vvEPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Office of Research
and Development
EPA/540/N-92/002 No. 6 June 1992
IWWHWW
IN THE FIELD
An information update on applying bioremediation to site cleanup.
Update on the
Bioremediation Field
Initiative
The Bioremediation Field Initiative was established
to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and State Project Managers, consulting engi-
neers, and industry with timely information regard-
ing new developments in the application of
bioremediation at hazardous waste sites. The initia-
tive provides evaluation of the performance of se-
lected full-scale field applications (these sites are
discussed on p. 32); provides technical assistance to
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) through the Technical Support
Centers; and is developing a data base on the field
applications of bioremediation, which is summa-
rized in this bulletin (see p. 9).
Seven sites have been selected for field evaluation
of bioremediation: Libby Superfund site, Libby,
(Continued on page 32)
In This Issue
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative 1
Evaluation of Air Emissions from Bioremediation
Activities at a Superfund Site 1
Permitting Bioremediation for PCB Disposal:
Part 1, R&D Permits 2
Case Study on R&D Permits for PCBs: General Electric,
Woods Pond Site 3
Soil Provides Most Common Ground
for Bioremediation Projects 4
Encapsulated Microorganisms Used for Bioprevention
and Bioremediation 4
Draft Manual Now Available on Protocols for Oil Spill
Bioremediation Products 5
EPA Bioremediation Publications 6
Second International Symposium on In Situ and
Onsite Bioreclamation 7
Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International 7
Anaerobic Dehalogenation and Its Environmental
Implications 7
Field Applications of Bioremediation 9
Evaluation of Air
Emissions from
Bioremediation
Activities at a
Superfund Site
In January 1992, a field study was conducted at the
French Limited Superfund Site near Crosby, Texas,
under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (SITE) program. The French Limited site origi-
nated when a small portion of the refinery waste
handled by a properly licensed local waste disposal
firm was given to a properly licensed hauler who
deposited it at a properly licensed waste-disposal site.
In this case, proper licensing did not guarantee sound
practice. The waste was dumped into a flooded sand
pit near the San Jacinto River. Floating volatiles that
accumulated on the surface of the pond were burned
occasionally. Eventually, new regulations closed the
operation, by which time 10 feet of sludge underlay 25
feet of water covering an area of 7 acres. The water,
after prolonged settling, was clean enough to support
normal pond flora and fauna, and could legally have
been pumped into the river. However, volatile sol-
vents, especially benzene, its homologues, and several
chlorinated hydrocarbons, were leaching from the
sludge into the surface aquifer. When the pond was
agitated, volatile toxic compounds also were released
into the air.
Approximately 100 potentially responsible parties
were identified, and they formed the French Limited
Task Group (FLTG) to undertake remediation of the
site. EPA originally proposed that the sludge be dug up
and incinerated. FLTG counter-proposed bioremedia-
tion, which was approved by EPA after successful pilot
testing on the site. In the pilot test, air was injected into
a walled-off end of the pond, while the sludge was
stirred by a dredge. Oxygen provided to indigenous
aerobic bacteria by this means was shown to enhance
biodegradation of the sludge.
(Continued on page 8)
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Bloremedlatlon In the Field
Permitting
Bioremediation for
PCB Disposal:
Part 1, R&D Permits
Under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issues permits for alternative technolo-
gies, including bioremediation, that destroy poiy-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). EPA issues two types of
TSCA permits for the disposal of PCBs, a contaminant
originally found primarily in electrical equipment and
transformer oils but today also found in soils and
sediments at old spill sites. The two types of permits
are Research and Development (R&D) Permits, for
scientific experiments to produce data on PCB biore-
mediation, and Commerical Operating Permits, for
PCB disposal technologies capable of processing large
quantities of PCBs on a commercial scale reliably and
predictably. This article will focus on R&D Permits;
Commercial Operating Permits will be discussed in
more detail in the next issue of Bioremediation in the
Field.
Both R&D and Commercial Operating Permits may be
issued by EPA Headquarters or by the 10 EPA Regions.
Headquarters permits are valid anywhere in the
United States, whereas Regional permits are valid only
in the Region in which they are issued. With regard to
R&D permits, the primary difference between the two
permitting authorities is that the Regions permit stud-
ies on PCB matrices (PCBs and the soil and sediment
in which they are found) of less than 500 pounds, while
Headquarters permits studies on PCB-contaminated
matrices of greater than 500 pounds. Consequently,
most laboratory studies of PCB disposal processes are
permitted by Regions and most in situ or large-scale
ex situ studies are permitted by Headquarters. Only
research carried out on PCBs originally packaged in a
5-milliliter hermetically sealed vial is exempted from
the requirement for permitting.
Permit Application
Applying for a PCB disposal permit from Headquar-
ters or the Regions is a multi-step process (see Figure
1). The permit application must contain a written de-
scription of the permitted activities including:
. The material to be treated
• The concentration of PCBs in the material
• The type of disposal process
• The location of the activities
• The equipment operators
• The parties responsible for operations
. The closure plan
For a Headquarters R&D permit, the Agency also re-
quires a company to be rigorous in its experimental
design, quality assurance programs, chemical analyti-
cal methods used for PCBs, and other tests. The EPA
permit writer must approve the main aspects of the
research before issuing the permit.
Whether TSCA permits originate with Headquarters
or the Regions, the Regions enforce compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permits. This means
that permit writers at Headquarters must work closely
with the Regions and state and local regulators, since
Bioremediation Field Initiative Contacts
Fran Kremer, Ph.D. Nancy Dean
Coordinator, Bioremediation Field Initiative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 0 5-110W
Office of Research and Development Technology Innovation Office
26 West Martin Luther King Drive Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cincinnati, OH 45268 401 M Street, SW.
513-569-7346 Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8797
To be added to the mailing list to receive Bioremediation in the Field, call (513) 569-7562.
This initiative is a cooperative effort among the Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OURS)
and Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD), Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Major contributors to this initiative include the waste programs in the EPA Regional
Offices and the following laboratories in ORD: Ada, OK; Athens, GA; Cincinnati, OH; Gulf Breeze, FL; and
Research Triangle Park, NC.
-------
Bloremedlatlon In the Field
Figure 1. R & D Permit Application Process.
the latter will be enforcing the permits. In addition to
their own expertise, permit writers at Headquarters
also draw on the expertise of scientists and engineers
in government, academia, and industry, and fre-
quently discuss PCB disposal issues with parties inter-
ested in new and innovative processes like
bioremediation.
Headquarters R&D permits for bioremediation are
written for 1 year to provide for the study of microbial
degradation during one growing season and for the
production of a report. The first PCB disposal permit
was issued by EPA Headquarters in 1984 to a company
called Acurex. The permit was for a mobile process
that chemically destroyed PCBs in oil and allowed the
company to operate in all 10 EPA Regions. To date
TSCA permits for the chemical destruction of PCBs in
oil have been the most commercially successful alter-
nate technologies. Most early permits were issued to
small companies with innovative ideas but little
capital.
Today, the most promising new technologies are be-
ing encouraged and funded by large industry or-
ganizations like the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) and a few large corporations like
Texas Eastern and General Electric. (For more infor-
mation on General Electric’s project, see shaded ar-
ticle on this page.) Many of the corporations are
operating under legal orders to clean up contami-
nated sites for which they are responsible. They are
looking for more economic and less environmentally
disruptive disposal methods than conventional
dredging/digging, incineration, or landfilling. So
far, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(Continued on page 8)
Case Study on
R&D Permits f r
PCBs: General
Electric, Woods
Pond Site
In November 1989, General Electric (GE) applied
for a Research and Development (R&D) permit to
study the in situ bioremediŕtion Of PCBs hi sedi-
ment at a site called Woods Pond in the Housatonc
River near Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The sedi-
ments had probably been contaminated by trans-
former manufacturing activities at the GE plant in
Pittsfield. . ..
The company was interestedin obtaining a ‘PUB
disposal permit for a facility consisting of S1X, lii-
dependent, welded steel caissons sunk intO the
bottom of Woods Pond that wOuld hydraulically
isolate I to 2 cubic yards of sediment and Ito 3 feet...
of water. The pipe design incorporated a rake
mechanism that would rotate and• mechanically
stir the water and sedimentswithin the pipes.
Sediments in Woods Pond contain PCBs, originally:
from Aroclor 1260, at concentrations of 250 ppm or
less. The isomericcomposition of thePCB mbdiire
has not changed significantly with time, indicating
that naturally occurring biodegradation.has been
limited. This is very different from cońditionsat
other sites being monitored byGE scientists on the
Housatonic and other river systems in whichfre-
quently extensive biodegradation of PCBs is Occur-
ring in the river sediments FOr this reason, Woods
Pond offers a unique . opportunity to investigate.
the parameters governing the biological degrada-
tion of PCBs in sediments ma natural setting.
Because the GE facility in Pittsfield is also a RCRA
Corrective Action Site and a Massachusetts State
Superfund Site, the public was notified and had, a
chance to cOmment as part of the permitting proc-
ess. ‘Local citizens hired a private consultant to
study the design of the GE bioremediatiOn facility
and to question GE scientists and engineers about
the use of biological organisms that cOuld poten-
tially escape and cause harm. To address these
concerns, GE provided adequate safeguards, in-
cluding sealed covers on the sunken pipes to keep.
the microorganisms ‘inside during sampling and’
nutrient addition or in ‘the event of a 100-year
floed,
Construction of the GE in situ research facility.
began in Woods Pond in May 1991 and was corn-
pleted i,n winter 1991.’ The bioremediation studies
began this spring.
Letter of
Deficiency
EPA and Applicant Dialog
4’
Permit Application
No Deny
R & D Permit
Incinerate or Landfill If Unsuccessful
Yes
R & D Permit
4 ’
R & 0 Test Report
3
-------
In the Field
Soil Provides Most
Common Ground
for Bioremediation
Projects
Data reported by site managers for this issue of Biore-
mediation in the Field reveal that soil is the media most
commonly undergoing field applications of bioreme-
diation in the United States. Out of the 130 sites cur-
rently being tracked by the Bioremediation Field
Initiative, 85 (65 percent) are planning, implementing,
or have recently completed the use of bioremediation
technologies on soils (see Figure 2). According to col-
lected data, bioremediation of the vadose zone is much
more prevalent than of the saturated zone. Ground
water, the next most frequent media receiving biotreat-
ment, is being remediated at 55 sites. Sediments and
sludge are third and fourth with 15 and 12 sites, respec-
tively. Only 2 of the sites reporting data are bioreme-
diating surface water at this time. Many sites are
conducting or planning bioremediation activities for
more than one media.
Numbar
of
Sues
Sedhnenl SIud 5e Surface
Waler
of Media Treated by
Ex situ treat-
ment is cur-
rently the most
popular biore-
mediation tech-
nique, with
over 80 sites
employing
some form of
bioreactor, land
treatment, pile,
or treatment in
an aerated la-
goon. Over 50 sites are utilizing in situ treatment
including land treatment, pile, bioventing, nutrient
addition, confined treatment, and other technologies.
The vast majority of sites report operating units under
aerobic rather than anaerobic conditions, although
several sites are employing both. Thirty-five sites re-
port using indigenous organisms, while 12 reported
using exogenous organisms, and a few sites are using
or planning to use both.
In the coming months, the Bioremediation Field Initia-
tive will be expanding its data base of site information
to include not only more sites but more detailed infor-
mation on biotreatment technologies, primary con-
taminants, and cleanup levels. Future issues of
Bioremediation in the Field will continue to provide up-
dates on this type of site information. If you can pro-
vide information about bioremediation at sites other
than those currently listed in the table, Field Applica-
tions of Bioremediation (p. 9), please call Susan
Richmond at 617-674-7306.
Encapsulated
Microorganisms
Used for
1\ Bioprevention and
Bioremediation
The EPA Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL)
in Gulf Breeze, Florida, initiated research to evaluate
the feasibility of using encapsulated microorgan-
isms for pollution bioprevention and bioremedia-
tion.
The approach proposed by ERL, Gulf Breeze, is to
encapsulate degradative microorganisms, together
with necessary nutrients, in a polymer matrix, then
dehydrate the encapsulated microorganisms. En-
capsulated microorganisms applied to a site can be
released from the capsules by various regulating
mechanisms, such as water dissolution of the poly-
mer matrices. The release of encapsulated microor-
ganisms is manipulated by using different polymer
matrix materials, encapsulation configurations, and
manufacturing processes. The use of encapsulated
microorganisms:
• Represents a means of storage, distribution, and
application of identified degradative microorgan-
isms.
• Provides the potential to control precisely the
release and function of microorganisms for the
purpose of pollution prevention.
• Offers a means of including nutrients with inocu-
lants that might enhance the capacity of target
microorganisms to compete with interfering flora
at a site.
Currently, ERL is attempting to define the effective-
ness of encapsulated microorganisms for biopreven-
tion and bioremediation through laboratory studies
and field tests. Through their research, ERL will then
choose or develop encapsulation technologies that
best serve the proposed objectives.
The encapsulated microorganisms are being tested
for two applications:
1.
To perform controlled degradation to prevent
soil and ground-water contamination by pesti-
cides. Encapsulated microorganisms, applied
along with pesticides, remain inactive as long as
the pesticides are functioning. When rain or irri-
gation initiates leaching of pesticides, however, it
also releases the encapsulated microorganisms,
thus promoting biodegradation.
Figure 2. Types
Bioremediation.
4
-------
In the Field
2. To deliver microbial inoculants isolated by ERL,
Gulf Breeze, for PAH bioremediation. This process
ensures the supply of required inoculum and skips
the onsite fermentation step for production of
inoculum.
Preliminary research has resulted in a procedure using
polyvinyl alcohol as a matrix material to encapsulate
Alcaligenes eutrophus (a 2,4-D degrader) and Pseudo-
monas paucimobilis (a fluoranthene degrader), and iso-
late CRE 7 (a phenanthrene degrader) cells. Studies
show that cells encapsulated by this procedure could
maintain a high viability, with a shelf life of about 2
months. In flask experiments, these encapsulated cells
were tested in soil and water and were shown to have
desired biodegradation capacity.
The effectiveness of this encapsulation approach will
be confirmed by manipulating microcosms and biore-
actors containing various samples to simulate environ-
mental conditions in the field. The microcosm and
bioreactor studies will both examine the behavior of
encapsulated cells for field biodegradation and de-
velop the application strategies of encapsulated cells
for field biodegradation.
After these studies, field tests will be performed to see
if the results can be replicated under field conditions.
If the field tests show positive results, a variety of
microbial capsule products may be developed for field
applications on a large scale.
For more information on this project, contact Hap
Pritchard at 904-934-9260.
