals
Decomposes/
explodes
1.95 g/cm3
200 g/L of water at
25 °C
Soluble in methanol;
slightly soluble in
ethanol, acetone;
almost insoluble in
ethyl acetate, ether
Sodium
Perchlorate
7601-89-0
NaClO4
122.44
White.
orthorhombic
crystals; white,
deliquescent crystals
480 °C
2.52 g/cm3
209.6 g/100 mL of
water at 25 °C
209 g/100 mL water
at 15 °C: 284 g/100
mL water at 50 °C;
soluble in alcohol
Potassium
Perchlorate
7778-74-7
KC104
138.55
Colorless crystals or
white, crystalline
powder: colorless,
orthorhombic
crystals
525 °C
2.53 g/cm3
15 g/L of water at
25 °C
Soluble in 65 parts
cold water, 15 parts
boiling water;
practically insoluble
in alcohol; insoluble
in ether
Perchloric Acid
7601-90-3
HC104
100.47
Colorless, oily
liquid
-112°C
1.768 g/cm3
Miscible in cold
water
Not provided
Source: National Library of Medicine. Specialized Information Services. 2004. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/. Downloaded October 4.
Table 2-2. Selected Analytical Methods for Perchlorate
Method
Description
Target Reporting Limit
Source
Current EPA Methods
Method 3 14.0
Method 9058
Uses an ion
chromatography
instrument that includes
an anion separator
column, an anion
suppressor device, and a
conductivity detector.
Includes alternatives for
cleanup (pretreatment)
procedures to cope with
interfering ions.
Uses an ion
chromatography
instrument that includes
an anion separator
column, an anion
suppressor device, and a
conductivity detector.
0.1 ug/Lis target
reporting limit for
perchlorate in drinking
water
4 ng/L is limit of
quantitation (LOQ).
Method detection limit is
0.7 ug/L in groundwater.
EPA. 1999. "Method
314.0. Determination of
Perchlorate in Drinking
Water using Ion
Chromatography.''
Revision 1.0. National
Exposure Research
Laboratory, Office of
Research and
Development. November.
EPA. 2000. "Method
9058. Determination of
Perchlorate using Ion
Chromatography with
Chemical Suppression
Conductivity Detection."
Revision 0. SW-846
Update IVB. November.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
12
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Method
Description
Target Reporting Limit
Source
Methods Under Development
Method 314.1; expected
in 2005
Uses a preconcentrator to
remove common
interferents, including
chloride, carbonate, and
sulfate. Inadditioa
provides for use of a
second column to confirm
identity of perchlorate.
0.5 - 1 ug/L
EPA. 2005e. E-mail
message with comments
on perchlorate issue
paper. From Jan Dunker
(United States Army
Corps of Engineers
[USAGE]) to John
Quander (EPA Office of
Superfund Remediation
Technology Innovation).
April 1.
EPA. 2005e. E-mail
message with comments
on perchlorate issue
paper. From Jan Dunker
(USAGE) to John
Quander. April 1.
Method 3 31.0-
"Determination of
Perchlorate in Drinking
Water by Liquid
Chromatography
Electrospray lonization
Mass Spectrometry,"
expected in 2005
Uses a different
chromatographic method
to separate perchlorate
from other ions, which
may be more effective in
reducing interference.
Tandem mass
spectrometry provides a
tool to eliminate sulfate
interference. The method
quantitates perchlorate
against an isotopically
labeled (oxygen-18)
internal standard. This
method may provide
versatility needed for
difficult matrices.
0.02 ug/L
EPA. 2005e. E-mail
message with comments
on perchlorate issue
paper. From Jan Dunker
(USAGE) to John
Quander. April 1.
Method 332.0 -
"Determination of
Perchlorate in Drinking
Water Using Ion
Chromatography with
Suppressed Conductivity
and Mass Spectrometric
Detection," expected in
2005
Substitutes an
electrospray ionization
mass spectrometry (ESI-
MS) detector for the
conductivity detector of
Method 314.0. Provides
confirmation of identity of
perchlorate or definite
evidence of false positive
results from interferents.
Can handle relatively high
concentrations of total
dissolved solids.
0.1 ug/L Ion
Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (IC/MS)
and 0.02 ug/L (IC/MS-
MS)
Method 6850 -
"Determination of
Perchlorate Using High
Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry"
Uses the technology of
Method 331.0 to separate
perchlorate from other
ions and the technology of
Method 332.0 to confirm
the identity of perchlorate
and quantitate it.
Practical quantitation
limits (PQL) are 0.2 ug/L
for water (drinking water,
simulated groundwater,
and Great Salt Lake
water), 2 ug/L for soil.
and 6 ug/L for biota
(grass). Method detection
limits are about 1/3 of the
PQLs.
EPA. 2004b. E-mail
message regarding
perchlorate analysis.
From Mike Carter, (EPA
Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse
Office [FFRRO]) to John
Quander. July 14.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
13
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Method
"Rapid Determination of
Perchlorate Anion in
Foods by Ion
Chromatography -
Tandem Mass
Spectrometry"
Field Screening Method
for Perchlorate in Water
and Soil
Description
Developed in support of
an ongoing program for
collection and analysis of
foods to measure
perchlorate content.
Samples are extracted by
food-specific methods.
Extracts are then
separated by ion
chromatography as in
Method 332.0 and
determined by the
technology (including the
internal standard) used in
Method 33 1.0.
A field screening
colorimetric method for
perchlorate was
developed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). This method
was published as a report
(ERDC/CRREL TR-04-8)
which is available for
download at
http://www.crrel.usace.
army.mn/techpub/
CRREL_Reports/
reports/TR04-8.pdf.
Target Reporting Limit
LOQs are 0.5 (ig/L for
drinking water, 1 (.ig/L for
fruits and vegetables, and
3 (ig/L for milk
Detection limits:
1 ug/L for water;
0.3 ug/g for soil
Source
FDA. 2004. "Draft
Rapid Determination of
Perchlorate Anion in
Lettuce, Milk, and in
Bottled Water by
HPLC/MS/MS."
Revision 0. Dated March
17. Downloaded July 15
from
http ://www. cf saafda. gov/
~dms/clo4meth.html.
USAGE. 2004. Field
Screening Method for
Perchlorate in Water and
Soil. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and
Development Center
(ERDQ/Cold Regions
Research and Engineering
Laboratory (CRREL)
TR-04-8. April.
Status of Methods Under Development
EPA is now in the filial stages of developing two
new methods and one revised method for
perchlorate analysis (EPA, 2004a). Method 332.0,
"Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Using Ion Chromatography with Suppressed
Conductivity and Mass Spectrometric Detection."
is due for release in 2005 (EPA FFRRO, 2005).
This method substitutes an ESI-MS detector for the
conductivity detector of Method 314.0. The
inherent advantage of the new method is that the
mass spectral data (especially the ratio of the
concentrations of perchlorate ion masses of 99 and
101 daltons, which are derived from the two
masses. 35 and 37 daltons. of natural chlorine)
provide confirmation of the identity of the
perchlorate or definite evidence of false positive
results from interferents. This method can handle
relatively high concentrations of total dissolved
solids, but sulfate may still pose a problem. The
natural abundance of sulfur-34 causes just over 4
percent of bisulfate ions to have a mass of 99
daltons. which distorts the perchlorate ion ratios.
Some analytical methods use the 83- and 85-dalton
masses, which correspond to the perchlorate ion
less one oxygen atom, to minimize interference.
Method 331.0. ''Determination of Perchlorate in
Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography
Electrospray lonization Mass Spectrometry," is
also due for release in 2005. The new method uses
a different chromatographic method to separate
perchlorate from other ions, which may be more
effective in reducing interference. The tandem
mass Spectrometry provides a tool to eliminate the
sulfate interference problem. The method
quantitates perchlorate against an isotopically
labeled (oxygen-18) internal standard. Although
more expensive than ion chromatography methods.
Method 331.0 may provide the versatility needed
for difficult matrices.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
14
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
In addition. Method 314.1 is due for release in
2005. This variation uses a preconcentrator to
remove common interferents, including chloride.
carbonate, and sulfate. In addition, it provides for
use of a second column to confirm the identity of
perchlorate, as is done in Method 8081A and
similar chromatography methods.
Other methods are being developed outside of
EPA's Office of Water. For example, a new
Method 6850 for analysis for perchlorate in various
wastes is being developed by EPA's Office of
Solid Waste (EPA, 2004b); and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has published a draft
analytical method for perchlorate in water, milk,
and lettuce (FDA, 2004). The latter method is
intended to support a collection and analysis
program for those foods (FDA, 2003). This
method combines elements of Method 332.0 (ion
separation) and Method 331.0 (identity
confirmation and quantitation) and uses the 83-
and 85-dalton masses to minimize interference.
DoD is also working on development and
improvement of methods for perchlorate analyses,
including variations of Method 331.0. Additional
information about these efforts was provided at a
recent symposium (DoD, 2004).
In October 2004, EPA hosted the 14th Annual
Quality Assurance Conference in Dallas, Texas.
The conference presentations included a number of
papers evaluating perchlorate analytical
methodologies and discussing methods under
development
(http://www.epa.gov/Arkansas/6pd/qa/index.htm).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
15
-------
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.0 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Technologies used for treating perchlorate
contamination in drinking water, groundwater, and
soil have included the following ex situ and in situ
approaches:
• Ion Exchange
• Bioreactor
• Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
• Composting
• In Situ Bioremediation
• Permeable Reactive Barrier
• Phytotechnology
• Membrane Technologies (Electrodialysis and
Reverse Osmosis).
Ex situ technologies may require treatment of
residuals; however, this document does not discuss
residuals treatment in detail.
This section provides an overview of these
technologies. This includes a description of their
underlying principles, the mechanisms by which
they reduce the concentration or amount of
perchlorate in environmental media, factors that
affect their performance, and technical limitations.
Summary information is provided for about 50
sites where these technologies have been or are
being used for full-scale perchlorate treatment or
field demonstration. To compile the site-specific
information, EPA evaluated available source
materials such as recent conference proceedings.
EPA also contacted Remedial Project Managers
and others during the summer and fall 2004 to
solicit up-to-date information on each treatment
project.
Site-specific information includes technology
design, operation, and performance data. These
projects include efforts at full-scale and field
demonstration (i.e., pilot scale), of which some are
ongoing and others completed. Table 3-1
summarizes the total number of projects described
in this section, indicating about half are full-scale
projects and the other half are pilot-scale projects.
Table 3-1. Number of Perchlorate Treatment
Projects Discussed in Issue Paper
Technology
Ion Exchange
Bioreactor
Granular Activated
Carbon
Composting
In Situ
Bioremediation
Permeable Reactive
Barrier
Phytotechnology
Electrodialysis
Reverse Osmosis
TOTAL
No. of Projects
Full-Scale
15
4
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
25
Pilot-Scale
->
_•>
5
2
3
10
1
1
2
0
27
Cleanup goals vary by site and type of project.
Technology performance data are presented
relative to cleanup goals. Treatment technologies
often are applied to achieve specified goals mat
vary by site, end use, and other factors.
Performance information has not been
independently verified for accuracy or
completeness.
3.1 Ion Exchange
Summary
Ion exchange is an ex situ technology used to
remove perchlorate from drinking water,
groundwater, surface water, and environmental
media at full scale. Among the projects identified
for this report, ion exchange is the most frequently
used ex situ treatment technology for perchlorate.
The most commonly used ion exchange media are
synthetic, strongly basic, anion exchange resins. Ion
exchange has been used at sites to reduce
perchlorate concentrations to less than 4 ug/L. Its
effectiveness is sensitive to a variety of untreated
water contaminants and characteristics. It lias also
been used as a polishing step for other water
treatment processes such as biological treatment of
perchlorate.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
16
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Technology Principles
Ion exchange is a physico-chemical process in
which ions held electrostatically on the surface of a
solid are exchanged for ions of similar charge in a
solution. Ion exchange materials used for
perchlorate treatment typically consist of resins
made from materials that contain ionic functional
groups to which exchangeable ions are attached.
This technology removes perchlorate ions from the
aqueous phase by replacing them with the anion
present in the ion exchange resin medium (Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable [FRTR],
2005; Gu et al.. 1999; EPA Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response [OSWER], 2002).
Monofunctional and bifunctional anion exchange
resins are commonly used in perchlorate treatment.
Bifunctional resins, which consist of two
functional groups, can address a broader range of
ionic strengths than monofunctional resins can.
The resin used for ion exchange typically is made
from synthetic materials, inorganic materials, or
natural polymeric materials mat contain ionic
functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached (FRTR, 2005). Because dissolved
perchlorate is usually in an anionic form, and weak
base resins tend to be effective over a smaller pH
range, strong base resins are typically used for
perchlorate treatment. Some resins used for
perchlorate removal include poly vinylbenzyl
chloride backbone cross-linked with divinyl
benzene (DVB), to form quarternary ammonium
strong-base anion (SBA) exchange sites (Gu et al.,
1999; Guetal., 2002).
Resins may be categorized by the ion exchanged
with the one in solution. For example, resins mat
exchange a chloride ion are referred to as chloride-
form resins. Another way of categorizing resins is
by the type of ion in solution that the resin
preferentially exchanges. For example, resins that
preferentially exchange sulfate ions are referred to
as sulfate-selective resins. Nitrate-selective resins
have been found useful for perchlorate removal
(EPA OSWER, 2002). Some common chloride-
form resins for perchlorate removal include SBA
Type I acrylic and styrenic resins, nitrate select
resins, and perchlorate-selective bifunctional resins
(Boodoo, 2003a).
The order of exchange for most strong-base resins
is as follows (in order of decreasing adsorption
preference from top to bottom and left to right
[EPA OSWER, 2002]):
HCrO4 > CrO42 > C1O4 > SeO42 > SO42 > NO3 >
Br > (HPO42, HAsO42, SeO32, CO32) > CN >
NO2 > Cl >(H2PO4, H2AsO4. HCO3) > OH >
CH3COO > F
Technology Description
Ion exchange resins are usually packed into a
column, and as contaminated water is passed
through the column, contaminant ions are
exchanged for other ions such as chlorides or
hydroxides in the resin (FRTR, 2005).
Figure 3.1-1 shows a simplified view of an ion
exchange column. Ion exchange is often preceded
by treatments such as filtration and oil-water
separation to remove organics, suspended solids,
and other contaminants mat can foul the resins and
reduce their effectiveness. Ion exchange resins
must be periodically regenerated to remove the
adsorbed contaminants and replenish the
exchanged ions (FRTR, 2005). Regeneration of a
resin typically occurs in three steps:
1. Backwashing
2. Regeneration with a solution of ions
3. Final rinsing to remove the regenerating
solution
The regeneration process results in a backwash
solution, a waste regenerating solution, and a waste
rinse water. The volume of spent regeneration
solution ranges from 1.5 to 10 percent of the
treated water volume depending on the feed water
quality and type of ion exchange unit (EPA
OSWER, 2002). One study (Gu et al., 1999)
showed that nearly 110,000 bed volumes of water
contaminated with approximately 50 (ig/L
perchlorate can be treated by a bifunctional resin
before breakthrough occurs. Sodium chloride
(NaCl), ammonium hydroxide (NF^OH), ferric
chloride-hydrochloric acid (FeCl3"HCl) and sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) are some commonly used
regenerants for perchlorate-laden resins. The
regeneration process may require 3 to 5 bed
volumes of regenerant solution and 2 to 3 bed
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
17
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
volumes of water for rinsing. Furthermore, the
regeneration water and spent resin containing high
levels of perchlorate would require additional
treatment (e.g., biological reduction) prior to
disposal or reuse (Gingras and Batista, 2002; Gu
and Brown, 2000). Technology providers have
recently focused on improving the regeneration
processes used for ion exchange.
Figure 3.1-1. Ion Exchange System for
Perchlorate Removal (EPA OSWER, 2002)
Contaminated
Water '
Ion Exchan;
Resin
Effluent
Ion exchange operations can use multiple beds in
series to reduce the need for bed regeneration; beds
first in the series (lead beds) require regeneration
first, and fresh beds can be added at the end of the
series (lag beds). Using multiple beds can also
allow continuous operation because some beds can
be regenerated while others continue to treat water
(EPA OSWER, 2002; Boodoo, 2003b). Ion
exchange beds are typically operated as fixed beds
in which the water to be treated is passed over an
immobile ion exchange resin. One variation on
this approach is to operate the bed in a non-fixed,
countercurrent fashion in which water is applied in
one direction, usually downward, while spent ion
exchange resin is removed from the top of the bed.
Regenerated resin is added to the bottom of the
bed. This method may reduce the frequency of
resin regeneration (EPA OSWER, 2002).
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Treating Wastes Containing Perchlorate
Ion exchange of perchlorate in environmental
media and drinking water is commercially
available. Information is available on 15 full-scale
applications, including 11 applications for
environmental media, and four applications for
drinking water. Three pilot-scale applications for
groundwater also have been identified.
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
• Drinking water
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.1-1 summarizes available performance
data for this technology. For the 14 groundwater
projects (11 full scale and three pilot scale),
influent perchlorate concentrations ranged from 10
(.ig/L to 350,000 |.ig/L. Effluent concentrations of
perchlorate ranged from non-detect at a detection
limit of 0.35 (ig/L (Project 16, Table 3.1-1) to
2,000 ug/L. Of the four drinking water projects,
performance data were available for only one
project. The initial concentration of perchlorate in
this project ranged from 20 to 50 (ig/L, while the
final concentration was below the detection limit of
4 (ig/L. As discussed above, cleanup goals varied
by site and type of project. Where provided, actual
technology performance data are presented relative
to cleanup goals. Treatment technologies often
operate to achieve specified goals that vary by site,
end use, and other factors.
A case study at the end of this section discusses use
of ion exchange to remove perchlorate from
groundwater at the Aerojet General Corp.
Superfund Site, in Rancho Cordova, CA (Gu and
Brown, 2000; Lu, 2003; EPA, 2004c; EPA, 20041;
EPA, 2004p; Calgon Carbon Corp., 1998; Cal
EPA, 2004).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
18
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.1-1. Ion Exchange Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Aerojet General Corp. Superfuiid
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA; Ion
Exchange; Groundwater;
Full-scale; Ongoing
This is a Superfund site with
perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater. Other contaminants of
concern at this site include nitrates
and chlorinated solvents. An ion
exchange system consisting of a non-
regenerable perchlorate-selective
resin is being used for perchlorate
removal at this site. The system is
currently opera ting at a flow rate of
400 gallons per minute (gpm) and is
expected to operate at 1.500 gpm by
June 2005.
Period of Performance:
August 2004 - Ongoing
The average initial concentration of
perchlorate was 50 ug/L. Effluent
concentrations are less than 4 ug/L.
1. EPA. 2004c. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Charles Berrey (EPA Region 9)
to Sashi Vissa (Tetra Tech EM Inc.).
September 13.
2. California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2004.
"Perchlorate Contamination
Treatment Alternatives: Draft."
January.
Castaic Lake Water Agency,
Whittaker Berm Area, Whittaker,
CA; Ion Exchange; Drinking Water;
Full-scale: Ongoing
This is a state-lead site. Additional
information on technology design and
operation was not provided.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Technology performance data not
provided.
EPA. 2004q. E-mail messages
regarding perchlorate detection.
From Kevin Mayer (EPA Region 9)
to John Quander (EPA Office of
Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation). November
9.
