EPA

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Solid Waste and

Emergency Response

(5102G)

EPA 542-R-01-019

September 2001

clu-in.org

Use of Bioremediation at

Superfund Sites
i

EPA-542-R-01-019

September 2001

Use of Bioremediation

at Superfund Sites

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation Office

Washington, DC 20460
ii

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation

Office with support under EPA Contract Number 68-W-99-003. Information in this report is derived

from a variety of references, some of which have been peer-reviewed. Mention of trade names or

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information

about this document, please contact: Linda Fiedler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology

Innovation Office, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (MC 5102G), Washington,

D.C., 20460; (703) 603-7194; e-mail: fiedler.linda@epa.gov.

This document may be obtained from EPA's web site at <http://www.epa.gov/tio/>, or at

<http://clu-in.org>. A limited number of hard copies of this document are available free of charge by

mail from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications, at the following address

(please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery):

U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Phone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198

Fax: (513) 489-8695
iii

ACRONYMS

AFB Air Force Base

AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence

ASR Annual Status Report

BHC "-Benzene Hexachloride

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes

CA Corrective Action

CCl4 Carbon Tetrachloride

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

Cr+3 Trivalent Chromium

Cr+6 Hexavalent Chromium

CVOC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound

cy Cubic Yard

DCE Dichloroethene

DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DS Demonstration Scale

EPA REACH IT EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies

ESD Explanation of Significant Differences

FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

FS Full Scale

FY Fiscal Year

JOAAP Joliet Army Ammunition Plant

mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram

NC Not Calculated

NNEMS National Network of Environmental Management Studies

NR Not Reported

NSCEP National Service Center for Environmental Publications

OU Operable Unit

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PCP Pentachlorophenol

PHC Petroleum Hydrocarbons

POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD Record of Decision
ACRONYMS (continued)

iv

SVE Soil Vapor Extraction

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound

TCE Trichloroethene

Tetryl N-methyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline

TNT Trinitrotoluene

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

UST Underground Storage Tank

VC Vinyl Chloride

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 OVERVIEW OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ............................. 3

3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS AT SUPERFUND AND OTHER

SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1 TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2 REMEDY SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.0 PERFORMANCE OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.0 COST OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6.0 VENDORS OF BIOREMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

8.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INFORMATION SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

APPENDICES

A Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial Action

Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B Additional Information about Development of Cost Curves for U.S. Air Force Bioventing

Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
vi

TABLES

Table Page

1 Description of In Situ Bioremediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Description of Ex Situ Bioremediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Field Use of Three Types of Bioremediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Superfund Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) ....................... 8

5 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6 Project Status of Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7 Examples of Remedy Changes to Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

8 Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

9 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and Herbicides . . . 24

11 Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Explosives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

12 Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data . . . . . . . . . 29

13 U.S. Air Force Bioventing Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Example Configuration for an In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation System ................ 3

2 Typical Windrow Composting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Superfund Source Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) ............................ 8

4 Superfund Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) .............................. 9

5 Relative Number of In Situ and Ex Situ Superfund Bioremediation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6 Superfund Site types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . 10

7 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . 11

8 Contaminants Most Frequently Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

9 Number of RODs Signed for Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10 Bioremediation as a Percentage of Total Source Treatment RODs (FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . 14

11 Superfund Remedial Actions: Comparison of the Number of RODs for Selected Versus Planned

or Implemented Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

12 U.S. Air Force Bioventing Applications: Unit Cost Versus Volume Treated

(68% Confidence Interval) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1 The term source treatment includes treatment of soil, sludge, sediment, or other solid waste.

1

1.0 SUMMARY

Bioremediation is a technology that uses microorganisms to treat contaminants through natural

biodegradation mechanisms (intrinsic bioremediation) or by enhancing natural biodegradation

mechanisms through the addition of microbes, nutrients, electron donors, and/or electron acceptors

(enhanced bioremediation). This technology, performed in situ (below ground or in place) or ex situ

(above ground), is capable of degrading organic compounds to less toxic materials such as carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane, and water through aerobic or anaerobic processes. Bioremediation is being used with

increasing frequency to remediate contaminated media at hazardous waste sites because, compared with

other remediation technologies, it often is less expensive and more acceptable to the public.

This report focuses on the use of enhanced bioremediation technologies at 104 Superfund remedial action

sites and other contaminated sites. It provides a snapshot of current applications of bioremediation and

presents trends over time concerning selection and use of the technology, contaminants and site types

treated by the technology, and cost and performance of the technology. This information will help inform

site managers, technology users, developers, and other interested parties about the capabilities and current

applications of bioremediation.

Highlights of this report are listed below:

• Technology Types - Since 1991, the percentage of bioremediation projects performed ex situ has

decreased while the percentage of projects performed in situ has increased. In 1991, only 35

percent of the Superfund remedial action bioremediation projects were in situ versus 53 percent in

1999. Bioventing is the most commonly implemented in situ treatment technology for source

treatment1

. Land treatment is the most commonly used ex situ source treatment technology.

• Site Types - The most common type of Superfund remedial action site where bioremediation is

used is wood preserving (31 percent), followed by petroleum sites (21 percent). The most

common types of contaminants at these sites are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (40

percent); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) (37 percent); and pesticides and

herbicides (27 percent).

• Project Status - Over half of bioremediation projects at Superfund remedial action sites (57

percent) are in the operational phase, while 26 percent are in the predesign, design, or installation

phases, and 17 percent have been completed. Of the 18 completed projects, 14 are ex situ source

treatment projects, and 4 are in situ projects for source treatment and groundwater treatment.

• Trends in Use - Few bioremediation Records of Decision (RODs) were signed in the early- to

mid-1980s. Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1988, the number of bioremediation RODs has

increased. In general, 8 to 12 bioremediation RODs have been signed per year.

• Performance - Available performance data shows that bioremediation is capable of reducing

contaminant concentrations in contaminated media. Bioremediation is being used to treat

recalcitrant organic compounds, including chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

PAHs, pesticides and herbicides, and explosives. For ten projects treating chlorinated VOCs,

concentrations of VOCs in treated groundwater ranged from below detect limit (<5 μg/L for

tetrachloroethene [PCE], trichloroethene [TCE], and dichloroethene [DCE]) to 1,200 μg/L (for

carbon tetrachloride).
2

For seven projects treating PAHs, concentrations of PAHs in treated soil and sludges ranged from

3.3 mg/kg to 795 mg/kg, with some projects showing more than 90% removal. For four projects

treating pesticides and herbicides, concentrations of specific pesticides and herbicides in treated

soil were less than 10 mg/kg at two projects and less than 200 mg/kg at the other two projects,

with some projects showing more than 90% removal. For six projects treating explosives, three

showed removals of more than 75% and the others showed removals ranging from little or none

to as much as 64%.

• Cost - Information about the cost of using bioremediation to treat contaminated media was

available for 67 sites. Unit costs for bioventing projects ranged from approximately $2 per cubic

yard (cy) to more than $300/cy, with most sites less than $40/cy. Unit costs for ex situ

bioremediation of soil, such as land treatment or composting systems, ranged from $13/cy to

more than $500/cy, with most projects costing less than $300/cy.

Information sources used for this report included Superfund RODs, ROD amendments, and Explanations

of Significant Differences (ESDs) issued by EPA through fiscal year 1999 (EPA 2001); and cost and

performance reports prepared by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR 2001).

Specific references are identified at the end of this report.

Section 2 of the report provides an overview of bioremediation technologies, including in situ and ex situ

technologies, and provides examples of field use for three types of bioremediation technologies. The

characteristics of bioremediation projects at Superfund and other sites are described in Section 3,

including the types of bioremediation projects that have been conducted and the selection of

bioremediation as a remedy. Section 4 provides a summary of the performance of bioremediation

technologies, with a summary of bioremediation costs in Section 5. Information about vendors of

bioremediation technologies is provided in Section 6. References used in preparation of this report are in

Section 7, and additional information about selected information sources is in Section 8.

Appendix A to the report provides selected information about 104 bioremediation projects, including site

name, location, ROD year, contaminants treated, project status, and contact name. Appendix B provides

additional information related to the development of the cost curves for bioventing projects.
2 During bioremediation, microorganisms also can affect the metal chemistry and bioavailability in the

contaminated media; however, those effects are not addressed in this report.

3 This report does not include ex situ groundwater bioremediation technologies.

3

Source: EPA 2000

Figure 1. Example Configuration for an In Situ Groundwater

Bioremediation System

2.0 OVERVIEW OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Bioremediation technologies use microorganisms to treat contaminants by degrading organic compounds

to less toxic materials, such as CO2, methane, water, and inorganic salts. These technologies include

intrinsic or enhanced bioremediation, which is the focus of this report, and can be performed in situ or ex

situ under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. During enhanced bioremediation, amendments are typically

added to the media to supplement biodegradation processes.2 Amendments include nutrients (such as

nitrogen and phosphorus), electron donors (such as methanol or lactic acid for anaerobic processes),

electron acceptors (such as oxygen for aerobic processes, ferric iron or nitrate for anaerobic processes), or

microbes (bioaugmentation) (EPA 1994, EPA 2000).

As shown in Table 1, in situ

bioremediation technologies

include source treatment

technologies such as

bioventing and slurry-phase

lagoon aeration, and

groundwater technologies

such as biosparging and in

situ aerobic or anaerobic

treatment. Amendments are

added using direct injection

and groundwater

recirculation systems. For

direct injection (illustrated in

Figure 1), amendments are

added to the contaminated

media through injection

points. With groundwater

recirculation systems,

contaminated groundwater is

extracted, amendments are

mixed with the groundwater

ex situ, and the amended

groundwater is re-injected into the subsurface, usually upgradient of the contaminated zone. One

configuration for a recirculation system is to extract and re-inject groundwater in a single strata or at a

common groundwater elevation. An alternative configuration for a groundwater recirculation system is

extraction and re-injection at different elevations in a single treatment cell, creating vertical circulation.

As shown in Table 2, ex situ processes include land treatment, composting, biopiles, and slurry-phase

treatment for source treatment.3 Figure 2 presents an example configuration for a windrow composting

system. Table 3 presents three examples of successful bioremediation projects: one in situ groundwater

project, one ex situ source control project, and one in situ source control project.
4

Table 1. Description of In Situ Bioremediation Technologies

In Situ Source Treatment Processes

• Bioventing - Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by movement of forced air (either

extraction or injection of air) to increase concentrations of oxygen and stimulate biodegradation.

• Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration - Air and soil are brought into contact with each other in a lagoon to

promote biological degradation of the contaminants in the soil.

In Situ Groundwater Processes

• Biosparging - Air is injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation and volatilization of

contaminants; biodegradation occurs aerobically.

• Aerobic - Air, oxygen, and/or nutrients are injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation of

contaminants. Systems include direct injections of oxygen release compound (ORC®) or hydrogen

peroxide, or groundwater recirculation systems.

• Anaerobic - Carbon sources such as molasses, lactic acid, or hydrogen release compound (HRC®) are

injected into groundwater to enhance biodegradation of contaminants using direct injection or

groundwater recirculation systems.

Sources: EPA 2000, FRTR 2001a

Table 2. Description of Ex Situ Bioremediation Technologies

Ex Situ Source Treatment Processes

• Land Treatment - Contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge is excavated, applied to lined beds, and

periodically turned over or tilled to aerate the contaminated media. Amendments can be added to the

contaminated media in the beds.

• Composting - Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed with bulking agents such as wood chips and

organic amendments such as hay, manure, and vegetable wastes. The types of amendments used

depends on the porosity of the soil and the balance of carbon and nitrogen needed to promote microbial

activity.

• Biopiles - Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in aboveground enclosures. The

process occurs in an aerated static pile in which compost is formed into piles and aerated with blowers or

vacuum pumps.

• Slurry-Phase Treatment - An aqueous slurry is created by combining soil, sediment, or sludge with water

and other additives. The slurry is mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in contact with

the contaminants. Treatment usually occurs in a series of tanks.

Sources: EPA 2000, FRTR 2001a
5

Source: FRTR 2001a

Biodegradation occurs under Figure 2. Typical Windrow Composting System

aerobic and anaerobic

conditions, with the majority

of bioremediation systems

designed to treat

contaminants aerobically.