Draft Manual Now
Available on
Protocols for Oil
Spill
Bioremediation
Products
The National Environmental Technology Applica-
tions Corporation (NETAC), working with EPA’s Of-
fice of Research and Development (ORD) and the
Bioremediation Action Committee (BAC), has re-
cently published the draft Oil Bioremediation Products
Testing Protocol Methods Manual. The document con-
tains a series of protocols that may be used by pro-
ducers and potential users of bioremediation
products to collect data to identify safe and effective
products for bioremediating oil spills. Data collected
using these methods should assist in analyzing the
potential risks and benefits of using a bioremedia-
tion product on catastrophic spills or spills located
in sensitive ecosystems.
A five-tier protocol framework forms the basis on
which data are gathered. The Base Tier is designed to
collect information on a product’s potential safety. The
objective is to determine that the product meets mini-
mal regulatory approvals and to certify that unaccept-
able chemical and biological components are not used.
Tier I provides for the collection of additional product
information to evaluate a product’s potential effective-
ness. Information obtained as part of this tier includes
a history of a product’s use at previous oil or waste
cleanups and an assessment of the vendor’s capabili-
ties for producing the product.
Tier II uses standard laboratory protocols developed by
ORD to provide empirical evidence that estimates a
product’s biodegradation effectiveness and safety. Tier
Ill data evaluate product efficacy and safety in the labo-
ratory using microcosm studies designed to closely
simulate field conditions. Microcosm protocols are being
developed for the following seven ecosystems:
• Cobble beaches: marine and fresh water
• Open water: offshore and nearshore marine and
fresh water
• Marshes and wetlands: marine and fresh water
. Inland shoreline
• Sandy beaches: marine and fresh water
• Special: mangrove and arctic
• Land/soil applications
Tier IV evaluates the effectiveness and toxicity of the
product in limited field tests. The tier is designed to
evaluate oniy the predictive capabilities of Tier III and
is not intended to be part of the formal product evalu-
ation procedure.
The protocols are being validated on products solicited
through a notice published in the Commerce Business
Daily of June 6, 1991. Manufacturers of 31 products
responded to this request for information. Based on the
results of an evaluation procedure, 10 products were
selected to assist in the protocol development process.
To date, Base Tier, Tier I, and Tier II protocols are
completed and discussed in the manual. A draft Tier
III open water protocol also is included. Additional
versions of the Tier III protocol will focus on scenarios
other than open water. These versions also will allow
a range of values (i.e., conditions) to be considered for
those variables that are important in determining
bioremediation effectiveness. Additional versions of
Tier III should be available beginning in summer 1992.
The 1.0 version of the manual will be updated as
more protocols become available. This report can be
obtained for $15.00 from NETAC by calling 1-800-
48NETAC. For further information, contact Mike
Mastracci at 202-260-5747.
-------
In the Field
EPA Bioremediation Publications
To order EPA documents, call 513-569-7562. For NTIS documents, call 1-800-553-6847.
Methodologies for Evaluating In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water
In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground Water
Technology Evaluation Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site
Ground Water by Biotrol, mc
Applications Analysis Report: Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site
Ground Water by Biotrol,Inc
Microbial Removal of Halogenated Methanes, Ethanes, and Ethylenes in an Aerobic
Soil Exposed to Methane Uournal Version)
Sequential Reductive Dehalogenation of Chioranilines by Microorganisms from a
Methanogenic Aquifer
Creosote-Contaminated Sites
Action of a Fluoranthene-Utilizing Bacterial Community on Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Components of Creosote
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes
in Contaminated Soil
Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation Project
Laboratoiy Studies Evaluating the Enhanced Biodegradation of Weathered Crude Oil
Components through the Application of Nutrients
Total Organic Carbon Determinations in Natural and Contaminated Aquifer Materials .
Anaerobic In Situ Treatment of Chlorinated Ethenes
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for
Site Characterization, Project Design, and Evaluation of Verformance
Comparison of Methods to Determine Oxygen Demand for Bioremediation of a
Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer
Available Models for Estimating Emissions Resulting from
Bioremediation Processes: A Review
Role of Microorganisms in the Bioremediation of the
Oil Spill in Prince Willliam Sound, Alaska
Approach to Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil
Protocol for Testing Bioremediation Products Against Weathered Alaskan Crude Oil .
Reductive Dehalogenation: A Subsurface Bioremediation Process
Field Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation for Aquifer Restoration
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes for Remediation of Creosote-Contaminated
Materials: Bench-Scale Treatability Studies
Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated with Jet Fuel
Movement of Bacteria through Soil and Aquifer Sand
Selection of Nutrients to Enhance Biodegradation for the
Remediation of Oil Spilled on Beaches
Effect of Sodium Chloride on Transport of Bacteria in a Saturated Aquifer Material
Oil Spill Cleanup
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental
Source of Oxygen: A Laboratory and Field Study
The Federal Technology Transfer Act: Opportunities for Cooperative Biosystems
Research and Development with U.S. EVA
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste
Bioremedjation of Contaminated Surface Soil
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source
of Oxygen: A Laboratory and Field Study
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA, Aerobic Biodegradation
Remedy Screenings
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals during Land Treatment of
Oily Wastes: Ritz User’s Guide
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks
Microbial Decomposition of ChlorinatedAromatic Compounds
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor
Transformation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook for Citizens
6
NTIS PB92-146943
EPA/540/S-92/002
EPA/540-S-92/003
PB92-110048
PA/540/5-89/005
NTIS PB89-103196
NTIS PB9O-117219
NTIS PB9O-129552
NTIS PB9O-245721
NTIS PB9O-245275
EPA/600/8-89/073
NTIS PB9O-264011
NTIS PB9I-129205
NTIS PB9I-137067
NTIS PB89-219976
NTIS PB89-207351
NTIS PB9O-228610
NTIS PB9O-263070
NTIS PB9I-116152
NTIS PB9I-137018
NTIS PB9I-144873
NTIS PB88-130257
NTIS PB9I-179085
NTIS PB9I-164285
• EPA/600/2-91/010
NTIS PB9I-233304
NTIS PB92-110428
EPA/600/J-91/243
NTIS PB9O-183435
CERI-90- 114
EPA/600/9-90/041
NTIS PB9O-164047
NTIS PB9O-183435
EPA/540/2-91 /013a
NTIS PB88-195540
NTIS PB89-219976
EPA/600/2-86/ 09 0
NTIS PB88-180393
NTIS PB88-170568
EPA/540/2-91 /002
-------
in the Field
Conference Highlights
Second International Symposium on In Situ and Onsite
Bioreclamation
Call for Abstracts
This symposium, sponsored by Battelle and supported by EPA, will be held at the Sheraton Harbor Island
Hotel, San Diego Bay, CA, April 5-9, 1993. Researchers, engineers, site managers, regulatory agents,
consultants, and vendors should all benefit from this opportunity to exchange information on case histories
of field operations, examine ongoing research programs, and investigate public and regulatory acceptance
of bioremediation technologies from a global perspective. Authors are invited to submit a one-page abstract
(approximately 300 words) in English for peer review. Papers will be selected for platform, poster, or video
presentation based upon technical merit and relevance. Proposed session topics include both waste types
(HAHs, PAHs, solvents, inorganics, and munitions) and treatment techniques (bioventing, soil aqueous
and gaseous phase bioreactors, land treatment, and use of alternative electron acceptors).
For guidelines on preparing and submitting abstracts, contact Rob Hinchee, Bioreclamation Symposium
Chair, Battelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201-2693, USA, FAX: 614-424-3667.
The deadline for submissions is July 15, 1992.
Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International
This forum, sponsored by U.S. EPA’s Technology Innovation Office and Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, and the California Environmental Protection Agency, will be held November 17-19, 1992, at the
Westin, St. Francis, San Francisco, CA. Using technical paper and poster presentations, this 3-day confer-
ence will introduce and highlight innovative treatment technologies having actual performance results. It
will showcase the results of selected international technologies, the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program technologies, the CAL-EPA field demonstration program, and case
studies from those using innovative technologies. The overall objective is to increase awareness in the user
community of technologies ready for application at cleanup sites.
For further information, contact SAIC, Technology Transfer Department, 501 Office Center Drive,
Suite 420, Ft. Washington, PA 19034,215-542-1200, FAX:215-542-8567.
Anaerobic Dehalogenation and Its Environmental Implications
Call for Abstracts
The purpose of this conference, sponsored by EPA and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), is to
bring together scientists conducting anaerobic dehalogenation studies in order to advance the under-
standing of these reactions. Morning and afternoon oral sessions and evening poster sessions will be held
Sunday, August 30, through Friday, September 4, 1992, at the Georgia Center in Athens, GA. Abstracts are
invited for poster sessions. Preliminary session titles include (1) environmental fate of chlorinated phenols,
(2) anaerobic dechlorination of chlorinated phenols, (3) PCB dechlorination, (4) dehalogenation of dechlori-
nated aliphatic compounds, (5) pesticide and herbicide dechlorination, (6) abiotic dechlorination (pro-
phyrins and corrins), (7) abiotic dechlorination (nontetrapyrrole), (8) bioremediation, (9) dehalogenation
kinetics, (10) physiology of dehalogenation, and (11) hydrolytic dehalogenation.
For further information about preparing and submitting abstracts, please write to the ASM Conference
Program, Abstract Submission, 1325 Massachusetts Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20005-4171 or call the ASM
Meetings Hotline at 202-737-0377.
The deadline for submiss ions is July 6, 1992.
-------
Bloremedlatlon In the Field
Evaluation of Air Emissions from Bioremediation Activities at a Superfund Site
(Continued from page 1)
A containment barrier has been installed around the site,
which projects 65 feet down into clay underlying the
surface alluvial sand and gravel layer. This barrier also
extends 15 feet above ground to keep the flood water out
of the river. A similar barrier divides the pond in half, so
that the two sides can be treated consecutively. Dredges
loosen sludge from the bottom of the pond and high-
speed stirrers mix it into the water. Oxygen gas is injected
into streams of pond slurry which are pumped back into
the pond below the surface. Nutrients also are added to
the stream to selectively enhance growth of the most
effective strains of bacteria.
Contaminated ground water in the surface aquifer
outside the barrier is being pumped from wells to a
water treatment plant. Treated water is drained into
the river and replaced in the surface aquifer with un-
contaminated water from a deeper aquifer. In this way,
contamination of the surface aquifer that occurred
before placement of the containment barrier is gradu-
ally being removed.
At the suggestion of EPA Region VI, FLTG invited the
Ambient Methods Research Branch, Methods Re-
search and Development Division of AREAL/RTP, to
conduct field evaluations of analytical methods for
airborne organic substances at the French Limited site.
Four studies were initiated on January 11, 1992, 2 days
before the start of bioremediation. The data from these
studies are still being evaluated.
Commercially Available Portable Gas
Chromatographs
Six commercially available portable gas chroma-
tographs (PGCs) were compared. Sixteen whole-air
grab samples were collected in summa-polished can-
isters concurrently with PGC sampling periods. Can-
ister samples were analyzed by Method TO-14, using
GC/MSD for comparison with FCC data. Sampling
began 2 days before the start of bioremediation and
continued for 8 days thereafter.
Long Path FTIR
Field evaluation of an MDA long path FTIR spectrome-
ter began 1 day before startup and continued for 5 days
afterward. An MDA long path FTIR spectrometer was
used to project infrared radiation at a retro-reflector
placed 400 meters away. The optical path lay along the
downwind edge of the pond. Absorption spectra re-
corded from reflected infrared light are being analyzed
in an attempt to identify and measure vapors in the air
above the pond. Data on methane and other small mole-
cules will be correlated with meteorological data,
bioaerosol data, and, as appropriate, canister sector sam-
pling data and FCC data. One of the goals of the FuR
study will be to assess rates at which specific airborne
compounds were being emitted from the pond.
Canister Sector Samplers
Four Xontech whole-air canister sector samplers, each
attached to an ‘in’ and ‘out’ canister, were placed
around the periphery of the site. Air coming from the
site was collected in the ‘in’ canister whenever the
wind came from the direction of the site. Upwind
background air was collected in the ‘out’ canister when
there was finite wind velocity from the other direc-
tions. These data will be used to contrast air contami-
nated by the site with ambient background air and also
can be compared with FCC data.
Bioaerosol Monitoring
Upwind and downwind bioaerosol samples were col-
lected using impactors and impingers. These samples
will be used to evaluate the effect of bioremediation
activities on bioaerosol concentrations near the pond.
The purposes of this study are (1) to assess long-term
changes in species populations and (2) to determine
whether any biohazard might arise from increases in
species populations.
For more information, contact Richard Berkley at 919-
541-2439.
PERMuTING BIOREMEDIATION FOR PCB
DISPOSAL: PART 1, R&D PERMITS
(Continued from page 3)
(OPFT) has issued seven permits forR&D onbioreme-
diation processes, most of them in situ.
For more information on TSCA permitting for PCB
disposal, contact Joan Blake at 202-260-6236.
Bioremediation Permits Issued to Date by EPA
Headquarters
• Pacificorp for use of white rot fungi to treat soil in
Richfield, UT
• Mycotech corporation for use of white rot fungi to
treat soil in Butte, MT
• General Electric for in situ treatment of sediment in
Woods Pond, MA
• General Electric for treatment of soil and sediment in
a bioreactor in Pittsfield, MA
• General Electric for in situ treatment of sediment in
the Hudson River, NY (expired)
• Texas Eastern for in situ treatment of soil in St. Fran-
cisville, LA
• IT for use of ultraviolet light and bioremediation to
treat soil in Knoxville, TN
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION’
REG
S IT E
LOCATIONI
LEAD
CONTACT!
PHONE
NUMBER
MEE) IAI
CONTAMINANT
StArt S
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
I
Baird & MeGuire”
Holbrook. MA
CERCI.A Fund Lead
David Letterer
(617) 573-5738
Evelyn Tapani
6l7) 556-IllS
Ground water: pesticides
(chlordane), eseosote, BTEX.
Volume: 200 gptn.
Operational: full scale.
Remediation starr June 1990.
Rrntedtatinn c -cpected
ornFk’t i on: Mttch l992
1xpected cost SlIM
Ground water: MCLS
Ground water: continuous flow
reactor, aerobic conditions,
exogenous organisms, activated
sludge Other technologies:
chemical extraction 100% of site
under hioreniediation
None
I
Charles George Landfill
Tyngsboro, MA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Dave Dickerson
(617) 573-5735
Dale Young
(617) 292-5785
Ground water: hEX, solvents,
pesticides (chlordane), dioxin,
arsenic.
Volume: ultimately, 30 gpm
ground water and leachate,
Ptedrsign. Rrn redtation
expected start. 1994.