City of Pomona, CA; Ion Exchange;
Full-scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate. A
full-scale, fixed-bed, non-regenerable
anion exchange resin is being used
for perchlorate removal from
groundwater. The system is
operating at a flow rate of 10,000
Period of Performance:
Not available
Technology performance data not
provided.
Cal EPA. 2004. Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft. January.
Fontana Union Water Co., Fontana,
CA: Ion Exchange; Full-scale;
Drinking Water; Ongoing
A fixed bed, non-regenerable anion
exchange resin is being used at full
scale for removal of perchlorate hi
drinking water wells at this site.
Period of Performance:
January 2004 - Ongoing
Technology performance data not
provided.
The Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2005.
Overview: Perchlorate Overview.
Draft. March.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
19
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Frank Perkins Road Treatment
System, Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Cape Cod, MA; Ion
Exchange: Full-scale; Groundwater;
Ongoing
Treatment system operates at 220
gpm and treats perchlorate- and
explosives-contaminated
groundwater. Treatment train entails
a series of three units with the ion
exchange resin unit placed between
two granulated activated carbon
canisters (each packed with 2.000
pounds of granular activated carbon
(GAC) media. The treatment system
is composed of three mobile
treatment units each with a capacity
of treating 100 gpm.
Period of Performance:
September 2004 - Ongoing
In October 2004, influent
concentration of perchlorate was
approximately 33 ug/L. Effluent
concentration is below the detection
limit (reporting limit = 0.35 ug/L)
EPA. 20041. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Jane Dolan (EPA Region 1) to
John Quander. November 9.
Kerr McGee. Henderson, NV: Ion
Exchange; Groundwater; Full-scale;
Shut down.
(ISEP-Perchlorate Destruction
Modules [PDMs] System)
A regenerable anion exchange system
initiated operation in March 2002 to
treat groundwater contaminated with
perchlorate. The full-scale treatment
system included 30 anion exchange
units mounted on a turntable attached
to a rotating multi-port valve. During
one turntable rotation, each resin
column was subjected to a cycle of
adsorption, rinsing, and regeneration
(with salt brine). The perchlorate
removed from the ion exchange
columns was then destroyed by
reaction with ammonia in two high
temperature catalytic PDMs. The
flow rate of the system was 825 gpm.
Period of Performance:
March 2002 - October 2002
Initial perchlorate concentrations
ranged up to 350,000 ug/L. Effluent
perchlorate concentrations ranged
from 500 to 2,000 ug/L. The
removal efficiency was
approximately 99%.
Elevated concentrations of dissolved
solids and sulfate caused
maintenance problems. The system
was shut down in October 2002 due
to corrosion in the heat exchangers in
the perchlorate destruction modules.
The ISEP-PDM system was replaced
by a system of twelve anion exchange
columns known as the "Plant Ion
Exchange System.'1
1. EPA Region 9. 2004.
"Perchlorate in Henderson, NV -
Significant controls are operating".
July.
2. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
3. EPA Region 9. 2005L E-mail
message regarding perchlorate
treatment. From Larry Bowerman
(EPA Region 9) to John Quander.
June 24.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
20
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Kerr McGee, Henderson, NV; Ion
Exchange; Groundwater; Full-scale;
Shut down.
(Plant Ion Exchange System
and Wash Ion Exchange System)
The Plant Ion Exchange System
began operation in October 2002 to
treat groundwater contaminated with
perchlorate. The full-scale treatment
system included twelve single-use
anion exchange columns configured
in 4 parallel trains of 3 columns each.
When the resin was saturated with
perchlorate, it was removed and sent
off-site for incineration. The flow
rate of the system was 750 gpm.
The Wash Ion Exchange System
began operation in November 1999.
Initially it included two single-use
ion exchange columns configured in
series (a third column was added in
October 2002). This system treated
about 350 gpm containing about
100,000 ug/L perchlorate, removing
97-99%.
Period of Performance:
November 1999 - June 2004
Initial perchlorate concentrations
ranged from 80.000 to 350,000
Effluent concentrations ranged from
500 to 2.000 ug/L. The removal
efficiency was 98 to 99.8%.
The Plant Ion Exchange System was
shut down in March 2004 when a
new biologically based treatment
plant (the FBR Plant) began
operation. The Wash Ion Exchange
System operated from November
1999 until it was shut down in June
2004.
1. EPA Region 9. 2004.
"Perchlorate in Henderson, NV -
Significant controls are operating."
July.
2. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
3. EPA Region 9. 2005L E-mail
message regarding perchlorate
treatment. From Larry Bowerman
(EPA Region 9) to John Quander.
June 24.
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA; Ion Exchange;
Groundwater; Full-scale; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate, TCE,
and nitrate. A regenerable, nitrate-
selective anion exchange resin is
being used for perchlorate removal.
The system flow rate is
approximately 3.5 gpm.
Period of Performance:
November 2000 - Ongoing
Initial concentration of perchlorate in
groundwater was 10 ug/L.
Perchlorate in treated effluent is
being reduced to less than 4 ug/L.
1. EPA. 2004J. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Katlii Setian (EPA Region 9) to
John Quander. December 15.
2. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
21
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Lockheed Propulsion Company -
Tippicanoe Treatment Facility, City
of Riverside, CA (Redlands Plume);
Ion Exchange; Full-scale; Drinking
Water; Ongoing
A fixed bed, non-regenerable anion
exchange system is being applied at
full-scale to address perchlorate
contamination in drinking water at
this site. The treatment system
consists of 10 ion exchange vessels,
each loaded with approximately
36.000 pounds of a strong-base.
quarternary amine resin (CAL-RES
2103). The system is operating at
6,000 gpm.
Period of Performance:
2001-Ongoing
The average initial perchlorate
concentration ranged from 20 to 50
ug/L. Average concentration of
perchlorate in effluent is being
reduced to below detection limit with
a detection limit of 4 ug/L.
1. Lu, Owen. 2003. A Perchlorate
Treatment Implementation Success
Story. September 10.
http://www.tribalwater.net/perchlorat
e/riversidePublicUtility.pdf
2. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)/Carifornia
Institute of Technology Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
CA; Ion Exchange; Groundwater;
Full-scale; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate.
nitrate, and volatile organics. An ion
exchange system with a disposable
resin is currently operating at full-
scale at this site. The treatment
system flow rate is 2 million gallons
per day.
Period of Performance:
July 2004 - Ongoing
Influent perchlorate concentrations in
groundwater range from 20 to 40
Hg/L. Effluent concentrations of
perchlorate are below detection limit
with a detection limit of 4 iig/L.
EPA. 2004k. Record of telephone
conversation between Sashi Vissa
and Mark Ripperda (US EPA Region
9). September 23.
Olin Safety Flare Site, City of
Morgan Hill, CA; Ion Exchange;
Full-scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
A fixed bed. non-regenerable anion
exchange system is being applied at
full-scale to treat perchlorate-
contaminated groundwater at this
site. The system is operating at 800
gpm.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Initial perchlorate concentration in
groundwater is approximately 10
Lig/L. Effluent perchlorate
concentrations are less than 4 ug/L.
1. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
2. EPA. 2004q. E-mail messages
regarding perchlorate detection.
From Kevin Mayer to John Quander.
November 9.
Olin Safety Flare Site. West San
Martin Colony and County Wells,
CA: Ion Exchange: Full-scale;
Groundwater; Ongoing
A non-regenerable, nitrate-selective
anion exchange system is being
applied at full-scale to treat
perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater at this site. The ion
exchange system at this site is
operating at 10,000 gpm.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Initial perchlorate concentration in
groundwater is 15 ug/L. Effluent
perchlorate concentrations are less
than 4 ug/L.
1. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
2. EPA. 2004q. E-mail messages
regarding perchlorate detection.
From Kevin Mayer to John Quander.
November 9.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
22
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Rialto-Colton Site, San Bernardino
County, CA: Ion Exchange; Full-
scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate and
trichloroethene (TCE). Six fixed
bed, non-regenerable anion exchange
systems are currently operating at this
site for perchlorate removal. A
seventh regenerable system is under
construction. Total treatment
capacity is approximately 16,000
Period of Performance:
August 2003 - Ongoing
Perchlorate concentrations in
untreated water varied from
approximately 4 to 20 ug/L.
Perchlorate concentrations in treated
water are less than 4 ug/L.
1. EPA. 2004p. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Wayne Praskins (EPA Region
9) to Saslii Vissa. December 8.
2. CalEPA. 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment
Alternatives: Draft." January.
San Gabriel Valley Area 2 Superfund
Site, (also known as Baldwin Park
Operable Unit); Los Angeles County,
CA; Ion Exchange: Full-scale;
Groundwater; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate,
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
One regenerable anion exchange
system has been operating since
2001. Two additional regenerable
systems have been constructed and
are in the start-up phase. A fourth
uon-regenerable system is in
construction. Total treatment
capacity of die four systems is
approximately 25,900 gpm.
Period of Performance:
2001-present
Perchlorate concentrations in the
untreated water at the operating
treatment system have varied from
approximately 40 to 75 ug/L since
treatment was installed. Perchlorate
concentration in treated water have
been less than 4 ug/L.
1. Calgon Carbon Corp. 1998. Case
Study: Calgon Carbon Corp. - ISEP®
Continuous Ion Exchange.
December. Available at
http ://www.perchlorateinfo. com/perc
hlorate-case-15 .html. Downloaded
July 2004.
2. EPA. 2004p. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Wayne Praskins (EPA Region
9) to Saslii Vissa. December 8.
West Valley Water Co., West San
Bernardino, CA; Ion Exchange; Full-
scale: Drinking Water; Ongoing
A fixed bed, non-regenerable anion
exchange resin is being used at full
scale for removal of perchlorate in
drinking water wells at this site.
Period of Performance:
May 2003 - Ongoing
Technology performance data not
provided.
ITRC. 2005. Overview: Perchlorate
Overview. Draft. March.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
23
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), CA;
Ion Exchange; Groundwater; Pilot-
scale; Completed
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate,
nitrate, and volatile organics. A
perchlorate-selective anion exchange
resin was used to remove perchlorate
from groundwater. This pilot study
involved the use of both bifunctional
(two quarternary ammonium groups)
and monofunctional resin columns in
parallel. Each ion exchange column
was 2 inches in diameter and 12
inches in depth. The system flow rate
ranged from 0.11 to 0.15 gpm. A
polishing column was used to capture
residual perchlorate from the treated
groundwater.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Average concentration of perchlorate
in the influent groundwater was 450
ug/L. Effluent perchlorate
concentrations were reduced to less
than 3 ug/L.
1. Gu, Baohua, Brown, Gilbert M.,
and Ku, Yee-Kyoung. 2002.
"Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater Using
Highly Selective, Regenerable lon-
Exchange Technology: A Pilot-Scale
Demonstration." Remediation.
Spring 2002.
2. Gu, Baohua and Brown, G.M.
2000. Bifunctional Anion Exchange
Resin Pilot - Edwards AFB, CA.
Available at:
http://www.perclilorateinfo.com/perc
hlorate-case-10.html. Downloaded
July 2004.
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
MA: Ion Exchange; Groundwater:
Pilot-scale; Completed
Study processed 900,000 gallons of
groundwater. Samples were
collected at the outlet of the treatment
vessel. The system processed
approximately 60,000 bed volumes at
an empty-bed-contact time of
approximately 5 minutes without
breakthrough for a six month pilot
test period.
Period of Performance:
January 2004 - July 2004
Perchlorate influent concentration
ranged from 1.88 to 3.9 ng/L. All
effluent concentrations were below
the detection level of 0.35 ug/L.
EPA. 20041. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Jane Dolan (EPA Region 1) to
John Quander. November 9.
Vandenberg AFB, Lampac, CA; Ion
Exchange; Pilot-scale; Groundwater:
Ongoing
A perchlorate-selective, strong base
anion resin is being used at this site
for perchlorate removal. One ion
exchange system is operating at the
site as of November 2004. The flow
rate (90-day average) is 3,800 gallons
per day. The treatment system
consists of two 560-gallon ion
exchange vessels with 42 cubic feet
of resin.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Technology performance data not
provided.
EPA. 2004g. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From David Athey (California Water
Quality Control Board) to Saslii
Vissa. Novembers.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
24
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Factors Affecting Ion Exchange Performance
• Presence of Competing Ions - Competition
for the exchange ion can reduce the
effectiveness of ion exchange if ions in the
resin are replaced by ions other than
perchlorate-such as nitrate, sulfate, and
bicarbonate - resulting in a need for more
frequent bed regeneration (FRTR, 2005;
Boodoo, 2003a; Gingras and Batista, 2002;
Gu and Brown, 2002).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs of ion exchange generally compare favorably
with costs for aboveground water treatment
technologies, according to the FRTR
http ://ww w .frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2 .html
Factors affecting ion exchange cost include the
approach used for bed regeneration and
pretreatment activities. For example, the presence
of suspended solids, oxidants, and calcium may
require pretreatments that can increase costs.
• Fouling - Presence of organics, suspended
solids, calcium, or iron, can foul ion
exchange resins; this can reduce the
effectiveness of the treatment system due to
clogging of the resin bed (FRTR, 2005; EPA
OSWER, 2002; Boodoo, 2003b; Gu et'al.,
2002).
• Influent Water Quality - Presence of
oxidants in the influent water can impede
performance of the ion exchange resin
(FRTR, 2005).
Potential Limitations
Treated water from ion exchange systems using
chloride-form resins could contain increased levels
of chloride ions and thus be corrosive to the
treatment system equipment. The ion exchange
process can also lower the pH of treated waters
(Boodoo, 2003a; EPA OSWER, 2002).
Spent regenerating solution from regenerable ion
exchange resins used to remove perchlorate from
water might contain a high concentration of
perchlorate and other sorbed contaminants. Spent
resin from a regenerable ion exchange system may
require treatment prior to reuse. Used resin from a
disposable ion exchange system may likewise
require treatment prior to disposal (FRTR. 2005;
Boodoo, 2003b; Gingras and Batista. 2002; Gu et
al., 1999; EPA OSWER, 2002).
Case Study: Aerojet General Corp. Superfund
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA
The Aerojet General Corp. Superfund site lias
groundwater contaminated with perchlorate, nitrates,
1,4-dioxane, nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA),
trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and
chloroform. A full-scale, selective ion exchange
system consisting of a non-regenerable perchlorate-
selective resin is being used to remove perchlorate.
The system currently operates at a flow rate of 400
gallons per minute (gpm), and the flow rate is
expected to increase to 1,500 gpm by June 2005.
Two or three separate ion exchange systems with
capacities ranging from 800 to 3,500 gpm will be
installed at this site in addition to the system
currently operating. The first unit began operating
at 400 gpm in August 2004. The average initial
concentration of perchlorate is 50 ug/L. The
concentration of perchlorate in treated effluent is
less than 4 ug/L (Cal EPA, 2004; EPA, 2004c).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
25
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.2 Bioreactor
Summary
A bioreactor frequently serves as an ex situ
technology for removing perclilorate from
contaminated groundwater and surface water at full
scale. This technology uses microorganisms
capable of reducing perchlorate into chloride and
oxygen in the presence of an electron donor and an
appropriate medium to support microbial growth.
Bioreactors have been used at sites to reduce
perchlorate concentrations to less than 4 ug/L.
Technology Principles
Bioreactors treat contaminated water aboveground
in a reactor vessel. Contaminated water is placed
in direct contact with microbes that selectively
degrade the contaminant of concern.
Denitrification bacteria have been found to be
capable of degrading perchlorate to chloride and
oxygen. The process requires an electron donor
and an appropriate substrate to support bacterial
growth. Perchlorate serves as the oxygen source in
mis process. Some commonly used electron
donors are acetic acid. ethanol, methanol, and
hydrogen. Addition of nutrients such as ammonia
and phosphorus may be required to enhance
microbial growth (Evans et al., 2002; Evans et al.,
2003; Clark et al., 2001; Hall, 2000a; Hall 200b).
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
• Drinking Water
Chemicals and Nutrients Used for Perchlorate
Removal by Bioreactors
• Acetic acid
• Ethanol
• Methanol
• Hydrogen
• Ammonia
• Phosphorus
• Urea
Perchlorate Transformation/Biodegradation
Microbial degradation of perchlorate proceeds
according to the following anaerobic reduction
process:
C1O4
C1O3
C1O2
Cl + O2
The rate limiting step in mis process is degradation
of perchlorate to chlorate. More than 30 different
strains of perchlorate-degrading microbes have
been identified, with many classified in the
Proteobacteria class of the bacteria kingdom. Soil
and groundwater samplings have confirmed the
pervasiveness of perchlorate-reducing bacteria
(Polk et al., 2001; Naval Facilities Engineering
Command [NAVFAC], 2000).
Ongoing research suggests that perchlorate
destruction involves a three-step reduction process
catalyzed by two enzymes. A perchlorate
reductase enzyme catalyzes reduction of
perchlorate (C1O4 ) to chlorate (C1O3~) and then to
chlorite (C1O2~). A chlorite dismutase enzyme then
causes a further breakdown of chlorite to chloride
(CO and oxygen (O2) (Polk et al., 2001; Sartain
and Craig, 2003; EPA, 2001b; Beisel et al., 2004).
Technology Description
Fluidized bed reactors and packed bed reactors are
two types of commercially available bioreactors.
Packed or fixed bed bioreactors are made up of
static sand or plastic media to support the growth
of microbes, as show?n in Figure 3.2-1 . Fluidized
bed bioreactors are made up of suspended sand or
granular-activated carbon media to support
microbial activity and growth of biomass. The
activated carbon media are selected to produce a
low-concentration effluent (i.e., at part-per-billion
levels). Fluidized systems provide larger surface
area for growth of microorganisms. The fluidized
bed expands with the increased growth of biofilms
on the media particles. The result of this biological
growth is a system capable of additional
degradative perfonnance for target contaminants in
a smaller reactor volume than with a fixed bed.
However, the fluidized bed reactors generally
require greater pumping rates man fixed beds
(Evans et al.. 2002; Polk et al.. 2001; Hatzinger et
al.. 2000; NAVFAC. 2000; Nerenberg et al.,
2003).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
26
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 3.2-1. Bioreactor System for Perchlorate
Treatment (Urbansky and Schock, 1999)
Influent-
Packed
media and
microbes
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Bioreactors for perchlorate-contaminated water are
commercially available. Information is available
on three full-scale and five pilot-scale applications
of bioreactors.
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.2-1 summarizes available performance
data for full- and pilot-scale treatment of
perchlorate-contaminated water using bioreactor
technology. As discussed above, cleanup goals
varied by site and type of project. When provided,
actual technology performance data are presented
relative to cleanup goals. Treatment technologies
often operate to achieve specified goals mat vary-
by site, end-use, and other factors.
Information is available on four full-scale
applications, including three applications for
environmental media and one for drinking water.
Five pilot-scale applications, including four
applications for environmental media and one for
drinking water, have also been identified. For the
seven groundwater projects, influent
concentrations of perchlorate ranged from 55 to
200,000 (ig/L, while the effluent concentration
ranged from 2 to 18 (.ig/L. For the drinking water
project, influent concentrations of perchlorate
ranged from 75 to 2,500 (.ig/L, while the effluent
concentrations were less than 4 (ig/L (Clark et al.,
2001; EPA, 200 Ib; EPA Region 9, 2004; Polk et
al., 2001; Beisel et al., 2004; Sartain and Craig,
2003; Nerenberg et al., 2003; Evans et al., 2003;
Carts, 1998).
A case study about Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant, provided at the end of this section, describes
use of a full-scale fluidized bed bioreactor to
remove perchlorate from groundwater.