Aerobic processes use

oxidation to degrade organic

compounds to less toxic

compounds such as CO2 and

water. Anaerobic processes,

used to treat contaminants

such as chlorinated VOCs,

include dechlorination where

the chlorinated VOCs act as

an electron acceptor, and are

degraded to nonchlorinated

compounds. During

anaerobic degradation,

persistent intermediate

compounds may be

produced. For example, anaerobic biodegradation of chlorinated aliphatic solvents can produce lower

substituted chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as chloroethane or vinyl chloride (VC). Such compounds are

not readily degraded under anaerobic conditions (these contaminants may be more readily degraded under

aerobic conditions) and may be more toxic than the original contaminant.

Biodegradation of contaminants occurs as direct or cometabolic processes. For direct bioremediation

processes, the microorganisms use the contaminants as a source of food or energy. When contaminants

cannot be used as a food source, biodegradation may occur though cometabolism in which the

contaminant is degraded by an enzyme or cofactor produced during microbial metabolism of another

compound.

The types of contaminants that are amenable to bioremediation include petroleum hydrocarbons, such as

gasoline and diesel fuel; nonchlorinated solvents, such as acetone and other ketones; wood-treating

wastes, such as creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP); some chlorinated aromatic compounds, such as

chlorobenzenes and biphenyls having fewer than five chlorine atoms per molecule; and some chlorinated

aliphatic compounds, such as trichloroethene (TCE).
4 For the Southeastern Wood Preserving site, EPA used published toxicity-equivalent factors to calculate the B(a)Pequivalent of the carcinogenic PAHs (Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,

Benzo(a)pyrene, Dibenzo(ah)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene). In calculating B(a)P-equivalent concentrations,

the concentration of each PAH is multiplied by a factor which is equal to its carcinogenicity relative to

benzo(a)pyrene. The resulting weighted concentrations are summed to calculate the B(a)P-equivalent carcinogenic

PAH value.

6

Table 3. Field Use of Three Types of Bioremediation Technologies

In Situ Bioremediaton of Soil

The Dover Air Force Base, Building 719 site in Dover, Delaware had groundwater contaminated with TCE,

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and cis-1,2-DCE. A field-scale cometabolic bioventing system was operated at the

site between May 1998 and July 1999. The primary objectives of the project were to determine the efficiency of

an in situ cometabolic bioventing process for chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons under field conditions. During

the 4-month period immediately prior to system startup, small amounts of propane were added directly to the soil

to drive the cometabolism of TCE and TCA. Concentrations of TCE, TCA, and DCE in the soil decreased to less

than 0.25 mg/kg for each contaminant during the 14-month period of operation. Increased levels of chloride (a

product of the biodegradation of chlorinated solvents) in the soil during this period showed that the reduced

contaminant concentrations were a result of the cometabolic bioventing system. (FRTR 2001)

In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater

The Avco Lycoming Superfund site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania had groundwater contaminated with TCE,

DCE, VC, hexavalent chromium (Cr+6), and cadmium. Since January 1997, as part of a full-scale cleanup effort,

molasses has been injected directly into the groundwater to reductively dechlorinate (cometabolic and direct) the

chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons and to reduce the groundwater concentrations of the cadmium and Cr+6 (the

chromium is not degraded as a result of the molasses injection; rather, it is reduced from Cr+6 to trivalent

chromium (Cr+3)). By July 1998, the use of molasses injection had created an anaerobic reactive zone, with

concentrations of TCE, DCE, and Cr+6 reduced to below their cleanup goals in many monitoring wells at the site

(cleanup goals are 6.5 μg/L, 30 μg/L, and 32 μg/L, respectively). According to the technology vendor,

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, this technology saved substantial resources when compared to pump and treat.

(FRTR 2001)

Ex Situ Bioremediation of Soil and Sludge

The Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund site in Canton, Mississippi had soil and sludge contaminated with

PAHs. During a full-scale cleanup effort, a slurry-phase bioremediation system was operated from July 1991

until 1994. The average total PAH concentration was reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg (below the cleanup goal

of 950 mg/kg). The average benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)-equivalent PAH concentration4 was reduced from 467 to

152 mg/kg (below the cleanup goal of 180 mg/kg). The data indicate that the greatest reductions occurred during

the first 10 days of treatment and that after 19 days of treatment, the cleanup goal for total PAHs was met for 12

of the 13 batches. The initial and final concentrations are for the soil and sludge in the slurry phase, after passing

through the soil/sludge wash tank and the slurry mix tank. (FRTR 2001)
5 The number of bioremediation projects in each year is cumulative, and represents all bioremediation projects

planned, implemented, or completed prior to that year.

7

3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS

AT SUPERFUND AND OTHER SITES

This section presents detailed information about the use of bioremediation to treat contaminated media for

104 Superfund remedial action projects (referred to as Superfund projects in this report; does not include

removal actions), along with summary information for other sites. The information presented includes

the specific types of bioremediation projects, trends in implementation of bioremediation, and remedy

changes under the Superfund remedial action program.

The 104 Superfund projects include bioremediation projects that have been completed or are operating,

and projects that are planned (projects where bioremediation has been selected as the remedy in the ROD

and are installed (but not operating) or in the predesign or design stage). Information about these projects

was obtained primarily from EPA’s Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report,

Tenth Edition (EPA 2001). Appendix A to this report presents site-specific information about the 104

Superfund projects (including site name, location, year in which the ROD was signed, contaminants

treated, status of the project, and contact information) and is organized by type of remediation

technology.

3.1 TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION PROJECTS

This section summarizes information about the types of technologies, types of sites, contaminant groups,

and status of bioremediation projects at Superfund projects and other sites. This analysis includes in situ

and ex situ projects for source treatment and in situ projects for groundwater treatment.

Technology Types

Figure 3 (source treatment) and Table 4 (groundwater treatment) compare the number of Superfund

bioremediation projects with the number of Superfund projects using other treatment technologies. As

shown in Figure 3, 49 of the 425 ex situ projects for source treatment (12%) use bioremediation. Figure 3

also shows that 35 of the 314 in situ projects for source treatment (11%) use bioremediation. Table 4

shows that 20 of the 80 in situ projects for groundwater treatment (25%) use bioremediation.

Approximately 10% of sites treating groundwater are using in situ technologies, including

bioremediation. In addition, some ex situ (pump and treat) projects used bioremediation in their aboveground treatment system. Information was not provided in the available sources about the number of ex

situ groundwater bioremediation projects and they are not discussed further in this report.

As shown in Figure 4, of the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects, 55 (53 percent) are in situ. In situ

projects include 35 for source treatment (24 for bioventing) and 20 for groundwater treatment (3

biosparging projects and 17 other projects, usually injection of amended groundwater).

Figure 4 also shows that 49 (47%) of the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects are for ex situ source

treatment. Land treatment is the most common of these, with 33 projects. Other ex situ source treatment

projects include composting, biopiles, and slurry-phase technologies.

As shown in Figure 5, between August 1991 and August 2000, the relative percentage of in situ

bioremediation projects at Superfund sites increased, and ex situ projects decreased correspondingly.5
8

Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26%

In Situ Solidification/

Stabilization (46) 6%

In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5%

In Situ Soil Flushing (16) 2%

Other (in situ) (21) 3%

Chemical Treatment (10) 1%

Incineration (on-site) (42) 6%

Bioremediation (49) 7%

Thermal Desorption (61) 8%

Incineration (off-site) (94) 13%

Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19%

Neutralization (7)

Soil Washing (6)

Mechanical Soil Aeration (5)

Soil Vapor Extraction (5)

Solvent Extraction (4)

Open Burn/Open Detonation (2)

Vitrification (2)

Physical Separation (1)

Other (ex-situ) (32) 4%

Thermally Enhanced Recovery (6)

Chemical Treatment (5)

Phytoremediation (5)

Dual-Phase Extractioin (3)

Electrical Separation (1)

Vitrification (1)

Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58% In Situ Technologies (314) 42%

Source: EPA 2001

Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26%

In Situ Solidification/

Stabilization (46) 6%

In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5%

In Situ Soil Flushing (16) 2%

Other (in situ) (21) 3%

Chemical Treatment (10) 1%

Incineration (on-site) (42) 6%

Bioremediation (49) 7%

Thermal Desorption (61) 8%

Incineration (off-site) (94) 13%

Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19%

Neutralization (7)

Soil Washing (6)

Mechanical Soil Aeration (5)

Soil Vapor Extraction (5)

Solvent Extraction (4)

Open Burn/Open Detonation (2)

Vitrification (2)

Physical Separation (1)

Other (ex-situ) (32) 4%

Thermally Enhanced Recovery (6)

Chemical Treatment (5)

Phytoremediation (5)

Dual-Phase Extractioin (3)

Electrical Separation (1)

Vitrification (1)

Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58% In Situ Technologies (314) 42%

Source: EPA 2001

Figure 3. Superfund Source Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Table 4. Superfund Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Technology Number of Sites

Ex Situ Technologies

Pump and Treat 6381

In Situ Technologies2

Air Sparging 48

Bioremediation 20

Dual-Phase Extraction 10

Permeable Reactive Barrier 8

Phytoremediation 4

Chemical Treatment 2

In-Well Air Stripping 2

Source: EPA 2001; EPA 2001b

1 Number of Superfund remedial action sites that have signed RODs selecting a P&T remedy. Some sites may have

more than one P&T system.

2 Some sites use more than one in situ technology.
9

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Land Treatment (33)

31%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Other (9)

9%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Bioventing (24)

23%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Composting (8)

8%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase (2)

2%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase Lagoon Aeration (2)

2%

In Situ Groundwater –

Other (17)

16%

In Situ Groundwater –

Biosparging (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Other (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Biopile (3)

3%

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year

1 Ex situ groundwater bioremediation treatments are not included in this figure.

2 Some sites may have more than one project.

3 Other in situ groundwater projects involved injection or recirculation of

amended groundwater, and cover both aerobic and anaerobic environments.

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

( ) = Number of Projects

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Land Treatment (33)

31%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Other (9)

9%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Bioventing (24)

23%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Composting (8)

8%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase (2)

2%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase Lagoon Aeration (2)

2%

In Situ Groundwater –

Other (17)

16%

In Situ Groundwater –

Biosparging (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Other (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Biopile (3)

3%

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year

1 Ex situ groundwater bioremediation treatments are not included in this figure.

2 Some sites may have more than one project.

3 Other in situ groundwater projects involved injection or recirculation of

amended groundwater, and cover both aerobic and anaerobic environments.

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

( ) = Number of Projects

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Land Treatment (33)

31%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Other (9)

9%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Bioventing (24)

23%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Composting (8)

8%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase (2)

2%

In Situ Source Treatment –

Slurry Phase Lagoon Aeration (2)

2%

In Situ Groundwater –

Other (17)

16%

In Situ Groundwater –

Biosparging (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Other (3)

3%

Ex Situ Source Treatment –

Biopile (3)

3%

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year

1 Ex situ groundwater bioremediation treatments are not included in this figure.

2 Some sites may have more than one project.

3 Other in situ groundwater projects involved injection or recirculation of

amended groundwater, and cover both aerobic and anaerobic environments.

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

( ) = Number of Projects

Figure 4. Superfund Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

35%

44%

43% 44%

48% 49%

55%

53%

65%

56%

57% 56%

52% 51%

45%

47%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Aug-91 Aug-92 Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-95 Aug-96 Aug-97 Aug-98 Aug-99 Aug-00

Publication Dates of ASR Editions

Percentage of Total Bioremediation Projects

Percentage of In Situ Projects Percentage of Ex Situ Projects

1 Each edition of the ASR includes all of the bioremediation projects from previous editions that have not been cancelled, plus additional projects

selected in RODs since the previous edition. Therefore, the number of bioremediation projects in each edition is cumulative, and represents all

bioremediation projects planned, implemented, or completed prior to the publication of each edition.