Renietiiation es’pected
con rpktion: 2029
Ground watet. arsenic,
30 vg,! hencene, S gL
Ground water and leachate:
aerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms, activated sludge with
metals precipitation; carbon
filtering and preaeralioit being
considered.
None
I
Charlestown Navy Yard
Boston NIW National Park
Service
Boston, MA
cERC1A State Lead
Stephen Carbon
(617) 242-5680
Sediments FAGs, aeosote
In design: laboratory scale
l ’lanning pilot scale for FY 1992
Not yet established
Aerobic attached growth process,
annerohic attached growth
process, and in situ treatment of
sediments bring considered.
None
I
coakley Landfill
North I-lanxpton, NI l
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Steve (‘ulster
6171 573962cr
Ilun Cotighlin
6171 5’3-0620
Ground wutit ammonia, H’ Ii ).
Volume: IN! gallons per hour
l’redesign Remrdiation
expected start. 1904.
Ermediation rq ’ectcd
consplets n: 2ltSt
Ground water: ammonir,
NPDES requirements
Hrotreatnsent Other
technologies treatment train
metal precipitation, uir
stripping). Ground-water
treatment: source control about
¶0%.
None
I
General Eiecttk (Woods Pond)”
Pittsfield. MA
RURA Lead (Federal)
2 nan Blake
(202) 260-6236
road-river sediments I ’CHs.
Vnlume: 250 gallons of
sediment and water,
Predesign: pilot scale since Ma
1991. Expected completion:
after 2 or 3-rears of operation.
Seditnentv PUBs, 2 ppm
per peak
l x i situ bioremediation under
anaerobic conditions, ith
indigeariun nignotsurts. Other
technologies: bioreactor and
flotation aeparation, incineration.
None
I
I
General Flectrie
Pittsfield, MA
1SUA Lend 1 Federal
Iron Horse Park”
Brllemica. MA
(:FRCLA Enforcement Lead
Joan Blake
(2021 260-6236
Don McElroy
(6171 223-5571
Soil and riser sediments PUBs.
Volume’ 12 cu. nn.
Vadoce soil Isand.
loam! sludges: petroleum
h drocarhons, l’AJ{c
Vohinie: 20K4 cu vd.
Operational: November 1990.
Operational: full scale.
Remedintion start: Octobet 109 1.
Reniediation expected
con-ipletion. 1996.
Sedin ’nts : lUlls, 2 ppm
per peak
Soil PAils, k ’ than 1
ppm: 11’Il, 100 ppm or
Sfl7 reduction. Risk
based.
hatch reactor flow under
anaerobic conditions, with
indigenous osgnninu Other
technologies: flotation separation.
incineration.
Sohd-pba.se t,ivsremediatton under
aerobic conditions. Ot Situ
e ca’.’atc to treatirtent
cel l—surface treatment: land
farming within treatment
cell—optimcing natural
indigenous microbes. 10% to
20% of site under
bioremedition.
None
Flfecttce operatmn ocrors
on in warm seasons
‘CERCLAIRCRAJSJST sites considering, planning operating or which have used bioreorediation,
‘Indicates a new site.
“Indicutes the site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CLECLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
PEG
SIT ,/
LOCATION !
LEAf)
CONTA cT !
P hONE
NUMBER
ME I)lA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
I
SyKester
Nashua, Nil
CERCLA State Lead
(‘bet Jason-ski
(617) ¶73-0623
Paul ltierr7tcr
(tiltS) 8R2-36 5 1
Ground water- phenols. Mils.
acotone, roluene, henrene, vim!
cMo ii ite , chiorofirun
Volume 1 ground water)- K
gpm li v air stripping. 30 ppm t’
activated rhidge.
Operational full scale
Remedixti:n start June 1986
Rcnsediation expected
cs.nipktion ’ July 1004. tosLc:
82.5M per year
State of Nil drinking
studies
Activated sludge biotreatnient
with extended aeration. Other
technologies: vacuum extraction,
20% of site under
bioremediation ,
Difficulty in providing
sufficient nutrients to
maintain an active
bioniass ,
I I
American linen
Stitlwater, NY
Stale 1 nforcement Lend
Frank Pedut
NYSPF -C
l 3l ) 437-2462
Soil: PIEX, PAIls. VOC 5
VTX. Volume: 4,373 cu yd.
Operational: lull scala.
Start: 2 uiy 1091. Fxpected
rsimpktion: Fall 1002
Hioremediation of first lift
section eonspkte: preparation
beginning for second lift.
1CLP extract computed
to meet toil guidance
koch
Solid-phase hjoremediatj<,n
Contaminated coil ie arplicd in 2-
ft layer nutrients are added and
sr,ll is tilled by mechanical means.
100% of site under
hiorenvedintiomt
None
II
FAA lechnical Center
Atluntic County, NJ
CURCIA Enforeerneirt Lead
Carla Strul ’lc
(212) 264-4595
Keith Ouch (FAA)
tittO) 484-6644
Joseph Frcudenberg
(609) 633-1455
Soil (saturated) ground
water floating product Jt’-4 Jet
fuel. OlIX naphthakne ,
phenols.
Volume: Sf iltK gals, of free
product. Volume (soil): 33,000
or. yd.
l i i design- laboratory scale.
Design espreled eirnipktisn:
Spring 1002. Rensrdrati ,rn
eirprcted start’ Sunsnier 1992.
l ’xp ected capitat cost 5286K.
O&M cost: 52( 5 1K.
Soil’ NI Sd Actarn
Lcse l, N.I Mt Is for
drinking water
In Situ bioremectiation with
nutrient addition. Othet
technologies: free product
extraction. centent kiln
incineration, and addition of
nutrients for subsequent
reinjection; soil venting. off-gas
treatment with catalytic
incinerator combustion or
activated carbon absorption of
VOCt.
None
I I
General Eleetnir
hudson R i sen
ISCA Lead (Petleral)
Jini hlaryington
(818) 485-8792
Ajay Shrol!
NYSDEC
5i 1 S ) 485-8702
William Poets
5t8t 457-5o ’77
River aedimenta PCBa. .
Volume: 1 50 or. ft
Psedesigri: laboratory scale.
Treatalsiliry atudy, Uspeded
cost: S1.6M.
Not vet established
In a nt boesnsediation. aerobic
conditions. indigenous organism.,
sequencing batch reactors.
PCB degradation
II
General Motors - Central
Foundi Division
Massena, NY
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Lisa Carson
(212) 264 6867
Soitstudgc.’sediment- PCBs
Volume: 350K at. yd.
Fredesigit lre rtah ilitv studies-
Ishoratory scale. Several full-
scale treatments being
considered. f !.q ’ected start: April
1993.
Soil 10 nsgkg l’( Os
Sedimeats I ppm PCBs.
Sludge: 10 ppm PCBa.
Sequencing batch reactors; slurry
phase hioreniediation, Other
technologies: chemical extraction.
thermal desorption, and chemical
treatment will be considered in
the event that bioremediation is
unsucornifuL
Oil and grease in samples
is hindering efficrenry of
bioremetliation material
may require pretreatment.
11
Knispel Cunstructiosi Site
hloriehe ads, NY
UST Lead (Slate)
Frank Peduto
NYSDEC
(518) 457-2462
SoiL’ground water: RTEX.
gasoline. Site area: 2 ( 10 It°;
vnhime ground watcr (: 10 ft.
shallow.
Rernediatiori start January 1Q8 .
Remediation completed: October
1989. Cost: 52OOK+ with 1-4
years of pump and treat.
Ground water. OTEX. 5
ppb. Soil: BrEX. ri b
Drinking water
standards
In situ bioremediation.
Inf i ltralion trench used to inject
nutrients and hydrogen peroxide.
Three 80 gpm recovery wells used
to draw nutrients and I l O
tisrcrttgh contaminated cone.
None
lndicatea a new site.
the site has beets updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CERCLAuite.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SITE’
LOCATION!
LEAD
(2t Nl -%CT/
PhONE
NUMBER
MEDIN
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
II
Mobil Terminal
Buffalo, NY
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Robert leary
7I 6 851.7220
Mike Hinton
716 551-7220
Frank Feduto
NYSIM (C
(518) 4572462
Soil: gasoline, ETEX , PAH,
VOC.
Volume: 2 acre bioremediation
cell, approximately 5K est. yd.
Opetationai full scale since July
1991.
Soil (excavated): BTEX.
PAIL VOC - NYSDEC
guidance values, based
an TCLP.
TREATMENT
Solid-phase bioremediation,
aerobic conditions, exogenous
organisms; contaminated soil
removed when clean and placed
on adjacent property. Other
technologies: vacuum extraction
added AprIl 1991. 100% of site
under bioremedlaijon.
PROBLEMS
None
I i
Nascolite
MilMile, Ni
CERCIA Fund Lead
l-arnaz Sughafi
(2121 264-4665
Pat Fvangelista
(212 264.6111
Anton Mavmrajah
(6tt9 ( 633-6751
Ground water: volatiles,
methylmethaczylate ,
semivolatiles. Volume: all
underlying ground water under
biotreatment.
Predesign. Treatability studies
on soil completed September
1990; studies on ground water
underway. Rensediation
expected start: September 1993.
Remediasion expected
completion: January 1996.
NJ Interim Soil Action
Levels for
mettsylmethacrybte: 350
ppb (ground water)
Ground water: rotating biological
contacior; source of
microorganisms not yet
determined. Other technologies:
solidifscationistabi lization of site
soils contaminated with lead.
None
II
Osmose”
Buffalo, NY
CERCI.A State Lead
Jim ltarringron
i tSj 4 55 5 Q2
Ajas Shroff
NVSOF(
t l’t 435-8755
Jaspal S. Yc aim
(‘1 5) 851-7220
Soil: creosote, ISFEX, PAils
Volume: 670 car. yd.
Operasionak lull scale.
Remediation start: September
1990. Expected cost: 5 125 1C
Not yet established
Solid-phase bioremediation under
aerobic conditions, with
indigenous organisms. 30% of
Site under bioremediation,
None
II
l’lsltshirik AFB
l’bttslsrrgb. NY
Federal Fadlity
Phil Van Rargen
( 518) 365-6672
Jim Lister
(SISt 457 3Q76
Ground water peOoleum
Prcdcsigm possible pilot scale.
Rensediution expected Stan:
Mardi 1994.
Not e1 est,hlished
In site biorensediation,
bioventing.
No ise
I I
S racuse
Ss -rncuse, NY
UST Lead (State)
Harr - Warner
(3l 3 426-7519
Soil: petroleum hydrocarbons,
jet fuel.
Volume: . 5 to ilK as. ‘ ,d
Operationak full scark.
First phase: started Juts 1990;
completed Spring 1991. Second
phase: started Spring 1Q91. Site
was prepared for closure Fall
t991, but small untreated areas
were dtscovered. Material has
been crpnrat d acid m mcd to an
adjacent area for treatment in
Spring 1992.
NV Soil Cleanup Levels
Solid-phase biorensediarion: soil
removal at other half of site.
Late start far list phase.
colit weather stov,ed use
of hioremediatici r i
I ll
ARC’”
Gainers -ille, VA
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Robert Stroud
(215) 597-6655
Patrick Grover
(804) 225-25 -It
Soil: chtor,,hemene.
Volume: 2K as. yd
Completed: full scale. Started
October 1989. Completed June
1991.
Soil. chlor,’l’rnzetse ,
0014 ppm Technology
effectiveness
Biscauganentation atcraseground,
biovcnting Other technologies:
pump and treat, soil shredding.
5% of site utsdereent
hioremediutcon.
None
‘indicates a new site.
“Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site,
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
Sf1 1 / I
LOCATION/
LEAD
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
MEDIAl
CONT/ sMINAN I’
STATUS
CU /ANUP
LEVEL.S
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
lB
Atlantic Wood”
Portsmouth, VA
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Drew Lausch
(215) 597-12M
Ronald Davis
(215) 597-1727
Steve Milialko
(804) 255-3263
Soil/sedinsentc Pd’, PAH [ coin
wood preserving, diosins
(furans)
Predesign: RUFS ongoing. ROD
start date: 2nd quarter FY 1992.
Not yet established
Soil/sediments tolid-phate
biorenledlstion. Other
techno1og es being considered:
soIl washing, thermal desorption,
incineration.
Presence of metals and
dioxins and furans might
be a problem.
111
Avtex Fibees
Front Royal, VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Bonnie Grow
(215) 597-9023
Ground water: arsenic, zinc,
lead, carbon disulfide, hydrogen
sulfide, phenol, cadmium
In design. Expected Start: 4th
quarter of 1992. Expected cost:
$9M.
0.05 mg/L arsenic, 5
mg/I. zinc 0.05 mg/I..
lead; 0.7 mgJL carbon
disullide; 0.3 mg’L .
phenol, 0.01 mg/I.
cadmium; not established
for hydrosulfide
Biological and chemical
wastewnter treatment.
None
lB
Drake Chemical
Lock Havcii, PA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Roy Schrock
(215) 597-0517
Soil/ground water: pesticides,
DCE, fenac (herbicide)
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Start May 1991. Expected
completion: AprIl 1992.
Not yet established
Aerobic attached growlh.
None
111
L.A. Clarke & Son
VA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Gene Winged
(215) 597-1727
Soil/sedinients creosote.
Volume: 119K at. yd.
In design: pilot scale. Started
November 1991. Expected
installation: 1992. Cost: S23M
[ or entire site,
Not yet established
Soil: in situ bioreniedintion;
creosote. recovery. Other
technologies: soil flushing. 25%
of site under bioremediatioii,
None
111
Ordnance Works”
Disposal Axca
WV
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Drew Lausch
(215) 597-1286
Rind Tannir
(304) 378-2745
SoiL/sedimentw carcinogenic
PAils. Volume: Approx. 42K
or. yd.
l’redesign: tTeatability studies
planned. RD start date: August
1990. Expected completion:
March 1993. Planning laboratory
scale. Unilateral administrative
order issued June. 1990.
Expected costs: $8.3 M.
Carcinogenic PAils, 44.7
ppm
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Other technologies: solidification
of irrorganica.
None
111
Whitmore Labs”
Myerstown, PA
CERCI.A Fund Lead
Christopher Cotbett
(215) 597-6906
Noreen Chamberlain
(717) 657-6309
Soil (saturated and vadose):
arsenic, aniline, still bottom
wastes (only certain soils are
targeted for bioremediation).
Volume: 4K or. yd.
Predcsign. Limited treatability
study completed June 1990.
Remediation expected start: June
1993. Negotiation with PRI’s
continuing.
Saturated soils (mg/kg):
benzene, 0.002;
trichloroetbene , 0.004;
tetracbloroethane , 0.012;
aniline, 0.002.
Unsaturated soils
(nsg’lcg): berazene, 0.009;
trichloroethene, 0.017;
lettachloroethane , 0.051;
aniline, 0.009.