Effluent Factors Affecting Bioreactor Performance
• Dissolved Oxygen (DO) - Lower levels of
DO in influent water may limit aerobic
activity to a small portion of the reactor,
leaving most of the bioreactor available for
perchlorate and nitrate degradation. One
study suggests that the optimum range of DO
concentration in the influent water to enable
perchlorate destruction is 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L.
When DO levels drop below 0.5 mg/L,
anaerobic conditions develop that, in the
presence of sulfates, result in the formation
of hydrogen sulfide (EPA, 2001b; Hall,
2000a).
• Presence of Nitrate - One study indicated
that removal of nitrate ions from the influent
water is required to achieve complete
destruction of perchlorate (NAVFAC, 2000).
• Carbon and Nutrient Feed - Consistent
and adequate dosage of carbon source
(electron donor) and nutrients are required
for growth of microorganisms on the reactor
bed (FRTR, 2005; Evans et al., 2002).
• Backwash - Control of excessive microbial
growth with a backwash strategy is essential
to eliminate short-circuiting and flow
channeling in the bioreactor system (Evans et
al., 2002; Hatzinger et al., 2000; NAVFAC,
2000; Nerenberg et al., 2003; Polk, 2001).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
27
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.2-1. Bioreactor Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Aerojet General Corp. Superfuiid
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA;
Bioreactor; Drinking Water; Full-
scale; Ongoing
Drinking water at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate,
nitrates, and chlorinated solvents. A
bioreactor is being used as part of a
treatment train to treat perchlorate.
The system consists of a bioreactor
for perchlorate, nitrate and nitrite, an
ultraviolet (UV) oxidation system for
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), 1,4-
dioxane and high concentration
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
an air stripper for remaining VOCs,
and a disinfection system to destroy
pathogens.
The bioreactor system at this site is a
full scale unit with a capacity of
approximately 7.8 million gallons per
day (5,400 gallons per minute
[gpm]). The system consists of four
22 feet tall, 14 feet wide, and 15 feet
deep stainless steel reactor vessels. It
is an upflow, fluidized bed system
and includes use of an ethanol feed
for enhanced bioremediation.
Period of Performance:
October 1, 1999 - Ongoing
An average influent perchlorate
concentration of 2.500 ug/L is being
reduced to less than 4 ug/L by the
bioreactor system.
1. Clark, Robert, Kavanaugh,
Michael, McCarty, Perry, and
Trussell, R. Rhodes. 2001. "Review
of Phase 2 Treatability Study Aerojet
Facility at Rancho Cordova,
California - Expert Panel Final
Report." July.
2. EPA. 200Ib. "Phase 2
Treatability Study Report Aerojet
GET E/F Treatment Facility
Sacremento, California." September.
3. California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2004.
"Perchlorate Contamination
Treatment Alternatives: Draft."
January.
4. EPA. 2004c. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Charles Berrey (EPA Region 9)
to Saslii Vissa (Terra Tech EM Inc.).
September 13.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
28
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Kerr McGee, Henderson, NV;
Bioreactor; Groundwater; Full-scale:
Ongoing
A fluidized-bed reactor (FBR) with a
maximum capacity of 1,000 gpm
successfully completed a 30-day
Performance Test in November 2004.
It is currently treating approximately
1,000 gpm of perchlorate
contaminated water. The treatment
system consists of four primary and
four secondary FBRs, using sand and
granulated activated carbon,
respectively, as media.
Period of Performance:
January 2004 - Ongoing
Influent perchlorate concentration in
ground water entering the FBR
system is approximately 200,000
ug/L. Perchlorate concentrations in
the FBR effluent are less than 18
ug/L.
1. EPA Region 9. 2004.
"Perchlorate in Henderson, NV -
Significant controls are operating."
July.
2. EPA Region 9. 2005L E-mail
message regarding perchlorate
treatment. From Larry Bowerman
(EPA Region 9) to John Quander.
June 24.
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Superfund site, Karnack. TX:
Bioreactor, Full-scale; Groundwater:
Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate.
metals, and volatile organics. A full-
scale fluidized bed reactor system
with a design flow rate of 35 to 50
gpm (actual average flow rate of 50
gpm) began operating at the site in
February 2001. The reactor vessel is
5 feet in diameter and 21 feet tall.
Components of the system include an
FBR vessel with granular activated
carbon (GAC) media and an FBR
equipment skid. The FBR is
inoculated with pre-conditioned GAC
containing biosolids acclimated to
perchlorate removal. Acetic acid and
inorganic nutrients are added to the
water. The influent water is
distributed through a proprietary
distribution header at the bottom of
the reactor. Excess biomass is
removed from the media bed to
prevent the carbon particles from
being carried out of the reactor.
Period of Performance:
February 2001-Present
Within three weeks of inoculation of
the FBR, the system began achieving
the treatment goal of <13 ug/L daily
maximum effluent concentration and
<6 ug/L daily average concentration
of perchlorate. The FBR lias
routinely achieved perchlorate
effluent concentrations of <4 ug/L
(analytical detection limit).
1. Polk, J., Murray, C., Onewokae,
C. Tolbert. D.E., Togna, A.P..
Guarini. W.J.. Frisch, S.. and Del
Vecchio, M. 2001. "Case Study of
Ex-Situ Biological Treatment of
Perchlorate-Contaminated
Groundwater." Presented at the 4th
Tri-Services Environmental
Technology Symposium June 18 -
20.
2. EPA. 2004d. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Chris Villarreal (EPA Region
6) to Saslii Vissa. September 8.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
29
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant McGregor, TX; Bioreactor;
Full-scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate. A
full-scale fluidized bed bioreactor lias
been operating at this site since
January 2002. The FBR system is
21-feet tall with a 5-feet diameter.
The influent flow rates have ranged
from 15 to 400 gpm and have
averaged 150 gpm.
Period of Performance:
January 2002 - Ongoing
Influent perchlorate concentrations in
groundwater ranged from 540 to
4,800 ug/L. Perchlorate
concentrations in the effluent have
consistently been less than 4 ug/L
except for two upsets, when the
acetic acid lines had been crimped.
1. Sartain, Hunter S. and Craig,
Mark (CH2MH111). 2003. "Ex Situ
Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater."
Presented at In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation - The Seventh
International Symposium. June 2 -
5.
2. Beisel, Thomas H., Craig, Mark,
and Perlmutter, Mike. 2004. "Ex-
Situ Treatment of Perchlorate
Contaminated Groundwater."
Presented at National Ground Water
Association (NGWA) Conference on
MTBE and Perchlorate. June 3-4.
3. EPA. 2004f. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Bob Sturdivant (EPA Region
6) to Saslii Vissa. September 28.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
30
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
American Waterworks Association -
Research Treatment Study, CA; DoD
Facility: Bioreactor; Pilot-scale;
Groundwater: Completed
This site is a Department of Defense
(DoD) facility located in Southern
California. Perchlorate
concentrations in the groundwater at
this site ranged from 300 to 1,000
ug/L. A pilot-scale bioreactor system
was tested at this site. Components
of the bioreactor system included the
following: Baker tank, deaeration
reactor, methanol tank, and patented
Hall reactor. Groundwater was
pumped and stored in the Baker tank
for homogenization. Water was then
drawn from the Baker tank into the
top of the deaeration reactor. The
deaeration reactor contained bio-balls
that provided surface area for
bacterial growth. The reactor is
designed to reduce the dissolved
oxygen concentration to 0.5 to 1.0
mg/L. From the bottom of the
deaeration reactor, water was drawn
into the bottom of the Hall reactor.
The Hall reactor contains floating
media (polyurethane-based sponge
media) that is cut into one-centimeter
cubes. The media provide support to
the bacteria colonies. Methanol is
fed into the two reactor vessels to
serve as a carbon source.
Temperatures ranging between 8 °C
and 35 °C were maintained for die
bioreactor system.
Period of Performance:
December 1999 - March 2000
Perchlorate concentrations of 300
ug/L in die influent groundwater
were reduced to non-detect levels
(detection limits not provided).
1. Hall, Peter J. (EcoMat, Inc.).
2000a. ''Perchlorate Treatment at a
DoD Facility."
2. Hall, Peter. 2000b. Patented Hall
Bioreactor. Available at:
http://www. perclilorateinfo.com/perc
hlorate-case-43.html. Downloaded
July 2004.
3. EPA. 2004o. Record of
telephone conversation between
Saslii Vissa and Kevin Mayer.
September 24.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
31
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Lockheed Propulsion Company,
Redlands, CA - Redlands Plume;
Bioreactor; Pilot-scale; Drinking
Water; Completed
This pilot-scale study involved the
use of a packed-bed anaerobic
bioreactor for biotreatment of
perchlorate in groundwater. Other
contaminants of concern at this site
included nitrates and chlorinated
VOCs. A constant supply of acetic
acid was provided and a weekly
backwash was performed. The
bioreactors used in this
demonstration were up-flow packed-
bed reactors containing sand or
plastic media. The plastic media
floating in water was held down with
a perforated plate. Reactor height
was 7 ft. Groundwater was pumped
to an equalization tank, followed by
addition of acetic acid and
ammonium phosphate at
concentrations of approximately 50
mg/L and 4 mg-N/L, respectively.
Biological reactions in the reactors
were initiated by bioaugmentation of
the columns with a perchlorate-
respiring bacterial strain. Excess
microbial growth was removed by
backwashing with an air scour. This
process also helped minimize short-
Circuiting^
Period of Performance:
May 2001 - September 2001
Perchlorate concentration in the
influent groundwater averaged 75
ug/L. The average concentration of
perchlorate in effluent was less than
the detection limit (4 ug/L) when
treated at a flow rate of 1 gpm. At a
flow rate of 2 gpm, the effluent
perchlorate concentrations frequently-
exceeded 4 (ig/L. Poor performance
was observed during the first 2
months of system start up, which was
attributed to the time required to
develop an active biofilm on the
media. During this time, a backwash
strategy was developed to eliminate
backpressures or clogging in the
system.
1. Evans, Patrick, Chu, Allyson,
Liao, Stephen, Price, Steve, Moody,
Mieko, Headrick, Doug, Min, Booki,
and Logan, Bruce. 2002. "Pilot
Testing of a Bioreactor for
Perchlorate-Contaminated
Groundwater Treatment." Presented
at the Third International Conference
on Remediation of Chlorinated and
Recalcitrant Compounds, May 20 -
23.
2. Evans, Patrick, Price, Steve, Min,
Booki, and Logaa Brace. 2003.
"Biotreatment and Downstream
Processing of Perchlorate
Contaminated Groundwater."
Presented at In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation - The Seventh
International Symposium. June 2 -
5.
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Cape Cod, MA; Bioreactor;
Groundwater; Pilot-scale; Completed
A pilot-scale FBR was tested at this
site to treat perchlorate in
groundwater. Other contaminants at
this site include RDX, HMX, and
nitrate. Acetic acid was used as
electron donor.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Influent perchlorate concentration in
groundwater was 100 ug/L.
Perchlorate in effluent was less than
the detection limit of 4 ug/L.
The Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2005.
Overview: Perchlorate Overview.
Draft. March.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
32
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
NASA/California Institute of
Technology Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, CA;
Bioreactor; Groundwater; Pilot-scale:
Completed
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate,
nitrate, and volatile organics. The
pilot-scale fluidized bed reactor
being tested at this site is a fixed-film
reactor column that fosters the
growth of microorganisms on a
hydraulically fluidized bed of media
(activated carbon). The reactor
vessel is 15 feet tall and 20 niches in
diameter. The basic components of
the system are the bioreactor,
granular activated carbon bed media,
a fluid distribution system in the
bottom of the reactor, feed and
influent pumps, a nutrient addition
system, a pH control mechanism and
a bed height control component when
required. Nitrogen and phosphorous
(in the form of dibasic ammonium
phosphate and urea) and ethanol are
pumped continually into the reactor.
Activated carbon also was used to
adsorb organics from the
groundwater, leading to secondary
removal of degradable organics.
Period of Performance:
October 2000 - December 2000
Influent perchlorate concentrations in
groundwater ranged from 350 to 740
ug/L. Perchlorate concentrations hi
the effluent water were reduced to
non-detectable levels with a detection
limit of 4 ug/L.
The only waste byproduct generated
from this system was a small volume
of excess biosolids. These solids are
removed from the system on a
continuous basis.
1. Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC). 2000.
NASA/California Institute of
Technology Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Anoxic FBR. Pasadena,
CA. Available at:
http://www. perclilorateinfo.com/perc
hlorate-case-40.html. Downloaded
July 2004.
2. EPA. 2004k. Record of
telephone conversation between
Saslii Vissa and Mark Ripperda (US
EPA Region 9). September 23.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
33
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site,
La Puente, CA; Bioreactor;
Groundwater; Pilot-scale; Completed
This is a Superfund site with
perchlorate and nitrate contamination
in groundwater. A pilot-scale
hollow-fiber membrane biofilm
reactor (HFMBfR) for perchlorate
removal was tested at this site. This
technology uses hydrogen gas as an
election donor to fuel microbial
reduction of perchlorate to chloride
ion.
A key feature of the HFMBfR is that
hydrogen gas diffuses through the
wall of a composite membrane, and
an autottophic biofilm naturally
develops on the outside of the
membrane, where the bacteria reduce
perchlorate. The pilot plant included
two HFMBfRs in series, followed by
an aeration basin and a granular
media filter. The HFMBfR consisted
of a bundle of hydrophobic hollow-
fiber membranes collected into a
hydrogen-supplying manifold at one
end and sealed at the other. The
hollow fiber membranes were 280
micrometers (um) in diameter with a
40-um wall. They were made of two
materials: a 1-urn layer of dense
polyurethane encased within
microporous polyethylene.
Hydrogen was supplied under
pressure to the interior of the fibers
and diffused through the wall to a
biofilm growing on the fiber surface.
Period of Performance:
December 1997 - March 1998
The influent perchlorate
concentration was 55 ug/L, which
was reduced to 2 ug/L in die effluent.
1. Nerenberg, Robert, Rittmann,
Bruce E., Gillogly, Thomas E.,
Lehman, Geno E., and Adham
SamerS. 2003. "Perchlorate
reduction using a hollow-fiber
membrane biofilm reactor: kinetics,
microbial ecology, and pilot-scale
studies." Presented at In Situ and
On-Site Bioremediation - The
Seventh International Symposium.
June 2-5.
2. Catts, JolinJ., 1998. Biological
Treatment at Low Concentrations in
Water-Phase 2 La Puente, CA.
Available at:
http ://www.perchlorateinfo. com/perc
hlorate-case-13 .html. Downloaded
July 2004.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
34
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Potential Limitations
Normally, the treated effluent is suitable for
discharge, but when applied for drinking water
treatment, the effluent from bioreactors might
require further treatment to remove biosolids
present in the effluent (Evans. 2002). Fluidized
bed bioreactors usually require a thorough mixing
and upward flow of the fluid inside the reactor.
One key advantage of a fluidized bed system is
availability of a large surface area for growth of
biomass. However, to maintain required flow
inside the reactor vessel relatively greater pumping
rates are required (EPA, 200Ib). Moreover,
because fixed-bed systems are more susceptible to
accumulation of biosolids, they require periodic
back-flushing to avoid plugging or clogging the
bed (Evans et al.. 2002; Hatzinger et al., 2000;
Polk et al., 2001; NAVFAC, 2000; Nerenberg et
al., 2003).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs of bioreactors generally are about the same
as costs for above-ground treatment technologies,
according to the FRTR.
http://ww^v.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Case Study: Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Superfund Site, Karnack, TX
The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant Superfund
site has groundwater contaminated with perchlorate
and volatile organics. A full-scale fluidized bed
reactor (FBR) system with a treatment capacity of
50 gallons per minute (gpm) began operating at the
site in February 2001. Components of the system
include a FBR vessel with granular activated carbon
(GAC) media and an FBR equipment skid. The
reactor vessel is 5 feet in diameter and 21 feet tall.
The FBR is inoculated with pre-conditioned GAC
containing biosolids acclimated to perchlorate
removal. The influent water is distributed through a
proprietary distribution header at the bottom of the
reactor. Excess biomass is removed from the media
bed to prevent escape of carbon particles from the
reactor. Contaminated groundwater is fed into the
equalization tank and then pumped into the FBR
vessel at an average flow rate of 30 to 35 gpm.
Acetic acid and inorganic nutrients are added to
serve as electron donor and bacterial feed.
respectively.
Within three weeks of inoculation of the FBR, the
system began achieving the treatment objective of
<350 ug/L effluent concentrations. In normal
operations, the FBR lias removed perchlorate to
achieve concentration levels below the analytical
limit of 4 ug/L (Polk et al., 2001; EPA, 2004d).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.3 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
Summary
Liquid phase carbon adsorption using granular
activated carbon (GAC) is an ex situ technology to
remove perchlorate from contaminated groundwater
and surface water. Among the projects identified
for this report, GAC lias been used infrequently for
treatment of perchlorate. In this technology, GAC
is the adsorbent to remove contaminant ions from
water as it passes through the GAC bed. However,
GAC lias a relatively small treatment capacity for
perchlorate removal, and research is underway to
identify methods to improve the treatment capacity
of a GAC system for perchlorate removal, including
use of "tailored GAC." Tailored GAC technology
is currently being tested on a pilot-scale at one site.
As discussed above, GAC also lias been used in
conjunction withbioreactors, including the role of
substrate for biodegradation processes.
Technology Principles
Liquid-phase carbon adsorption typically involves
use of adsorbent media such as GAC, activated
alumina, or other proprietary media packed into a
column (FRTR, 2005; Graham et al., 2004). GAC
is an organic sorbent commonly used to remove
organic and metallic contaminants from
groundwater. drinking water, and wastewater.
GAC media are usually regenerated by thermal
techniques to desorb and volatilize contaminants.
An off-gas treatment unit men captures the
volatilized contaminants and treats the off-gas
before release into the atmosphere (Graham et al..
2004). GAC media are generally considered cost-
effective for water treatment when used for
removal of non-polar contaminants with low water
solubility (Graham et al., 2004; FRTR, 2005). Due
to the issues discussed above, activated carbon is
generally considered ineffective for removal of
inorganic contaminants such as perchlorate from
water.
Because GAC media lose effectiveness relatively
fast when used for perchlorate removal, this
technology is disadvantaged with low treatment
capacities (Graham et al., 2004). Current research
is seeking higher treatment capacities for
perchlorate removal using GAC. An innovative
approach to this, referred to as "tailored GAC."
involves treatment of GAC with a quarternary
amine (cetyl trimetliyl ammonium chloride
[CTAC]) to create ion exchange sites on the
carbon. The carbon with ion exchange sites might
become a cost-effective alternative to the polymers
associated with standard ion exchange resins -
perhaps with capability to simultaneously remove
perchlorate and organic contaminants from
groundwater (Graham et al., 2004; EPA, 20041).
Carbon adsorption technology can apply multiple
beds in series to reduce the need for media
regeneration; beds first in the series will require
regeneration first, and fresh beds can be added at
the end of the series. Multiple beds can also allow
continuous operation because some beds can be
regenerated as others continue to treat water
(Graham et al., 2004).
