bioremediation of explosives- contaminated soils · pdf file164 proceedings of the 10th annual...

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research164

BIOREMEDIATION OF EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED SOILS:

A STATUS REVIEWH.D. Craig1, W.E. Sisk2, M.D. Nelson3 and W.H. Dana4, 1U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10, Oregon Operations Office, 811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204,503-326-3689; 2U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 21010-

5401, 410-612-6851; 3Seattle District Corps of Engineers, 4735 E. Marginal Way S., Seattle,WA, 98124-2255, 206-764-3458; and 4Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Waste

Management and Cleanup Division, 811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR, 97204, 503-229-6530

ABSTRACTThe investigation of past operational and disposal practices at federal facilities andformerly used defense sites (FUDS) has dramatically increased in the past several years.The manufacture; load, assembly and pack (LAP); demilitarization; washout operations;and open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) of ordnance and explosives has resulted incontamination of soils with munitions residues. The primary constituents arenitroaromatic and nitramine organic compounds and heavy metals. A number of siteshave soil contamination remaining where waste disposal practices were discontinued 20to 50 years ago.

In conjunction with site investigations, biological treatment studies have been undertakento evaluate the potential for full scale remediation of organic contaminants. This paperevaluates the results of 15 bioremediation treatability studies conducted at eight sites forexplosives-contaminated soils, and discusses the full scale remedial implementationstatus. Five types of biological treatment processes have been evaluated: (1)composting, (2) anaerobic bioslurry, (3) aerobic bioslurry, (4) white rot fungus treatmentand (5) landfarming. Representative bench and pilot scale studies were conducted usingsite-specific munitions residues to determine the ability to meet preliminary remediationgoals (PRGs) or cleanup levels, and to identify issues related to scale-up of thetechnologies.

Composting has been selected as the full scale remedial action treatment remedy at twoNational Priority List (NPL) sites: (1) Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon,for 14,800 tons of soil contaminated with TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene), RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) and HMX (octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine),and (2) U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington, for 2,200 tons of TNT-contaminated soils. Pilot scale composting treatability studies have demonstrated theability to achieve risk-based cleanup levels of 30 to 33 parts per million (ppm) for TNTand 9 to 30 ppm for RDX after 40 days of treatment, with a destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) of greater than 99.0%. Feasibility Study (FS) estimates of treatmentcosts range from $206 to $766 per ton for quantities of 1,200 to 30,000 tons—40% to50% less than on-site incineration. In the past, all NPL sites with explosivescontamination have used incineration as the selected treatment technology. Actual costsfor biotreatment will be refined during full scale remediation.

KEY WORDSexplosives, munitions, ordnance, bioremediation, biological treatment

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 165

BACKGROUNDThe investigation of past disposal practicesat federal facilities and formerly used de-fense sites (FUDS) has dramatically in-creased in the past several years. Themanufacture; load, assembly and pack(LAP); demilitarization; washout operations;and open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) ofordnance and explosives have resulted insoils contaminated with munitions residues.In conjunction with site investigations, bio-logical treatment studies have been under-taken to evaluate the potential for full scaleremediation. This paper evaluates the re-sults of 15 bioremediation treatability stud-ies conducted at eight sites for explosives-contaminated soils and the full scale re-medial implementation status.

WASTE STREAMSThe primary constituents of waste streamsfrom explosives operations that result in soilcontamination are nitroaromatics andnitramines including:

Acronym Compound NameTNT 2,4,6-trinitrotolueneRDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-

triazineHMX Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-

tetrazocineTetryl Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitraminePicric Acid 2,4,6-trinitrophenolPETN Pentaerythritol tetranitrateTATB Triaminotrinitrobenzene

The most frequently occurring impuritiesand degradation products from these in-clude:

Acronym Compound Name2,4-DNT 2,4-dinitrotoluene2,6-DNT 2,6-dinitrotoluene2A-4,6-DNT 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene4A-2,6-DNT 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotolueneTNB 1,3,5-trinitrobenzeneDNB 1,3-dinitrobenzeneNB NitrobenzenePicramic Acid 2-amino-4,6-dinitrophenol

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRYMETHODS

The preferred laboratory analytical methodfor explosives analysis in soil and water isEPA SW-846 Method 8330, Nitroaromaticsand Nitramines by High Performance LiquidChromatography (HPLC). The use of HPLCfor munitions residue analysis is a well de-veloped procedure capable of detectingmost explosives and degradation com-pounds of interest. HPLC does not destroythe more thermally unstable compounds,such as RDX and tetryl, that may occurduring use of gas chromatography (GC)methods. Gas chromatography/massspectrometer (GC-MS) and gas chromatog-raphy/electron capture device (GC-ECD)methods may have published detectionlimits that are lower than HPLC, but theirresults tend to exhibit poor repeatability andare more erratic on low level analysis offield soil and ground water sample matrices[1].