Biological treatment (treated soils
will be disposed of off site).
Other technologies: chemical
treatments fixation, incineration
containment, pump and treat.
Less than 10% of Site under
bioremediation.
None
tndiattes a new site.
•ladiostes the site ban been updated or inctudes new information. Shading indicates a non-CERCIA Site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SITE!
LOCATION/
LEAD
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
MEDIA!
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CIJ ANUI’
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
IV
A labama State Dodra
Mobile, AL
kCRA Lead (Federal).holI
RCRA Lead (State ground water
Nancy &thune
(404) 47 ’i433
C rde Sherer
(205) 271-7726
Ground water/soik PCI’.
creo s oi c
Predesign: full scale. State
ECRA permit (6W) issued
0113 ,91. In situ phased
implementation 2/5,93. Ftderal
ECRA (IISWA) permit issued
9/13 /91, RCRA facility
invtsti titsn (tourcndoil)
112 1 ) 92.
.
Ground water:
chromium, 0.05 mg/L
arsenic 0.05 mpt:
tsestzette, 0.005 mWL
MDL for all others
continuing, Soil cleanup
levels have not yet been
established.
Ground water: aerobic attached
growth process for creosote, and
in situ bioremediation for both
PCI’ and creosote. Soil: tolls!-
phate biorensediation. Slurry-
phase ‘oloxensediation may be
used if levels are low enough.
100% of the site in under
bioremedlation.
None
IV
American Creosote Wosks
Jackson, TN
CERCIA Fund Lead
O.U. #1
O.U. #2 ”
0.U. #3
tony l)eAngr -ks
(404) 347 779!
Ron SelLs
(901) 423-6600
Betty Maness
(901) 423-6600
Soil’ctudgr-s: carcinogenic
PAils, PCI’
Ground water: carcinogenic
PAUs, PCI’, solvents. 2-3 feet
of product in monitoring wells,
SoExludge: creosote,
Volume: 50K+ tat. yd. with
50K+ an. yd. later,
other contaminants present:
chromiuns(43), copper silver,
l ’rcdesign.
Predesign. WelLs being installed:
Summer 1092. Rensediation
expected start: December 1995.
Expected completion: December
1998.
Predesign. Partial removal of
sludges (creosotS) and highly
contaminated soils for ofisite
incineration has ocairred. Still
no feasibility studies,
100 ppm for t I-S creosote
indicatoss
100 pens for 6-3 creosote
indicators
100 ppm for 6-8 creosote
indicators
Not yet established
Not yet established.
Solid-phase bioremediation:
aerobic condisions, indigenous
organisms, dealing with process
area contained soils and ‘fixed’
creosote sludges in a large capped
lagoon.
Remedial action
contingent upon receiving
10% cost share from
state. Funds available for
treatability studies on ’.
Initiation of O.U. #3
awaiting close-out of O.U.
#1.
IV
American Creosote Works
Pensacola, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Madolyn Streng
(404) 347-2643
Beverly Houston
(4041 347-3866
Charles Logan
(904) 458-0190
Soil: creosote. PAIls, PCI’,
dioxin.
Volume: 20,000 as. yd.
In design: pilot scale.
P ,emediatioa expected start:
October 1992. Remediation
expected completion: September
1994. Expected cost 55M.
Soil: PCI’, 30 mgkg;
PAils, 50 mgtkg: dioxin
on site, 2.5 pg/kss dioxin
off site, 1.0 ygjkg
Soil: slurry-phase bioremediation,
Other technologies: incineration
being considered for dioxin-
contaminated soils.
Ilioremediation not
effective for remediation
of dioxins in soils.
IV
Brookhaven Wood Preserving”
Brookhaven, MS
CERCL,A Fund Lead
De’Lyntoneus
Moore
(404) 347-3931
Soil: creosote, PCP
Volume: 200 sat yd.
Fredesign: pilot scale.
September l 92: field-scale
demonstration test Rernediation
expected start: May 1993.
E.spected completion: May 1994.
Risk-based
Land treatment with aerobic
growth conditions and indigenous
and exogenous organisms. 1% of
site under biorensediation.
Lack of information on
use of white rot fungus at
field-scala leveL Field
treat.abiity study does
show reduction of PCP
and creosote: 66% and
90%, respectively.
IV
Brown Wood Preseiving
Lice Oakc, FL
CERCL8. Enforcement Lead
Martha Bern’
(404) 347-2643
Charles logan
(904) 488-0190
Soil: creosote, FAlls, PCI’,
dioxins.
Volume: OK en. yd.
Completed. Full scale and
monitored for 3 yes.
Remediation start: October 1988.
Remediation completed:
Dec-eniber 1991.
Soil: 100 ppm FAlls
Solid-phase bioremediation:
surface treatment hoed with clay
berms 5-0 ft.
None
lndicates a new Site.
“Indiantes the site ban been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
kEG
SITE!
LOCATION!
LEAI)
CONTACT/
PHONE
NUMBER
M l)IN
CONTAMINANT
EFATUS
CI .KANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
IV
Cabot Koppers
C,ainesville, FL
CERCLJS Enforcement Lead
Martha Berry
(404) 347-2643
Kelsey Ilelton
(904) 488-0190
Soil: PAils; organics (phenols,
naphthalene, fluorine, pyrene,
peotachtorophenol, etc); metals
(arsenic, chromium).
Volume: 6,700 at. yd
In design: frill scale. Design
work plac started: April 199l.
Carcinogenic PAils, 0.59
ppm: organics: phenols,
4.28 ppm: naphtbalenes,
211 ppm: fluorine, 323
ppm: PCI’, 2.92 ppm:
metals: arsenic, 27 ppm;
chronjuin, 92.7 ppm.
In situ bioremediation. Oilier
technologies: soil washing with
bioremediation or solidification.
50% of site under
bioremediation.
None
IV
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Fayetteville, NC
CERCLA Fund Lead
Jon BoTnt rolns
(404) 347-7791
Soillground water/surface
water/sediments: PAils, arsenic,
creosote, chromium.
Volume: 2K to 4K at. yd.
l’redesigrs. Laboratory
treatability studies completed.
ESD issued, capacity assurance
issue to be resolved. Pilot scale
work is needed to confirm
effectiveness; overall results
suggest that a longer inarbation
period could result in further
reduction of PAils to below
cleanup goals.
Soil (mg/lcg): arsenic, 94;
carcinogenic PAl-is, 2.5;
total PAils, 100;
chromium, 88.
Ground water (pg/I.):
carcinogenic PAils, 10;
noncnrcinogenic, 14,350.
Surface water: arsenic, 12
pg/I.. Sediments (mg/kg):
arsenic, 94; total I’Al-is,
3.
Sequencing batch reactor;
preceded by soil washing. possi1,I r
solidification.
Study was terminated due
to time constraints.
IV
Caroluwn
Carotuwn, SC
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Al Cheny
(404) 347-7791
Ground water: VOCs
Prcdesign Partial consent
decree issued 12/4/91. Bench-
scale studies begun 12/16/91.
UV oxidation treatability studies
needed to determine potential
for treatment of contaminated
ground w5ter. Permit
application for construction of
observation wells has been made.
Acetone, 710 pg/L; cis-
DCE, 70 rgIL trans-
DCE, 120 pg,L TCA.
200 pgt; TCE, 5 sg/L
Pb, 5 pg/L
Not yet established
None
LV
- Celanese Fibers Operations”
Shelby, NC
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Ken Mallary
(404) 347-7791
Charlotte Jesneck
(919) 733-2801
Grouud water: ethylene ghjcol,
benzene, acetone, chromium
Treatability studies conçlete.
Bioreactor on-line since August
1989. Remcdia(ion expected
completion: September 1999.
State of North Carolina
MCLs, all RCRA
constituents: both state
arid federal levels,
Ethylene glycol, 7 ppm
1,2 1)CE, 0.07 ppm:
chromium 50 ppb.
Sm uencing batch reactor under
aerobic conditions with
erogenous organisms. In addition
to bioremediation, carbon
adsorption and air stripping are
used for ground-water
remediation. 100% of site under
biorerneditiots.
Biomass upsets decreasing
operating efficiency of
treatment system. Cause
of upset unknown to date,
COD removal efficiency
for seventh operational
quarter was 92% for wells
located dose to source.
TOC was 87% removal
efficiency.
IV
Coleman-Evans”
While House, FL
CERCLA Fund Lead
Tony Best
(404) 347-2643
SoW petroleum: PCI’s, dioxins.
Volume: 27K at. yd.
In design: September 1990 to
June 1992. Laboratory scale with
pilot study planned.
Rensediatioss expected start June
1993. Remediation expected
completion: March 1994.
Expected cost: $8.6M
Soll/sedimentic PCI’, 25
mg/kg.
Slursy-phase bioreniediation in
treatment train: soil washing.
biorensediation, solid
stabilization. Aerobic conditions,
with exogenous organisms.
Landfill: 100% under
bioremediation.
Operations: 50% under
bioren iediatjon.
Wood ebbs removal from
soils. Bioremediation was
found to be ineffective for
dioxios.
Indkzte a new site.
I.dimtm the site has been vpdated or includes new information. Shading indinates a nonCERCLAsite.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CUNTACt,
IIIONE
NUMBER
MEI)IN
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CIFANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Mike McKihbe i r
FL 41t4 347-2643
Enforcement lead
Soil PC I ’, oiL
Volume: 15K ca. sd
Predesign. Currently in
technologe selection phase. Pilot
study before design.
Remediation expected Start:
I)ecemher 1992
Rernedirition expecled
completion: March 1995.
F’rpected cost: 53M.
50 rngkg total TPNk 50
mgkg PUPs; 1.5 mg’kg
x lene; 10 mg’kg
benr’ene; 0 ( i mg’kg
TUE; 007 mgkg PCF
Solid-phase bioremediation.
Other tedinologies: carbon
adsorption. Approi 90% of the
site will be bioremedrate iL
Pilot study was delayed
due to waiting for the
results of a dioxin test.
Mike Aniett
(404) 347-7605
(Federal) (rESt 251-7603
Soil: PCI’s, PAILs
Predesign alarted Mardi 1, 1991.
Not yet established
Soik In thu bensedintion, land
treatment. Oher technologies:
pound-water estracion,
pretreatment, discharge to a
P01W. 33% of site under
biorensedintiots.
None
Charles Burroughs
615) 741-3424
Soik’sludges: escosote (1(001
waste)
Installation Contaminated soil
and sludge excn ated. Site
cnppcd after hiotreatirsent.
Not yet esiahlirhcsl
Solid-phase bioremediation: land
treatment using bacteria,
nutrients, and cometahcrlite.
None
Chuck I-gre
GA 404 47-1931
Lead
Soil: dicamt , henioic acid,
dichlorosalicsdic ac-id,
hen7 irr iitrile
Predesign. Pilot bench-scale
treatahilitv studies being
ic-viewed Work in place
25 ppm for all
c r,n’ti ruents
Undetermined
None
‘aSrilbam Burns, it
FL (504) 455-0190
Ground wat Ct tohent;
[ reatabilily studies: May 1952.
Pilot scale aspected trait:
hnuan 1093.
Ground water: cadmium.
10 .gL ; chromium, 50
L; copper, 1.000 agL
lead, 20 , L nickel, 150
i 1 : sil er, 50 igL:
zinc, 5.000 5 gL acetone,
755) agt: hen7ene, I
gL clilor,fortn, .7
esecols , 700 g1:
ethylbenzene 660 gL
2-hutanone. 3 0 gi
methyl icohutylketone
350 agL; melbylene
chloride. 7 ugL toluene,
2,1 100 pgJL 1,1.1-
Irichloroeth s re , 200
pgL
Ground water: fi cd fihn ic-ac-lot
with continuous fl sr., a rohic
conditions, exogenous organisms.
Otbir technologies: soil
so lidif i c atio r L
None
Wood Presersing Don Rigger
(404) 347-3931
Lead
Soil: aeosote
Operatio,sak full scale since
April 1990. Fspected
completion: April 1Q93.
Expected cost: 51.7 M.
Not et established
Slurry batch-flow reactor.
Aerobic growth conditions:
indigenous and exogenous
organisms. Other technokrgies:
soil washing.
Failed to meet current
1(001 land ban standards
for pyrene and
phenanthrene May be
forced to seek treatability
variance.
tndicutes a new tite.
•‘Indrcates the site has been updated or includes new informarion. Shading indicates a non-CERCIA site
-------
F1ELI) APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CONTAC I’/
PHONE
NUMBER
MEI) IA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Timber” Pat Anderson
(404) 347-3433
(UederaI) oil Stan Sullivan
(Stateygrou nd water (205) 271-7730
Ground water/soil PCI’,
creosote. Volume (roil): I acre
with unoettain depth. Vohtm
(ground water) 5 acres with
contaminated plume.
Pr design: full scale
.
Not yet established
•
Solid-phase biorensedistion on
aoih se.quessdng batelt reactor on
ground Water. Considering.
slurry-phase hioten*tdiatlon.
300% of the site under
bioredintistu ,
None
Waste” Tony Best
FL (404) 347-2643
Lead Marvin Collins
(904) 488-0190
Soil/sludge: adds, Pd, waste
oil, creosote. Volume: 56,900
ar. yd.
Psedesign. Laboratory scale
completed. Expected start of
design: April 1992. Reniediation
expected start: March 1993.
Remediation expected
completion: March 1994.
Expected cost S1&9M
Not yet established
Slurry reactor, continuous flow,
completely mixed. Aerobic
conditions with esogenous
organisnw. Treatment train: soil
washing. bioremedlution, solid
stabilization. 71% under
bioremediation,
SolidiicrtionJstabilization
will follow in the
treatment train, due to
presence of lead.
Jinx Van der Eloot
(312) 353-9309
Enforcement Lead Kay Gossett
(614) 385-8501
Lagoon sediments: FAlls.
Volume: 500K as, yd.
Predesign. Pilot studies: April-
Summer 1992. Design: October
1902. Enhance bioavailability
through use of surfactasts, and
facilitate the delivery of oxygen
to the waste matris: Incurred
cost for testing: >SJM.
Expected cost $26M.
Soils/waste: I to 100
arglcg total carcinogenic
PAils; target level I
mgfkgr rink based
In situ FAll bioremediation and
prepared pad bioremediation.
Aerobic conditions with
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: incineration with
onsite reuse of waste beat (waste
fuel reawesy); ground-water
puny md treat 50% of site
under bioremerintion.
Lab work under way to
increase bioavailability of
PAils.
Signal/Bendix” John Kuhns
(312) 353 6556
Enforcement Lead Sally Beebe
(517) 373-4110
Ground water: TCE. DdE, VC
Predesign. Treatability study to
he completed June 1992,
Laboratory scale and pilot scale,
Remediation expected start: late
1993. Retnediation expected
completion: 1998.