Technology Description
GAC is used as the adsorption media in liquid-
phase carbon adsorption technology, typically for
removal of VOCs from contaminated media, hi
mis technology, contaminants are adsorbed to the
surface of the activated carbon medium. GAC is
usually packed into a column as shown in Figure
3.3-1. When contaminated water is passed through
a GAC bed. contaminants are adsorbed to the
media. When adsorption sites are filled with
contaminant ions, the column must be regenerated
or disposed of and replaced with new media
(Graham et al., 2004; FRTR, 2005). Thermal
decomposition of perchlorate-contaminated GAC
is a possible regeneration method for spent GAC
(Behrens and Minier, 1996; EPA, 2005c).
Recently, there has been discussion among experts
about the types of mechanisms and effectiveness of
tailored GAC for treatment of perchlorate. hi
addition, there have been questions raised about
the potential use of tailored GAC for treatment of
water contaminated with perchlorate and
explosives such as Royal Demolition Explosives
(RDX), cyclotetramethylene trinitramine (HMX),
and trinitrotoluene (TNT) and VOCs (i.e., co-
contaminated groundwater). For sites that have co-
contaminated groundwater. practitioners have
suggested the potential for use of treatment trains
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
36
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
consisting of standard GAC/Ion Exchange
(GAC/TX) resins or tailored GAC/standard GAC.
For example, a treatability study was recently
conducted at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation (MMR) site about innovative options
for ex-situ removal of perchlorate and explosives in
groundwater (Weeks, et al., 2004). Discussion is
ongoing about the lifecycle cost comparisons of
these types of technologies and treatment trains.
Technical issues include the effectiveness of these
technologies for contaminant removal, and whether
levels of other common groundwater ions such as
nitrate and sulfate will "plug" the tailored GAC
and result in faster breakthrough times for
perchlorate. Further discussion about these issues
is beyond the scope of this paper.
Figure 3.3-1. Granulated Activated Carbon
(GAC) Adsorption for Perchlorate Removal
(EPA OSWER, 2002)
Contaminated
Water
Sorbent
Effluent
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
• Drinking Water
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Two full-scale and two pilot-scale applications
have been identified that used GAC for perchlorate
removal from groundwater and drinking water.
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.3-1 summarizes performance data for
treatment of perchlorate-contaminated water using
GAC. As discussed above, cleanup goals varied
by site and type of project. Where provided, actual
technology performance data are presented relative
to cleanup goals. Treatment technologies often
operate to achieve specified goals that vary by site,
end-use, and other factors.
Information was available on two full-scale and
two pilot-scale applications. For the two
groundwater projects, influent perchlorate
concentrations ranged from 1.8 to 5 (.ig/L, while
the effluent concentrations were less than 0.35
(ig/L. For the two drinking water projects, influent
concentrations of perchlorate ranged from 75 to 92
(ig/L. Effluent concentrations were not provided
for these two projects (Graham et al., 2004; FRTR,
2005; EPA, 20041).
Factors Affecting GAC Performance
• Flow Rate - Increasing the rate of flow
through the adsorption column can decrease
adsorption of contaminants (Graham et al.,
2004; FRTR, 2005).
• Polarity and Water Solubility - Water-
soluble contaminants with high polarity can
reduce the ability of GAC to remove
contaminants from water (FRTR, 2005).
• Fouling - Presence of suspended solids,
organics. silica, or mica can foul adsorption
media (Graham et al., 2004).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
37
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.3-1. Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), CA;
GAC-adsorption; Full-scale;
Drinking Water; Ongoing
Perchlorate contamination at this site is being treated by
a liquid-phase activated carbon system. The system
includes three 2,000 pound (Ib) canisters in series. This
GAC system was originally constructed in 2001 for
removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It is
currently being used for perchlorate removal.
Period of Performance:
May 2001 - Ongoing
Initial perchlorate
concentration was 92 ug/L.
Final concentration of
perchlorate was not
provided.
The Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC).
2005. Overview:
Perchlorate Overview.
Draft. March.
Pew Road Treatment System;
Massachusetts Military Reservation.
Cape Cod. MA; GAC; Groundwater:
Full-scale; Ongoing
Beginning in August 2004, this full-scale treatment
system currently operates at 100 gallons per minute
(gpm) and treats perchlorate and explosives
contaminated groundwater. A treatment train uses a
series of three units with each packed with 2,000 Ibs of
GAC media.
Period of Performance:
August 2004 - Ongoing
In October 2004, influent
concentration of perchlorate
was approximately 5 ug/L.
Effluent concentration is
below the detection limit
(reporting limit = 0.35
ug/D
EPA. 20041. E-mail
message regarding
perchlorate treatment.
From Jane Dolan (EPA
Region 1) to John Quander
(EPA Office of Superfund
Remediation and
Technology Innovation).
November 9.
Lockheed Propulsion Company,
Redlands, CA - Redlands Plume;
GAC-adsorption; Pilot-scale:
Drinking Water; Ongoing
This demonstration study involved the use of an
activated carbon tailored with cetyltrimethyl ammonium
chloride (CTAC) for the removal of perchlorate and
organic contaminants from groundwater. Other
contaminants of concern at this site include nitrates and
VOCs. Four adsorbers, each 10 feet in diameter and
capable of holding 20.000 Ibs of GAC are being tested at
the site. The four adsorbers are operated as two
treatment trains at a flow rate of 325 gpm. Each train
consists of two GAC vessels with 10,000 pounds of
mesoporous bituminous coal based activated carbon.
The first bed hi each train (lead bed) is treated with two
different organic monomers using an in situ tailoring
technique. The two lag beds are left untailored to serve
as scavenger beds. These lag beds capture monomer
that leaches from the lead beds.
Period of Performance:
May 2004 - Ongoing
Perchlorate concentration in
the influent groundwater
averaged 75 ug/L. Effluent
perchlorate concentrations
were not provided. This
project will continue until
the effluent perchlorate
concentrations are reduced
to 6 ug/L for more than two
sampling events.
Graham, James R., Cannon,
Fred S., Parette, Robert,
Headrick, Douglas, and
Yamamato, Gary. 2004.
"Commercial
Demonstration of the Use
of Tailored Carbon for the
Removal of Perchlorate
Ions from Potable Water."
Presented at National
Groundwater Association
Conference on MTBE and
Perchlorate, Costa Mesa,
CA. June 3-4.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
38
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Cape Cod, MA; Tailored GAC;
Groundwater; Pilot-scale; Completed
Study processed over 2.700,000 gallons of groundwater
through three sets of GAC media (or 900,000 gallons
through each medium).
Period of Performance:
January 2004 - July 2004
Influent concentrations of
perchlorate were 1.88 to 3.9
ug/L. All effluent
concentrations were below
the detection level of 0.35
EPA. 20041. E-mail
message regarding
perchlorate treatment.
From Jane Dolan (EPA
Region 1) to John Quander.
November 9.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
Mav 2005
39
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Potential Limitations
GAC adsorption for perchlorate might require
pretreatment for removal of suspended solids from
streams to be treated. If not removed, suspended
solids in a liquid stream may accumulate in the
adsorption column, causing a pressure drop. The
accumulated solids must then be removed by
backwashing (FRTR, 2005). Waste streams with
high amounts of suspended solids, oil. and grease
may foul the carbon. Spent carbon from the
adsorption unit may require treatment prior to
ordinary or hazardous waste disposal (FRTR,
2005: Graham et al., 2004). Contaminants with
high water solubility and polarity can reduce the
ability of GAC to remove contaminants from water
(FRTR, 2005).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for GAC are generally about the same as
costs for aboveground water treatment
technologies, according to the FRTR.
http://ww^v.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Case Study: Lockheed Propulsion Company,
Redlands Plume Site, Redlands, CA
The Redlands Plume site, located in the City of
Redlands, California, is a municipal water supply
site. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with
perchlorate, nitrate, and volatile organics. An
organic, cation-tailored, activated carbon is being
tested at pilot scale for removal of perchlorate and
organic contaminants from groundwater. The
system began operating in May 2004. Four
adsorbers, each 10 feet in diameter and capable of
holding 20,000 pounds of GAC are under
examination at this site. The four adsorbers
operate as two treatment trains at a flow rate of 325
gpni. Each train consists of two GAC vessels with
10,000 pounds of mesoporous. bituminous, coal-
based, activated carbon The first bed in each train,
called the lead bed, is treated with two different
organic monomers using an in situ tailoring
technique. The two lag beds are left untailored to
serve as scavenger beds. These lag beds capture
any monomer that might leach from the lead beds.
Perchlorate concentration in the influent
groundwater at this site ranges from 60 to 90 ug/L.
Effluent perchlorate concentrations were not
available. This project will continue until two or
more sampling events show an effluent perchlorate
concentration of 6 ug/L (Graham et al, 2004).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
40
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.4 Composting
Summary
Composting is an ex situ technology that lias been
used only infrequently to treat perchlorate in
contaminated soil. It is a biological process that
uses indigenous microorganisms to degrade
perchlorate in the presence of appropriate soil
amendments that support microbial growth. This
technology has been found to reduce perchlorate
concentrations in soil to as low as 0.1 mg/kg.
Figure 3.4-1. Composting for Perchlorate
Treatment (FRTR, 2005)
Technology Principles
Composting is a controlled biological process in
which microorganisms convert perchlorate to less
harmful byproducts. Under anaerobic,
thermophilic conditions (54 to 65 °C), soil
contaminated with perchlorate is composted. Heat
produced by microorganisms during degradation of
the contaminants in the waste increases the
temperature of the compost pile (FRTR, 2005;
Roote, 2001). Additional information about
perchlorate transformation and biodegradation,
including microbial degradation pathways, is
presented above under bioreactors.
Technology Description
Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed with
bulking agents and organic amendments such as
wood chips, hay, manure, and vegetative (e.g.,
potato) wastes. Selection of proper amendment is
necessary to ensure adequate porosity and provide
a balance of carbon and nitrogen to promote
thermophilic, microbial activity. Monitoring of
moisture content and temperature are important for
achieving maximum degradation efficiency
(FRTR, 2005; Cox et al, 2000a).
Composting has been performed using three types
of process designs: aerated static pile composting
(compost is formed into piles and aerated with
blowers or vacuum pumps), mechanically agitated
in-vessel composting (compost is placed in a
reactor vessel where it is mixed and aerated), and
windrow composting (compost is placed in long
piles known as windrows and periodically mixed
with mobile equipment). Figure 3.4-1 shows a
simplified version of windrow composting (FRTR,
2005).
Windrows with Soil and Amendments
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Soil
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
One full-scale and three pilot-scale demonstrations
of anaerobic composting for treatment of
perchlorate in soil have been identified.
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.4-1 summarizes available performance
data for treatment of perchlorate-contaminated soil
using composting. As discussed above, cleanup
goals varied by site and type of project. When
provided, actual technology performance data are
presented relative to cleanup goals. Treatment
technologies often operate to achieve specified
goals that vary by site, end use, and other factors.
In the one full-scale project, measurements in six
sampling locations indicated reduction of
perchlorate concentrations in soil from 500 mg/kg
to less than 270 mg/kg. In the three pilot-scale
projects, final concentrations of perchlorate ranged
from 0.1 to 23 mg/kg (Cox et al., 2000a; Cox et al.,
2000c; EPA, 2004c; EPA, 2004o; Roote, 2001).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
41
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.4-1. Composting Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant, McGregor, TX; Composting;
Full-scale: Soil; Completed
Soil at this site is contaminated with
perchlorate, and was transported to
an onsite treatment cell. This
engineered treatment cell was lined
with a 30-mil high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner. The cell
was approximately six feet deep with
a 500x30 feet bottom. Perchlorate-
contaminated soil was placed
approximately 2.5 feet deep in the
cell. Prior to placing soil hi the
treatment cell, it was mixed with
citric acid (carbon source), nitrate-
and phosphate-fertilizers
(micronutrients), and soda-ash
(buffer). Soil was saturated as it was
placed in the treatment cell.
Approximately 2 inches of water was
maintained above the soil to foster
anaerobic conditions. The cell was
covered with a 6-mil HDPE liner.
Period of Performance:
October 1999 - April 2000
Influent perchlorate concentration in
soil was 500 mg/kg. Perchlorate
concentrations in the treated soil
sampled at six different locations was
less than 270 mg/kg.
Roote, Diane (Ground-Water
Remediation Technologies Analysis
Center [GWRTAC]). 2001.
"Technology Status Report -
Perchlorate Treatment Technologies,
1st Edition.'' May.
Aerojet General Corp. Superfund
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA;
Composting; Soil; Pilot-scale:
Completed
This is a Superfund site containing
perchlorate-contaminated soils. A
pilot test of anaerobic composting
was used to treat soil from the fonner
perchlorate bum area.
Approximately 20 cubic yards of soil
was treated. Manure was initially
placed on top of perchlorate hot
spots. Compost was later tilled into
soil to enhance perchlorate
destruction 2 to 3 inches below the
surface.
Period of Performance:
June 2001 - October 2002
Maximum initial concentration of
perchlorate in soil was 4,200 mg/kg.
Average concentrations of
perchlorate following seven days of
treatment ranged from 0.1 to 23
mg/kg.
1. Cox, E., Edwards, E., Neville, S.,
and Girard, M. 2000a. Aerojet
Bioremediation of Soil from Fonner
Bum Area by Anaerobic
Composting. Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perc
hlorate-case-01 .html. Downloaded
July 2004.
2. California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2004.
"Perchlorate Contamination
Treatment Alternatives: Draft."
January.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
42
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), CA;
Composting; Pilot-scale; Soil;
Completed
Anaerobic composting was tested at
pilot-scale at this site. The study was
conducted in 55-gallon drams. Horse
stable compost was used as the
electron donor to facilitate
perchlorate reduction.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Initial concentration of perchlorate
was 57 mg/kg. Perchlorate in the
treated soil was less than the remedial
goal of 7.8 mg/kg.
The Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2005.
Overview: Perchlorate Overview.
Draft. March.
UTC Site, San Jose, CA:
Composting; Pilot-scale; Soil;
Completed
Soil at this site was contaminated
with perchlorate. Anaerobic
composting was tested at pilot scale
to study its suitability for perchlorate
treatment. The compost pile was 5 ft.
high with a 7 feet diameter at the
bottom. A plastic liner was placed
underneath the pile, and soil berms
were constructed around the
circumference of the pile to prevent
migration of leachate, if any. A
plastic sheet was used to cover the
top of the compost pile.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Average initial concentration of
perchlorate was 170 mg/kg. Final
concentration in composted soil after
38 days was less than 0.64 mg/kg.
1. Cox, E., Edwards, E., Neville, S.,
and Girard, M. 2000c. Rocket
Manufacturing Site Soil
Bioremediation by Anaerobic
Composting. Available at:
http://www. perclilorateinfo.com/perc
hlorate-case-52.html. Downloaded
July 2004.
2. EPA. 2004o. Record of
telephone conversation between
Saslii Vissa (Terra Tech EM Inc.)
and Kevin Mayer (US EPA Region
9). September 24.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
43
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for composting are generally compared
favorably with costs for oilier aboveground soil
treatment technologies, according to the FRTR.
Iittp://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Case Study: Aerojet General Corp. Superfund
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA
The Aerojet General Corp. Superfund site is
located in Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County),
California. This site was formerly used for
manufacturing rocket fuel. Soil at this site was 1 to
18 inches deep over fractured bedrock and
consisted of low permeability silty clay soil
contaminated with perchlorate at concentrations of
up to 4,200 mg/kg. Anaerobic composting was
applied to treat soil from the former perchlorate
burn area at the site. Compost was then tilled 2 to 3
inches into the soil to enhance perchlorate
degradation. Approximately 20 cubic yards of soil
was treated during this pilot-scale demonstration.
Perchlorate concentrations in treated soil ranged
from 0.1 to 23 mg/kg after a seven-day treatment
period (Cal EPA, 2004; Cox et al., 2000a; EPA,
2004c).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
44
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.5 In Situ Bioremediation
Summary
In situ bioremediation (ISB) is a technology used
frequently to treat perchlorate in contaminated
groundwater and soil. It uses microorganisms
capable of reducing perchlorate to chloride and
oxygen under anaerobic conditions. This process
requires supply of electron donor and an
appropriate substrate to support microbial growth.
ISB lias reduced perchlorate concentrations to less
than 4 ug/L in groundwater.
Technology Principles
In situ bioremediation (ISB) is a controlled
biological process in which microorganisms
convert perchlorate to chloride and oxygen.
Bioremediation reduces perchlorate via enzymatic
degradation by select species of bacteria under
anaerobic conditions. This requires an adequate
supply of nutrients to support microbial growth
(Urbansky and Schock, 1999; Rosen, 2003).
According to Urbansky and Schock (1999) certain
bacteria have a natural tendency to degrade
perchlorate into chloride and oxygen under
anaerobic conditions. These bacteria include:
Ideonella dechloratans, Proteobacteria, Vibrio
dechloraticans Cuzensove B-1168, and Wolinella
succinogenes HAP-1 (Urbansky and Schock,
1999). Other bacteria capable of reducing
perchlorate have been identified in the genera
Dechloromonas and Dechlorosoma (ITRC, 2005;
Coates et al, 1999; Coates et al., 2000).
Additional information about perchlorate
transformation and biodegradation, including
microbial degradation pathways, is presented
above under bioreactors (see Section 3.2).
Technology Description
ISB of perchlorate typically involves enhancement
techniques. Biological degradation of perchlorate
requires select species of microorganisms, mostly
bacteria, and sufficient amounts of amendments in
the form of nutrients and electron donors
(Urbansky and Schock, 1999; and Owsianiak et al.,
2003). Some commonly used electron donors
include organic acids such as acetate, citrate, and
lactate; sugars such as glucose; alcohols such as
ethanol; and protein-rich substances such as
casamino acids and whey (ITRC, 2005). Similarly,
vegetable oils and vegetable oil emulsions can also
serve as electron donors with additional benefit of
a slow-release substrate with extended longevity in
the subsurface (Borden et al., 2004a; Henry et al.,
2003). For enhanced ISB, the electron donor and
nutrient material are injected into the contaminated
zone. Number and spacing of injection points
depend on several factors including extent of
contaminant plume, design of the injection field
(e.g., re-circulation, barrier, or grid), subsurface
lithology. and type of material injected. The
injected substances cause the perchlorate-reductive
reactions to occur within the contaminated media
(Owsianiak et al., 2003; Koenigsberg and Willett,
2004). As shown in Figure 3.5-1, another
technique for bioremediation of perchlorate-
contaminated groundwater involves extraction and
aboveground treatment of contaminated water,
followed by amendment with soluble electron-
donor substrate (e.g., lactate, acetate, or ethanol).
The amended water is then reinjected into the
aquifer (Rosen, 2003). Reactions leading to
biological degradation of perchlorate by in situ
bioremediation are under investigation. Ongoing
research indicates that perchlorate is reduced in a
three-step process. First, perchlorate ion is reduced
to C1O3". men to C102", and subsequently to Cl",
and O2. The reactions discussed above are
catalyzed by the enzymes perchlorate reductase and
chlorite dismutase (Beisel et al., 2004; NAVFAC,
2000; Polketal., 2001).
Figure 3.5-1. In Situ Bioremediation (ISB) for
Perchlorate Treatment (FRTR, 2005)
Groundwater
Reinjection Wells
Monitoring
Low Permeability Layer
Regional Aquifer
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
45
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Grotmdwater
• SoH
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
One full-scale and 10 pilot-scale demonstrations of
ISB for treatment of perchlorate have been
identified. Six of the 10 pilot-scale projects
addressed treatment of ground water, while the
remaining four projects addressed treatment of soil.