Recently developments in field screeningmethods for TNT and RDX provide a valu-able tool for guiding site characterizationand optimization of laboratory analysis [2,3]. Two colorimeteric methods for TNT(SW-846 Method 8515) and RDX (SW-846Method 8510) exist, and four enzyme im-munoassay (EIA) methods for TNT (SW-846 Method 4050) and one for RDX (SW-846 Method 4051) are commercially avail-able. The optimum method for use at aparticular site is based on the specific ob-jectives for the field investigation and anumber of other factors. Field screeningmethods are particularly useful due to theheterogeneous nature of explosives in soiland the uneven waste disposal history atmany sites, such as open-burn/open-detonation (OB/OD) practices [4, 5]. Appli-cation of field screening methods to bio-logical treatment residues has been limitedand may be subject to matrix interferences.


RISK ASSESSMENTThe most immediate and profound risk fromexplosives is that of potential reactivity.Explosives exist in soils and sediments assmall crystals to large chunks. Applying thecorrect initiating source to one of thesecrystals will cause a detonation. Theamount of damage caused is in direct pro-portion to the size of the crystal. The pres-ence or absence of water has minimal ef-fect on the reactivity of the soil [6]. A twotest protocol has been developed andtested to determine the relationship be-tween explosives-contaminated soil contentand reactivity. The Zero Gap test and theDeflagration to Detonation Transition (DDT)indicate that soils with 12% or less totalexplosives concentration will not propagatea detonation or explode when heated underconfinement [7]. U.S. EPA Region 10, theOregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ), and U.S. Army Environ-mental Center (AEC) have used these re-sults for determining the characteristic haz-ardous waste status of explosives-contaminated soil as a reactive waste un-der RCRA. The basis for the RCRA charac-teristic hazardous waste status is the as-sumed explosive reactivity of the soils ifsubjected to a strong initiating force or ifheated under confinement (40 CFR261.23). These results apply to explosivessuch as TNT, RDX, HMX, DNT, TNB andDNB, and do not apply to initiating com-pounds, such as lead azide, lead styphen-ate or mercury fulminate.

A baseline risk assessment is conducted toassess the potential human health and en-vironmental impacts associated with soilcontamination. The primary exposurepathways evaluated for explosives-contamin-ated surface soils are dust inha-lation, soil ingestion and dermal absorption.Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)concentrations are based on the 95% up-per confidence interval (UCI) on the arith-metic mean of soil sampling data. The landuse scenarios quantitatively evaluated may

include industrial and residential use, utiliz-ing EPA standard default exposure pa-rameters [8].

Toxicity values for explosives may be ob-tained from the EPA Integrated Risk Infor-mation System (IRIS) and Health EffectsSummary Tables (HEAST) for carcinogenicSlope Factors (SF) and non-carcinogenicReference Dose (RfD). EPA classifies thedata regarding carcinogenicity according toweight-of-evidence classification. Group B(probable human) carcinogens such as 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT utilize carcinogenicslope factors. Group C (possible human)carcinogens, such as TNT and RDX, areevaluated for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, utilizing both SFs andRfDs. Group D (non-classifiable) carcino-gens, such as HMX and TNB are evaluatedusing non-carcinogenic RfDs only. Thecarcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenicHazard Index (HI) calculated for variousland use scenarios indicate the need forcleanup actions, based on Superfund Na-tional Contingency Plan (NCP) criteria andEPA policy guidance [9, 10].

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ANDTRANSPORT

Under ambient environmental conditions,explosives are highly persistent in surfacesoils and ground water, exhibiting a resis-tance to naturally-occurring volatilization orbiodegradation. A number of sites havehigh levels of soil and ground water con-tamination where waste disposal practiceswere discontinued 20 to 50 years ago.Where biodegradation does occur,monoamino-dinitrotoluenes (2A-4,6-DNTand 4A-2,6-DNT) and diamino-nitrotoluenes (2,4-DA-6-NT and 2,6-DA-4-NT) are the most commonly identified in-termediates of TNT [11]. Biodegradationbeyond these intermediates is not com-pletely understood, but suggested path-ways have been developed by Kaplan andKaplan for aerobic degradation and by


Funk for anaerobic degradation of TNT [12,13].