Not yet established
In situ biorensedsation: using
indigenous me.thanlrophs. Fitst
phase: anaerobic nutrients
supplied; redudive
dechlorination. Second phase:
aerobic polishing oxygen supplied.
25% of site under
bioremedintion.
Recent tanipling has
identified high ICE
concentrations, potentially
*o ic for aerobic
organisms. Doing
additional tests to
eransine two-phase
anaerobic/aerobic system.
Chensimls Matt Ohi
.. . (312) 886-4442
(Ptderal) Bob Vo&mae
(614) 533-5412
Scott Schertnerborn
(614) 385-8501
Soil: asmsne, phenols.
Volunser 140 ft of drainage
ditches,
.
.
Operational full scale.
Retnedi*tion start 3u 1991.
Incurred cost. $lSOK Expected
cost: $258K ’
.
.
Phenol, 4.1 nsg!lcg.
armene, 4,67 mg(hg
benith risk bated .
.
.
In rust bitiremerliation.
Indigenous and exogeitous
badeth gre tilled itito the goll,
More than 1% (only drainage
dItch areas) is under
biorensediation.
Rxmmiee soil moisture
Bonnie White
(616) 456-5071
Ground water/soils: tolvents.
aromatic kcloner, aleohol.
Volume: 15-20 m.
Operational lull scale since
September 1000.
Not yet established
.
Aitrobic attached growth process.
submerged fired film reactor.
Other technologies: vacuum
extraction, toil taper extraction
for product recovery and roll
treatment 100% of ground water
at rite is undet birsreintdration,
None
.
9ndisates a new site,
“Indicates the site has bees updated or includes new information, Shading indicates a aon-CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CONTAC1!
l’llONE
NUMBER
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
npan Pat lianron
(612) 297-8578
Stephen Thompson
(612) 297-8603
Soil/ground water RTWC,
gasoline,
Volume: 700 ni. yd.
Operatiosab full teak
Itrmedtatios Start: April 1991;
additional rquipnsnht muds to be
installed. lermediatlon eapected
completion: December 1992.
moored cost $34lK Espeded
cost: S201(
Soil itThX. 50 nsp kg
Cround watex BTEX
100 a MN Lapt, of
health RAIA
•
Inmtu soil bsontusedwtton.
exteriat Itioteartot, 15% of site
susder bkmoaichiatiOL
.Convestiig to noflbiotemrdintiott
process as of Spring 10*5.
•
Increase in non
cantratiort in ground
water is causing iron
bacteria and resulting its
the accumulation of
•tljin 5 ot the surface of
pipes and other process
equipment.
Jerry Granunar
(419) 226-2592
(Pederat) Gary Vanderembtc
(419) 226-2744
Soil: petroleum
.
l/redesign lull-scale study under
way. hetsiediation expected
Start 1992.
.
Not yet established
Solid-phase biorensediation
•
Land treatment unit
permit denied,
Northern Tony Rutter
(312) 836-8961
Lead Fred jenness
(612) 297-8470
Soil/ground water oil,
carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PAHs, creosote.
Vohinie: 10K ci i. yd.
Operational full scale since
1987. Expected completion:
1994. Incurred cost: 5725K
Expected costs of O&M: 538.6K
per year for 30 years.
Ground water:
carcinogens, 28 mg/L
noncarcinogens, 300
nsg ’L Soil:
detoxification levels,
Treatment train: in situ and solid
phase bioremediation. Aerobic
conditions, with indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
thermal desorption, ground-water
monitoring. 20% of the 4-acre
site under bioremediatjon,
Degradation rate ss longer
than expected for the
more complex
contaminants.
Site” Ken Gtatz
(312) 886-1434
Enforcement Lead Bruce Van Ottcrn
(517) 373-8427
Soil (vadose): wood tar, acetic
acid, phenol. PAils
Volume: OK cit. yd.
Predesign. laboratory scale since
November 1991.
Not yet established
In situ forced aetation. 90% of
site under biorensediation.
Volume increase (100%);
temperature controL
Brad Bradley
(312)886-4742
Lead
Soil/ground water: TCE, DCE,
DCA, PCBs
Design: lab ratoiy scale.
5 ppb TCE; 70 ppb
DUI; ZOO ppb OCR;
drinking water standards
used where possible
Undetermined, 1% of site may
be under bioremediatioL
None
Brad Bradley
(312) 886-4742
Lead Steve Davis
(212) 785-3913
Soil: phenols, chlorophenol,
PNAs, PCI ’, PAils
Predesign. E:ipected start date:
late 1992.
Not yet established
Solid-phase bioremediatioR in
situ with amendments, 100% of
soil at site will be bioremediated,
None
Ann Enungtou
MI (616) 775-9729
Ground wate /sotl BTEX
Conspls’tet Pull scale started
September 1085 Completed
Mardi 1989. Pursuing final
cleanup of residue at leading
edge olplunie. Alto used soil
verffItatio .
Nondeteetion levee
Closed loop in situ
btorennedmtton, Enhancing
microbial growth through
addition of amnioniuni chloride,
nsonotodaim phosphate, disoditni
phosphate, and ozygets 1* ground
water.
Iron forninig bacteria
dogging carbon system
Ammunition Plant Dim Novak
(312) 886-4733
Steve Miller
(217) 782-1803
Soil: TNT, DNT, ROX.
Area: 10 acres.
Predesign: solid-phase treatment.
In design for slurty-phase work
plan, Pilot scale. Remediation
expected Start: April 1992.
Itemediation expected
completion: December 1992,
Not yet established
Soil: shiny batch reactor and land
treatment with aerobic
exogenous organisms, Appros. 10
out of 23,040 acres under
biorcnoediation in pilot program.
None
lnslirates a new Site,
“Indicates the Site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CEECLArite.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SITE!
LOCATION!
LEAD
CONTACT!
PHONE
NUMBER
ME I)IA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
V
Joslyn MFG
Brooklyn Center, MN
CEECLa . State Lead
Ann Bidwell
(612) 296-7827
Kevin Turner
(312)886-4444
Soil (vadose): PAils, PCI ’.
Volume: 67K en. yd.
Operational: full scale.
Rensediation start: August 1989.
Expected conçktion: September
1994.
Soil: 100 ppm total
PAHs; 154 ) ppm total
PCP dermal contact
standatds
Solid-phase bioreniediation , 10-
acre land treatment unit, aerobic
conditions with indigenous
organisms, Other technologies:
ground-water pump and t renL
35% of site undergoing
bioremediaijon ,
Extreme rainfall in May
1991 caused flooding and
delayed treatment of lift 2
soil.
V
Marathon S lation-Ervines
Xentwood, M l
State Lead
Bonnie While
(616) 454-5071
Ground water: BIEX. gasoline.
Volume; 3-5 gum
Operationak full scale.
Remediation Start date: 1988.
Ground water: gasoline
(background
Aerobic attached growth proeessz
aubmrr ed f r 4 film. Other
System was designed as a
decay phase reactor, so
nondetection levels on
risk-based levels)
technologies: carbon poliab unit
to ensure usnçliame with
NPDES permit. 95% ol captured
ground water at rite is under
biorernediat ion
perindicatly has to shut
down to allow regroath of
cultures; only occurred
on e s
V
Mayville Fire Department”
Mayville, Ml
UST Lead
Ion Maycs
(5 17) 684-9141
Ground water: BFEX
Operational: full scale.
Resnedistion Start dale: May
1090. F 9 ’ccted conViction:
1994.
Ground aster: I pub
ben2ene : 800 pub
toluene; 70 pub
ethvlbcnzeae; 300 pub
kn e .
Bioremediation using oxygen and
indigenous organitn is with no
addition of nutritnts. 100% oF
Site undergoing hioremediation.
None
V
htilkc (tihh”
MN
CERCLA Fund Lead
florsl thsens
(3124 880-7080
Douglas Robohna
(612) 206-7717
Ground 5 5 5 cr: l’Alts, It T
Ftedcsign. ireatahitisy studies
and pilot completed December
t989. Full scale. Remedistion
expected start: September 1903
Retnediation enpected
completion: AprIl 1995.
Etpected cost: Capital, $260K
0&M, $300K, ,r. Fuliscale
bioremediation system tested
under the SF113 program.
Not vet established.
P01W pretreatment
standards
Ground aster: aerobic attashed
growth process, fixed fitm;
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: soil washing and
soil incineration under
consideration. 10% of site
undergoing bioremedintion.
None
V
V
Mom American
Mile-aukee, WI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
New Lyme Landfill
New Lysne, OIl
CERCIA Fund Lead
Betty Lavis
(312) 886-4784
Ted Smith
(312) 353-6571
SoiUscdiments: creosote.
Volume: 86,500 cu yd.
Ground water: ethyl benzene,
methylene chloride
Operational. Pilot scale to
begin: Summer 1992.
Remediation start date: June
1991. Remediation expected
completion: 1994.
Operational: conducted pilot-
scale study in January 1988.
Reinediation start November
1991. Expected cost $5M to
$688.
Soiljscdimcnte creosote,
6.1 ppm
Ground water ethyl
benzene , 68 sgiL
methylene chloride, 473
sg L phthalate, 9.2 gsgt
Slurry-phase bioremediation:
biorenctor using indigenous
bacteria, Other technologies: soil
washing.
Ground water: rotating biological
reactors, fixed film. 100% of the
site under bioremediation.
Clay content may reduce
efficiency of system. High
molecular weight PAHs.
Surfactants may interfere
with bioslurty system.
Calcium carbonate
precipitation causing
plugging Fungi entering
with influent causing
plugging
‘Indicates a new site,
“Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information,
Shading indicates a non-C1tRCLAsit .
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
kEG
SITE!
LOCATION/
LEnd)
CoNrA d !
I’HONE
NUMBER
M E I) IA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
V
Onalaska Municipal Lzndfill
LaCrosse County, WI
CEECLA Fund Lead
Kevin Adler
(312) 686-7078
Robin Schmidt
(6G8 267-7569
Paul Kozol
(608) 264-6013
Soil: naphthaleae, BTEX.
Volume: 5,000 or. yd.
Predecign: laboratory scale.
Treatability studies: October
1Q91 to March 1992.
Remediation expected start: May
1993. Remediation expected
completion: Sertember 1996.
Capital cost: 6400K O&M cost:
620K.
Not yet established
In situ biorernediation under
aerobic conditions with
indigenous organisms. Other
technologies: pound-water pump
and treat. 3 of 11 aeves under
bioremediation. 20% of site will
undergo bioseinedintion.
Adjacent landfill
generates CR ,.
V
Organic Cbemlml
Ml
CERCL& Fund Lead
Tom Williams
(312) 886-6157
Ground water: oil, ICE,
to luene
l’rcdcsign: started Februaty 1992.
Waiting for feasibility study to do
remediation on T(1 and
toluene. Working on additional
work plan for nil Ground-water
pump and treat expected start:
September 1992.
Not yet established
Pump and treat at interim action
until levels of organic. are
reduced,
Dioxin in the soil
precluded bench-sale
testing by EPA.
V
Parke-Davis
fIol l snd, Ml
RCRA Lead (Federall
Shari Kolali
(312) 686-6151
Dave Staylon
5l7) 373-8012
Soltgzonnd water. 8TEX,
solvents, benzene. methanol.
isopropanol. fuel
l ’ nedes ig a
Not yet establislied
Undetermined
None
V
Rasmumen
Lisingston County, Ml
CPRCLA Enforcement Lead
Ken Gbtz
(312) 866-1434
Denise Gnjben
(517) 335-3386
Ground water: acetone, HEll’,
2-butanone, isophorone, 2-
methclphenol, 4-
methylpensanone
Predesign
Ground aster: acetone,
700 rpb; 2-hutanone, 350
pph; 4-methyl-2.
pentanone, 350 rpb
(‘onsidesirig punt and treat air
strippingcnrhon adsorption
treatment v,ith added
microorganisms and nutrients:
fixed film reactor, immobilized.
Other technologies: chemical
treatment and air stripping.
100% of site under
bioreniedistio rs.
None
V
V
Reilly Tar & Chemical”
St. Louis Park, MN
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Reilly Tar”
IN
CERCIA Enforcement Lead
Datyl Owens
(312) 886-7089
Doug Beckaith
(612) 296-7715
Mike Scott
(612) 296.7297
Dion Novak
(312) 886-4737
Soil (vadose): PAIlS.
Ground water: creosote.
Volume:
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SITEd
LOCATIONI
LEAD
CONTACT/
P hONE
NUMBER
MEDIA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
(tJ ANU l’
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
V
Seymour Recyc1ing
IN
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Unit I
Unit 2
Jeff Gore
(312) 886-6552
l ’rahhakar
Kasarabada
(317) 243-5130
Ground water: VC. TCE, DC L,
ben7ene, chlotoethane.
Volume: 500K gallons.
Soil: VC , ICE, DCL. Volume:
111K as. yd.
Completed full torte.
Completion date: September
1990.
Incurred cost: SIM.
Completed full scale.
Completion: September 1990.
Incurred cost $750K. Expected
cost: 5500K.
VC. TCE, IX3--. drinkitg
water standards
Not yet established
In situ bioremediation: VC, TCE,
DCL. Land treatment with
nutrient addition. Other
technologies: vacuum extraction,
multi-layer cup. 80% of site
under biorenrediation.
In situ bioremediation, Other
technologies: vacuum extraction.
None
None
V
Sheboygan Etcer and Harbor
Sheboygan. WI
C 13RCLA Enforcement Lead
Ronnie Eluder
(312) 886-4885
Robin Schmidt
(608) 2671569
Sediments: PCRt. Volume:
2,700 as. yd. in cupped disposal
facility. Approximately 10K lb
PCE I.
Pilot scale since mid-1989. Pilot
scale expected completion:
December 1992.
Not yet established
In situ biorensediation: cupped
sediments; natural and enhanced
biodegradation in enclosed
structure. Contained treatment
facility with possibly aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Other
technologies: chemical extraction
and treatment, thermal
desorption, sediment capping.
Delays in pilot study due
to additional lab-scale
tests and coordination
with ARCS Program as
pilot dctnottstration
project for Sheboygan
AOC.
V
Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore
Empire. MI
Federal Fadlitv
John Wilson
(405) 332-8600
Guy Sewell
(405) 332-8800
Ground water: gasoline.
Volume: 1K gal.
Opetational full scale. Start:
Febnsarv 1991. Fnpecied
contpktion: 1992.
Not yet established
Soil: in situ bioremediatiots,
passive natural biorentediation.
100% of site under treatment
An excess of isomers.