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.5-1 summarizes available performance
data for treatment of perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater and soil using ISB. As discussed
above, cleanup goals varied by site and type of
project. Where provided, actual technology
performance data are presented relative to cleanup
goals. Treatment technologies often operate to
achieve specified goals that vary by site, end-use,
and other factors.
For the six pilot-scale groundwater projects, final
concentrations ranged from 4 (.ig/L to 22 (ig/L. For
the four pilot-scale soil applications, final
concentration of perchlorate ranged from 40 to 500
(ig/kg (Rosen, 2003; Koenigsberg and Willett,
2004; Owsianik et al., 2003; Lieberman et al.,
2004).
Factors Affecting ISB Performance
• Type of Amendments - Selection of an
appropriate amendment is essential to
provide adequate amounts of carbon and
nitrogen required for microbial growth
(ITRC, 2002; FRTR, 2005).
• pH - Solubilities and availabilities of many
constituents that can affect biological activity
in the soil depend on pH conditions (FRTR,
2005).
• Hydrogeology - Injection of amendments
into the contaminated zone may be slow and
difficult on a heterogeneous subsurface
(FRTR, 2005).
Potential Limitations
ISB completely destroys perchlorate - yielding
chloride and oxygen as end products (ITRC, 2002).
However, water treated by this technology may not
be acceptable for drinking purposes because of the
presence of bacteria enhanced by the biotreatment
process. Moreover, in some instances, the
resulting strong reducing conditions in the aquifer
have mobilized metals, including iron and
manganese, and generated methane (EPA, 2005b).
Proper care is necessary to ensure the adequate
supply of nutrient amendments required for growth
of bacterial population (FRTR, 2005).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for ISB generally compare favorably with
costs for groundwater treatment technologies,
according to the FRTR.
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
46
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Case Study: Aerojet General Corp. Superfund Site, Rancho Cordova, CA (Cox et al., 2000b; Cox and
Scott, 2003; EPA, 2004c)
Tlie Aerojet General Corp. Superfund site is located in Rancho Cordova, California. Phase I of a pilot project
using in situ bioremediation was performed from 2000 through 2001 to assess the potential to jointly
bioremediate perchlorate and trichloroethene (TCE), and to control migration of an 800 foot (ft) wide plume.
The target aquifer was located at 100 ft below ground surface (bgs). The demonstration was designed as a closed
loop with a recirculation rate of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm) and a residence time of 21 days. One nutrient
delivery and one extraction well were used, with two monitoring wells located between the delivery and
extraction wells. Proprietary dehalorespiring bacteria (KB-1) were added in Phase I for TCE removal. Various
electron donors were tried for perchlorate destruction, including calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate, and
sodium lactate. Phase I showed that perchlorate could be reduced from 12,000,000 ug/L to levels below
detection limits within 15 feet of the electron donor injection well. Information was not provided about the
effectiveness of treatment for TCE during Phase I.
Phase II of the project was conducted from late 2001 through 2002 to determine the feasibility of a single pass
active groundwater biobarrier for perchlorate destruction. Ethanol was added to the extracted groundwater as an
electron donor. Phase n showed that perchlorate at 8,000 ug/L was reduced to less than 4 ug/L within 35 feet of
the electron donor delivery system. The 72-day Phase II study showed that a combined perchlorate/TCE plume
could be remediated with a single pass biobarrier with only a partial degradation of TCE.
A more recent demonstration used horizontal flow treatment wells in a deep area, screened from 48 to 63 ft bgs
and at 80 to 100 ft bgs (separated by pneumatic packers). This zone was used to cut off 200 ft of plume width.
The work plan for this treatment system was approved in April 2004. However, data about this project are not
yet available.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper 47
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3-5.1. In Situ Bioremediation (ISB) Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Whittaker Ordnance Site, Whittaker,
CA; In Situ Bioremediation; Full-
scale; Groundwater
Groundwater - interbedded clay units
with silty-sand layers aquifer;
perched groundwater at 35 to 50 feet
(ft) below ground surface (bgs)
Test area size 3,200 ft2; perched
aquifer thickness of 4.5 ft
Two types of enhancement techniques
were used to stimulate ISB. First,
hydrogen release compound (HRC*)
(660 pounds) was applied using direct
push technology. Second, an hi situ
reactive zone (IRZ) was created using
corn syrup addition. Specific design and
operation conditions were not provided
for HRC addition. For IRZ, design and
operation for a field demonstration
included delivery in pressurized, manual
batches (at approximately 30 pounds per
square inch [psi]), using three permanent
injection points, and a strategy of
reduced dosage and frequency of dosing.
Six injection events were performed over
a one year period (October 2001,
November 2001, January 2002, March
2002, May 2002, and November 2002).
An expanded full-scale system was used
to address the majority of perched
groundwater from the burn trench and
leach field. Design criteria included a 20
ft radius of influence using wellhead
pressure of 30 psi. This used a 47 point
grid configuration within a dual-level
(shallow and deep) aquifer and a down-
gradient portion for migration control.
Delivery point installation spacing
ranged from 30 to 120 ft.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Initial concentration of perchlorate
in groundwater was more than
200,000 (ig/L; other contaminants
were noted to include hexavalent
chromium (Cr+6), Freon-113, and
trichloroethene (TCE)
(concentrations not provided).
ISB using HRC reduced perchlorate
concentrations by more than 88%
(from >7,000 iig/L) within 80 days
of treatment.
The IRZ induced anaerobic
conditions within 30 days of first
dosing, based on data from the field
demonstration for dissolved oxygen
(DO) and oxidation reduction
potential (ORP). Perchlorate
concentrations decreased in
groundwater samples to 22 ug/L
within 18 ft of the feed source, with
an average 94.3% reduction in
perchlorate reported in three
monitoring points over a 12 month
active remediation period.
1. Owsianiak, Lisa Marie, Lenzo,
Frank and Molnaa, Barry
(ARCADIS), and Kelleher, Brian
(Kelleher & Associates). 2003. "In
Situ Removal of Perchlorate from
Perched Groundwater by Inducing
Enhanced Anaerobic Conditions."
Presented at the Seventh
International In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation Symposium. June
2-5.
2. Koenigsberg, Stephen S. and
Willett, Anna. 2004. "Enhanced In
Situ Bioremediation of Perchlorate
hi Groundwater with Hydrogen
Release Compound (HRC8)."
Presented at National Ground
Water Association (NGWA)
Conference on MTBE and
Perchlorate. June 4.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
48
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
AMP AC Facility, NV (Pepcon
Facility); In Situ Bioremediation;
Groundwater; Pilot-scale; Completed
December 2002 - May 2003
(injection)
Test area approximately 200 by 150
feet
Groundwater recirculation and citric acid
addition. Recirculation design consisted
of a single groundwater extraction well
and a single reinjection well. Citric acid
(quantity/concentration not provided)
was injected daily over 41 days for one
hour each day to the extracted water
prior to reinjection. Ethanol was used as
the original carbon source, but citric acid
was substituted to reduce biofouling.
Chlorine dioxide was also used to
control biofouling. The system operated
at 5 to 7 gallons per minute (gpm).
Period of Performance:
December 2002 - May 2003
Prior to injection of citric acid,
perchlorate concentrations were as
high as 530,000 ug/L. Soon after
addition of citric acid, perchlorate
concentrations were less than 100
ug/L, and rapidly decreased to less
than 10 ug/L. Perchlorate
concentrations appeared to reach an
asympototic level of approximately
4 ug/L after one month of treatment
and remained at that level following
cessation of citric acid addition
(based on one month of post-
treatment data). Over this 6 month
monitoring period, concentrations
of nitrate were reduced from 45
mg/L to less than 1 mg/L, chlorate
from 60 mg/L to less than 1 mg/L,
dissolved oxygen from 8 mg/L to
less than 1 mg/L, and sulfate was
reduced from 350 mg/L to less than
100 mg/L.
1. Rosen, Jamey (GeoSyntec).
2003. "Successful In Situ
Bioremediation of Perchlorate in
Groundwater." Poster presented at
the SERDP Technical Symposium
and Workshop, Washington, DC.
November 30 - December 2.
2. EPA Region 9. 2005L E-mail
message regarding perchlorate
treatment. From Larry Bowerman
(EPA Region 9) to John Quander.
June 24.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
49
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Aerojet General Corp. Superfund
Site, Rancho Cordova, CA; In Situ
Bioremediation; Groundwater; Pilot-
scale: Completed
Site is underlain by an alluvial
aquifer consisting of interbedded
silts, sands, and gravel, with the
water table at 20 ft bgs.
Phase I of the pilot project was
performed from 2000 through 2001 to
assess the potential to jointly
bioremediate perchlorate and TCE and
to control migration of an 800-ft wide
plume. The target aquifer was located at
100 ft bgs. The demonstration was
designed as a closed loop with a
recirculation rate of 5 to 10 gpm and a
residence time of 21 days. One nutrient
delivery and one extraction well were
used, with two monitoring wells located
between the delivery and extraction
wells. Proprietary dehalorespiring
bacteria (KB-1) were added in Phase I
for TCE removal. Various electron
donors were tried for perchlorate
destruction, including calcium
magnesium acetate, sodium acetate, and
sodium lactate.
Phase II of the project was conducted
from late 2001 through 2002. The
purpose of Phase II was to demonstrate
the feasibility of a single pass active
groundwater biobarrier for perchlorate
destruction. Ethanol was added to the
extracted groundwater as an election
donor.
A more recent demonstration used
horizontal flow treatment wells in a deep
area, screened from 48 to 63 ft bgs and
at 80 to 100 ft bgs (separated by
pneumatic packers). This zone was used
to cut off 200 ft of plume width. Work
plan for this treatment system was
approved in April 2004. However, data
about this project are not yet available.
Period of Performance:
2000 - Ongoing
Groundwater chemistry consists of
perchlorate at 12,000,000 ug/L,
nitrate at 5,000 |ig/L, sulfate at
10,000 ug/L, oxygen at 4 mg/L,
redox at +200 mV, and pH = 6.8
Phase I showed that perchlorate
could be reduced from 12,000,000
ug/L to levels below detection
limits within 15 feet of the electron
donor injection well.
Phase II showed that perchlorate at
8,000 ug/L was reduced to less than
4 ug/L within 35 feet of the
electron donor delivery system.
The 72-day Phase II study showed
that a combined perchlorate/TCE
plume could be remediated with a
single pass biobarrier with only a
partial degradation of TCE.
No results are yet available for the
horizontal flow treatment system
demonstration.
1. Cox, EvanE. and Neville, Scott.
2003. "In Situ Bioremediation of
Perchlorate: Comparison of Results
from Multiple Field
Demonstrations." Presented at In
Situ and On-Site Bioremediation-
The Seventh International
Symposium. June 2-5.
2. Cox, E., Edwards. E., Neville,
S, and Girard, M. 2000b. Aerojet
In Situ Bioremediation Field
Demonstration. Available at
http://perclilorateinfo.com/perclilor
ate-case-04.html. Downloaded July
26.
3. EPA. 2004c. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Charles Berrey (EPA Region
9) to Saslii Vissa (Tetra Tech EM
Inc.). September 13.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
50
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Explosive Device Manufacturing
Facility (Waste Storage Pad Area),
CA; In Situ Bioremediation; Soil;
Pilot-Scale: Completed
The Waste Storage Pad Area had a clay
retaining layer between the vadose zone
and the saturated zone. Corn syrup and
ethanol were simultaneously evaluated as
substrates during a demonstration of the
IRZ technology. These substrates were
used to "flood" the vadose zone and
drive it anaerobic. The demonstration
consisted of one injection event,
followed by monitoring for 250 days
following the injection.
Period of Performance:
2002 - 2004
Perchlorate contour maps from
September 2002, June 2003, and
February 2004 show substantial
reduction in the area of elevated
perchlorate concentrations, with the
maximum concentrations reduced
from greater than 5,000 ug/kg to
500 ug/kg over that period.
Liles, David S. and Owsianiak, Lisa
(ARCADIS). 2004. "Pilot-Scale
Biological Treatment of
Perchlorate, Trichloroethylene, and
Hexavalent Chromium as Co-
Contaminants." Poster Presentation
at the SERDP Technical
Symposium and Workshop.
Washington, DC. November 30 -
December 2.
Fonner Munitions Manufacturing
Facility, Los Angeles County, CA; In
Situ Bioremediation; Soil; Pilot-
Scale; Completed
Gaseous Electron Donor Injection
Technology (GEDIT) was demonstrated
at this site under the Environmental
Security Technology Certification
Program (ESTCP) Project No. CU-0511.
This process involves injection of
electron donors as a gas into the vadose
zone to stimulate anaerobic
biodegradation of perchlorate. Several
operational conditions were evaluated
during this demonstration, including
electron donor type (hydrogen, ethanol,
ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, and
butyraldehyde), delivery method
(continuous vs. pulsed injection), soil
moisture, and nutrients.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Demonstration results showed that
moisture content was a key
parameter that affected
biodegradation and transport, and
that ethyl acetate was a good choice
of electron donor to meet
biodegradatioa transport,
economic, and regulatory
requirements. In one demonstration
using ethanol as the electron donor,
the concentration of perchlorate
decreased from approximately 25
mg/kg in the control to less man 1
mg/kg when moisture content was
increased.
Evans, Patrick J. (COM). 2004.
"Perchlorate Remediation by
Gaseous Electron Donor Injection
Technology (GEDIT)." Poster
Presentation at the SERDP
Technical Symposium and
Workshop, Washington, DC,
November 30 - December 2.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
51
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Superfund site, Karnack, TX (Site
17); In Situ Bioremediation; Soil;
Pilot-scale; Completed
Site 17 at the Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) was an
open burning and detonation ground.
Soil was contaminated with perchlorate
and explosives, and groundwater was
contaminated with perchlorate and
chlorinated solvents. The surface
application and mobilization of nutrient
amendments (SAMNA) was used to
stimulate microbial degradation of
perchlorate and other contaminants in a
1-acre area.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Initial concentrations hi the soil of
perchlorate were >200 rug/kg and
TNT were >1,000 mg/kg. Eight
months following SAMNA
application. >70% of vadose zone
soils were remediated to
concentrations <40 ng/kg. Also,
the perchlorate and chlorinated
solvents concentrations in
groundwater showed a decreasing
trend.
1. O'Niell, Walter L. (Planteco
Environmental Consultants, Athens,
Georgia), Nzengung, Valentine A.,
Das, K.C., Kastner, James, and
Dowd, John (University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia). 2003.
Feasibility of In Situ
Bioremediation of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Soils. Presented at
the Seventh International In Situ
and On-Site Bioremediation
Symposium. June 2-5.
2. Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2005.
Overview: Perchlorate Overview.
Draft. March.
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,
Karnack, TX (Site 43-X): In Situ
Bioremediation; Soil; Pilot-scale;
Completed
Site 43-X at LHAAP included a
pyrotechnic/rocket storage shed, and had
soil contaminated with perchlorate. The
surface application and mobilization of
nutrient amendments was used to
stimulate microbial degradation of
perchlorate and explosives without
leaching contaminants to groundwater in
a 110 square foot area.
Period of Performance:
Not available
The consultant reported that the site
was completely restored and closed
out in 10 months following
SAMNA application. The ITRC
reported a decrease in concentration
from 6,700 ug/kg to <40 (ig/kg in
the top 30 inches.
1. O'Neill, Walter (PLANTECO
Environmental Consultants, LLC).
2004. "In Situ Bioremediation of
Perchlorate and Explosives in
Vadose Zone Source Areas."
Poster presented at the SERDP
Technical Symposium and
Workshop, Washington, DC.
November 30 - December 2.
2. ITRC. 2005. Overview:
Perchlorate Overview. Draft.
March,
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
52
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
National Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant (NIROP), Magna, UT; In Situ
Bioremediation; Pilot-scale;
Groundwater: Ongoing
This project involves an active in situ
biobarrier where groundwater is
captured, amended with an optimized
concentration (based on stoichiometric
needs) of electron donors and recharged
to the aquifer. This promotes in situ
perchlorate reduction and thus controls
perchlorate migration. This approach
allows for addition of a controlled and
optimized amount of electron donor and
therefore has minimal adverse impact on
secondary groundwater quality.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Technology performance data not
provided.
ITRC. 2005. Overview:
Perchlorate Overview. Draft.
March.
The Indian Head Division Naval
Surface Warfare Center (IHD),
Indian Head, MD; In Situ
Bioremediation; Pilot-scale;
Groundwater
Groundwater plume was several
hundred feet long and 50 ft wide,
with a pH <5.0: groundwater was
located at 6-16 ft bgs
A pilot study was performed at the Hog-
out facility at IHDIV (Mattowoman
Creek side) which used a control plot
and a test plot (each 10 ft by 12 ft).
Groundwater was recirculated and
amended with lactate and a buffer.
Period of Performance:
Not available - January 2003
Initial concentration of perchlorate
in groundwater was 430,000 ug/L.
After 105 days operation.
perchlorate was reduced to less than
4 ug/L in die test area. The pH was
at 6.5.
1. Hatzinger, P.B.. Engbring, D.E..
Giovanelli. M.R., Diebold, J.B.,
Yates, C.A., and Cramer, R.J.
2003. "Field evaluation of in situ
perchlorate bioremediation at the
Indian Head Division, Naval
Surface Warfare Center."
Presented at In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation - The Seventh
International Symposium. June 2 -
2. Diebold. J. B., Hatzinger, P.B..
Engbring, D.E., Giovanelli. M.R..
Yates C.A., and Cramer, R.J. 2004.
"Field Evaluation of In Situ
Perchlorate Bioremediation at the
Naval Surface Warfare Center -
Indian Head Division." Presented
at NGWA Conference on MTBE
and Perchlorate. June 3 - 4.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Rialto-Colton, CA; In Situ
Bioremediation; Groundwater; Pilot-
scale; Ongoing
This was a demonstration project about
use of discrete-point horizontal wells for
vapor sparging of an electron donor.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Technology performance data not
provided.
1. Jenkins, David V. (Kleinfelder,
Inc.) and Nutall, Eric H. 2004.
"Innovative Engineering Strategies
for Perchlorate Cleanup." Poster
Presentation at the SERDP
Technical Symposium and
Workshop. Washington. DC.
November 30 - December 2.
2. EPA. 2004p. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From Wayne Praskins (EPA Region
9) to Sashi Vissa. December 8.
Rocket Manufacturing Site, MD: In
Situ Bioremediation (injection of
emulsified edible oil substrate
[EOS®]); Groundwater; Pilot-scale;
Ongoing
This project is investigating an
innovative approach for distributing and
immobilizing a water-miscible
emulsified vegetable oil product (EOS*)
with a controlled droplet size as the
biodegradable organic substrate in a
perchlorate-contaminated aquifer. The
emulsion was prepared using food-grade
soybean oil and emulsifiers and then
distributed throughout the treatment zone
(i.e., a 60-ft long biobarrier impacting a
10 ft zone from 8 to 18 ft bgs) using
temporary injection points.
Approximately 850 pounds of EOS8
were injected. A portion of the oil is
trapped within the soil pores leaving a
residual oil phase to support long-term
anaerobic biodegradation of the
perchlorate. Treatment occurs as
contaminated groundwater moves
through the barrier whose width is
engineered to provide adequate contact
time for biodegradation to occur.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Initial concentration of perchlorate
in groundwater was approximately
10,000 ug/L. Groundwater flow-
velocity up to 75 ft/yr carried
contaminated groundwater through
the barrier. Perchlorate
concentrations in the treatment zone
were reduced to below 4 ug/L
within 4 days of EOS* injection.