Source: EPA 2001

35%

44%

43% 44%

48% 49%

55%

53%

65%

56%

57% 56%

52% 51%

45%

47%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Aug-91 Aug-92 Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-95 Aug-96 Aug-97 Aug-98 Aug-99 Aug-00

Publication Dates of ASR Editions

Percentage of Total Bioremediation Projects

Percentage of In Situ Projects Percentage of Ex Situ Projects

1 Each edition of the ASR includes all of the bioremediation projects from previous editions that have not been cancelled, plus additional projects

selected in RODs since the previous edition. Therefore, the number of bioremediation projects in each edition is cumulative, and represents all

bioremediation projects planned, implemented, or completed prior to the publication of each edition.

Source: EPA 2001

35%

44%

43% 44%

48% 49%

55%

53%

65%

56%

57% 56%

52% 51%

45%

47%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Aug-91 Aug-92 Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-95 Aug-96 Aug-97 Aug-98 Aug-99 Aug-00

Publication Dates of ASR Editions

Percentage of Total Bioremediation Projects

Percentage of In Situ Projects Percentage of Ex Situ Projects

1 Each edition of the ASR includes all of the bioremediation projects from previous editions that have not been cancelled, plus additional projects

selected in RODs since the previous edition. Therefore, the number of bioremediation projects in each edition is cumulative, and represents all

bioremediation projects planned, implemented, or completed prior to the publication of each edition.

Source: EPA 2001

Figure 5. Relative Number of In Situ and Ex Situ Superfund Bioremediation Projects1
6 Sites cannot be listed on the NPL solely as a result of petroleum contaminants. These sites likely were listed

because they contain other hazardous contaminants.

10

Site Type

Wood

Preserving

Petroleum

Refining and

Reuse/

Petroleum,

Oil, and

Lubricant

(POL) Lines

Landfill/

Disposal

Area

Underground/

Aboveground

Storage Tank

Pesticide

Manufacturing/

Use/Storage

Fire/Crash

Training

Area

Munitions

Manufacturing/

Storage

Surface

Impoundment/

Lagoon

Vehicle

Maintenance

Drum

Storage/

Disposal

Other Organic

Chemical

Manufacturing/

Use

Spill

32

22

19

13

8 7777 6 5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of Projects

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

Site Type

Wood

Preserving

Petroleum

Refining and

Reuse/

Petroleum,

Oil, and

Lubricant

(POL) Lines

Landfill/

Disposal

Area

Underground/

Aboveground

Storage Tank

Pesticide

Manufacturing/

Use/Storage

Fire/Crash

Training

Area

Munitions

Manufacturing/

Storage

Surface

Impoundment/

Lagoon

Vehicle

Maintenance

Drum

Storage/

Disposal

Other Organic

Chemical

Manufacturing/

Use

Spill

32

22

19

13

8 7777 6 5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of Projects

32

22

19

13

8 7777 6 5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of Projects

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

Figure 6. Superfund Site types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 - FY 1999)1

Site Types

Figure 6 summarizes the 104 Superfund bioremediation projects by the type of facility or operation that

caused site contamination. The most common site types include wood-preserving (32 sites), followed by

petroleum sites (22 sites). The latter includes petroleum refining and reuse/petroleum, oil, and lubricant

(POL) lines.6

Contaminant Groups

Figure 7 presents data about the types of contaminant groups treated by bioremediation. The figure

shows that bioremediation is used most frequently to treat nonchlorinated compounds at Superfund

projects, including non-chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs. Bioremediation was used less often to treat

chlorinated compounds, which are typically more difficult to biodegrade. Figure 8 presents the 14 most

common contaminants treated by bioremediation. As shown in Figure 8, benzene (32 projects),

pentachlorophenol (25 projects), and toluene (21 projects) are the most common contaminants treated by

bioremediation. Appendix A presents the site-specific contaminants at each of the 104 Superfund

bioremediation projects.

Table 5 presents data about the types of contaminant groups treated by a specific type of bioremediation

technology. Almost all the contaminant groups have been treated both in situ and ex situ by both source

treatment and groundwater remediation technologies.
11

31 32

30

20

22

8

13

7

11

6

8

4

6

0

6

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PAHs Other NonChlorinated

SVOCs2

BTEX Other NonChlorinated

VOCs3

Organic

Pesticides and

Herbicides

Other

Chlorinated

SVOCs4

Chlorinated

VOCs

Explosives/

propellants

Number of Projects

Abbreviations: BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; FY = fiscal year; PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile

organic compound; VOC = volatile organic compound

1

Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.

Non-Chlorinated SVOCs Non-Chlorinated VOCs Chlorinated SVOCs

Source: EPA 2001b

Number of Source Treatment Projects

Number of Groundwater Projects

Total Projects = 104 31 32

30

20

22

8

13

7

11

6

8

4

6

0

6

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PAHs Other NonChlorinated

SVOCs2

BTEX Other NonChlorinated

VOCs3

Organic

Pesticides and

Herbicides

Other

Chlorinated

SVOCs4

Chlorinated

VOCs

Explosives/

propellants

Number of Projects

Abbreviations: BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; FY = fiscal year; PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile

organic compound; VOC = volatile organic compound

1

Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.

Non-Chlorinated SVOCs Non-Chlorinated VOCs Chlorinated SVOCs

Source: EPA 2001b

Number of Source Treatment Projects

Number of Groundwater Projects

Total Projects = 104

Figure 7. Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1

32

25

21

19

17 17

15

13

10 9 8888

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Benzene

Pentachlorophenol

Toluene

Xylenes

Creosote

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Phenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Diesel fuel

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Trichloroethene

Source: EPA 2001b

Contaminant

Number of Projects

Total Projects = 104

1

Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.

32

25

21

19

17 17

15

13

10 9 8888

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Benzene

Pentachlorophenol

Toluene

Xylenes

Creosote

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Phenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Diesel fuel

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Trichloroethene

Source: EPA 2001b

Contaminant

Number of Projects

Total Projects = 104

1

Some projects address more than one contaminant group. Technology effectiveness not considered.

Figure 8. Contaminants Most Frequently Treated by Bioremediation at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
12

Table 5. Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Technology

Total

Number

of

Projects

PAHsOther Non-ChlorinatedSVOCs

1

BTEX

Other Non-Chlorinated VOCs

2

Pesticides and HerbicidesOther Chlorinated SVOCs

3

Chlorinated VOCsExplosives/Propellants

4

Ex Situ Source Treatment Technologies

Land Treatment 33 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Composting 8 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Biopile 3 Ž Ž Ž Ž

Slurry Phase 2 Ž Ž Ž Ž

Other 3 Ž Ž

In Situ Source Treatment Technologies

Bioventing 24 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Slurry-Phase Lagoon

Aeration 2 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Other 9 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

In Situ Groundwater Technologies

Biosparging 3 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Direct Injection or

Recirculation

17 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Source: EPA 2001b

Abbreviations: FY = fiscal year; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound;

BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; VOC = volatile organic compound

1

 Does not include PAHs.

2

 Does not include BTEX.

3

 Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.

4

In situ treatment of propellents has been implemented in several projects. However, the sites are not Superfund

remedial actions sites; therefore, they are not discussed in more detail in this figure.

Ž - Contaminant was reported present at one or more sites treated using the technology shown; does not consider

effectiveness of technology.

Status

Table 6 presents a summary of the status of the Superfund bioremediation projects. The 104 Superfund

projects include completed and operating bioremediation projects, as well as projects in pre-design,

design, or installation stages. Most projects (57 percent) are operational, 26 percent are planned

(predesign/design and installed), and 17 percent are completed. Of the 18 completed projects, 14 are ex

situ projects compared to four in situ (source treatment and groundwater).
13

Table 6. Project Status of Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Type of Bioremediation

Technology

Number of Projects (Percentage of Projects)

Predesign/

Design

Design Complete/

Being Installed Operational Completed

Ex Situ Source Treatment 10 (20%) 1 (2%) 24 (49%) 14 (29%)

In Situ Source Treatment 9 (26%) 3 (9%) 20 (57%) 3 (9%)

In Situ Groundwater 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 15 (75%) 1 (5%)

Total 23 (22%) 4 (4%) 59 (57%) 18 (17%)

Source: EPA 2001b

Other Bioremediation Projects

Bioremediation also is being used at sites other than Superfund remedial action sites:

• At Superfund removal action sites, information was available about 42 bioremediation projects.

Removal actions are short-term immediate actions taken to address releases of hazardous

substances that require expedited response. Thirty-nine of the projects are operational (20

projects) or have been completed (19 projects). (EPA 2001)

• Under the RCRA corrective action program and other federal programs, information was

available for 29 bioremediation projects. (EPA 2001, EPA 2001b)

• Under a U.S. Air Force initiative, information was available about bioventing at 45 Air Force

sites throughout the country. (Air Force 1996)

• Under EPA’s Underground Storage Tanks (UST) program, states estimated that bioremediation

was used at more than approximately 4,600 leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites, as of

FY 1997. (Tulis 1998)

3.2 REMEDY SELECTION

Information about remedy selection is based on planned, ongoing, and completed bioremediation projects.

(Cancelled bioremediation projects have been excluded from this analysis.) As shown in Figure 9, few

bioremediation RODs were signed in the early- to mid-1980s. The number of bioremediation RODs

increased beginning in FY 1988, except for two years (FY 1991 and FY 1997). In general, 8 to 12

bioremediation RODs have been signed per year.

Figure 10 shows that bioremediation RODs as a percentage of source control RODs has generally

increased between FY 1985 and FY 1999. Only two source control RODs were signed in FY 1984, with

bioremediation implemented at one.
14

0 0

1111

4

9

8

3

12

10

9

10

11

1

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

Number of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

0 0

1111

4

9

8

3

12

10

9

10

11

1

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

Number of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

Source: EPA 2001b

0 0

1111

4

9

8

3

12

10

9

10

11

1

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

Number of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 104

Figure 9. Number of RODs Signed for Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects at

Superfund Sites (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 87

1

FY 1982 – FY 1984 not shown because of small number of source treatment RODs.

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of RODs Signed for Bioremediation

Source: EPA 2001b

Total Projects = 87

1

FY 1982 – FY 1984 not shown because of small number of source treatment RODs.

Figure 10. Bioremediation as a Percentage of Total Source Treatment RODs

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)1
15

0 0

1111

4

9

8

3

12

10

9

10

11

1

11

12

0 0

1 1

3

1

6

13

9

5

15

14

13

15

16

2

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

Number of RODs Signed

Implemented Selected

Source: EPA 2000, EPA 2001b

0 0

1111

4

9

8

3

12

10

9

10

11

1

11

12

0 0

1 1

3

1

6

13

9

5

15

14

13

15

16

2

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year in Which ROD Signed

Number of RODs Signed

Implemented Selected

Source: EPA 2000, EPA 2001b

Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Comparison of the Number of RODs for Selected Versus

Planned or Implemented Bioremediation Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Possible reasons for the increase in bioremediation as a selected remedy in RODs include:

• An increase in the amount of data on full-scale bioremediation projects, including information

about cost and performance. Data on full-scale projects has increased in recent years. Six to ten

years ago, available information was limited primarily to research papers.

• More bioremediation research and field demonstrations have been performed.

• Widespread use of bioremediation in programs other than Superfund. As discussed earlier, the

Air Force has undertaken a bioventing initiative, and bioremediation is being used extensively at

leaking UST sites throughout the country. Use outside of Superfund provide additional data and

increases familiarity and expertise with bioremediation.

Remedy Changes

A remedy may change during the predesign or design phase of a project when new information about

characteristics of the site are discovered or when treatability studies for the selected technologies are

performed. The change can be documented through a second ROD, a ROD amendment, or an

Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD). In some cases, no decision document is necessary to

implement a change.

Figure 11 compares the number of bioremediation RODs originally signed with the number still planned

or already implemented, taking into account any remedy changes.
16

The Gulf Coast Vacuum Services site in Louisiana handled waste primarily associated from oil and

gas exploration until 1984, when the owners filed for bankruptcy. The soils and sludges at the site are

contaminated with benzene, toluene, mercury, lead, chromium, arsenic, barium, and numerous

organic compounds. EPA first selected on-site incineration as the remedy (September 1992). After

determining that on-site incineration was not cost-effective, an amended ROD was signed for the site

on May 5, 1995 and included on-site land treatment of sludges and soils contaminated with organic

compounds and stabilization of soils contaminated with inorganic compounds.

The Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) site in Texas is a former petrochemical facility that

operated until the late 1970s. While the facility was in operation, waste oils were dumped into

unlined waste pits at the site. The principal contaminant in the soil and groundwater is benzene. The

original ROD for the site, signed on September 6, 1991, established air sparging and soil vapor

extraction as the selected remedies at the site. A 1998 ROD amendment for the site added in situ

bioremediation of the aquifer, bioventing, and slurry-phase soil bioremediation, as well as other nonbioremediation technologies (thermally-enhanced soil vapor extraction, soil cap, pump and treat, and

monitored natural attenuation), as selected remedies for soil and groundwater. Over time, the air

sparging and soil vapor extraction systems had become less effective in removing contamination, and

other technologies were needed to meet cleanup goals.

Between FY 1982 and 1995, some RODs changed to bioremediation from another remedy. However, in

most years, more RODs changed from bioremediation to another remedy than from another remedy to

bioremediation. The most frequent reasons cited by project managers for changing the bioremediation

remedy include (EPA 2001):

• The volume of contaminated material was less than originally anticipated, and other alternatives

are more cost-effective.

• Further characterization or investigation of the site after the ROD has been signed revealed that

site conditions have changed and bioremediation is no longer a suitable remedy.

• A treatability study revealed that bioremediation is not capable of meeting the cleanup goals for

the site.

Table 7 presents two example projects in which the selected remedy was changed from another treatment

technology to bioremediation.

Table 7. Examples of Remedy Changes to Bioremediation
17

4.0 PERFORMANCE OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

For sites contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and BTEX, bioremediation of soil and

groundwater is generally considered to be a well-established technology compared to sites contaminated

with PAHs, chlorinated VOCs, pesticides and herbicides, and explosives, which are more recalcitrant

organic compounds. This section focuses on available performance information from projects where

bioremediation has been used to treat the less biodegradable compounds.

For these recalcitrant compounds, the contaminant reductions observed may not be attributed entirely to

bioremediation of the contaminant; instead, the reduction may be attributed in part to mixing of soils with

high contaminant concentrations with soils with lower concentrations.

PAHs

As shown in Figure 6, wood preserving sites are one of the most common site types treated by

bioremediation. Contaminants typically found at wood preserving sites include PAHs and PCP.

Consequently, a significant amount of data about treatment of PAHs using bioremediation is available,

specifically on treatment of 2-ring PAHs such as naphthalene, acenaphthylene, and acenaphthene; 3-ring

PAHs such as fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene; and 4- and 5-ring PAHs such as fluoranthene,

pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(ghi)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

Table 8 shows performance data that are available for bioremediation of PAHs at 7 ex situ source

treatment projects: 4 land treatment projects, 2 slurry-phase bioremediation projects, and 1 composting

project. Bioremediation reduced concentrations of PAHs from soil and sludges at all 7 projects. Cleanup

goals for PAHs were met for 3 of the 4 land treatment projects, where the goals ranged from 100 mg/kg to

8,632 mg/kg for total PAHs. At one project, the Burlington Northern Superfund site in Brainerd/Baxter,

Minnesota, the concentrations of total PAHs were reduced from as high as 70,633 mg/kg to less than 800

mg/kg (nearly 99% reduction). The one land treatment project that did not meet cleanup goals was a

demonstration project at the Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood

Pole Storage Area in Vancouver, Washington, where concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs were

reduced by nearly 90%, but did not meet the goal of 1 mg/kg.

For the one composting project, the cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg was met for total PAHs, with

concentrations reduced from as high as 367 mg/kg to less than 50 mg/kg (87%). Cleanup goals also were

met for the two slurry-phase projects, with one of the projects, Southeastern Wood Preserving, in Canton,

Mississippi, meeting cleanup goals of 950 mg/kg for total PAHs and 180 mg/kg for carcinogenic PAHs.

Chlorinated VOCs

Table 9 presents performance data for 13 bioremediation projects at sites contaminated with chlorinated

VOCs, such as TCE, PCE, DCE, VC, dichlorobenzene, and carbon tetrachloride. The 13 projects include

10 in situ groundwater projects, 1 in situ source treatment project, and 2 ex situ source treatment projects.

Bioremediation was successful in reducing concentrations of chlorinated VOCs or in meeting site cleanup

goals for groundwater, soil, sediments, and sludges at all 13 projects.

Most of the in situ groundwater projects were field demonstration and numerical cleanup goals were not

established. Two of the 10 in situ groundwater projects had numerical cleanup goals: the U.S. DOE

Savannah River Site, M Area, in South Carolina and the Avco Lycoming Superfund Site in Williamsport,

Pennsylvania. At the Savannah River Site, cleanup goals were met for PCE and TCE, with PCE

concentrations reduced from 124 micrograms per liter (μg/L) to less than 5 μg/L, and TCE concentrations

reduced from 1,031 μg/L to less than 5 μg/L. At the Avco Lycoming Superfund site, the concentration of

TCE was reduced from 67 μg/L to 6.7 μg/L (90%), but did not meet cleanup goal (5 μg/L) in all wells.
18

Table 8. Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations 

Land Treatment

BurlingtonNorthernSuperfund Site,Brainerd/Baxter,MN

Soil and sludge Land treatment Lime, cow

manure

Total PAHs 33,982 - 70,633

mg/kg

608-795 mg/kg 

Other SVOCs Not reported Not reported 

Scott LumberCompanySuperfund Site,Alton, MO

Soil Land treatment

(two lifts ofsoil)

Nutrients Total PAHs First lift: 560

mg/kg

First lift: 130mg/kg

Second lift: 700mg/kg

Second lift: 155mg/kg

Benzo(a)pyrene First lift: 16

mg/kg

First lift: 8 mg/kg 

Second lift: 23mg/kg

Second lift: 10mg/kg

Brown WoodPreservingSuperfund Site,Live Oak, FL

Soil Land treatment

(three lifts ofsoil)

Not reported Total

carcinogenicPAHs

100 - 208 mg/kg < 100 mg/kg 

Bonneville PowerAdministrationRoss Complex,Operable Unit A,Wood PoleStorage Area,Vancouver, WA

Soil Land treatment

(and UVoxidation)(demonstrationproject)

Peroxide,ethanol

High molecularweight PAHs

150 mg/kg 6.76-21.83 mg/kg 

PCP 62 mg/kg 6.8 - 20.7 mg/kg
Table 8. Performance Data for Bioremediation of PAHs (continued)

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations 

19

Composting

Dubose OilProducts Co.Superfund Site,Cantonment, FL

Soil Composting Not reported VOCs 0.022-38.27

mg/kg

Not reported 

Total PAHs 0.578-367 mg/kg 3.3-49.9 mg/kgPCP 0.058-51 mg/kg Not reported

Slurry-Phase Bioremediation

French LimitedSuperfund Site,Crosby, TX

Soil and sludge Slurry-phase

bioremediation

Not reported VOCs 400 mg/kg Not reported 

PCP 750 mg/kg Not reportedSVOCs(includingPAHs)

5,000 mg/kg (foran individualcontaminant)

Not reported

Metals 5,000 mg/kg (for

an individualcontaminant)

< 23 mg/kg

PCBs 616 mg/kg < 23 mg/kg

(cleanup goal fortotal PCBs)

SoutheasternWood PreservingSuperfund Site,Canton, MS

Soil and sludge Slurry-phase

bioremediation

Not reported Total PAHs 8,545 mg/kg 634 mg/kg 

CarcinogenicPAHs

467 mg/kg 152 mg/kg

Abbreviations: PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, PCP = pentachlorophenol, SVOC = semivolatile organic compound, VOC = vSource: FRTR 2001
20

Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations

or Percent

Removal 

In Situ Groundwater

Moffett Naval AirStation, MountainView, CA

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (aerobicconditions)

Methane TCE Not reported 19% removal 

1,1-DCE Not reported Not evaluatedcis-DCE Not reported 43% removaltrans-DCE Not reported 90% removalVC Not reported 95% removal

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (aerobicconditions)

Phenol TCE Not reported 94% removal

1,1-DCE Not reported 54% removalcis-DCE Not reported 92% removaltrans-DCE Not reported 73% removalVC Not reported >98% removal

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (aerobicconditions)

Toluene TCE Not reported 93% removal

1,1-DCE Not reported Not evaluatedcis-DCE Not reported >98% removaltrans-DCE Not reported 75% removalVC Not reported Not evaluated

Edwards AirForce Base, Site19, CA

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (aerobicconditions)

Toluene,dissolvedoxygen,hydrogenperoxide

TCE 1,000 μg/L 18-24 μg/L 

Hanford 200West Area Site,Richland, WA

Groundwater Recirculating

cell

Acetate andnitrate

CCl4 2,000 μg/L 1,200 μg/L 
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations

or Percent

Removal 

21

Watertown, MA Groundwater Recirculating

cell (anaerobicconditions foreight months,then aerobicconditions)

Anaerobic -lactic acidAerobic -ORC andmethane

TCE 12,000 μg/L < 1,000 μg/L 

PCE Not reported Not reported

Texas Gulf CoastSite, Houston, TX

Groundwater Recirculating

cell

Methanol TCE 50,000 μg/L 5 μg/L 

Cr+6 Not reported Not reported

AbandonedManufacturingFacility,Emeryville, CA

Groundwater Direct injection Molasses TCE 3,040 μg/L

(average)

4 μg/L (average) 

Cr+6 Not reported 99% removal 

Dover Air ForceBase, Area 6,Dover, DE

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (anaerobicconditions)

Sodiumlactate,ammonia,andphosphate,bioaugmentation

PCE 46 μg/L Not reported TCE 7,500 μg/L Less than the 

detection limit

cis-DCE 2,000 μg/L Less than the

detection limit

VC 34 μg/L Not reported
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations

or Percent

Removal 

22

Avco LycomingSuperfund Site,Williamsport, PA

Groundwater Direct injection

(anaerobicconditions)

Molasses TCE 67 μg/L 6.7 μg/L

(treatmentongoing)

Cr+6 1,950 μg/L 10 μg/L

(treatmentongoing)

Cadmium 800 μg/L Not reported

U.S. DOE,Pinellas NortheastSite, Largo, FL

Groundwater Recirculating

cell (anaerobicconditions)

Benzoate,lactate, andmethanol

TCE Not reported Not reported Methylenechloride

Not reported Not reported

DCE Not reported Not reportedVC Not reported Not reported

U.S. DOE,Savannah RiverSite, M Area, SC

Groundwater Recirculating

cell

Nitrogen,phosphorus,methane

TCE 10 to 1,031 μg/L < 5 μg/L PCE 3 to 124 μg/L < 5 μg/L

In Situ Source Treatment

U.S. DOE,Savannah RiverSite, M Area, SC

Soil andsediment

Recirculatingcell

Nitrogen,phosphorus,methane

TCE 0.67 to 6.29

mg/kg

Not detected 

PCE 0.44 to 1.05

mg/kg

Not detected
Table 9. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Chlorinated VOCs (continued)

Site Name Media Treated Technology Additives

Contaminants

Treated

Initial

Contaminant

Concentrations

Final

Contaminant

Concentrations

or Percent

Removal 

23

Ex Situ Source Treatment

Dubose OilProducts Co.Superfund Site,Cantonment, FL

Soil Composting NA VOCs

(includingchlorinatedVOCs)

0.022 to 38.27mg/kg

Not reported 

PAHs 0.578 to 367

mg/kg

3.3 to 49.9 mg/kg

PCP 0.058 to 51 mg/kg Not reported

French LimitedSuperfund Site,Crosby, TX

Soil and sludge Slurry-phase

bioremediation

NA VOCs

(includingchlorinatedVOCs)

400 mg/kg Not reported 

PCP 750 mg/kg Not reportedSVOCs 5,000 mg/kg Not reportedMetals 5,000 mg/kg < 23 mg/kgPCBs 616 mg/kg < 23 mg/kg

(cleanup goal fortotal PCBs)

Abbreviations: CCl4 = carbon tetrachloride, Cr+6 = hexavalent chromium, DCE = dichloroethene, PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarb

polychlorinated biphenyl, PCE = tetrachloroethene, PCP = pentachlorophenol, SVOC = semivolatile organic compound, TCE = trichlor

chloride, VOC = volatile organic compoundSources: EPA 2000; FRTR 2001; McCarty and others, 1998.
24

Cleanup goals were met for the three source treatment bioremediation projects: the Savannah River Site,

M Area, in South Carolina; the Dubose Oil Products Company Superfund Site in Florida, and the French

Limited Superfund Site in Texas, with final concentrations of TCE and PCE reduced to non-detectable

levels at the Savannah River Site.