V
Sprigelhrrg landltil
Lh’irigrton rowoship, MI
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Ken GLst
(312) 886-1434
Denise Gruben
(517) 335-3386
Ground ssater: 2-hutanone, 2-
hexano nr-.
Predesign.
Ground waTer’ 2-
hutanosse, S 5 tt rr 2-
hetaaotsc, 50 pph
Pump and treat, air
stripping’cssst ’os adsorption
treatment with added
microorganisms and nutrients.
100% of site considered for
bioremediation.
None
V
St Louis River
InterlakelDuluth Tar Site”
Duluth, MN
CFRCLA State Lead
Debbie Siebers
(312) 353-9299
Ann Bidwell
(612) 296-7827
Soils/sediments: VOCs, PAils
Predesign. Remedial
investigation/feasibility study.
Remediation expected start
1993.
Not yet established
Undetermined
None
V
Union Cathide
OH
CERCL& Enforcement Ltad
Kathleen Warren
(312) 353-6756
Terry Rotsndtree
(312) 353- 1238
Scott Bergrecn
(614) 385 8501
Soil/ground watrr: VOCs,
dioxin. mono- and diclilorinated
lisphenyls, PCBs
Predesign: laboratory scale.
Treatahility study report being
reviewed.
Not yet established
Ground water: activated sludge.
Soil: in situ bioreniediation.
Other technologies: GAC.
None
V
Upjohn Company Portage Facility
Kalamazoo. Ml
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Lorna Jerem
(312) 353-5110
Greg Rudloff
(312) 353-4788
Sotiground water: solvents
l’tedesign pilot scale since 1987.
Not yet established
Ground water: ftst’d film hinmass
with continuous flow reactor.
aerobic growth conditions,
indigenous organis m s
Low wintet temperatures
ladicates * new site.
“Indicates the site ban been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CEECLAtite.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
kEG
SITE/
LOCATION!
LEAD
CONTACIY
PHONE
NUMBER
MEDIAl
CONTAMINANt
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
V
West K&L Avenue Landfill
Kalamazoo, MI
CEP .CLA Enforcement Lead
Dan Coua
(312) 886-7252
Ground water: (organica)
acetone, benzcrte, vinyl
dtlctride toluene, zylene, traits-
1 ,2 -DCE, ethylbenzene, 1.1-
dichlorethane, 1,2-
dichloroetbene
In design: 1992. Eapected
installation: 1993. Erpected
operational start date: 1994,
Consent decree still being
worked out. E.spected cost:
82.2M.
Acetone and 1,1-
dichlorethane, 790 ppb;
bensene, 1.0 p 9Ľ 1,2-
dichlocoethane, 0.4 ppb -
vinyl chloride, 0.02 p9Ľ
aykne, 20 ppb; toluene,
40 pph; trans-l,2-DCC,
100 ppts, ethylbenzeae,
30 ppb
Aerobic attached growth process.
Other technologies: depending on
the results of ground-water
samples dun n g the pump test,
precipitation of metals, and a
cart-ion fitter for the vinyl chloride
may need to be added,
Treatment of vin’ I
chloride, handling of
water after treatment, no
P 01W (possible with
installation of 3 miles of
sewer line), no surface
water discharge available,
need to rein 1 ect.
VI
Atchinson
Santa Fe, NM
CERCI.A Enforcement Lead
Susan Webster
(214) 655-6730
Soil/sludge: hydrocarbons,
diesel. Volume: 28K c v. yd.
Installation completed:
November 1991. Remediation
expected start: April 1992. Pilot
scale. Espected rusts: S3M.
Not yet established
In sitta and combined
bioprocesses: surface and
subsurface, sludges treated
separately. 100% of the site
under hioremedintion.
High chloride content in
soil and sludges.
VI
l’rench Limited
Crosl’v, ‘IX
CERCIA Fnforremeist Lead
Juch’ Black
(214) 655-6735
Louts Rogers
(512) 463-8188
Sludges petrochemicals.
organics, metals, 9 (71 St
orer ational. full scale
remediation start: January 1092.
Rernediation expected
completion- February 1904.
l ”qecied cost lOOM.
Sludges BAP, 9 ppm;
I’C It. 23 ppm; VOC 5 , 43
ppm; arsenic, 7 ppn
bcnzene, 14 ppm
Sludges. treatment in an aerated
lagoon with indigenous
organisms. Other technologies:
stabilization of residues. 500% of
site under hioremediation.
None
VI
Hudson Reflning Coinparrv
Cushing. OK
RCRA Lead (Federal)
Brent Trojkc.wski
(214) 6554480
Soil (vadraic): oil, grease,
hydrocarbons, I’AlIs, benzcne.
Volume: 145.500 as. yd.
Operational. full scale mace
January 1986.
C,rtsund water: 30% to
50% reduction of
contaminants shrougli
ground-water recovery
system
Solid-phase bIoremeditrtion of
40% of site (three phases): (1)
adler; requires monthly
application of riutrients arid
monthly tilling (2) enhanced
annual application of nuttients
and no tilting; (3) augmented: no
addition of nutrients or tilling.
Lack tiE mssorganisms;
State order failed to
specify dearrng levels;
resunlantination at nearby
refinery.
VI
North cavalcade St.
Iloaston, IX
(IIRCLA State Lead
Deborah Griswold
2141 655 6115
Larry Wright
(2141 655 6715
louis Rogers
512) 463-8t1t8
Ground water: asrcinogenic
PAils, benrerir.
Sod- creosote, carcinogenic
PAils.
Volume sniii- 5,50(1 cv %d.
above 10 ft.
In design: pilot scale since Match
1001. Rernediation expected
start: October 1993. Expected
con-ipletion- September 1906.
1 spected cost: 54M.
SoiLs bcnzerie. 0.04 ppm.
carcinogenic PAi ls, I
ppm. Risk-based
Land treatment, compusting:
l’AlIs in soil, aerobic sunditi.ors,
indigenous orgnnicnu. Other
technologies: pump arid treat with
carbon adsorption of ground
water. 100% of site under
bioremedintion.
Winter rain has
cign cUtca ntK slowed the
pilot stud.
VI
Old Inger
Darrow. LA
CERCLA State Lead
Paul Sieminshi
(2 14t 655-6710
Sandra Greenwich
(504) 765 0487
Soilsludge- pettoleum,
hydrocarbons.
Volume (sludge - 600K gallons.
Volume (soil) 200K c v. yd.
Installation: full sc ale.
Rernediation expected start
April 1992. Remediation
e’s ’pected completion: 1007 to
100. Supptenrcntat ground
water R I being conducted
Construrtiori of land treatment
unit tunspkte. Waste
application expected Spring 1902,
following award of contract.
Incurred costs. 15.4M
Not yet established;
expected to have
standard discharge
requirements; objective is
to reduce contaminant
concentration from 76%
to 4%.
Solid-phase hiorernedintion.
Other technologies: GAC. 70% of
site under biorernediation.
None
*indicates a new site.
“Indicates the site hat been updated or includes new information.
Shading indicates a noa -CERCL4 site.
r
I
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CON1 ’ACT
PUONE
NUMBER
ME I) IN
CONTAMINANT
ST VI US
ri LAM’I ’
LFVFLS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Services Ruth Irrueli
(214) 655-6735
Enfotcement Lead
Soillsludgetsurface water:
hencene toluene, ethyl
benzene, phenol, PCBs
In drs (g . Pilot study completed .
rerort due Arril lQ°2.
i ’rtinsinsrs findings are hopefuL
Renedation espected stat t’
IQQ Remetiation expected
rnnsrletion’ liQO Ispected cost.
52 5M
Snisluder urfa-r sater
ICOs, 25 ppm PCI ls as
an indirator of other
nrganks
Slurry-phase hioremediation:
aqueous bioreactor. Other
technologies: stabilization of
residues.
None
Gas Pipeline Joan Hake
LA (2tt2t 260-6216
tEederal)
Sal: I’Ct )s
I’ilot scale studs. Start date
May 1991.
N ot set established,
In situ treatment
Noon
Frank L)olan
MO 314) 151-3116
(State) Alan hancock
(913) 1 (1 7647
Soilstudge: K049, KtJ 0 , EaSt,
oil, PAILs, refine, sludges,
metals. Volume’ 137K ca yd a
27% to 409’ oil and grease
OperationaL full scale.
Rr’mediation start: Jul 1990.
Rernediation expected
ruoupletion: 1905. F. .’ rpectcel cost:
S23. SM.
Totsll’, lk. less than
ItS) mgkg potentiafly
carcinogenic PAIls, less
than 300 rng’kg
Risk-based,
Soiksludge: solid-phase
hiosemediatino, sequencing hatch
reactors. Aerated lagoon: 90
days, ambient conditions, nutrient
added, pH arntroflcd. Landfarns,
titled to aerated, moisture
controlled, indigenous organisms.
5% of site under hitremediation,
Material handing
problems rehred in siting
the facility and the rate of
reaction in tIe fall scale;
oxygen transfer has been
slosser than expected.
Temperature effects in
aeration pond being
monitored
(‘henucrit” Sieve Au -htesl ,nje
M D (913) 551-7778
Enforcement Lead
Ground sorer. rhenols, VO(’s,
semis-olatiles. Volume: I ‘0-2(10
gpm [ or approx. 30 years.
Operational full scale.
Remediation started: April 1500.
Incarred costs
Capital. approx. SI O t l,(KXt.
DAM; uppers S2 KNr.
I’benots, I pph; VO(’S,
< 10 pph; semisolatiks,
saries Missouri drinking
v,ater standards,
Aerobic attached grosstb process:
fixed film hioreactor (2 in series).
Other technologies: treatment
train (carbon adsorption. lime
precipitation, sulfide
precipitation). 100% of ground
ssater at site is under
bioremediation.
None
& Gas Steven Jones
(913) 551-7755
Enforcement Lead Johanshir (Jolchin
(313) 281-8925
Ground water/soil, PAHS,
ITEX , benoene
Opetationah pilot scale since
January 1992. Expected
completion: January 1994.
Expected cost far construction:
5149K. Additional SliM if fully
in alen aente ul.
Ground water: benzenc ,
I pp ly carcinogenic
PAUs, 0.2 ppb. Soil:
benzeae, 241 ppm;
PAIls, 500 ppm;
carcinogenic PAils, 100
ppm.
Ground water: in situ
hioremed ,atinn (subsurface) via
injection welbi, aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Other technologies: thermal
treatment of contaminant source
areas; pump and treat for ground
Water Using carbon adsorption
with polymer injection and
settling
Possible future problems
due to poor transinissisity
of the aquifer.
indieates a new sire.
“Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
I
Shading indicates a aon -CERCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
( ‘C CN1At1/
P hONE
NUMBER
MEI)IN
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Paper” Frank D lan
(314) 751-3136
(State) Ilob Stewart
(913) 551-7654
Soil: 24 organic constituents
Irom ezeosole, including PAIls.
I ’CP, Volume: 70.000 or, yet.
Operational pilot scale and full
scale. Pilot piots within one bet
Remediation expected start: June
1992. Rernediation expected
completion. 2005. Expede4 rose
$9,588.
Soil: suns of the
concentrations of 24
aromatic compounds is
lets than 600 mg/kg.
Risk-based and state
required.
Soil: solid-phase bmediation
in situ soil fleshing, aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms,
Othet technologiet chemical
treatment 100% of site undet
bioremediatiou.
.
Bioremediation failed At
this site due to lack of
temperature and moisture
control the units were
flooded, blocking oxygen
transfer. Steps are being
taken to control moisture
and temperature by
covering basins (10+
acres under roof). Land
disposal restrictions limit
deanup options.
John Wilson
(405) 332-8800
Lo nie Kennedy
(405) 332-8800
Ground water; beezene, E1EX
Vohime: 700K oi,ft
contaminated aquifer (actual
volume will be larger).
Installation: since September
1991. PuB tsale. Remediation
expected stsst Jan-Feb. 1992.
Rernediation expected
completion: February 1093.
Incurred cost 5275K Expected
ross: 5650K
Ground water; btnzene,
S ag3. BTI3X, dcinking
wattr ttandanls
Ground water: in situ
bioremediasion. Other
tethnoksgiec in situ soil fludaittg
denitrificatiou of WrEX possibly
biov enting.
Delays due to site sewing
an * test care lot sew
Kansas environmental
regulations.
Bruce Morrison
(913) 236-3881
Lead
Soil: creosote compounds
(PAils. benio-a-pyrene).
Volume: 15,900 tons.
Completed: full scale.
Remediation start; June lOot,
Completed: November 1991.
Cost $1.3M.
501) ppm, total PArIs; 14
ppm benzo.a-pyrene
Conventional land treatment. 7-
acres closed system water
recirculation w.ith 2-foot thick
clay liner. Solid-phase
bioremediation. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
90% of site was bioremediated.
Health-based risk levels
for PAils are changing
and inconsistent
Bioremediate Johanshir Goichin
(515) 281-8025
Lead
Soil: BTEX. PAils. Volume:
IOOK+ cat. yd.
l ’iot scale. Start date: August
1991. Completed: October 1991.
Incurred cost: 5250.01)0.
Expected cost: SStI- 100/cu. yet.
Soil: total l’AHs,
approximately 500 mg/kg,
carcinogenic PAils,
<250 mg”kg.
Soil (vadose and saturated):
contaminated soil goes through
chemical addition as a pre-
treatment, and then as a co-
treatment Microbial cultures are
obtained from site enrichment
and cultured stock. The process
includes both aerobic and
anaerobic phases.
High soil moisture,
freezing, and large area of
operation.
Wax Steven Jones
(913) 551-7755
Lead Rob Dsuntrup
(515) 281-8900
Soil: I1TEX, ?stFK, organic
hydrocarbons, leachable
organics. Volume: 10K as. yd.
Operational full scale since
October 1991.
Cost 52M.
Soil: organic hydra.
carbons, 100 mg/kg:
leachable organics. TCLI ’
test. ARAlts.
Solid phase (land treatment).
aerobic conditions. exogenous
organisnxs. Other technologies:
air stripping of contaminated
ground water.
Volatilnation control/air
monitoring being
evaluated.
Northern Jim Harris
(406) 449-5414
Enforcement Lead Era Quuones
(406) 449-4067
Soil: PAils, zinc, phenoL
Ground water I’AIis. Volume
1 coil)’ solid phase: 12Km. yd.;
in situ: 70Km. yet.
In design: July 1992. Expected
installation: January 1993.
Expected operational January
1993, Pilot scale. Expected
completion: 5-10 ‘,ears from
start. Expected cost: SlIM,
Soil: PArIs, 36 nsglrg.
Ground water:
carcinogenic PAils, 0030
ygiL. Risk assessment
water quality criteria.