Similar perchlorate reductions were
seen in groundwater up to 20 feet
from the barrier within 35 days.
The treated zone downgradient
remained perchlorate-free for over
18 months with no additional
injection of substrate.
Lieberman. M.T.. C. Zawtocki,
R.C. Borden, and Gary M. Birk
2004. "Treatment of Perchlorate
and Trichloroethane in
Groundwater Using Edible Oil
Substrate (EOS®)." Proceedings of
the National Ground Water
Association Conference on MTBE
and Perchlorate: Assessment,
Remediation and Public Policy,
Costa Mesa, CA. June 3-4.
(Funded by ESTCP)
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
54
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.6 Permeable Reactive Barrier
Summary
A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is an in situ
technology used to treat perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater at full scale. Some of the commonly
used reactive materials for barriers include soybean
and other edible oils, woodchips, pecan shells,
cotton seed, chitin, limestone, and other composting
materials. Many of these materials can provide
both electron donors and the necessary nutrients for
microbial growth. Soluble electron donors such as
lactate, acetate, and citrate may be added to the
barrier materials to further stimulate biodegradation
of perchlorate to chloride and oxygen.
Technology Principles
A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is an in situ
treatment zone of reactive material that degrades or
immobilizes contaminants as groundwater flows
through it. PRBs are installed as permanent, semi-
permanent, or temporary units across the flow path
of a contaminant plume. Contaminants in
groundwater that flow through a PRB are degraded
chemically or biologically (FRTR, 2005). The
barriers are made of reactive material that targets
specific contaminants. Examples of reactive
materials used in PRBs include soybean and other
edible oils, woodchips, pecan shells, cotton seed,
chitin, limestone, and other composting materials
(EPA, 2005 f). When applied as a biological
treatment method, the reactive material may
promote growth of indigenous microorganisms or
may have to be supplied with microorganisms
capable of biodegrading the target contaminants
(AFCEE, 2002b; EPA, 2005b). To treat
groundwater contaminated with perchlorate. the
reactive barrier may be inoculated with anaerobic
bacteria that can convert perchlorate into chloride
and oxygen (AFCEE, 2002b). Additional
information about perchlorate transformation or
biodegradation, including microbial degradation
pathways, is presented in Section 3.2 under
bioreactors.
Technology Description
PRBs are installed in one of two basic
configurations - funnel-and-gate or continuous
trench. A funnel-and-gate system consists of a gate
containing the reactive media (microbes or
chemicals) and a funnel formed by solid walls that
direct the flow of the groundwater. The trench
system consists of one or more trenches excavated
across the contaminant plume and filled with
reactive material (AFCEE, 2002b).
For treatment of perchlorate-contaminated
groimdwater, the PRB system is backfilled with
reactive material that includes an electron donor to
stimulate reduction of perchlorate and organic
substrates to nourish the microorganisms (AFCEE,
2002b; Craig and Jacobs, 2004; Beisel et al.,
2004). Figure 3.6-1 shows a conceptual design of
a PRB system (AFCEE, 2002b).
Figure 3.6-1. Permeable Reactive Barrier
(PRB) for Perchlorate Treatment (EPA
OSWER, 2002)
, 3J&&69
Decreased
Conlaminant
Conoeniration
Direction of
Groundwater Flow
.'Viewer ^bfmitiig;Layer _ ^_
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Two full-scale projects and one pilot-scale project
have been identified that used PRBs for treatment
of perchlorate in groundwater.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
55
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.6-1 summarizes available performance
data for treatment of perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater using PRBs. As discussed above,
cleanup goals varied by site and type of project.
Where provided, actual technology performance
data are presented relative to cleanup goals.
Treatment technologies often operate to achieve
specified goals that vary by site, end-use, and other
factors.
Perchlorate concentrations in one of the full-scale
projects was reduced from 13,000 ug/L to below
detection limit of 0.45 ug/L. The other full-scale
project reduced perchlorate concentrations from
120 ug/L to 20ug/L. The pilot-scale project
reduced perchlorate concentrations from 10,000
ug/L to below 4 ug/L (Beisel et al., 2004; Borden
et al., 2004b; Cal EPA, 2004: Craig and Jacobs,
2004; EPA, 2005f).
Factors Affecting PRB Performance
• Type of Barrier Material - Selection of
appropriate barrier material is essential to
provide adequate amounts of carbon and
nitrogen required for microbial growth
(FRTR, 2005; AFCEE, 2002b).
• Hydrogeology - Design, installation, and
operation of PRBs depends on site
hydrogeology (FRTR, 2005).
Potential Limitations
Proper installation of PRBs requires access to
depths of the contaminated groundwater and
barriers formed by trenches that surface excavation
or trenching equipment may not be able to reach
(FRTR, 2005). Thus it may render impractical the
treatment of deeper contaminated groundwater
using mechanically constructed trench designs.
However, PRBs formed using injectable substrates
can be established at greater depths. Regardless,
PRBs may lose their reactive capacity over time,
requiring replacement, renourishment, or re-
injection of the reactive material or substrate.
Additional maintenance may be required to unclog
the barrier fouled biologically or clogged with
chemical precipitates (AFCEE. 2002b; EPA.
2005f).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for in situ bioremediation, including PRB
configurations, are generally considered smaller
than average costs for groundwater treatment
technologies, according to the FRTR.
http://wvvw.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3JUitml
Case Study: Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant, McGregor, TX
The Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
(NWIRP), in McGregor, TX, lias groundwater
contaminated with perchlorate and trichloroethene
(TCE). The contaminant plumes are located in the
upper portions of an unconfined 5- to 35-foot (ft)
thick bedrock aquifer exhibiting decreased
limestone fracturing and weathering with increased
depth. Groundwater depth varies seasonally from 2
to 10 ft below ground surface (bgs), with a flow
velocity of 0.13 to 3.0 ft/day. Full-scale permeable
reactive barriers (PRBs) were installed at Area S at
NWIRP in late 2002, following a pilot study, to
address a perchlorate plume migrating off site.
Seven PRBs were installed in segments, with each
trench ranging from 100 to 750 ft long, and covering
a total length of 3,500 ft in 3 zones. The seven
trendies were installed on 1,000 ft centers in a
gallery fashion, and each was backfilled with a
mixture of gravel (70%), mushroom compost (20%),
and soybean oil-soaked woodcliips (10%).
Approximately 4,200 tons of material was used to
backfill the trenches.
Groundwater entering the trench located closest to
the source area contained an average perchlorate
concentration of 13.000 ug/L. Perchlorate
concentrations in groundwater exiting the trench
were reduced to below detection limit. The
information sources used for this paper did not
provide the perchlorate detection limit for this
project. The first three months of performance
monitoring indicated mat the treatment envelope of
a single trench had traveled a distance of 400 ft
down-gradient, and that the concentration of
perchlorate in a monitoring well at the down-
gradient location was reduced by 99% from a pre-
treatment concentration of 1,000 \ig/L (Beisel et al.,
2004; Craig and Jacobs, 2004; EPA, 2004f).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
56
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3-6.1. Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and
Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Los Almos National Laboratory,
Mortandad Canyon, NM: Permeable
Reactive Barrier; Full-scale:
Groundwater; Ongoing
Four-layered PRB consisting
of gravel-sized scoria, apatite,
pecan shells and cotton seed
with an admixture of gravel
(biobarrier). and limestone.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Influent concentration was
approximately 120 ug/L and
was reduced to 20 ug/L in the
effluent
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal
EPA). 2004. "Perchlorate Contamination
Treatment Alternatives: Draft." January.
Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant (NWIRP), McGregor,
TX; Permeable Reactive Barrier,
Full-scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
The contaminant plumes are located
hi the upper portions of an
unconfined 5- to 3 5-foot (ft) thick
bedrock aquifer exhibiting decreased
limestone fracturing and weathering
with increased depth. Groundwater
depth varies seasonally from 2 to 10
ft bgs. with a flow velocity of 0.13 to
3.0 ft/day.
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate
and trichloroethene (TCE).
Full-scale PRBs were
installed at Area S at NWIRP
in late 2002, following a pilot
study, to address a perchlorate
plume migrating off site.
Seven PRBs were installed in
segments, with each trench
ranging from 100 to 750 ft
long, and covering a total
length of 3,500 ft in 3 zones.
The seven trenches were
installed on 1,000 ft centers in
series, and each was
backfilled with a mixture of
gravel (70%), mushroom
compost (20%), and soybean
oil-soaked woodchips (10%).
Approximately 4.200 tons of
material was used to backfill
the trenches.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Groundwater entering the
trench located closest to the
source area contained an
average perchlorate
concentration of 13,000 ug/L.
Perchlorate concentrations in
groundwater exiting the
trench was reduced to below
detection limit (detection limit
is 0.45 ug/L). The first three
months of performance
monitoring indicated that the
treatment envelope of a single
trench had traveled a distance
of 400 ft down-gradient, and
mat the concentration of
perchlorate in a monitoring
well at the down-gradient
location was reduced by 99%
from a pre-treatment
concentration of 1,000 ug/L.
1. Beisel, Thomas H., Craig, Mark, and Perlmutter,
Mike. 2004. "Ex-Situ Treatment of Perchlorate
Contaminated Groundwater." Presented at National
Ground Water Association (NOWA) Conference on
MTBE and Perchlorate. June 3-4.
2. Craig, Mark (Naval Facilities Engineering
Command [NAVFAC]) and Jacobs, Alan (EnSafe).
2004. "Biological PRB Used for Perchlorate
Degradation in Groundwater." In: Technology
News Trends, Issue 10. February.
3. EPA. 2004f. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Bob Sturdivant (EPA
Region 6) to Saslii Vissa (Terra Tech EM Inc.).
September 28.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
57
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and
Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Rocket Manufacturing Site, MD;
Penneable Reactive Barrier; Pilot-
scale; Groundwater; Ongoing
Groundwater at this site is
contaminated with perchlorate
and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(TCA). A pilot-scale, 60-ft
long permeable reactive
biobarrier was installed
perpendicular to the
groundwater flowr.
Approximately 850 pounds of
emulsified edible oil substrate
(edible oil substrate [EOS®])
was injected into a 10-ft thick
zone. The EOS® serves as a
nutrient source for microbial
growth and an electron donor
to support anaerobic
degradation of the
contaminants.
Period of Performance:
Not available - Ongoing
Initial concentration of
perchlorate in groundwater
was approximately 10,000
ug/L. Perchlorate in treated
groundwater was reduced to
below 4 ug/L within 4 days of
EOS® injection. Treatment
resulted in an uncontaminated
zone downgradient of the
PRB for over 1.5 years
without re-injection of EOS"
barrier material.
1. Borden, Robert, Lieberman, Tony, and
Zawtocki, Christie. 2004. "Anaerobic
Biodegradation of Perchlorate and TCA in an EOS®
Penneable Reactive Barrier." Poster presented at
the SERDP Technical Symposium and Workshop,
Washington, DC. November 30 - December 2.
2. Lieberman. M.T., C. Zawtocki. R.C. Borden, and
Gary M. Birk. 2004. "Treatment of Perchlorate
and Trichloroethane in Groundwater Using Edible
Oil Substrate (EOS®)." Proceedings of the
National Ground Water Association Conference on
AfTBE and Perchlorate: Assessment, Remediation
and Public Policy, Costa Mesa, CA. June 3-4.
(Funded by Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program [ESTCP])
3. EPA. 2005f. E-mail message with comments on
perchlorate issue paper. From Tony M. Lieberman
(Solutions-IBS) to Josh Barber (EPA-FFRRO).
March 28.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
58
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.7 Phytotechnology
Summary
Phytotechnology is an emerging technology for
perchlorate remediation. It involves use of plants to
remove contaminants by natural processes
occurring within die plant body. Selection of the
best plant species is critical to achieving the
treatment goals. Research is currently under way to
identify- the mechanism involved in perchlorate
removal by phytotechnology. A few bench-scale
studies have indicated the suitability of certain plant
species for remediation of perchlorate-contaminated
media.
Technology Principles
Phytotechnology is a process that uses plants to
remove contaminants from media including
groundwater, surface water, and soil.
Phytotechnology includes various mechanisms
such as rhizosphere biodegradation,
phytovolatilization, phytostabilization, and
phytoextraction (FRTR, 2005). Rliizodegradation
or rhizosphere degradation proceeds via activities
of microorganisms present in the soil surrounding
the roots. The natural substances released by plant
roots provide nutrient material to the microbial
population, which in turn degrade the contaminants
present in soil. The mechanism of remediation of
perchlorate-contaminated media by
phytotechnology is not yet established. However,
studies conducted at bench scale have indicated
possible suitability of certain plant species for
perchlorate removal (Motzer, 2001; Schnoor et al.,
2004; Susarla et al., 1999).
Technology Description
Phytotechnology uses plants to remediate
contaminated media. The enzymes and natural
chemicals produced in the plant's root system
provide nutrient material to microorganisms
growing in the soil around the roots. These
microorganisms may biologically reduce
perchlorate present in the soil and groundwater
(FRTR, 2005; Motzer, 2001). The mechanism of
perchlorate removal by phytotechnology is not well
known. Research is being conducted to delineate
the remediation process. The sources used for this
report suggest that species such as willow, hybrid
poplar, cottonwood, and water lily are possibly
suited for phytoremediation of perchlorate (Motzer,
2001; Schnoor etal., 2004; Susarla etal., 1999).
Figure 3.7-1 shows a simplified model of a
phytotechnology system (EPA OSWER, 2002).
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
One pilot-scale application of phytotechnology has
been identified from the sources used for this
paper.
Figure 3.7-1. Phytotechnology for Perchlorate
Treatment (EPA OSWER, 2002)
Contaminant Uptake
(and Removal)
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.7-1 summarizes available performance
data for this technology. Initial perchlorate
concentration was 34 mg/L. After a year, the
concentration of perchlorate in treated groundwater
had decreased to 23 mg/L. As discussed above,
cleanup goals varied by site and type of project.
When provided, actual technology performance
data are presented relative to cleanup goals.
Treatment technologies often operate to achieve
specified goals that vary by site, end-use, and other
factors (Schnoor et al., 2004).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
59
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.7-1. Phytotechnology Performance Summary for Perchlorate Treatment Project
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance Summary
Source
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
(LHAAP), TX; Phytotechnology;
Groundwater; Field Demonstration;
Ongoing
LHAAP has groundwater that is
contaminated with perchlorate. A
field demonstration of
phytotechnology using 425 hybrid
poplars was performed, with the trees
planted in March 2003 on a 0.7 acre
demonstration site.
Period of Performance:
March 2003 - Ongoing
In this demonstration, concentrations
of perchlorate were reduced from 34
mg/L to 23 mg/L, as of March 2004.
According to the site researcher, the
mass of perchlorate taken up by the
poplar trees and/or degraded within
in the rhizosphere was 0.114 ± 0.016
kg/d. Between April 2003 and
September 2004, 52 kg of perchlorate
was removed from the groundwater
by the hybrid poplar trees and/or the
microbes that grow hi the root zone.
1. Schnoor, J.L. et al. 2004.
Demonstration Project of
Phytoremediation and
PJiizodegradation of Perchlorate in
Groundwater at the Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant, the University of
Iowa, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
2. EPA, 2005a. E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment.
From JL. Schnoor (University of
Iowa) to Ellen Rubin (EPA Office of
Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation). February
10,2005
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
60
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Factors Affecting Phytotechnology
Performance
• Plant Species - Perchlorate might exert a
toxic effect on certain species. Therefore.
selecting a plant species suitable for
achieving treatment goals is important
(FRTR, 2005).
• Concentration of Contaminant - Presence
of excess amounts of perchlorate may fatally
affect plants. Therefore, the tolerability limit
of the selected plant species should be
determined before implementing the
remediation process (FRTR, 2005; Susarla,
etal., 1999).
Potential Limitations
Phytotechnology applies a natural process
occurring in select plant species to help remove
contamination from the media of concern. Fiigh
concentrations of contaminants can impede plant
growth and the remediation process (FRTR, 2005).
Climatic changes can significantly impact plant
growth, thus requiring variation in the treatment
period. Prior research is necessary to determine the
suitability of specific plant species for remediating
the contaminants of concern (FRTR. 2005).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for phytotechnology generally compare
favorably with costs for aboveground treatment
technologies, according to the FRTR.
Iittp://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
61
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.8 Membrane Technologies
Technologies involving use of semi-permeable or
permeable membranes for perchlorate removal are
referred to as membrane technologies.
Electrodialysis and reverse osmosis are examples
of membrane technologies used for removal of
perchlorate from groundwater, surface water, and
wastewater. They are discussed below.
3.8.1 Electrodialvsis
Summary
Electrodialysis is an ex situ technology that applies
an electric current to remove perchlorate.
Perclilorate-contaminated water is exposed to an
electric current as it passes through a semi-
permeable membrane. This separates perchlorate
ions from contaminated groundwater and surface
water. The technology produces alternate channels
of nearly deionized water (the diluate or dialyzate)
and salty water (the concentrate). The diluate is
used, and the concentrate undergoes further
treatment prior to disposal.
Technology Principles
Electrodialysis is a membrane technique that uses
electric current to remove perchlorate (Roquebert
et al., 2000). In this technology, electric current is
applied to perchlorate-contaminated water as it
passes through channels of alternating permeable
membranes selective of anions and cations. The
electric current dissociates perchlorate salts into
cations and anions. Ammonium perchlorate and
potassium perchlorate are two common forms of
perchlorate contamination. Perchlorate ions, being
negatively-charged (anion). accumulate at the
cationic-selective membrane and are eventually
collected as concentrate or salty water. Similarly,
positive ions accumulate at the anionic-selective
membrane. This method produces two types of
water - salty water and relatively deionized water.
The deionized water is used while the salty water is
disposed of or further treated by an appropriate
method prior to disposal (Urbansky and Schock,
1999). One source for this paper reported the
benefit of occasionally reversing polarity of
electrodes to prevent membrane fouling
(Roquebert et al., 2000).
Technology Description
Electrodialysis is a physical method for removing
perchlorate. Perchlorate-contaminated water is
exposed to an electric current as it passes through a
semi-permeable membrane. This separates
perchlorate ions from contaminated groundwater
and surface water. The technology produces
alternate channels of nearly deionized water (the
diluate or dialyzate) and salty water (the
concentrate). The diluate is used, and the
concentrate is subject to further treatment prior to
disposal (Roquebert et al., 2000; Urbansky and
Schock, 1999).
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
• Drinking Water
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Data sources used for this issue paper have
provided information about two pilot-scale
demonstrations of electrodialysis for perchlorate
removal from groundwater.
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.8-1 summarizes available performance
data for this technology. As discussed above,
cleanup goals varied by site and type of project.
When provided, actual technology performance
data are presented relative to cleanup goals.
Treatment technologies often operate to achieve
specified goals that vary by site, end-use, and other
factors.
Influent perchlorate concentrations ranged from 15
(.ig/Lto 130 (ig/L. Concentration of perchlorate in
effluent water ranged from 11 |.ig/L to 17 (ig/L.
Information sources used for this paper did not
provide performance data for the second project
presented in Table 3.8-1.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
62
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.8-1. Electrodialysis Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Bacchus Works, Alliant Techsytems,
Inc., Salt Lake County, UT;
Electrodialysis; Pilot-scale;
Groundwater; Completed
A pilot-scale electrodialysis system
was tested at this site for the removal
of perchlorate from groundwater.
The treatment system consisted of
alternating semi-permeable and
permeable membranes exposed to an
electric field. The flow rate was
maintained at approximately 7.4
gallons per minute (gpm).