Pesticides and Herbicides

Table 10 presents performance data for four sites at which bioremediation was used to treat media

contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. At the Novartis site in Ontario, Canada, the concentration of

metolachlor was reduced by nearly 99% using a composting process. At the Navajo Indian Reservation

Superfund Removal site in Window Rock, Arizona, a slurry-phase process reduced the concentration of

toxaphene from 4,000 mg/kg to 180 mg/kg (95%). At the Stauffer Chemical Company site in Tampa,

Florida, soil contaminated with seven pesticides was treated using a registered composting process.

Cleanup goals were met for four of the seven contaminants, with concentrations reduced to less than 9

mg/kg for DDE and DDT, and to less than 1 mg/kg for dieldrin and molinate. The concentrations of

DDD and toxaphene were reduced by 90% but they did not meet their cleanup goals of 12.6 mg/kg and

2.75 mg/kg, respectively. Chlordane was reduced by nearly 90% but also did not meet its cleanup goal of

2.3 mg/kg. At the Creotox Chemical Products Superfund Removal site in Tennessee, contaminant

concentrations in the soil for aldrin, BHC, and lindane did not decrease as a result of bioremediation (as

reported in the source), although no numerical data were provided about final concentrations for these

compounds. The waste subsequently was sent off site for disposal.

Table 10. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and

Herbicides

Site Name Technology Contaminant Initial Concentration

Final

Concentration

Novartis Site,

Ontario Canada

DaramendTM, a

composting process

developed by the

W.R. Grace

Company

Metolachlor 84 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

Navajo Indian

Reservation

Superfund Removal

Site, Window Rock,

Arizona

Anaerobic slurryphase

bioremediation

Toxaphene 4,000 mg/kg 180 mg/kg
Table 10. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Pesticides and

Herbicides (continued)

Site Name Technology Contaminant Initial Concentration

Final

Concentration

25

Stauffer Chemical

Company Site,

Tampa, Florida

XenoremTM, a

composting process

registered by

Stauffer

Management

Company

Chlordane

DDD

DDE

DDT

Dieldrin

Molinate

Toxaphene

Chlordane - 47.5 mg/kg

DDD - 162.5 mg/kg

DDE - 11.3 mg/kg

DDT - 88.4 mg/kg

Dieldrin - 3.1 mg/kg

Molinate - 10.2 mg/kg

Toxaphene - 469 mg/kg

Cleanup goals met

for DDE - 8.91

mg/kg; DDT - 8.91

mg/kg; dieldrin -

0.19 mg/kg; and

molinate - 0.74

mg/kg; DDD and

toxaphene

concentrations

reduced by 90% but

did not meet

cleanup goals - 12.6

and 2.75 mg/kg,

respectively;

chlordane reduced

by nearly 90% but

did not meet

cleanup goal - 2.3

mg/kg

(at end of 64 day

demonstration)

Creotox Chemical

Products Superfund

Removal Site,

Tennessee

Not reported Chlordane

Aldrin

BHC

Lindane

596 mg/kg

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

77.3 mg/kg

No decrease

No decrease

No decrease

Abbreviations: DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, DDE =

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene, BHC = "-benzene hexachloride

Source: Frazar 2000, FRTR 2001

Research efforts are underway to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation of soils and groundwater

contaminated with pesticides and herbicides, including research into techniques to minimize or eliminate

harmful by-products that sometime occur (for example, DDD and DDE by-products of DDT

biodegradation), and into ways to shorten the treatment time. A pilot test at 9 sites used white-rot fungus

treatment and cycling between aerobic and anaerobic phases to treat organochlorine pesticides in soil gas

(the same class of pesticides that were not treated successfully at the Creotox Chemical Products

Superfund removal site). Organophosphate pesticides, such as malathion and parathion, can be treated

successfully by composting, land treatment, and use of aerobic bioreactors. (Frazer 2000)
26

Explosives

Bioremediation has been used to treat soils and groundwater contaminated with explosives, with varying

degrees of success. At Umatilla Army Depot in Oregon, composting was used successfully at full scale to

treat explosives in soil. Initial concentrations of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine

(RDX) were 88,000 mg/kg (5,250 mg/kg in the blended soil prior to treatment) and 1,900 mg/kg,

respectively. Concentrations of both contaminants after treatment were less than 30 mg/kg.

The U.S. Army recently completed a demonstration and evaluation of 5 innovative bioremediation

technologies on soils contaminated with explosive compounds. Soils excavated from Joliet Army

Ammunition Plant (JOAAP) were contaminated with TNT and N-methyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline (tetryl).

The initial average concentrations of TNT and tetryl in the soil were approximately 3,000 mg/kg and

7,500 mg/kg, respectively. Table 11 provides a description of the technologies used and the results of the

pilot-scale demonstrations. Results ranged from little or no removal of contaminants to almost complete

removal. For example, the pilot-scale project performed by Midwest Microbial achieved only a 31%

reduction of TNT and a 3% reduction of tetryl. In contrast, the pilot-scale project performed by GRACE

Bioremediation Technologies achieved a 97% reduction of TNT and an almost 100% reduction of tetryl.
27

Table 11. Performance Data for Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated with Explosives

Technology Vendor Technology Description Contaminant Initial Concentration

Midwest Microbial Soil was compacted and mixed with potato waste.

A blend of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria andmicrobial nutrients was sprayed onto the soil everytwo weeks.

TNT 3,000 mg/kg 

Tetryl 7,500 mg/kg 

BioremediationTechnology Services

Soil was mixed with BTS®, a patented humicsubstance that contains large numbers andvarieties of microorganisms.

TNT 3,000 mg/kg 

Tetryl 7,500 mg/kg 

Institute of GasTechnology

Under anaerobic conditions, nutrient sources wereadded to enhance the degrading abilities of theindigenous microbes. Biological treatment wasfollowed by treatment with chemical oxidationusing Fenton’s Reagent (hydrogen peroxide andiron salt).

TNT 3,000 mg/kg 

Tetryl 7,500 mg/kg 

GRACE BioremediationTechnologies

Powdered iron and DARAMEND®, an organicamendment that alters the physical and chemicalproperties of the waste to enhance biologicalactivity, were mixed with the soil. Conditionscycled between anoxic and oxic conditions duringremediation.

TNT 3,000 mg/kg 

Tetryl 7,500 mg/kg 

EarthFax Engineering Substrate inoculated with white-rot fungus was

mixed with soil at a ratio of 4:1 by volume.

TNT 3,000 mg/kg 

Tetryl 7,500 mg/kg 

Abbreviations: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, Tetryl = N-methyl-n,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline, TNT = trinitrotolueneSource: U.S. Army 2000
7 “Fully-defined” cost data refers to projects where the costs directly related to the technology application were

distinct from the total cost for the remediation project and where data about quantity treated was available.

28

5.0 COST OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Cost data for bioremediation projects at Superfund and other sites is limited. This section summarizes

available cost data for 22 bioremediation projects involving in situ and ex situ soil and in situ

groundwater, and for 45 bioventing projects from the Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year

2000 (EPA 2001a).

Cost Data for 22 Projects Using In Situ Bioremediation (Soil and/or Groundwater) and Ex Situ

Bioremediation (Soil)

Table 12 summarizes the available cost data for the 22 bioremediation projects with fully-defined cost

data.7 The table includes information about project status, contaminants treated, start date, volume

treated, total cost, and unit cost. Thirteen of the projects (59 percent) are ex situ source treatment projects,

primarily land treatment. The remaining projects are in situ source treatment projects (14 percent) and in

situ groundwater projects (27 percent).

Total technology costs for the 22 bioremediation projects range from $48,700 for a project mainly

consisting of plowing and tilling 1,786 cy of soil at the Havre Air Force Station to $26,810,000 for slurryphase bioremediation of 300,000 cubic yards of soil and sludge at the French Limited Superfund site.

Unit costs ranged from $12.50/cy for a project mainly involving tilling 4,800 cy of soil at Glasgow Air

Force Base to $1,220/cy for extensive technology demonstration activities on 1,048 cy of soil at the

Bonneville Power Administration Superfund site. Projects where bioremediation was used to treat soil in

an ex situ treatment system, such as land treatment or composting systems, had unit costs ranging from

$13/cy to more than $500/cy, with most sites less than $300/cy.

Cost Data for 45 Bioventing Projects

Table 13 summarizes the available cost data for the 45 bioventing projects performed at multiple sites by

AFCEE, including total cost, volume treated, and unit cost. As Table 13 shows, total costs for the 45

AFCEE bioventing projects ranged from $37,500 at Randolph Air Force Base, TX, to treat 4,700 cubic

yards of soil, to $622,000 at McClellan Air Force Base, CA, to treat 53,200 cubic yards of soil. Unit

costs ranged from $1.36/cy at Davis Monthan, AZ, to treat 311,500 cubic yards of soil, to $333/cy at AFP

4, TX, to treat 1,800 cubic yards of soil.

Cost data for the bioventing projects were sufficient to perform a quantitative analysis of unit cost versus

quantity of soil treated (Figure 12). A reverse-exponential linear fit with a 68% confidence interval was

calculated and plotted on decimal and logarithmic scales. Economies of scale in unit cost were observed

for relatively large volumes of soil treated. Appendix B provides additional information about the

statistical analyses used to develop the cost curves.
29

Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data

Site Name State

Cleanup

Program Status Contaminants

Start

Year

Area

Cost

Factor

Technology

Cost ($)1

(Source)

Volume

Treated

(cy)

Unit

Cost

($/cy) 

Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Land Treatment

Brown WoodPreserving SuperfundSite

FL Superfund FS Complete PAHs 1989 0.87 635,000 8,100 78.4 Const

systemcontam

Dubose Oil ProductsCo. Superfund Site

FL Superfund FS Complete BTEX, cVOCs,

Other SVOCs,Other VOCs

1993 0.87 4,990,000 13,137 380 Comp

constrleachagenerand w

Fort Greely UST SoilPiles

AK Other FS Complete BTEX, PHC 1994 1.60 749,000 9,800 76.4 O&M 

liner

Fort Wainwright,North Post Site SoilRemediation

AK Other FS Complete BTEX 1993 1.60 433,000 4,240 102 Activ

constrand ad

Glasgow Air ForceBase UST Removal

MT Other FS Complete PHC 1994 1.14 60,000 4,800 12.5 Appli

soil ti

Havre Air ForceStation, RemoveAbandoned USTs

MT Other FS Complete BTEX 1992 1.14 48,700 1,786 27.3 Appli

soil p

Lowry AFB CO Other FS Ongoing BTEX, PHC 1992 1.03 130,000 5,400 24.1 Condu

nutrieinterim 

Matagora Island AirForce Base

TX Other FS Complete BTEX 1992 0.82 77,600 500 155 Cost o

excavmonit

Scott LumberCompany SuperfundSite

MO Superfund FS Complete PAHs 1990 0.96 6,580,000 10,641 618 Const

irrigatand adcultur

Umatilla Army DepotActivity (FS)

OR Other FS Complete Other SVOCs 1994 1.15 5,260,000 10,969 479 Comp

buildibiotrecontammaint
Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data (conti

Site Name State

Cleanup

Program Status Contaminants

Start

Year

Area

Cost

Factor

Technology

Cost ($)1

(Source)

Volume

Treated

(cy)

Unit

Cost

($/cy) 