Soil: solid-phase bioremediation,
aerobic conditions. indigenous
organisms. Sediment and ground
water: in situ bioremediation.
Other technologies: in situ soil
flushing. 80% of site under
bioremediation.
Pilot’scak field actrories
have been initiated
because of low soil
transmissivities.
‘Indicates a new site.
“Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information.
Shading indicates a aoa ’CER(i .A site.
I
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
CONTACT!
I’IIONE
NUMBER
M El) IAJ
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
ClEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBI EMS
Northera Terry Wtbsler
(406) 444-1406
Bureau
Soil UTE)L FF11
Op rational full wale.
Remediation start: 199 1.
Soil: diesel 100 ppm
Es situ land treatment. aerobic
growth conditions. indigenoos
organisms; actire tillage, moisture
end nutsient control eraronel
morotoring of contanx1rtaat .
Monitoring b Jow tzeatnsent zone
I/year for leaching.
None
Mark Ilaft
(406) 444-4096
(State)
Soil/sludge: BTEX 1(051,1(048
(metals, organka)
Operational: full scale.
Rensediation start: 1973.
Expected completion: 2010,
Metsltr <1,000 ppm
Organics:
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
KEG
SITE!
LOCATION!
LEAD
CONTACt!
PHONE
NUMBER
MEDIN
CONTAMINANt
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
VI I I
L 4 Ground-Water Site
MT
CERCL& Haforcement Lead
Jim Harris
(406) 449-5414
Solllground wateE PMlz. PCI ’s.
Volume (so i l 45K or. yd.
OperationaL full scale, Lend
treatment unit since May 1991.
Phase I and bioreactor for upper
aquifer ground water since
October 1991. Installed: solid-
phase unit cell #2. lncwrred
cost $4M
Soil. 88 mg /kg. total
carcinogenic PAHs 8
ppm. non-carcinogenic
PAHs 73 ppm. pyrene;
37 mg/kg. PCP I ppb,
dioxin 8 mg/kg.
naphtbalene; 73 mg/kg.
pyrene. Ground water
400 .g8, carcinogenic
PAils; 40 gsg (, non-
carcinogenic PAHs 1.05
mg/L PCP 5 mg/I.,
bensene; 50 mgt ,
arneni other
compounds, not greater
than 10’.
SoIL solid-phase biotensediation.
Ground water in situ
bioremedsation and aerobic
attached growth process (fixed
film reactor). 75 of site under
biorem ed iation,
Oil-water separation in
bioreactor. Pyrene
degradation rates in land
treatment units for noun
VU!
Montana Pole ’
rr
CERCLA State Lead
Brian Antonolli
(406) 449-4067
Sara Weinstocit
(404) 449-5414
So llfground water/nedianezi&
PCI’. PAHn dioxirts/furans.
Volume: up to 250K or. yd.
Predenign. RI/FS in progress.
ROD e ,ected i i , March 1993.
Negotiations ith FRI’s expected
in August s’r September 1993.
lq.ecied cr.ntc: (apitni. 10K
(. 1/eM, 1 0K OVer 5 4 )
Not yet established
Treatment not yet determined.
Presence of
dioxins/furans.
VIII
Moatan. Rail Link
East Helena, MT
Waler Quality lluteau
Ferrt Wrhstrv
14061 444-2406
Soil: RFLX. lilt
Operational. Reinediation
expected start. May 1992.
Soil: diem l. 1 ( X ) ppm
lix situ land treatment aiih
indigenous nrgun ms Acche
land tiIl ag4 ’. n1s ,IstUrc and nUttieSt
conliol, neac.,nal nson ts.r iny for
less-bate betow treatment r>ne.
Nose
VIU
Montana Rail Link
Misoula. MT
Water Quality Iluresu
Tr ite Webttce
t4 1 16i 144-24t 1o
Soil: ItIEX. It ’ll
OperationaL kenirdisirco
expected start: Msy 1 1 )9 2.
Soil petrrkunr. I t t ! ppm
1 5 situ lard treatment nith
indigenous orgrsnisnu. land
tiliage. moisture and nutrient
controL seasonal unonhinring tot
kachale below treatment rose
None
VI II
Public Service
I)rnver, (‘C)
i’sr Lead fState l
Suranne Stevenson
I )iI i 21)3151 1
lai n Weer
Ground 5. 5 1e v petroleum.
be ,e,,c, nkne. tnluene.
Volume: 5,1)2 1,330 gaIn per
(Iperatr.-snnk full cork
Rrmedistinn tmrt: June 1Q 59.
(rnmF letio n: 1991. Incarsed ass?-
S5t tK.
.ol vet estahli ’hrd, ri k
.weccnwnl bncr’d
In situ bioremed ttrnn. r ’ .n,I’inrd
hmrrnra ’ n: nultient gallery
enrnjectasn!pump recovery 5.efls ,
Aerobic conditions, uirh
indigenout r nisnu thher
technologies: cbeor I ticatment.
A Rak Ac’ ,rcsnient his
beer nubmitfrd s the
State of (nk ’ralo health
l)q’t. f ”r revira, utong
5 .i!h an arriicaticn tor
cItric.
33l4U0
year.
lndicates a new site.
“Indicates the she hat been apdated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CER(1A site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
‘I
CONTACTI
PHONE
NUMBER
ME DIA!
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Pelis Flechar
(303) 2934524
(Federat)
Solbground water/wdimenls :
creosote and PAJM’CI.
Volume troll): 750K or. yd
Volume (cxeotote in soil): 6M
gallons.
I’redesign. Feasibility study:
19 65-June 1992. l’llot sale
completed: September 1990,
Recovery of dense nonaqucosis
phase liquids start Fail 1991.
Espected completion: 1996.
Incurred costs: *50 1st. Eapected
cotta: ll1001st
Not yet established
Soil: solid-phase a*d in situ
bloremedhtion considering
slurry-phase bioremediation,
Ground water aerobic attached
growth process (fined film
reactor) and sequencing batch
reactor, pond bottoms. Other
technologlea being considered:
chemical extraction, in situ soil
flushing, soil wathing, deensieSl
tteatmertt, thermal deaorptiors.
50% of site under
bioremedintion.
Fluid delieery and
therefore bioremediation
is not uniforns
Carmen Santos
CA (415) 744-2037
(Federal) Nancy Lindsay
(413) 744-2038
Glenn Ilcynsssn
(415) 744-2044
Ground water: chromium, vinyl
chloride, didslotoinethane,
dsk,rcstorm, 1-2
dichlOropropane, turbon
tetrachloside, TCF, benzene,
phenol. toluene, syanide, heavy
metals (arsenns, cadmium, lead,
nsercurv)
Operational: Ml scale share
1987. Interim remedial study In
progress.
Not yet established
Slursy-phase biosemedintlon;
treatmeut plant with PACT
system, whids combines activated
sludge and carbon adsorption,
Other technologies: metal
removal rytsetu using
rxrmplesation with FIXI’ A,
chemical treatment, chlorination,
Tritd to d lint effluent for
beneficial reuse. Other
alternatives being
evaluated.
Ken Smarkel
Garbeiville, (916) 322-3910
John Weanorrsky
(916) 324-1807
Soil: oil (petroleum
hydrocarbons). Volume: 70 en.
yd.
Completed: full sale.
Remediation start November
1988. Rensediation completed:
January 1989.
Oil (petroleum
hydrocarbons). 100 ppm
Solid-phase biorernedtatiost
Degradation rate is
dependent upon the pile’s
porosity, water content,
type of waSte, soil, and
bacterial consortium.
Irrigation ” Ken Smarkel
CA (916) 322-3910
(State) John Wesnousky
(916) 324-1807
Soil: diesel fuel (petroleum
hydrocarbons). Volume: 120
cat. yd.
Completed: full sale.
Remediatiost start: May 1989.
Remediation completed: August
1989.
Petroleum hydrocarbons,
100 ppm
Solid-phase bk ,rensediation.
Aerobic conditions, whit
initigenout organkents. 100% of
slte underwent hior metfiation.
None
Paul Hadky
(916) 324-3623
CA
(State)
Soil (vadoac): gasoline, diesel
In design since January 1991.
Pilot scale.
‘
Not yet established
In situ bioremediation, Aerobic
rxrnditioag, with indigenous
organitna. Lens than 10% of site
is under biorernediation.
None
Liaea Mark Beracheid
(916) 3223294
(State)
Soil (vadose): diesel
Volume: 600 ca. yd.
Operational: pilot scale.
flioremediation start: October
1990. Remediation completion:
November 1991.
Not yet established
Combined bioprocetses. sprink let
system to apply Itiomilture
formulation, collected leathatc
treated in an aerobic biological
reactor before circulation. 1 ( 10%
of site undergoing
bioremed rntion.
None
‘Indicates a new site.
“lndicatcs the Cite has been updated or includes new information.
Shading indicates a ison-CI3RCLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
Ct )NFAC1Y
PHONE
NUMBER
MEDIA!
CONTAMINANr
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
Statson Tony f ’alagrs
CA (818) 505-2701
lobe llaklwia
Soil/ground water Iol*I
petroleum h drocatbons, diesel,
IITEX, benzene, gasoline.
Volume (nolhy 3K ca. yd.
Volume (ground water): 800%
gallorts.
-
Completed Reme4satson start
embet 1988. Remediation
completed: March 1991..
incur-red costs: $L6M
Sod- t ta1 petroleum
hydrocarbons. 100 ppes
(3round water: benrenr,
S p rb.
In attn btotemedsabon. closed
loop syttem , hydrogen peroxide
as oxygen source; abovegroŕnd
holding tank for nutrient
addition. Other tecitnotogies: in
situ soil fluaking, vacuum
extraction. 65% c i site under
biorernedtetioa.
Duruig dsan:nelsng ,
overload reduced tire
reinjection process rate.
Base John Chestnut
(415) 744-2387
Enforcement Lead Vance Song
(415) 744-2392
Soil: fuel hydrocarbons
Installation: pilot scale.
Remediation expected
completion: FY 1993.
Soil: not yet established.
Ground waler: MCLs.
SOlid-phase bioremedration for
MEK. Other technologies: pump
and treat, carbon adsorption
treatment.
None
lobn Wesnousky
of CA (916) 322-2543
Field John Menke
(916) 324-3173
(State)
Soil (peatierder) atrazine
RRAVO chlnrothalonil ,
dacthai , shiadine I & 2, t)tYT,
thiadine sulfate, trifluralin,
methyl parathion, malathion,
parathion. tnxaphene , tritbion,
paroanu, methyl trithmn.
ethos,
Completed October 1988
Escort available.
Ito! yot eztablt hed
In attn sohd-phase broremedmtso
.
None
Tony Luan
CA (916) 3224872
Lead
Soil: 10 organic pesticides
Pilot project completed.
Evaluating field stuc r results.
Not yet established
Solid-phase bioremediatitur,
Pilot-scale tests on 13, 5-gallon
buckets of soil.
None
Incoxpoxated Tony Lusts
(916) 322-6872
Lead
Soil: TNT, ONT.
trhritrobenzene, nitrobensene
Pilot project completed.
Evaluating field study results.
TNT. 30 ppm; DNT,
nitrobenaene, 5 ppm
Solid-phase bioremedition.
Pilot-scale tests with 1 oi. yd.
boxes of soil,
None
Elizabeth Keicher
(415) 744-2361
Enforcement Lead Jeff Rosentiloons
(415) 744-2362
Joan Fleck
(707) 576-2220
Ed Cargile
(916) 855-7858
Ground water: bensene. PCI’,
PAIls.
Volume: Approlr. 150K gpd for
10 yes. 1.6 nb’ gallon
estimated in the ROD.
Ground water predesigrr pilot
scale, expected March 1992.
Expected installation: September
1993. Remediation expected
start: September 1993. Expected
compktion September 2023.
Expected rosl: Capital,
$4,315,800; O&M, $13,103,200.
Ground water ( g t )
arsenre, 5: chromium, 8;
benzene, 1; PCI’, 22:
PAIls. 5; dioxin, 2.5x
10 ‘. Rink-based.
Ground water: fixed film
bioreactor. Aerobic conditions,
indigenous organisets. Other
technologies: chemical treatment.
100% of ground water under
bioremediation.
There is some roncern
regarding the effect of
elevated metals on soil
biorenredition process.
‘Indicates a new site.
“Indicates the site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CEECLA site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SITFI
LOCATION!
LEAf)
CONTACT!
PHONE
NUMBER
MEOW
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
IX
314. Baxter (cant.)
Soil: PCI’, PAHs, dioxins,
furans. Volume: organic soils.
12,500 as. yd; mixed
organic/inorganic, 9,375 at. yd.
Soil: predesign.
Expected installation: late 1993.
Rensedistion expected start: late
1993.
Expected comxpktion: 2003.
Expected cost 812.SM
Soil (mg/kg): arsenic, 8;
clironsiUm, 8; PCP. 17;
carcinogenic PAils, 0.51;
dioxin, 0.001; furans,
0.001. Sediments
(mg/kg): arsenic, 8;
chromium, 18; zinc, 26;
carcinogenic PAils, 0.5;
PCI’, 1; TCP, 1.
Leachate (mg/I): arsenic,
5; chromium, 5; PCI ’,
1.7; carcinogenic PAils,
0.005; non-carcinogenic
PAILs, 0.15; dioxin,
0.001.
Soil: lined prepared bed
biological unit. Aerobic
conditions, indigenous organisms.
Appros. 90% of soil under
bioremediation.
L X
JASCO
Mt. View, CA
CERCLA Fund Lead
Rose Marie Caraway
(415) 744-2235
Soil/ground Water: VOC 5
Predesign. Trcatnhility study
being conducted while FS is on
hold. Final FS will be produced
following fusal treatability study.
Laboratory satle. Lab treatment
study cost 830K.
Not yet established
Soil/ground water: solid-phase, in
situ biorenxed,ation. Composting
technologies being evaluated in
treatability study. 75% of site is
under bioremedittion.
None
IX
Koppeis Co. Inc .”
Oiville, CA
CER(L& Enforcement Lead
Fred Schauffler
(415) 744-2365
Ed Cargile
(916) 855-7858
Soil (vadose): arsenic,
chromium, PCDDIPCDF,
PAils, PCPs. Volume (soil):
110K at. yd.
Predesign: pilot scale.
Remediatioa expected start June
1993. Expected coni ,letion
June 2013. Demonstration,
Phase I . remediation expected
completion. Spring 1994.
Remnediation, Phase 2, ongoing
tot 10+ years. Consent decree
expected for R.D/RA.
Treatability atedies to be done
early 1992. Expected cost
Capital, 84.5M O&M, 87.7M
Soil: arsenic and
chromium. background
levels; PAils, 0.19 mg/kg
PCP, 17 mg/kg dioxint,
30 ppt. Ground water:
arsenic and chromium,
background levels;
PARs, 0.007 .glL4 PCI’,
2.2 ggtL dioxins, 0.53
ppq.