Period of Performance:
June 1999 - September 1999
Initial perchlorate concentration in
groundwater ranged from 15 ug/L to
130 ug/L. Perchlorate concentrations
hi the effluent ranged from 11 ug/L
to 17 ug/L.
Roquebert, Vincent, Booth, Stephen,
Cushing, Robert S., Crozes, Gil,
Hansen, Ed. 2000. "Electrodialysis
reversal (EDR) and ion exchange as
polishing treatment for perchlorate
treatment." Proceedings of the
Conference on Membranes in
Drinking and Industrial Water
Production. Volume 1, pp. 481 -
487. October.
Barton Well Field. Salt Lake County.
UT; Electrodialysis; Pilot-scale;
Groundwater; Ongoing
A pilot-scale electrodialysis reversal
(EDR) system is currently being
tested at this site for removal of
perchlorate from groundwater. The
EDR system consists of a four-
hydraulic stage EDR membrane
stacked with two electric stages. The
treatment capacity is approximately
18.000 to 20.000 gallons per day
(gpd).
Period of Performance:
December 2004 - Ongoing
(Proposed duration is 20 weeks)
Performance data are currently not
available for this project.
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2005. E-
mail communication between Sashi
Vissa (Terra Tech EM Inc.) and
Brandon Heidelberger (Carollo
Engineers, Inc.). January 4.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
63
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
A case study presented at the end of this section
describes use of electrodialysis to remove
perchlorate from groundwater at the Bacchus
Works, Alliant Techsytems, Inc., Salt Lake
County, UT (Carollo Engineers., Inc., 2005;
Roquebert et al., 2000).
Factors Affecting Electrodialysis Performance
The sources used for this paper did not provide any
information on the factors affecting electrodialysis
performance.
Potential Limitations
Reduced effectiveness of electrodialysis for
perchlorate removal may result from membrane
fouling and low selectivity of the semi-permeable
membrane for perchlorate. The concentrate
resulting from this method may require large
quantities of water for further treatment prior to
disposal (Urbansky and Schock, 1999). The
sources used for this paper did not provide
information about treatment and disposal of
concentrate.
Summary of Cost Data
Cost for electrodialysis (categorized as separation
processes) generally compares unfavorably with
costs for aboveground treatment technologies,
according to the FRTR.
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
3.8.2 Reverse Osmosis
Case Study: Bacchus Works, Alliant
Techsytems, Inc., Salt Lake County, UT
Groundwater at this site is contaminated with
perchlorate, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
trichlorethene (TCE), 1,1-dichlorothene (DCE), and
Freon 113. A pilot-scale electrodialysis system was
tested at this site for removal of perchlorate from
groundwater. The treatment system consisted of
alternating semi-permeable and permeable
membranes exposed to an electric field. The flow
rate was maintained at approximately 7.4 gallons per
minute (gpm). This pilot system operated from June
to September 1999. Initial perchlorate
concentration in groundwater ranged from 15 ug/L
to 130 ug/L. Perchlorate concentrations in the
effluent ranged from 11 ug/L to 17 ug/L. (Carollo
Engineers, Inc., 2005; Roquebert et al., 2000).
Summary
Reverse osmosis is a physical separation method
based on the principle of osmosis. In this
technology, high pressure is applied to reverse the
osmosis process and force water molecules to pass
through the semi-permeable membrane out of the
perchlorate-contaminated water. As a result, two
channels of water are formed in the reverse osmosis
system. One is treated water from the freshwater
side of the system and the other is concentrate or
salty water containing perchlorate, which is subject
to further treatment prior to disposal.
Technology Principles
Reverse osmosis is another membrane technique
used for perchlorate removal (Burt et al.;
Urbansky, 1998). Osmosis can be defined as the
movement of water molecules from a region of
lower solute concentration to a region of higher
solute concentration through a semi-permeable
membrane (Urbansky and Schock, 1999). In this
case, the solute is a perchlorate salt. The reverse
osmosis system consists of a chamber in which
perchlorate-contaminated water is placed on one
side of the semi-permeable membrane and fresh
water is placed on the other side of the membrane.
Pressure is applied at the inlet to force water
molecules against the concentration gradient from
the contaminated water into the fresh water section
of the reverse osmosis system. This results in
separation of perchlorate ions from contaminated
water. Treated water can be used. The water
containing perchlorate and other contaminants is
further treated prior to disposal (Burt et al.).
Technology Description
Reverse osmosis is a physical separation method
based on the principle of osmosis. In this
technology, high pressure is applied to reverse the
osmosis process and force water molecules to pass
through the semi-permeable membrane out of the
perchlorate-contaminated water (Urbansky and
Schock, 1999; Burt et al.). Figure 3.8-1 shows a
conceptual design of a reverse osmosis system
(EPA OSWER, 2002).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
64
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Figure 3.8-1. Reverse Osmosis for Perchlorate
Removal (EPA OSWER, 2002)
Contaminated
Water
Perchlorate-Contaminated Media Treated
• Groundwater
• Drinking Water
Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects
Data sources used for this issue paper provided
information about one bench-scale project for
perchlorate removal by reverse osmosis. A pilot-
scale study is planned for the Redlands Plume site.
CA.
Factors Affecting Reverse Osmosis
Performance
• Organic Matter - Presence of large
amounts of organic matter and
microorganisms can foul and thus damage
the membrane (Urbansky and Schock, 1999).
• Co-contaminants - Presence of alkaline
earth metals can enhance membrane fouling
(Urbansky and Schock, 1999).
Potential Limitations
Reverse osmosis is normally suitable for point-of-
use or small systems. Post-treatment including
application of sodium chloride or sodium
bicarbonate is required to make water palatable and
prevent fouling of the distribution system
(Urbansky, 1998).
Summary of Cost Data
Costs for reverse osmosis (categorized as
separation processes) generally compare
unfavorably with costs for aboveground treatment
technologies, according to the FRTR.
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_2.html
Summary of Performance Data
Table 3.8-2 presents performance data for the
bench-scale study. Results of the bench-scale
project indicate that the influent perchlorate
concentrations ranged from 125 |ag/L to 2,000
(ig/L. Perchlorate concentration in the effluent
water ranged from 5 (ig/L to 80 (.ig/L (Burt et al.).
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
65
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Table 3.8-2. Reverse Osmosis Performance Summaries for Perchlorate Treatment Projects
Location, Technology, Type of
Media, Scale, and Status
Technology Design and Operation
Technology Performance
Summary
Source
Clarkson University: Reverse
Osmosis; Bench-scale; Groundwater;
Completed
The reverse osmosis system was
tested at bench scale for perchlorate
removal. The reverse osmosis
chamber consisted of a membrane
impermeable to ions. The chamber is
filled with fresh water on one side of
the membrane and perchlorate-
contaminated water on the other side.
Pressure was applied in the range of
20 to 90 pounds per square inch (psi)
to facilitate movement of water
molecules through the membrane
against the concentration gradient.
This results in separation of
perchlorate and other contaminants
from contaminated water.
Period of Performance:
Not available
Initial perchlorate concentration in
groundwater ranged from 125 ug/L
to 2,000 ug/L. Perchlorate
concentrations in the effluent ranged
from 5 ug/L to 80 ug/L.
Burt, Michelle, Cooper, Michael,
Hickey, Kevin, Kenyon Kevin, and
St. Onge, Deanna. Clarkson
University. "Task 3: Perchlorate
Treatment for Domestic Water
Systems."
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
Mav 2005
66
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
3.9 Recent or Planned Treatment Technology
Research
EPA, DoD, and others are actively pursuing a wide
variety of research projects on perchlorate
treatment and other related subjects. Much of the
treatment technology research is looking at various
aspects of bioremediation for perchlorate - both ex
situ and in situ. Recent or planned research on
treatment technologies for perchlorate-
contaminated soil or groundwater includes the
following:
EPA (EPA, 2004m)
Atlantic Research Corporation (Gainesville, VA) -
In situ anaerobic bioremediation of the deep
groundwater. The objective of the field pilot study
is to determine if subsurface conditions can be
adjusted to create an in situ, anaerobic.
bioremediation system capable of reducing
perchlorate and VOCs (PCE and 1,1,1-TCA and
associated daughter compounds). VOCs and
perchlorate-reducing bacteria will be stimulated by
distribution of carbon-based substrate(s) - such as
acetate and chlorinated solvent/edible oils solution
- into groundwater.
ATK Tactical Systems, LLC (Elkton, MD) - Pilot
study using edible oil barriers (slow-release organic
substrates) for treatment (enhanced anaerobic
biodegradation) of perchlorate and chlorinated
solvent in shallow groundwater.
Atlantic Research Corp. (Camden, Arkansas) -
Environmental Alliance Inc. and GeoSyntec
consultants - Bioremediation activities for ex situ
and in situ pilot test to evaluate accelerated
anaerobic reduction of perchlorate in soil and
groundwater. Based on data collected during a
pilot test, ex situ anaerobic composting has proven
efficient and effective for treating perchlorate-
impacted soil. Laboratory data collected to date
suggest that the passive reactive barrier generated
through injection of insoluble substrate (i.e.,
recycled cooking oil) successfully treats
perchlorate-impacted groundwater and contains the
most concentrated perchlorate plume.
Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) (EPA, 2004m)
• Fiscal Year (FY) 04 New Start - Permeable
Mulch Biowall for Enhanced Bioremediation
of Perchlorate in Groundwater at a DoD
Facility (CU-0427)
• FY04 New Start - Evaluation of Potential
for Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Perchlorate in Groundwater (CU-0428)
• FY04 New Start - Field Comparison of
Biofouling Control Measures for In Situ
Bioremediation of Groundwater (CU-0429)
• FY04 New Start - In Situ Bioremediation of
Perchlorate in Vadose Zone Source Areas
(CU-0435)
• Ongoing - Laboratory study to determine
suitability of constructed wetland systems to
treat perchlorate-contaminated water (CU-
1235). Two identical mesocosms were
constructed. Graceful Cattails (Typha
laxmanil) was transplanted to the substrate
medium, and the medium was fed with water
containing 100 (.ig/L, 1,000 (.ig/L, and
10,000 (ig/L perchlorate. Effluent
concentrations were not available in the
sources used for this paper (Jackson, 2004)
• Ongoing - During a Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program
(SERDP)-funded project (CU-1163), a
mathematical model was developed to
describe biodegradation kinetics of
perchlorate. This model will be used during
ESTCP Project CU-0425 to describe
perchlorate biodegradation during in situ
treatment using a horizontal flow treatment
well (HFTW) system (Hatzinger, 2004)
• Completed - Investigation of feasibility of in
situ bioremediation by using laboratory
microcosms and continuous flow reactors.
Results indicated that acetate addition caused
degradation of perchlorate (Medina, 2004)
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
67
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) Solicitation for
Technologies for Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater
In October 2004, ESTCP issued a request for "pre-
proposal white papers" for technologies to treat
perchlorate-contaminated groundwater. The U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), through ESTCP,
will be funding demonstration projects for treating
perchlorate in drinking water to evaluate alternative
technologies that can apply to large-scale treatments
of perchlorate-contaminated drinking water. The
due date for these pre-proposals was November 18,
2004. Additional information about this solicitation
is available at
http://wmv.estcp.org/opportunities/solicitations/.
Miscellaneous
• Phoenix-Goodyear Wastewater Treatment
Plant study on perchlorate - this study is
looking at the ability of biological waste
water, sewage, or septic systems to treat
perchlorate (Geomatrix Consultants. 2003).
• A report is pending from USAGE (Omaha
Office) regarding effects of various soil types
on perchlorate detection (EPA, 2004b).
• DoD and Cal EPA have finalized a
procedure for prioritizing perchlorate
sampling efforts at DoD facilities throughout
California. The procedure document
provides guidance to California and DoD
officials on the steps each party will take to
identify and prioritize areas on military sites
where perchlorate has likely been released in
proximity to drinking water sources. (DoD
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Public Affairs) News Release No. 979-04,
October 1,2004.
http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr200410
01-1343 .html)
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
-------
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
4.0 References
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
(AFCEE), 2002a. "Perchlorate Treatment
Technology Fact Sheet: In Situ Anaerobic
Bioremediation." August.
AFCEE, 2002b. "Perchlorate Treatment
Technology Fact Sheet: Permeable Reactive
Barriers." August.
Behrens, Richard and Minier, Leanna (Sandia
National Laboratories). 1996. "The
Thermal Decomposition Behavior of
Ammonium Perchlorate and of an
Ammonium-Perchlorate-Based Composite
Propellant." Presented at the 33rd JANNAF
Combustion Subcommittee Meeting.
Monterey, California. November.
Beisel, Thomas H., Craig, Mark, and Perlmutter.
Mike. 2004. "Ex-Situ Treatment of
Perchlorate Contaminated Groundwater."
Presented at NGWA Conference on MTBE
and Perchlorate. June 3-4.
Boodoo, Francis (The Purolite Company).
2003a. Perchlorate Facts for Technology
Vendors.
Boodoo, Francis (The Purolite Company).
2003b. POU/POE Removal of Perchlorate.
August.
Borden, R.C., N.L. Lindow and B.X. Rodriguez.
2004a. "Treatment of Nitrate, Perchlorate,
Chromate and ARD Using Edible Oils."
Presented at the Remediation of Chlorinated
and Recalcitrant Compounds, Fourth
International Conference. Monterey, CA.
May 24 - 27.
Borden, Robert, Lieberman, Tony, and Zawtocki,
Christie. 2004b. "Anaerobic
Biodegradation of Perchlorate and TCA in
an EOS[R] Permeable Reactive Barrier/'
Poster presented at the SERDP Technical
Symposium and Workshop, Washington,
DC. November 30 - December 2.
Burt, Michelle, Cooper. Michael, Hickey, Kevin,
Kenyon Kevin, and St. Onge, Deanna.
Clarkson University. Task 3: Perchlorate
Treatment for Domestic Water Systems.
Calgon Carbon Corp. 1998. Case Study:
Calgon Carbon Corp. - ISEP® Continuous
Ion Exchange. December. Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-15.html. Downloaded July 2004.
California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA). 2004. "Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment Alternatives:
Draft:' January.
Coates, J.D., U. Michaelidou, R.A. Bruce, S.M.
O'Connor, J.N. Crespi, and L.A. Achenbach.
1999. "The ubiquity and diversity of
dissimilatory (per)chlorate-reducing
bacteria." Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 65: 5234-5241.
Coates, J.D., U. Michaelidou, S.M. O'Connor.
R.A. Bruce, and L.A. Achenbach. 2000.
"The diverse microbiology of (per)chlorate
reduction." In: Perchlorate in the
Environment (E. Urbansky, ed.) Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, NY. Pp 257-
270.
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2005. E-mail
communication between Sashi Vissa (Tetra
Tech EM Inc.) and Brandon Heidelberger
(Carollo Engineers, Inc.). January 4.
Carts, John J., 1998. Biological Treatment at
Low Concentrations in Water- Phase 2 La
Puente, CA. Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-13.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Clark, Robert, Kavanaugh, Michael, McCarty,
Perry, and Trussell, R. Rhodes. 2001.
"Review of Phase 2 Treatability Study
Aerojet Facility at Rancho Cordova,
California - Expert Panel Final Report."
July.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
69
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Cox, E., Edwards, E., Neville, S., and Girard, M.
2000a. Aerojet Bioremediation of Soil from
Foniier Burn Area by Anaerobic
Composting. Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-01.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Cox, E., Edwards, E., Neville, S., and Girard, M.
2000b. Aerojet In Situ Bioremediation Field
Demonstration. Available at:
http://perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-case-
04.html. Downloaded July 26, 2004.
Cox, E., Edwards, E.. Neville, S.. and Girard, M.
2000c. Rocket Manufacturing Site Soil
Bioremediation by Anaerobic Composting.
Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-52.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Cox, Evan E. and Neville, Scott. 2003. "In Situ
Bioremediation of Perchlorate: Comparison
of Results from Multiple Field
Demonstrations." Presented at In Situ and
On-Site Bioremediation - The Seventh
International Symposium. June 2-5.
Craig, Mark (NAVFAC) and Jacobs, Alan
(EnSafe). 2004. "Biological PRB Used for
Perchlorate Degradation in Groundwater."
In: Technology News Trends, Issue 10.
February.
Diebold, J. B., Hatzinger, P.B., Engbring, D.E.,
Giovanelli, M.R., Yates C.A., and Cramer,
R.J. 2004. "Field Evaluation of In Situ
Perchlorate Bioremediation at the Naval
Surface Warfare Center - Indian Head
Division/' Presented atNGWA Conference
on MTBE and Perchlorate. June 3-4.
Ellington. Jackson J., and Evans, John J. 2000.
"Determination of Perchlorate at Parts-per-
billion Levels in Plants by Ion
Chromatography." Journal of
Chromatography. A. Volume 898, pp. 193
through 199.
Evans, Patrick J. (COM). 2004. "Perchlorate
Remediation by Gaseous Electron Donor
Injection Technology (GEDIT)." Poster
Presentation at the SERDP Technical
Symposium and Workshop, Washington,
DC. November 30 - December 2.
Evans, Patrick, Chu, Allyson, Liao, Stephen,
Price, Steve, Moody, Mieko, Headrick,
Doug, Min, Booki, and Logan, Bruce. 2002.
"Pilot Testing of a Bioreactor for
Perchlorate-Contaminated Groundwater
Treatment." Presented at the Third
International Conference on Remediation of
Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds,
May 20-23.
Evans, Patrick, Price, Steve, Min, Booki, and
Logan, Bruce. 2003. "Biotreatment and
Downstream Processing of Perchlorate
Contaminated Groundwater." Presented at
In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation - The
Seventh International Symposium. June 2 -
5.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable.
2005. Federal Remediation Technologies
Reference Guide and Screening Manual,
Version 4.0. February 1. Available at:
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html
Geomatrix Consultants. 2003. "Draft Pilot-
Scale Report for the Evaluation of the
Goodyear Wastewater Treatment Plant to
Treat Perchlorate. Volume 1: Report Text,
Tables, and Figures. Phoenix-Goodyear
Airport North Superfund Site, Goodyear,
AZ." Project No. 6577.027 C. August.
Gingras, Tina M. and Batista, Jacimaria R.
2002. Biological Reduction of Perchlorate
in Ion Exchange Regenerant Solutions
Containing High Salinity and Ammonium
Levels. Journal of Environmental
Monitoring. 4. Pp. 96-101. January.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
70
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Graham, James R. Cannon, Fred S.. Parette,
Robert, Headrick, Douglas, and Yamamato,
Gary. 2004. "Commercial Demonstration of
the Use of Tailored Carbon for the Removal
of Perchlorate Ions from Potable Water/1
Presented at National Ground-water
Association Conference on MTBE and
Perchlorate, Costa Mesa, California. June 3 -
4.
Gu, B., Brown, G.M., Alexandratos, S.D., Ober,
R., and Patel, V. 1999. "Selective Anion
Exchange Resins for the Removal of
Perchlorate C1O4" from Groundwater."
February. ORNL/TM-13753
Gu, Baohua, Brown, Gilbert M., and Ku, Yee-
Kyoung. 2002. Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater Using Flighly
Selective, Regenerable Ion-Exchange
Technology: A Pilot-Scale Demonstration.
Remediation. Spring 2002.
Gu, Baohua and Brown, G.M. 2000.
Bifunctional Anion Exchange Resin Pilot -
Edwards AFB, CA. Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-10.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Gu, Baohua and Brown, Gilbert. 2004.