30

Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Slurry-Phase

French LimitedSuperfund Site

TX Superfund FS Complete cVOCs, Other

SVOCs, OtherVOCs, PAHs, PCBs

1992 0.82 26,810,000 300,000 89.4 Extrem

Southeastern WoodPreserving SuperfundSite, OU 1

MS Superfund FS Complete PAHs 1991 0.87 2,550,000 10,500 243 Slurry

constrcontamexten

Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Solid-Phase

Bonneville PowerAdministrationSuperfund Site

WA Superfund FS Complete PAHs, Other

SVOCs

1995 1.07 1,280,000 1,048 1,220 Includ

demo

In Situ Bioremediation (Soil) - Bioventing

Dover AFB, Area 6 DE Superfund DS Complete cVOCs, Heavy

metals

1996 1.02 551,000 1,667 331 Direc

propapilot t

Hill AFB, Site 280 UT Not

Specified

FS Ongoing BTEX, PHC 1990 1.03 271,000 NR NC Interim 

Hill AFB, Site 914 UT Other FS Complete BTEX, PHC 1989 1.03 863,000 5,000 173 Early 

comb

Lowry AFB (in situ) CO Other FS Complete BTEX, PHC 1992 1.03 75,300 NR NC Interim 

contamhorizo

In Situ Bioremediation (Groundwater)

Avco LycomingSuperfund Site

PA Superfund FS Ongoing cVOCs, Heavy

metals

1997 1.03 455,000 NR NC Direc

anaero

Edwards AFB CA Superfund DS Complete cVOCs 1995 1.15 445,000 1,5172 293 Recirc

aquife

Pinellas Northeast Site,AnaerobicBioremediation

FL RCRA CA DS Complete cVOCs 1997 0.87 359,000 1,2382 290 Recirc

benzoanaerosuppltreat s
Table 12. Selected Information for 22 Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data (conti

Site Name State

Cleanup

Program Status Contaminants

Start

Year

Area

Cost

Factor

Technology

Cost ($)1

(Source)

Volume

Treated

(cy)

Unit

Cost

($/cy) 

31

Texas Gulf Coast Site TX Other FS Complete cVOCs 1995 0.82 630,000 NR NC Recirc

methaa precattenu

Department of Energy,Savannah River Site,M Area ProcessSewer/IntegratedDemonstration Site

SC Superfund DS Complete cVOCs 1992 0.87 729,000 NR NC Direc

aerobhorizo

Notes and Cost Sources:

1 Technology costs for the selected sites were adjusted for the location of the site (location adjustment) and for the years in which costs were incurr

Costs were adjusted for location by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an Area Cost Factor (ACF) Index published by the U.S. Army Newsletter No. 3.2.1, dated March 31, 1999 and available on the web at <http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/e/es/pax/paxtoc.htm>. The inflatianalysis was based on the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News Record. The most current year that had an annual average inavailable at the time of preparing this report was 1999. Costs were adjusted to 1999 dollars by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an for the year in which the costs were incurred. For capital cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the actual year the costs were inannual operating cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the median year of all years over which the costs were incurred was useIndex is available at http://www.enr.com/cost/costcci.asp.

2 For in situ bioremediation (groundwater) applications, volume treated is the volume of aquifer material reported treated.

AFB Air Force BaseBTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and

Xylenes

CA Corrective ActioncVOCs Chlorinated Volatile Organic CompoundsDS Demonstration scaleFS Full scaleNC Not calculated

NR Not reportedOther VOCs Other Volatile Organic Compounds (for

example, ketones)

OU Operable UnitPAHs Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsPCBs Polychlorinated BiphenylsPHC Petroleum HydrocarbonsRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

UST Underground SVE Soil Vapor ESVOCs Semivolatile cy Cubic yards

Source: EPA 2001a
32

Notes:

1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 45

bioventing projects are shown in the plots above. The line of best fit and confidence limits were calculated using linear

regression of the natural-log transformed data. The upper plot was prepared by back transformation of the log-transformed

data to show the line of best fit and confidence limits in original units. (The upper plot shows projects under which less

than 80,000 cubic yards of soil were treated and the unit cost was less than $50 per cubic yard.)

2 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations, as described in the text.

3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 80 percent.

4 Appendix B presents the methodology and other statistical information related to the plots above.

Log Scale View

0

1

10

100

1,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Unit Cost ($/yd3

)

68%

Confidence

Limits

Decimal Scale View - Selected Range

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Unit Cost ($/yd3

)

Upper

Confidence

Limit

Lower

Confidence

Limit

Best Fit

Decimal-Scale View – Selected Range

Log-Scale View

Notes:

1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 45

bioventing projects are shown in the plots above. The line of best fit and confidence limits were calculated using linear

regression of the natural-log transformed data. The upper plot was prepared by back transformation of the log-transformed

data to show the line of best fit and confidence limits in original units. (The upper plot shows projects under which less

than 80,000 cubic yards of soil were treated and the unit cost was less than $50 per cubic yard.)

2 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations, as described in the text.

3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 80 percent.

4 Appendix B presents the methodology and other statistical information related to the plots above.

Log Scale View

0

1

10

100

1,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Unit Cost ($/yd3

)

68%

Confidence

Limits

Decimal Scale View - Selected Range

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Unit Cost ($/yd3

)

Upper

Confidence

Limit

Lower

Confidence

Limit

Best Fit

Decimal-Scale View – Selected Range

Log-Scale View

Figure 12. U.S. Air Force Bioventing Applications: Unit Cost Versus Volume Treated

(68% Confidence Interval)

Source: EPA 2001a
33

Table 13. U.S. Air Force Bioventing Projects

Site Name Site Location

Treatment

Volume (cy) Total Cost1 ($)

Unit Cost

($/cy)

McClellan AFB California 53,200 622,000 11.7

AFP 4 Texas 1,800 599,000 333

Davis-Monthan Arizona 311,500 423,000 1.36

Vandenberg AFB California 29,000 380,000 13.1

Fairchild AFB Washington 8,000 310,000 38.8

Pease AFB New Hampshire 14,800 293,000 19.8

Hickam AFB Hawaii 13,700 270,000 19.7

Plattsburgh AFB New York 63,800 255,000 4.00

Elmendorf AFB Alaska 19,000 237,000 12.5

Beale AFB California 42,100 232,000 5.51

Offutt AFB Nebraska 14,800 219,000 14.8

Hill AFB Utah 77,700 207,000 2.70

Nellis AFB Nevada 26,200 181,000 6.91

K.I. Sawyer AFB Michigan 71,300 179,000 2.50

LA AFB California 20,600 176,000 8.54

Edwards AFB California 4,300 168,000 39.1

Patrick AFB Florida 1,350 146,000 108

Cape Canaveral AFB Florida 4,900 131,000 26.7

Kelly AFB Texas 33,000 130,000 3.94

Cannon AFB New Mexico 13,500 128,000 9.48

Charleston AFB South Carolina 1,600 120,000 75.0

March AFB California 1,200 113,000 94.2

Travis AFB California 600 112,000 187

USCG Supp. Cen. Kodiak Alaska 4,500 110,000 24.4

Eglin AFB Florida 12,300 105,000 8.54

Shaw AFB South Carolina 5,200 104,000 20.0

Bolling AFB Washington DC 10,200 99,000 9.71

Camp Pendeleton California 4,100 97,900 23.9

Grissom AFB Indiana 6,000 87,400 14.6

McGuire AFB New Jersey 2,800 82,400 29.4

Kirtland AFB New Mexico 3,100 77,500 25.0

Malmstrom AFB Montana 1,400 71,900 51.4

Pope AFB North Carolina 1,700 69,600 40.9

Westover AFB Massachusetts 5,800 69,200 11.9

Ft. Drum New York 1,900 68,800 36.2

Ellsworth AFB South Dakota 3,700 68,000 18.4

Mt. Hope AFB Idaho 1,900 58,700 30.9

Little Rock AFB Arkansas 1,000 55,500 55.5

Battle Creek ANGB Michigan 8,700 53,600 6.16

FE Warren AFB Wyoming 2,800 53,000 18.9

Dyess AFB Texas 2,000 49,000 24.5

Hanscom AFB Massachusetts 3,600 48,500 13.5

AFP PJKS Colorado 2,100 47,600 22.7

Tinker AFB Oklahoma 1,800 41,500 23.1

Randolph AFB Texas 4,700 37,500 7.98

1 All reported costs were adjusted for site location, as described in the text.

Source: U.S. Air Force 1996
34

6.0 VENDORS OF BIOREMEDIATION

Information about vendors of bioremediation technologies is available in the EPA REACH IT database.

As of August 2001, 175 vendors offered 344 types of bioremediation technologies, of which 294 were

full scale, 15 were pilot scale, and 12 were bench scale. Of the vendors identified, 17 were classified as

large businesses. The vendors provided information about 559 specific applications of their technologies,

of which 514 were full scale.

The number of bioremediation vendors submitting information to EPA has increased significantly over

the past 9 years. In 1992, EPA VISITT, the predecessor to EPA REACH IT, contained information about

30 bioremediation vendors. The larger number of bioremediation vendors in EPA REACHIT probably

results primarily from an increase in service providers, along with increased awareness of the REACHIT

database.
35

7.0 REFERENCES

FRTR. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation (Volume 1). EPA-542-R-95-002, PB95-

182911. <http://www.frtr.gov>. March.

FRTR. 1997. Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation and Vitrification (Volume 5). EPA-542-R-97-

008, PB97-177554. <http://www.frtr.gov>. July.

FRTR. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent

Extraction, Thermal Desorption) (Volume 7). EPA-542-R-98-011. <http://www.frtr.gov>.

September.

FRTR. 2001. FRTR Cost and Performance Remediation Case Studies and Related Information. Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C.

EPA 542-C-00-001. <http://www.frtr.gov>. August.

FRTR. 2001a. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 3.

<http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html>.

Frazar, C. 2000. The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites.

<http://www.clu-in.org>.

McCarty, P.L. and others. 1998. “Full-scale evaluation of in situ cometabolic degradation of

trichloroethylene in groundwater through toluene injection.” Environmental Science and

Technology. Volume 32. Pages 88-100. <http://en.afit.af.mil/env/insitubio.htm>.

Tulis, D. and others. 1998. Study Points to New Trends in Use of Alternative Technologies at LUST sites;

Soil & Groundwater Cleanup. July.

U.S. Army. 2000. Multiple Biotechnology Demonstrations of Explosives-Contaminated Soils.

http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/et/restor/ecsoils.htm.

U.S. Air Force. 1996. Bioventing Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air Force Test Sites,

Technology Demonstration, Final Technical Memorandum. AFCEE Technology Transfer

Division. <http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/er/ert/costperf.htm>. June.

U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Bulletin In Situ Biodegradation Treatment. EPA-540-S-94-502. April.

U.S. EPA. 2000. Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents:

Fundamentals and Field Applications. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C. EPA 542-R-00-008. <http://www.clu-in.org>.

July.

U.S. EPA. 2001. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition).

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington,

D.C. <http://www.clu-in.org>. EPA 542-R-01-004. February.

U.S. EPA. 2001a. Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year 2000. Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, D.C. EPA 542-R-01-009.

September.
36

U.S. EPA. 2001b. REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT)

database (DRAFT). Database under preparation; will be available at

<http://www.EPAREACHIT.org>.
37

8.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INFORMATION SOURCES

Additional information about selected sources of information about bioremediation are presented below:

• Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR) (Tenth Edition) -

This report documents the status of remediation technologies for soil, other solid wastes, and

groundwater at sites in the Superfund program. Information in the ASR is collected annually

from EPA and state project managers by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office. The tenth edition

of the ASR, which includes data collected through Summer 2000, was published in 2001 at

<http://clu-in.org/asr>.

• EPA’s REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT)

online database <http://www.epareachit.org> - EPA REACH IT contains site-specific

technology data from the ASR, and vendor-supplied information about innovative treatment and

characterization technologies. Information includes technology descriptions, performance, and

cost. The database is searchable by key words.

• Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) cost and performance reports - The

FRTR has prepared over 270 cost and performance reports that present available information for

full-scale remediation efforts and large-scale demonstration projects. They describe a wide

variety of above-ground and in situ cleanup technologies, along with a variety of contaminants

treated. The reports describe actual clean up projects, and contain project information on site

background and setting, waste source, contaminants and media treated, technology design and

operation, performance, cost, regulatory requirements, points of contact, and lessons learned.

• Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals

and Field Applications - This report provides an overview of the fundamentals and field

applications of in situ bioremediation to remediate chlorinated solvents in contaminated soil and

groundwater and 9 case studies of chlorinated solvent cleanup. This report is available at

<http://clu-in.org>.

• Multiple Biotechnology Demonstrations of Explosives-Contaminated Soils - This document

presents the cost and performance results of five innovative laboratory- and pilot-scale

bioremediation projects performed on explosives-contaminated soils at Joliet Army Ammunition

Plant (JOAAP). The document is available on the United States Army web site at

<http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/et/restor/ecsoils.htm>.

• The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites - This report was

prepared for EPA by Chris Frazar, a National Network of Environmental Studies (NNEMS)

Fellow. The report provides a summary of bioremediation and phytoremediation technologies for

treatment of pesticide-contaminated media. This report is available at <http://clu-in.org>.

• Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year 2000 - This report wasprepared by EPA to

provide information about costs of the following remediation technologies: bioremediation,

thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, on-site incineration, groundwater pump and treat, and

permeable reactive barriers. It is available at <http://clu-in.org>.
38

Some of these sources (e.g., ASR, FRTR reports, and Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation

of Chlorinated Solvents) can be ordered free of charge from the National Service Center for

Environmental Pollution (NSCEP) by telephone at (513) 489-8190, by facsimile at (513) 489-8695, or on

line at <http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/>. NSCEP also can be contacted in writing at:

National Service Center for Environmental Publications

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242
A-1

Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites)

3 Atlantic Wood Industry - OU 1 VA 1995 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins

(TCDD)

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Predesign/Design Ronnie M. Davis

EPA

(215) 814-3230

3 Naval Weapons Station

Yorktown - OU 2

VA 1999 Volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)

Operational Robert W. Stroud

EPA

(410) 305-2748

3 Naval Weapons Station -

Yorktown OU 13

VA 1999 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) Operational Robert W. Stroud

EPA

(410) 305-2748

3 Tonolli Corp PA 1999 Total petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH)

Predesign/Design John Banks

EPA

(215) 814-3214

4 Benfield Industries NC 1995 Creosote Operational Jon Bornholm

EPA - Region 4

(404) 562-8820

4 Brown Wood Preserving FL 1988 Creosote Completed Randall Chaffins

EPA

(404) 562-8929

5 Burlington Northern Railroad

Tie Treating Plant

MN 1986 Creosote

Phenol

Completed Linda Kern

EPA

(312) 886-7341

5 Galesburg/Koppers IL 1989 Creosote

PCP

Phenol

Operational Fred Nika

Illinois EPA

(217) 782-3983

5 Jennison Wright Corporation,

Inc.

IL 1999 TCDD

Benzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Carbazole

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

PCP

Predesign/Design Fred Nika

Illinois EPA

(217) 782-3983

5 Joslyn Manufacturing and

Supply Co.

MN 1989 Acenaphthene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Naphthalene

PCP

Completed David Douglas

Minnesota Pollution

Control Authority

(651) 296-7818

5 Ritari Post And Pole - OU 1 MN 1994 PCP Predesign/Design Miriam Horneff

Minnesota Pollution

Control Authority

(651) 296-7228

6 Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe

Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - TPH

Lake Sediments

NM 1988 Petroleum hydrocarbons Completed Petra Sanchez

EPA

(214) 665-6686

6 Gulf Coast Vacuum Services -

OU 1

LA 1995 Benzene

Polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Operational Kathleen Aisling

EPA

(214) 665-8509
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-2

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites, continued)

6 North Cavalcade Street TX 1988 Creosote Operational Dan Switek

Texas Natural Resource

Conservation

Commission

(512) 239-4132

6 Oklahoma Refining Co. -

Hazardous Landfill

OK 1992 Benzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Phenol

Toluene

Xylene

Operational Earl Hendrick

EPA

(214) 665-8519

6 Oklahoma Refining Co. -

Nonhazardous Landfill

OK 1992 Benzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Phenol

Toluene

Xylene

Operational Earl Hendrick

EPA

(214) 665-8519

6 Old Inger Oil Refinery LA 1984 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Tom Stafford

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

(504) 765-0487

6 Popile AR 1993 Creosote

PCP

Predesign/Design Shawn Ghose

EPA

(214) 665-6782

6 Prewitt Abandoned Refinery NM 1992 Benzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Toluene

Xylene

Completed Gregory Lyssy

EPA

(214) 665-8317

7 Vogel Paint & Wax IA 1989 Toluene

Xylene

Operational Bob Drustrup

Iowa Department of

Natural Resources

(515) 281-8900

8 Broderick Wood Products -

OU 2 (Soils)

CO 1992 PCP Operational Armando Saenz

EPA

(303) 312-6559

8 Burlington Northern (Somers

Plant)

MT 1989 Creosote

Phenol

Operational James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Idaho Pole Company MT 1996 Anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

PCP

Phenol

Operational James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Libby Groundwater

Contamination

MT 1989 Benzene

Creosote

PCP

Operational James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Montana Pole and Treating

Plant

MT 1993 Anthracene

Naphthalene

PCP

Pyrene

Operational James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Wasatch Chemical UT 1991 Toluene

Xylene

Completed Erna Waterman

EPA

(303) 312-6762
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-3

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Land Treatment (33 sites, continued)

9 Fort Ord - Fort Ord Soil

Treatment Area (Fdsta), OU 4

CA 1994 Benzene

Diesel fuel

Ethylbenzene

Gasoline

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Toluene

Xylene

Completed John Chesnutt

EPA

(415) 744-2324

9 Luke AFB - OU 2/Dp23 AZ 1994 Benzo(a)pyrene Completed Sean Hogan

EPA

(415) 744-2384

9 Mather AFB - Soil and

Groundwater OU, Mather Soils

Biofarm

CA 1996 Benzene

Diesel fuel

Ethylbenzene

Gasoline

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Toluene

Xylene

Operational Debbie Lowe

EPA

(415) 744-2206

9 Mather AFB - OU 04 CA 1998 Petroleum-related solvents Operational Debbie Lowe

EPA

(415) 744-2206

10 Bonneville Power

Administration - OU A

WA 1993 Creosote

PCP

Completed Nancy Harney

EPA

(206) 553-6635

10 Elmendorf AFB - OU 5 AK 1995 Diesel fuel Operational Kevin Oates

EPA

(907) 271-6323

10 Pacific Car and Foundry WA 1992 Diesel fuel

TPH

Completed Lynda Priddy

EPA

(206) 553-1987

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Composting (8 sites)

4 Dubose Oil Products Co. FL 1990 1,1-Dichloroethene (DCE)

Acenaphthylene

Benzene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

PCP

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Xylene

Completed Mark Fite

EPA

(404) 562-8927

4 Milan Army Ammunition Plant

- OU 3 & 4, Industrial Soil

TN 1996 TNT

1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine

(RDX)

Operational Peter Dao

EPA

(404) 562-8508

4 Stauffer Chemical Company FL 1996 Nonhalogenated volatiles

Organochlorine pesticides

Design

Completed/Being

Installed

Brad Jackson

EPA

(404) 562-8925

5 Joliet Army Ammunition Plant

Soil and Groundwater (LAP)

OU

IL 1999 TNT

Dinitrotoluene

RDX

Tetryl

Trinitrobenzene (TNB)

Operational Diana Mally

EPA

(312) 886-7275

5 Joliet Army Ammunition Plant

Soil and Groundwater-MFG

OU

IL 1999 TNT Operational Diana Mally

EPA

(312) 886-7275
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-4

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Composting (8 sites, continued)

10 U.S. Naval Submarine Base -

OU 6 Site D & OU 2 Site F

WA 1994 TNT

Cyclotetramethylene

tetranitramine (HMX)

RDX

Operational Craig Thompson

Washington Department

of Ecology

(360) 407-7234

10 Umatilla Army Depot Activity OR 1992 TNT

HMX

RDX

Completed Harry D. Craig

EPA

(503) 326-3689

10 Umatilla Chemical Depot

(Lagoons) - Soil OU

OR 1992 TNT

HMX

RDX

Completed Harry D. Craig

EPA

(503) 326-3689

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Biopile (3 sites)

4 Stauffer Chemical (Cold Creek

Plant) - OU 2

AL 1995 Butylate

Cycolate

Molinate

Pebulate

Thiocarbonate

Vernolate

Operational Michael Arnett

EPA

(404) 562-8921

5 Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell

Lumber and Pole - OU-1

MN 1999 PCP

PAHs

Predesign/Design Darryl Owens

EPA

(312) 886-7089

9 Jasco Chemical Co. CA 1992 1,1-Dichloroethane

Acetone

Methylene chloride

Vinyl chloride

Xylene

Completed Ellen Manges

EPA

(415) 744-2228

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Slurry Phase (2 sites)

4 Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU FL 1990 Acenaphthene

Anthracene

PCP

Phenanthrene

Predesign/Design Maher Budeir

EPA

(404) 562-8917

6 Sheridan Disposal Services -

Source Lagoon OU

TX 1989 Benzene

Grease

Oil

Phenol

Toluene

Predesign/Design Gary A. Baumgarten

EPA

(214) 665-6749

Ex Situ Source Treatment - Other (3 sites)

3 Naval Weapons Station -

Yorktown - OU 03

VA 1998 Not reported Operational Robert W. Stroud

EPA

(410) 305-2748

3 Standard Chlorine Of

Delaware, Inc.

DE 1995 Benzene

Chlorobenzene

Toluene

Predesign/Design Hilary Thornton

EPA

(215) 814-3323

4 T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition

(Montgomery - OU 02)

AL 1998 Not reported Predesign/Design Brian Farrier

EPA

(404) 562-8952

In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites)

1 Loring AFB - OU 9, Auto

Hobby Shop Area

ME 1995 Diesel fuel

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Solvents

Operational Mike Nalipinski

EPA

(617) 918-1268
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-5

In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites, continued)

2 Naval Air Engineering Center -

Site 16 Under Area C

NJ 1996 2-Methylnaphthalene

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Paul Ingrisano

EPA

(212) 637-4337

3 Delaware Sand & Gravel

Landfill - OU 4 and OU 5

DE 1993 1,2-dichloroethane

Benzene

bis-2-chloroethyl ether

Methylene Chloride

Operational Philip Rotstein

EPA

(215) 814-3232

3 Dover AFB - Target Area 3 of

Area 6

DE 1995 DCE

1,2-Dichloroacetic acid

(DCA)

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

TCE

Design

Completed/Being

Installed

Darius Ostrauskas

EPA

(215) 814-3360

5 Onalaska Municipal Landfill WI 1990 Naphthalene

Toluene

Completed Tim Prendiville

EPA

(312) 886-5122

5 Penta Wood Products - OU 01 WI 1998 PCP Predesign/Design Anthony Rutter

EPA

(312) 886-8961

6 Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. -

OU 2

TX 1998 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Toluene

Xylene

Predesign/Design Chris Villarreal

EPA

(214) 665-6758

6 Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek

and Building 3001

OK 1990 Petroleum hydrocarbons

TCE

Operational Hal Cantwell

Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality

(405) 702-5100

8 Broderick Wood Products -

OU 2 (Groundwater)

CO 1992 PCP

Phenol

Operational Armando Saenz

EPA

(303) 312-6559

9 George AFB - OU 3 FT19a CA 1999 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

TPH

TCE

Xylene

Operational James Chang

EPA

(415) 744-2158

9 George AFB - OU 3 OT51 CA 1999 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

TPH

Xylene

Operational James Chang

EPA

(415) 744-2158

9 J.H. Baxter - Area B CA 1998 Not reported Operational Beatriz Bofill

EPA

(415) 744-2235

9 Mather AFB - OU 04 (site

18,23 & 59)

CA 1998 Diesel fuel

Gasoline

VOCs

Predesign/Design Debbie Lowe

EPA

(415) 744-2206

9 Tracy Defense Depot (U.S.

Army) - OU 01

CA 1998 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Predesign/Design Michael Work

EPA

(415) 744-2392
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-6

In Situ Source Treatment - Bioventing (24 sites, continued)