In situ bioremediation, aerobic
conditions, indigenous organ’nnu.
Other technologies: soil washing,
finatiomi of metal contaminated
soil, ground-water pump and
treat, and carbon adsorption
treatment 30% of site under
bioremediatiomi.
None
IX
Liquid Gold
Richmond, CA
CERU.A Enforcement Lead
Rose Marie Caraway
(415) 744-2235
Soil/ground water: waste oils,
metals (lead, zinc), phenol
Predesign. Site is in preliminary
stages of considering
bioremediation tedsnologir; no
decisiomis have been made and
start of. treatability study is not
planned.
Not yet established
Not yet established
Metals contamination on
site
•Lndicates a new site.
“Indicates the she has been apdatad or includei new iaforaaation.
S.
I
S.
0.
Shading indicates a non-CERCI.A site.
-------
FIELD APPLiCATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SIlL
I O rATION,
I.EAI)
( ‘ N1A( ”I/
III ONE
NLM I IFR
MFDIA,
CONTk 4 .IINANT
SIATI’S
(‘LFANI’P
lEVEl S
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
I X
Marine ( ‘orps Air’GTeUnd
Combat C enter
‘1 ’uent Nine l ’alm CA
(‘i-EC I,,, . Fund Lead
Rosalind Dimenstein
(619) 346-7491
Soil’ jet fuel, gasoline. diesel
fuel, transmission fluid, aviation
fluid
1)esirn completed. Navy
submitted final teport to
i)e-partment of Toxic Substances
Control Navy classified soil as
r,onharardcors waste and planned
full scale aboveground
hioremed i ntion
Not et established
Aboveground hioremedration
system aver a liner with leachate
collection and induced air
infiltration systems.
None
IX
Middle Mountain Sib,es
Greenke Count3. AZ
Federal Facilits
Robert Mandel
f4t5 744-2290
1 rn Steele
(61t2t 257-2335
Soil (vadose): silsex (2.4 ,5-IF.
2,4,5-1’, 2 ,4- I )). Volume: 550
at. yd
Ope rationai full k.
Remediatissu atari: October 1991
E’tpected completion: October
1992. los-ocred cost- $30K ,
l spectrd cost 535K.
Soil- sihe; < 0 mg1 g
x Situ land treatment with
indigenoun organinmo u nder
aerobic growth conditions
Prepared bed with watcr and
nutsientE periodic rotoliliing
Othet technologies:
ph t degr dation 100% of tite
under hioremedintion.
None
IX
M ,iatrove Chemical Corp of
taliforn i n”
Torrance, (‘A
(1 )RC IA Enforcement Lead
Nnnc Woo
415) 741 2t94
Alice Gemino
310) 590-4931
Soil (vadose ) Dill,
monochlorob enrcne
Predesign’ pikit scak,
‘1 reatahitity study r on skted
Considering pilot scale test,
feasihilir studs’.
Not et established
Es situ hioremedintion. land
treatment: aerobic conditions,
with indigenous organisms;
considering white rot fungus
treatment.
None
I X
Protek
C arson C’itr, CA
us’r Lead Ststr)
Ktn Sniarkel
9l6) 522-3910
lo in Wesnousky
(916) 324-1807
Soil: dimel fuel (petroleum
byclrocarbonat Volume: 700
en yd,
Completed: full as le.
ICerraediation atart August 1988.
Completion: December 1989.
Diesel, <10 niglig
Solid-phase bioremcdIation
100% of site underwent
b ior nined tion.
The control Ll , which
did not receive In c
itutrient supplements,
propriety inoculuin, ox the
benefit of vigorout
aet ’atirln, seemed as
eff ctice in reducing the
contaminant level as the
abs.
I X
Romic Chemicals
Fast Palo Alto. CA
RCR.A Lead (Federal)
Glenn Ilcytnan
(415) 744-2044
Soil: toluene, I’CF, ‘rskrie,
MEK VC, acetone, Ground
water: acetone, DC I ), tohtene ,
VC, s lemea . MI ’K, M I I 1K.
meths’letie chloride,
l ’sede sign. Treatahility atudie ’
late FY 1992
Not Set esialslbhed
Soil, in situ hiorrrnedintaon
(under conuideration). Ground
water aerobic attached growth
process, in situ hiorenirdiation,
combined bioproceeses Other
technologies: vacuum e-eiraction .
.cttvared carbon, CV
pero datkrn. 100 of site under
h i orerne4 i ntion
111gb total dissolved solids
(Fe, Mn) in ground water;
huiidings on top of
contaminated soil. facility
borders on slough, which
will recharge ground
water during pump and
treat,
D C
San Diego Gas stid Electric
Main Street Facility
San Diego, (‘A
VST Lead (rederal)
Paul Hadley
(916) 324-3823
Soil: gasoline. Volume: 1,200
at. yd.
Operational: full icak since
October 1989.
Not yet established
In situ bioremediation.
Anaerobic conditions, with
indigenous orgattisins. 100% of
site under bioremedration,
None
lndicates a new site,
itadiates the site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non-CERCLA site,
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
REG
SIt l v i
LOCA ’1’ ION/
LEAD
(‘(iN I’ACTI
I ’I K)Nlv
NUMBER
MEI IIA/
CONTAMINANT
srAnJs
( ‘I .EANU I ’
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
IX
Seaside High School
Seaside, CA
UST Lead (State)
Dick Eriksson
(916) 322-7046
Alan lngham
Soil: diesel fuel. Volume: 100
ni. yd.
Pull-scale bioremedsatioa
complete/k 1988. Diesel
contaminated soil was
successfully renardiated and
placed as a road-base material
prior Its paving.
Soil: diesel fueL 300
mg/kg. Concentration
levels in soil were
seduced below 1.009
mg’kg.
Solid-phase b orensediation,
Multiple applications of fertilizer.
moisture and tilling. 100% of tire
site was renwdiatsd.
None
IX
SFGS Solar Pro cc.t
Kramer Junction, CA
State Lead
Bruce La Belle
(916) 324—2958
Soil: biplrenyl, diphenyl ether
Pull scale. Operational since
July 1990,
Soil. biplrenyL diphenyl
ether, 1,000 mg/kg
Waste pile treatment
None
IX
Solvent Service
CA
CERCLA State Lead site under
RCRA authority
Ron Gervasoa
(415) 464-0688
Marie Lacey
(415) 744-2234
Ground water: acttone, TCE,
over 30 industrial solvents
Operational since January 1991,
Full scale. Itemediation
expected completion: 2001.
Incurred cost: 5399K. Expected
cost: 5844K.
Ground water ( g’L):
1,2-DEC. 3; cis -1,2-DEC,
6; trans-l,2-DCE, 10;
ethylbenzene, 400; 1,1.1-
TCA, 200; Freon 113,
1200; benzene, 0.7;
acetone, 400.0; 1,1-DEC.
1.0; naphtbalene, 2000
Fixe-d film reactor. Other
tecirnologies: vacuum extraction,
steam enhancement of vacuum
extraction.
Permitting
LX
Southern Pacific
Transportation Co.
SPI’C Maintenance Yard
Roseville, CA
C’ERCIA State Lead
David Wright
(910) 332-3910
Soil: hydrocarbons, diesel fuel.
Volume: 240 tons,
Full-scale biotemediation system
completed: January 1991. Cost:
5310K.
Soil: hydrocarbons, diesel
fuel, 5,000 mg /kg
Solid-phase bioremediation.
None
X
American Crns arm
Chahailis, WA
FR IA Fond Lead
Lee Marshall
(206) 553 2723
Mike Ruef
(206) 438-3059
Soil: PCI’, PAll, dioxin.
Predesign. Expected completion
of feasibility studies: October
1992.
Not yet established
Not yet established
None
East 15th Street Setvicr.
Statitsn
Anchorage. AK
UST Lead (State)
Tony Palagyi
(818) 503-2701
Soil total petroleum
hydrocarbons. Volume: 1.500
ear. ytt.
In design. Installation expected:
June 1992, Rernediadort
expected start; Iune 1992.
Remediati a experts/k
sompletion: June 1993. Cost
incurrCd 575K. Expected cost
5200K.
Soil; diesel, ItlO ppm
lit silts bioretnediation; bioventing
with monitoring of moisture, CO 2 .
and itltrates. 20% of site under
bioremediation.
Winter weather -
X Utah Power and Light”
Idaho PaRr, ID
RCRA Lead (State)
Andrew Pentony
(208) 334-5898
Randy Sieges
(208) 3345898
Soil (vado4c): creosote,
Volume: 125 sq. yd, (2-3 feet
deep)
One site area roirçleted October
1991; the other coixpleted
January 1992.
Soil: I’M Is, 51 ) ppb.
Permit ttandard.
Soil; in situ biottmtdration urtdcr
aerobic conditionn with
exogenous organisms. Alte aatwe
-cap. Othet tedinologless pump
and treat for ground water,
Approx. 33% of site under
bioremediation.
io morsitorirrg of addition
of water, Mixing and
drying tests were
determined to be
unaroresafuL No
lndkatlonsfmonitosing of
dilutiots or volatilization.
I
lndicates a new site-.
“Indicate-, the site has been updated or includes new information.
Shading indicates a non-CERCI.A site.
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF BIOREMEDIATION (cont.)
kEG
SITE!
LOCATION!
LEAD
CONTACT!
PhONE
NUMBER
MEI)IA/
CONTAMINANT
STATUS
CLEANUP
LEVELS
TREATMENT
PROBLEMS
X
Wyckoff Eagle Itarbor ”
Puget Sound, WA
CERCLA Enforcement Lead
Rene Fuentes
(206) 553-1599
Sally MaTt)1s
(206) 553-2102
Ground water: creosote, PCI’S.
Optionat full scale started
.Januaiy 1990.
Total PAI 1 20 gzg L
PCI’, 6 1 sg/L. Water
quality criteria,
Sluny-pbase bioremediation
bioreactor-activated sludge fox
treatment of ground water,
aerobic attached growth process
in series with aecation tank,
dasifler, and biological sludge
digester, poss2sle ioll and sludge
bioremediation. Other
technologies: oil/water separation
carbon polishin&
Lower TOC than
anticipated during design.
There has been P
toxicity at times.
CLOSSARY OF BLOREMEDLATION TERMS
Growth Conditions
Aerobic—In the presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic—In the absence of oxygen.
Source of Microorganisms
Indigenous-.-Occurring naturally at a site.
Exogenous—Not native to a site,
Treatment ja a Reactor
Activated Sludge—The biomass is suspended in liquid, captured in a clarifier, and
recycled to the reactor; the contact time between the waste and the biom ass is
controlled by wasting excess bioniass.
Extended Aeration—The biomass is suspended in liquid, captured in the clarifier, and
recycled to the reactor; a long contact time is created by enlarging the aeration basin,
Contact Stabilization—The waste contacts the biom ass suspended in liquid in the first
aeration tank and contaminants are adsorbed to the clarified biomass: then they are
digested in the second aeration tank.
Fired Film—l3ionlass is retained in the system by using a static support media.
Fluidized Bed—Bacteria is attached to a support media, which is fluidized in the reactor.
Sequencing Batch Reactor—ibis self-contained treatment system incorporates
equalization, aeration, and clarification using a draw and fill approach on wastewater
sludges.
Slurry Reactor—Contaminants are treated in a soil slurry (a thin mixture of soil and
water) with nutrients and oxygen added as needed; water and soil must be separated
after treatment, but clean soil is left on site.
Treatment Outside of a Reactor
Aerated Lagoon—The biomass is kept suspended in liquid with aeration.
Land Treatment—Waste is applied onto or incorporated into the soil surface in a
facility. Contaminants are treated with microorganisms typically indigenous to the
existing soil matrix; nutrients, moisture, and oxygen can be added to optimize growth
conditions. If the waste remains at the facility after closure, the land treatment facility
becomes a disposal facility.
Pile—This method refers to any noncontainerized accumulation of solid, nonflowing
waste being treated or stored.
Bioventing—Air is injected into contaminated soil at rates low enough to increase soil
oxygen concentrations and stimulate indigenous microbial activity without releasing
volatile emissions.
In Situ Treatment—Biodegradable contaminants are treated by microorganisms within
the environment in which they are found. Most commonly, this process utilizes aerobic
processes and involves delivery of oxygen or other electron acceptors and other
appropriate amendments.
lndicates a new Site.
•lndicates the site has been updated or includes new information. Shading indicates a non -CERCLA site.
-------
Bioremediation In the Field
Update on the Bioremediation Field Initiative
(Continued from page 1)
Montana; Park City Pipeline, Park City, Kansas; Allied Signal Superfund site, St. Joseph, Michigan; Eielson
Air Force Base, Alaska; Hill Air Force Base, Utah; Brookhaven Superfund site, Brookhaven, Mississippi; and
Public Service, Denver, Colorado.
At the Park City site, the initial assessment of the mass of total petroleum hydrocarbons and total BTEX
compounds subject to bioremediation has been completed. Only 4 percent of the BTEX (with a total of 750
kg dissolved in the oily phase) and 0.04 percent of the TPH (70,000 kg total) is in the ground water. This site
provides a significant illustration of the importance of core analysis to estimate the amount of contamination
subject to bioremediation.
The bioventing project at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska has shown an increase of 20°C in the actively
warmed area over the control as of April. The application of warmed water has been discontinued for the
summer. The next in situ biodegradation rate test is planned for early summer.
At the Hill Air Force base in Utah, several events are planned for this summer: an in situ respirometry test
to measure in situ biodegradation rates, an inert gas tracer study to evaluate the effectiveness of delivering
air to the entire site, and a change in air flow rate.
The Public Service site was cored in early June to measure any residual hydrocarbon left after remediation
and to determine the capacity of any residuals to support a plume of contaminated ground water.
Plans are under way to conduct the field demonstration at the Brookhaven Wood Preserving Site using white
rot fungus. The test plot will be 12 in. deep and 100 ft x 100 ft. Two 50-ft x 25-ft control plots will be used;
one with contaminated soil only and the other with contaminated soil and inoculum carrier.
Very preliminary data from the land treatment unit at the Libby site have shown that PCP concentrations
from lifts in place for some time previous to discrete sampling are within the treatment range. Pyrene levels,
which were approximately 100 mg/kg, have been markedly reduced during the last treatment season.
Further background information on these sites can be found in previous issues of the bulletin.
United States Center for Environmental Research BULK RATE
Environmental Protection Information POSTAGE & FEES PAID
Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 EPA PERMIT NO. G-35
FPA/S40/N 9?/DO? * u's'GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992
------- |