"Selective Anion Exchange Resins for the
Removal of Perchlorate C1O4" from
Ground water." Presented at The Eleventh
Symposium of GRA's Series on
Groundwater Contaminants: Perchlorate in
California's Groundwater, Glendale, CA.
August 4.
Hall, Peter J. (EcoMat, Inc.). 2000a.
"Perchlorate Treatment at a DoD Facility/'
Hall, Peter. 2000b. Patented Hall Bioreactor.
Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-43.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Hatzinger, P.B., Engbring, D.E., Giovanelli,
M.R, Diebold, J.B., Yates, C.A., and
Cramer, R.J. 2003. "Field evaluation of in
situ perchlorate bioremediation at the Indian
Head Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center/' Presented at In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation - The Seventh International
Symposium. June 2-5.
Hatzinger, Paul B., Greene, Mark R., Frisch,
Samuel A., Togna, Paul, Manning, Joseph,
and Guarini, William J. (Envirogen, Inc.,
Lawrenceville, NJ, USA). 2000.
"Biological Treatment of Perchlorate
Contaminated Groundwater Using Fluidized
Bed Reactors." Presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Remediation of
Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds,
Monterey, California, May 22-25.
Health Canada. 2005. Perchlorate and Human
Health. March. Available at:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-
sesc/water/factsheets/perchlorate_hiunan_he
alth.htm. Downloaded April 2005.
Henry, B.M., D.R Griffiths, J.R. Gonzales. and
P.E.Haas. 2003. "Strategies Using
Vegetable Oil for Enhanced Bioremediation
of Chlorinated Solvents." Presented at the In
Situ and On-site Bioremediation, Seventh
International Symposium, Orlando. FL. June
2-5.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council
(ITRC). 2002. "A Systematic Approach to
hi Situ Bioremediation in Groundwater
Including Decision Trees on hi Situ
Bioremediation for Nitrates, Carbon
Tetrachloride, and Perchlorate." August.
http://www.itrcweb.org/user/isb-8r.pdf
ITRC. 2005. "Overview: Perchlorate
Overview." Draft. March.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
71
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Jenkins, David V. (Kleinfelder, Inc.) and Nutall,
Eric H. 2004. "Innovative Engineering
Strategies for Perchlorate Cleanup/' Poster
Presentation at the SERDP Technical
Symposium and Workshop, Washington,
DC. November 30 - December 2.
Kang, Tian, Dasgupta, Purnendu K., and
Anderson, Todd A. 2003. ''Determination
of Trace Perchlorate in High-Salinity Water
Samples by Ion Chromatography with On-
Line Preconcentration and Preelution."
Analytical Chemistry. Volume 75, pp. 701
through 706.
Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC. 2003. Material
Safety Data Sheet. KM Sodium Chlorate.
MSDSNo. B-5012. September.
Koenigsberg, Stephen S. and Willett, Anna.
2004. "Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of
Perchlorate in Groundwater with Hydrogen
Release Compound (HRC®)." Presented at
NGWA Conference on MTBE and
Perchlorate. June 4.
Liles, David S. and Owsianiak, Lisa
(ARCADIS). 2004. "Pilot-Scale Biological
Treatment of Perchlorate, Trichloroethylene,
and Hexavalent Chromium as Co-
Contaminants/' Poster Presentation at the
SERDP Technical Symposium and
Workshop, Washington, DC. November 30
- December 2.
Lieberman, M.T., C. Zawtocki, R.C. Borden, and
Gary M. Birk. 2004. 'Treatment of
Perchlorate and Trichloroethane in
Groundwater Using Edible Oil Substrate
(EOS®)." Proceedings of the National
Ground Water Association Conference on
MTBE and Perchlorate: Assessment,
Remediation and Public Policy. Costa
Mesa, CA, June 3-4. (Funded by ESTCP)
Lu, Owen. 2003. A Perchlorate Treatment
Implementation Success Story. September
10. Available at:
http://www.tribalwater.net/perchlorate/
riversidePublicUtility.pdf
Madina, Victor F. 2004. "Laboratory Studies of
Feasibility and Optimization of Perchlorate
Biodegradation." Poster presented at the
SERDP Technical Symposium and
Workshop, Washington, DC. November 30
- December 2.
Magnuson, Matthew L., Urbansky, Edward T.,
and Kelty, Catherine A. 2000.
"Determination of Perchlorate at Trace
Levels in Drinking Water by Ion-Pair
Extraction with Electrospray lonization Mass
Spectrometry." Analytical Chemistry.
Volume 72, pp. 25 through 29.
Mayer, Kevin (EPA Region 9). 2004.
"Perchlorate in the Environment."
Presentation at American Chemical Society
Meeting, Agricultural Chemical Division,
Anaheim, C A. March 31.
Motzer, William E. 2001. "Perchlorate:
Problems, Detection, and Solutions."
Environmental Forensics (2001). 2, pp. 301
-311.
National Library of Medicine - Specialized
Information Services. 2004. Hazardous
Substances Data Bank. Available at:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/. Downloaded
October 4.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005.
"Health Implications of Perchlorate
Ingestion. Committee to Assess the Health
Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion,
National Research Council." January.
Available at:
http://www. nap.edu/catalog/11202.html.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC). 2000. NASA/California
Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion
Laboratoiy, Anoxic FBR. Pasadena, CA.
Available at:
http://www.perchlorateinfo.com/perchlorate-
case-40.html. Downloaded July 2004.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
72
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Nerenberg, Robert, Rittmann, Bruce E., Gillogly,
Thomas E.. Lehman, Geno E., and Adham,
SamerS. 2003. "Perchlorate reduction
using a hollow-fiber membrane biofilm
reactor: kinetics, microbial ecology, and
pilot-scale studies/' Presented at In Situ and
On-Site Bioremediation - The Seventh
International Symposium. June 2-5.
O'Neill, Walter (PLANTECO Environmental
Consultants, LLC). 2004. "In Situ
Bioremediation of Perchlorate and
Explosives in Vadose Zone Source Areas."
Poster presented at the SERDP Technical
Symposium and Workshop, Washington,
DC. November 30 - December 2.
O'Niell, Walter L. (Planteco Environmental
Consultants, Athens, Georgia), Nzengung,
Valentine A., Das, K.C., Kastner, James, and
Dowd, John (University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia). 2003. "Feasibility of In Situ
Bioremediation of Perchlorate-Contaminated
Soils." Presented at the Seventh
International In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation Symposium. June 2-5.
Owsianiak, Lisa Marie, Lenzo, Frank and
Molnaa, Barry (ARCADIS), and
Kelleher.Brian (Kelleher & Associates).
2003. "In Situ Removal of Perchlorate from
Perched Groundwater by Inducing Enhanced
Anaerobic Conditions." Presented at the
Seventh International In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation Symposium. June 2-5.
Polk, J., Murray, C., Onewokae, C., Tolbert,
D.E., Togna, A.P., Guarini, W.J., Frisch, S.,
and Del Vecchio, M. 2001. "Case Study of
Ex-Situ Biological Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater." Presented at
the 4th Tri-Services Environmental
Technology Symposium. June 18-20.
Roote, Diane (GWRTAC). 2001. "Technology
Status Report - Perchlorate Treatment
Technologies, 1st Edition." May.
Roquebert. Vincent, Booth, Stephen, Gushing,
Robert S., Crozes, Gil, Hansen, Ed. 2000.
"Electrodialysis reversal (EDR) and ion
exchange as polishing treatment for
perchlorate treatment." Proceedings of the
Conference on Membranes in Drinking and
Industrial Water Production. Volume 1, pp.
481-487. October.
Rosen, Jamey (GeoSyntec). 2003. "Successful
In Situ Bioremediation of Perchlorate in
Groundwater." Poster presented at the
SERDP Technical Symposium and
Workshop, Washington, DC. November 30
- December 2.
Sartain, Hunter S. and Craig, Mark (CH2MHill).
2003. "Ex Situ Treatment of Perchlorate-
Contaminated Groundwater." Presented at
In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation - The
Seventh International Symposium. June 2 -
5.
Sclinoor, J.L., et al. 2004. Demonstration
Project of Phytoremediation and
Rhizodegradation of Perchlorate in
Groundwater at the Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant, The University of Iowa,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering.
Susarla, Sridhar, Bacchus, Sydney T.,
McCutcheon, Steven C., and Wolfe, N. Lee.
1999. "Potential Species for
Phytoremediation of Perchlorate." August.
EPA/600/R-99/069
Urbansky, E.T. (EPA), Brown, S.K., Magnuson,
M.L., and Kelty, C.A. 2001. "Perchlorate
Levels in Samples of Sodium Nitrate
Fertilizer Derived from Chilean Caliche."
Environmental Pollution. 112. pp. 299-
302.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
73
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Urbansky, E.T. and Schock, M. R. 1999.
"Issues in managing the risks associated with
perchlorate in drinking water/' Journal of
Environmental Management. Volume 56,
pp. 79-95. Available at:
http: //cluin. org/do wnload/
contaminantfocus/perchlorate/urbanskyl.pdf.
Urbansky, Edward T. 1998. "Perchlorate
Chemistry: Implications for Analysis and
Remediation/' Critical Reviews in
Analytical Chemistry. Volume 28, pp. 81
through 95.
Urbansky, Edward T. 2000. "Quantitation of
Perchlorate Ion: Practices and Advances
Applied to the Analysis of Common
Matrices." Critical Reviews in Analytical
Chemistry. Volume 30, pp. 311 - 343.
Urbansky, Edward T., Gu, Boahua, Magnuson,
Matthew L., Brown, Gilbert M., and Kelty,
Catherine A. 2000. "Survey of Bottled
Waters for Perchlorate by Electrospray
lonization Mass Spectrometry (ESI-MS) and
Ion Chromatography." Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture. Volume
80, pp. 1798 through 1804.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2004.
Field Screening Method for Perchlorate in
Water and Soil. ERDC/CRREL TR-04-8.
April.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2004.
"2004 DoD Environmental Monitoring and
Data Quality Workshop.'' May 11 through
13. Available at:
http://www.navylabs.navy.mil/DoDChemist
meeting.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1999. "Method 314.0. Determination of
Perchlorate in Drinking Water using Ion
Chromatography." Revision 1.0. National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development. November.
EPA. 2000. "Method 9058. Determination of
Perchlorate using Ion Chromatography with
Chemical Suppression Conductivity
Detection." Revision 0. SW-846 Update
IVB. November.
EPA. 200la. "Ion Chromatographic
Determination of Perchlorate. Analysis of
Fertilizers and Related Materials." National
Risk Management Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development. Document
EPA/600/R-01/026. April.
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). 2001b. "A Citizen"s
Guide to Phytoremediation." April.
EPA. 2001b. "Phase 2 Treatability Study
Report Aerojet GET E/F Treatment Facility
Sacremento, California." September.
EPA OSWER. 2002. "Proven Alternatives for
Aboveground Treatment of Arsenic in
Groundwater - Engineering Forum Issue
Paper." EPA-542-S-02-002. October.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/tip/tsp.
EPA National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA). 2004. Web Page on
National Academy of Sciences' Review of
EPA's Draft Perchlorate Environmental
Contamination: Toxicological Review and
Risk Characterization. Available at:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.
cfm?deid=72117. Downloaded September
10.
EPA. 2004a. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate analysis. From David J. Munch,
(Office of Research and Development.,
Cincinnati) to Harry Ellis (Tetra Tech EM
Inc.). July 6.
EPA. 2004b. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate analysis. From Mike Carter,
(EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office [FFRRO]) to John Quander
(EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation [OSRTI]). July 14.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
74
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
EPA. 2004c. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Charles Berrey
(EPA Region 9) to Sashi Vissa. September
13.
EPA. 2004d. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Chris Villarreal
(EPA Region 6) to Sashi Vissa. September
EPA. 2004e. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Chris Villarreal
to John Quander. November 2.
EPA. 2004f. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Bob Sturdivant
(EPA Region 6) to Sashi Vissa. September
28.
EPA. 2004g. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From David Athey
(CA WQCB) to Sashi Vissa. November 3.
EPA. 2004h. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Bill Wallner
(Utah) to Sashi Vissa. September 27.
EPA. 2004L E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Kathi Setian
(EPA Region 9) to John Quander.
December 15.
EPA. 2004J. Record of telephone conversation
between Sashi Vissa and Dennis Orenshaw
(EPA Region 3). September 20.
EPA. 2004k. Record of telephone conversation
between Sashi Vissa and Mark Ripperda
(EPA Region 9). September 23.
EPA. 20041. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Jane Dolan
(EPA Region 1) to John Quander.
November 9.
EPA. 2004m. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Jean Balent
(EPA OSRTI) to John Quander. August 31.
EPA. 2004n. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Josh Barber
(EPA FFRRO) to John Quander. August.
EPA. 2004o. Record of telephone conversation
between Sashi Vissa and Kevin Mayer (US
EPA Region 9). September 24.
EPA. 2004p. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From Wayne Praskins
(EPA Region 9) to Sashi Vissa. December
EPA. 2004q. E-mail messages regarding
perchlorate detection. From Kevin Mayer to
John Quander. November 9.
EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO). 2005. Perchlorate Web
Page, http://epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/
perchlorate.htm. Downloaded February 10.
EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
2005. Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts.
IRIS Web Page.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1007.htm.
Downloaded April 2005.
EPA, 2005a. E-mail message regarding
perchlorate treatment. From J.L. Schnoor
(The University of Iowa) to Ellen Rubin
(EPA-OSRTI). February 10, 2005.
EPA. 2005b. E-mail message with comments
on perchlorate issue paper. From Jon
Josephs (EPA Region 2) to John Quander.
March 22.
EPA. 2005c. E-mail message with comments on
perchlorate issue paper. From Michael Grain
(USAGE) to Josh Barber (EPA-FFRRO).
March 31.
EPA. 2005d. E-mail message with comments
on perchlorate issue paper. From David
Cooper (EPA HQ) to John Quander. March
28.
EPA. 2005e. E-mail message with comments on
perchlorate issue paper. From Jan Dunker
(USAGE) to John Quander. April 1.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper
May 2005
75
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
EPA. 2005f. E-mail message with comments on
perchlorate issue paper. From Tony M.
Liebennan (Solutions-IES) to Josh Barber
(EPA-FFRRO). March 28.
EPA. 2005g. E-mail message with comments
on perchlorate issue paper. From Harry
Craig (EPA Region 10) to John Quander.
April 1.
EPA. 2005h. E-mail message with comments
on perchlorate issue paper. From Bernard
Schorle (EPA Region 2) to John Quander.
April 1.
EPA Region 9. 2005L E-mail message
regarding perchlorate treatment. From Larry
Bowerman (EPA Region 9) to John
Quander. June 24.
EPA Region 9. 2004. Perchlorate in Henderson,
NV - Significant Controls are Operating.
July.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
2003. "FDA Collection and Analysis of
Food for Perchlorate-High Priority-DFP
#04-11."' Memorandum dated 23 December.
Available at:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/clo4surv.
html. Downloaded July 15, 2004.
FDA, CFSAN/Office of Plant & Dairy Foods.
2004. Perchlorate Questions and Answers.
November 26.
FDA. 2004. "Draft Rapid Determination of
Perchlorate Anion in Lettuce, Milk, and in
Bottled Water by HPLC/MS/MS."
Revision 0. Dated March 17. Available at:
http ://www. cfsan. fda.gov/~dms/clo4metli.
html. Downloaded July 15, 2004.
Villarreal, Chris (EPA Region 6). 2004.
"Perchlorate." Presented at the National
Association for Remedial Project Managers
[NARPM] Annual Training Program. May
24-28.
Weeks, Katherine, Veenstra, Scott, and Hill,
David. 2004. "Innovative Options for Ex-
Situ Removal of Perchlorate and Explosives
in Groundwater." Presented at National
Defense Industry Association - 30th
Environmental and Energy Symposium and
Exhibition. April 7.
FDA. 2003. Perchlorate Questions and
Answers. Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition. CFSAN/Office of Plant
& Dairy Foods. September. Available at:
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/clo4qa.html.
Downloaded September 2003.
Federal Facilities Foruin Issue Paper
May 2005
76
-------
Appendix A
Selected Perchlorate Web Sites
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Appendix A
Selected Perchlorate Web Sites
Organization
EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation
U.S. Department of Defense
EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office
EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water
EPA Office of Research and Development:
National Center for Environmental Assessment
American Water Works Association Research
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
Perchlorate Info.com
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Web Address
www.cluin.org/perchlorate
https://www.denix. osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/
Water/Perchlorate/perchlorate.html
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/
perchlorate.htm
wAvw.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/perchlorate/
perchlorate.html
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/perch.cfin?
ActType=defau It
www.awwarf.com/, search under projects and topics
www. afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/
perchloratetreatment/default.asp
http://www.itrcweb.org/teampublic Perchlorate. asp
www.perchlorateiiifo.com/perchlorate.html
www . val leywater.org
Disclaimer: Some of the web sites listed here are external to the epa.gov domain. These web sites provide additional
information that may be useful or interesting and are being provided consistent with the intended purpose of EPA 's web site.
However, EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided b\> external web sites or other linked sites. Providing links
to a non-EPA web site does not constitute an endorsement bv EPA or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the
information or products presented on the site. Also, be aware that the privacy protection provided on the epa.gov domain may
not be available at the external link.
A-l
-------
Appendix B
Federal Facilities Forum Members
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Appendix B
Federal Facilities Forum Members
Office Location
Contacts
EPA - Region 1
1 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Christine A.P. Williams (HBT)*
(617)918-1384
Fax: (617) 918-1291
Jane Dolan
(617)918-1272
EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York. NY 10007-1866
Paul Ingrisano
(212) 637-4337
EPA - Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
StacieDriscoll(C)(3HS13)
(215)814-3368
Fax: (215)814-3051
Steve Hirsh(C)(3HS 13)
(215)814-3352
Fax: (215)814-3051
Mary T. Cooke
(215)814-5129
EPA - Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta" GA 30303-8960
Jim Barksdale
(404) 562-8537
Fax: (404)562-8518
Robert Pope
(404) 562-8506
Lila Koroma-Llamas
(404) 562-9969
Fax: (404)562-8158
EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
David Seely
(312)886-7058
Gene Jablonowski
(312)886-4591
EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Chris Villarreal (6SF-AP)
(214) 665-6758
Fax: (214)665-6660
Mike Overbay (6PD-NB)
(214) 665-6482
Fax: (214)665-6660
EPA - Region 7
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City. KS 66101
Scott Marquess (SUPR/FFSE)
(913)551-7131
Fax: (913)551-7063
B-l
-------
Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update
Office Location
Contacts
EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
Jim Kiefer (8EPR-F)*
(303)312-6907
Fax: (303)312-6067
EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
Lida Tan
(415) 972-3018
Fax: (415)744-1917
Glenn Kistner
(415) 972-3004
EPA-Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Harry Craig (000)*
(Portland, OR Office:
Portland, OR 97204)
(503) 326-3689
Fax: (503)326-3399
811 SW6thAve.
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20460
Joshua Barber (5106G)
EPA/FFRRO
(703) 603-0265
Tracey Seymour (5106G)
EPA/FFRRO
(703)603-8712
(703) 603-0043
John Quander (5102G)**
EPA/OSRTI
(703) 603-7198
* Denotes Forum Co-Chair
** If you have questions about this report, please contact John Quander at EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation by telephone at (703) 603-7198, or by e-mail at quander.jolin@epa.gov.
B-2
-------
------- |