9 Williams AFB - OU 3 AZ 1996 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

JP-4 fuel

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Sean Hogan

EPA

(415) 744-2384

10 Eielson AFB - OU 1 (Power

Plant)

AK 1994 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

JP-4 fuel

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Mary Jane Nearman

EPA

(206) 553-6642

10 Eielson AFB - OU 1

(Refueling Loop)

AK 1992 Benzene

Chrysene

Diesel fuel

Ethylbenzene

JP-4 fuel

Naphthalene

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Mary Jane Nearman

EPA

(206) 553-6642

10 Eielson AFB - OU 2 (Fuel

Area)

AK 1994 Benzene

Chlorobenzene

Chloromethane

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

TPH

Operational Mary Jane Nearman

EPA

(206) 553-6642

10 Eielson AFB - OU 3

(Refueling Loop USTs)

AK 1994 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

JP-4 fuel

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Operational Mary Jane Nearman

EPA

(206) 553-6642

10 Elmendorf AFB - OU 4 AK 1995 Diesel fuel

Gasoline

JP-4 fuel

Operational Kevin Oates

EPA

(907) 271-6323

10 Fairchild AFB - Priority 1 OUs

(OU 2) Ft-1

WA 1993 Benzene Operational Ali Raad

Washington Department

of Ecology

(360) 407-7181

10 Fairchild AFB - Priority 2

Sites, OU 3, Sub Area Ps-1

WA 1996 Petroleum hydrocarbons

Solvents

Operational Ali Raad

Washington Department

of Ecology

(360) 407-7181

10 Naval Air Station Whidbey

Island - Ault Field, OU 5,

Areas 1, 31, and 52

WA 1996 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

TPH

Xylene

Operational Nancy Harney

EPA

(206) 553-6635

10 Union Pacific Railroad Tie

Treatment - Vadose Zone Soils

OR 1996 Chrysene

Creosote

Naphthalene

PCP

Predesign/Design Brian McClure

Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality

(541) 298-7255, ext. 32

In Situ Source Treatment - Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration (2 sites)

6 French Limited TX 1988 1,1-Dichloroethane

Benzo(a)pyrene

PCP

PAHs

Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs)

Volatile chlorinated organics

VOCs

Completed Ernest R. Franke

EPA

(214) 665-8521
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-7

In Situ Source Treatment - Slurry-Phase Lagoon Aeration (2 sites, continued)

7 Pester Refinery Co. - OU 1,

Burn Pond Site

KS 1992 Benzo(a)anthracene

Chrysene

Operational Catherine Barrett

EPA

(913) 551-7704

In Situ Source Treatment - Other (9 sites)

2 Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter

Co., NJ

NJ 1994 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Operational

(aerobic)

Gwen Zervas

New Jersey Department

of Environmental

Protection

(609) 633-7261

4 Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU FL 1990 Acenaphthene

Anthracene

Creosote

PCP

Phenanthrene

Predesign/Design Maher Budeir

EPA

(404) 562-8917

4 Helena Chemical Company

(Tampa Plant)

FL 1996 Aldrin

Chlordane

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroetha

ne (DDD)

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroetha

ne (DDT)

Dieldrin

Heptachlor

Toxaphene

Predesign/Design Brad Jackson

EPA

(404) 562-8925

4 Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston

Plant) - OU 01

SC 1998 Not reported Design

Completed/Being

Installed

Craig Zeller

EPA

(404) 562-8827

4 Peak Oil/Bay Drum - OU 1 FL 1993 Benzo(a)anthracene

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Pyrene

PCE

Xylene

Predesign/Design

(aerobic)

Caroline Robinson

EPA

(404) 562-8930

5 Seymour Recycling Corp. IN 1987 Halogenated volatiles

Non-halogenated

semivolatiles

Completed

(aerobic)

Jeffrey Gore

EPA

(312) 886-6552

6 American Creosote Works,

Inc. - Winnfield Plant

(Groundwater)

LA 1993 Creosote

PCP

Operational

(aerobic)

John Meyer

EPA

(214) 665-6742

7 Peoples Natural Gas IA 1991 Benzene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Naphthalene

Toluene

Predesign/Design

(aerobic)

Diana Engeman

EPA

(913) 551-7746

9 J.H. Baxter CA 1998 PCP Design

(aerobic)

Completed/Being

Installed

Beatriz Bofill

EPA

(415) 744-2235

In Situ Groundwater - Biosparging (3 sites)

5 Fisher-Calo IN 1990 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Naphthalene

Operational Jeffrey Gore

EPA

(312) 886-6552
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-8

In Situ Groundwater - Biosparging (3 sites, continued)

5 Wayne Waste Oil IN 1990 DCE

Benzene

PCE

Toluene

TCE

Vinyl chloride

Xylene

Operational Jeffrey Gore

EPA

(312) 886-6552

6 Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek

and Building 3001

OK 1990 Petroleum hydrocarbons

TCE

Operational Hal Cantwell

Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality

(405) 702-5100

In Situ Groundwater - Other (17 sites)

1 Hocomonco Pond - ESD MA 1985 Benzene

Creosote

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Toluene

VOCs

Xylene

Operational

(aerobic)

Derrick Golden

EPA

(617) 918-1448

2 FAA Technical Center - OU 1,

Area D - Jet Fuel Farm

NJ 1989 Benzene

JP-4 fuel

Naphthalene

Toluene

Operational

(aerobic)

Julio Vazquez

EPA

(212) 637-4323

2 Naval Air Engineering Station

Areas I and J Groundwater OU

26

NJ 1999 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

PCE

Trichloroethene

Operational

(aerobic)

Paul Ingrisano

EPA

(212) 637-4337

2 Shore Realty (formerly

Applied Environmental

Services) - Groundwater OU

NY 1991 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

Xylene

Operational

(aerobic)

Maria Jon

EPA

(212) 637-3967

3 Avco Lycoming PA 1997 Chromium Operational

(anaerobic)

Jill Lowe

EPA

(215) 814-3123

3 Dover AFB - Target Area 2 of

Area 6

DE 1995 1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethene

Benzene

Carbon tetrachloride

Ethylbenzene

PCE

Toluene

TCE

Vinyl chloride

Xylene

Predesign/Design

(anaerobic)

Darius Ostrauskas

EPA

(215) 814-3360
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

Region Site Name State

ROD

Year Contaminants Treated

Project Status1

(type of

bioremediation) Contact Name

A-9

In Situ Groundwater - Other (17 sites, continued)

4 American Creosote Works,

Inc. - OU 2, Phase 2

FL 1994 Acenaphthene

Anthracene

Benzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

Dibenzofuran

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

PCP

Phenanthrene

PAHs

Pyrene

Predesign/Design

(aerobic)

Mark Fite

EPA

(404) 562-8927

5 Kummer Sanitary Landfill -

OU 3 - Amendment

MN 1996 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Ether

Methane

TCE

Vinyl chloride

Completed

(aerobic)

Gladys Beard

EPA

(312) 886-7253

6 American Creosote Works,

Inc. (Winnfield Plant)

LA 1993 Creosote

PCP

Operational

(aerobic)

John Meyer

EPA

(214) 665-6742

6 Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. -

OU 2

TX 1998 Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Naphthalene

Toluene

Xylene

Operational

(aerobic)

Chris Villarreal

EPA

(214) 665-6758

6 Popile AR 1993 Creosote Predesign/Design Shawn Ghose

EPA

(214) 665-6782

7 Ace Services KS 1999 Chromium Predesign/Design

(anaerobic)

Bob Stewart

EPA

(913) 551-7654

8 Burlington Northern (Somers

Plant) - Groundwater

MT 1989 Creosote

Phenol

Operational

(aerobic)

James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Idaho Pole Company MT 1992 Anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

PCP

Phenol

Operational

(aerobic)

James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Libby Groundwater

Contamination

MT 1989 Benzene

Creosote

PCP

Operational

(aerobic)

James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

8 Montana Pole and Treating

Plant - Groundwater OU

MT 1993 Anthracene

Naphthalene

PCP

Pyrene

Operational

(aerobic)

James C. Harris

EPA

(406) 441-1150, ext. 260

9 Koppers - Oroville Plant CA 1999 Creosote

PCP

Operational

(aerobic)

Charles Berrey

EPA

(415) 744-2223
Appendix A: Selected Information about 104 Bioremediation Projects at Superfund Remedial

Action Sites (FY 1982 through FY 1999) (continued)

A-10

1 The project status listed in this table is the project status as of Summer 2000.

Abbreviations: DCA = 1,2-dichloroacetic acid; DCE = dichloroethene; DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane; DDT =

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HMX = cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB =

polychlorinated biphenyl; PCE = tetrachloroethene; PCP = pentachlorophenol; RDX = 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine; TCDD =

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxins; TCE = trichloroethene; TNB = trinitrobenzene; TNT = 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; TPH = total

petroleum hydrocarbons; VOC = volatile organic compounds

Source: EPA 2001
B-1

APPENDIX B

Additional Information about Development of Cost Curves for U.S. Air Force Bioventing

Applications

The following approach was used in developing the cost curves for the cost compendium (EPA 2001a).

1. Both independent and dependent variables for each set of data (for example, volume of soil

treated and unit cost, respectively) were transformed to their corresponding natural log values.

2. A linear best fit of the log-transformed data was determined. A statistical summary of the fit,

including the coefficient of determination (r2

), provided a measure of how well the data fit the

model, was prepared.

3. Residuals from the linear fit using the log-transformed data were examined to determine if they

were distributed normally. The Shapiro-Wilk W test (goodness-of-fit test), in which the null

hypothesis (Ho) is that the data are distributed normally, was used in that examination. If the

probability of obtaining a value less than the value calculated using the W test (probability W)

was less than 0.05, Ho was accepted, and it is concluded that the residuals were distributed

normally.

4. Individual predicted values, along with two sigma (95-percent) and one-sigma (68-percent) upper

and lower confidence limits were calculated from the linear model (log-transformed scale).

5. The values then were plotted on a linear X-Y scale, and a subset of the plot enlarged to show

clearly the smaller quantities of material treated. That step provided the decimal-scale view of

the cost curves.

6. To portray the data in a linear manner, the predicted values were plotted on a log10-log10 scale, to

provide the log-scale view of the plot .

The approach was developed on the basis of the cost data for bioventing applications. The coefficient of

variation for the linear fit of the log-transformed data was 0.80, meaning that 80 percent of the variability

in the data is explained by the model. Exhibits B-1 and B-2 present the log-scale view of the plot and

detailed statistics used to develop the cost curves, respectively.
B-2

Log Scale View

0

1

10

100

1,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Unit Cost ($/yd3

)

68% 95%

Exhibit B-1. AFCEE Bioventing Applications – Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated

(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)

Notes:

1 The above plot shows a solid line based on a best fit of available data for 45 bioventing applications, and dashed lines for

the upper and lower confidence intervals, using 95 percent and 68 percent degrees of confidence.

2 All reported costs were adjusted for location, as described in the text.

3 The coefficient of determination is 80 percent.

Source: EPA 2001a
B-3

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Residual

0 75000 150000 225000 300000

CY

Sum of Squared Error

Root Mean Square Error

RSquare

Sum of Residuals

18372.596

20.670503

0.6044654

194.95537

Fit Measured on Original Scale

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Residual

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

log(CY)

log(Cost/CY) = 8.9310144 - 0.7002108 log(CY)

RSquare

RSquare Adj

Root Mean Square Error

Mean of Response

Observations (or Sum Wgts)

0.799508

0.794845

0.494289

2.760522

45

Summary of Fit

Model

Error

C. Total

Source

1

43

44

DF

41.894246

10.505814

52.400060

Sum of Squares

41.8942

0.2443

Mean Square

171.4720

F Ratio

<.0001

Prob > F

Analysis of Variance

Intercept

log(CY)

Term

8.9310144

-0.700211

Estimate

0.476946

0.053473

Std Error

18.73

-13.09

t Ratio

<.0001

<.0001

Prob>|t|

Parameter Estimates

Linear Fit

Exhibit B-2. Detailed Statistics Used to Develop the AFCEE Cost Curves
EPA

United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency(5102G)Washington, D.C. 20460Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300EPA 542-R-01-019
EPA Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites EPA 542-R-01-019