Biological treatment processes have beenshown to both create and degrade amino-DNT compounds. Abiotic processes mayalso result in the formation of amino-DNTcompounds. Photodegradation of TNT toTNB occurs in the presence of sunlight andwater, with TNB being generally resistant tofurther degradation. Site characterizationstudies indicate that TNT is the least mobileof the explosives, and RDX is the mostmobile. A number of previous laboratoryscale treatability studies indicate the poten-tial to biologically degrade explosives. Bio-degradation of explosives is considered tobe most favorable under co-metabolicconditions [11]. Biodegradation of TNT,RDX and HMX has been observed underboth aerobic and anaerobic conditions, al-though the rate of degradation varies de-pending upon the specific contaminant.Laboratory biodegradation studies havebeen performed on both spiked soil sam-ples and site-specific munitions residues.Studies conducted on site-specific muni-tions residues are preferred because theyexhibit different desorption characteristicsthan spiked soil samples, and they aremore representative of field operatingconditions. This paper examines the resultsof representative bench and pilot scaletreatability studies conducted on agedmunitions residues.

TREATMENT PROCESSESFive types of biological treatment systemshave been evaluated for explosives con-taminated soils: (1) composting, (2) an-aerobic bioslurry, (3) aerobic bioslurry, (4)white rot fungus treatment and (5) land-farming. Composting is a variation of solid-phase biological treatment. The compostingprocess can treat highly contaminated soilby adding a bulking agent (straw, bark,sawdust, wood chips) and organic amend-ments (manures, fruit and vegetable proc-essing wastes) to the soil. The

soil/amendment mixture is formed into pilesand aerated (natural convection or forcedair) in a contained system or by mechani-cally turning the pile. Bulking agents areadded to the compost to improve texture,workability and aeration; carbon and nitro-gen additives provide a source of metabolicheat. The composting environment is char-acterized by elevated temperatures (>30ºC), plentiful nutrients, high moisturelevels (> 50%), sufficient oxygen and aneutral pH. Waste decomposition occurs athigher temperatures resulting from in-creased biological activity within the treat-ment bed. One potential disadvantage ofcomposting is the increased volume oftreated material due to the addition ofbulking agents. Irrigation techniques canoptimize moisture and nutrient control, andan enclosed system can achieve air emis-sions control. During slurry phase biologicaltreatment, excavated soils or sludges aremixed with water in a tank or lagoon tocreate a slurry, which is then mechanicallyagitated. The procedure adds appropriatenutrients and controls the levels of oxygen,pH and temperature. A potential advantageof slurry phase treatment over solid phasetreatment is the high degree of mixing andthe effective contact between contaminatedsoils and nutrients. Following treatment inthe reactor, the soil must be separated fromthe slurry by gravity settling and/or me-chanical dewatering for redisposal. Thewater from the slurry may be recycledand/or treated and disposed. Slurry phasesystems tend to have the highest capitaland operating costs as compared to otherbiological treatment systems. White rotfungus treatment is similar to other forms ofsolid phase treatment, with the addition of afungal inoculant. Bulking agents such aswood chip or corn cobs and nutrients spe-cific for growth of fungal populations maybe added to optimize treatment conditions.Landfarming places contaminated soil in athin layer (typically 12 to 18 inches deep) ina lined treatment bed. Generally nutrientssuch as nitrogen and phosphorus areadded. The bed is usually lined with clay or


plastic liners, furnished with irrigation,drainage and soil-water monitoring sys-tems, and surrounded by a berm. Thisprocess is one of the older and more widelyused biological treatment technologies forwaste treatment. Landfarming is relativelysimple and inexpensive to implement, buthas a lower level of process control com-pared to other forms of biological treatment.Landfarming is also relatively land intensivedue to the thin layer of soil required foraerobic treatment.

Explosives treatment processes use twogeneral approaches to bioremediation—biostimulation and bioaugmentation.Biostimulation relies on altering externalconditions such as temperature, mixing,nutrients, pH, soil loading rates and oxygen

transfer to favorable conditions for growthof native microbial populations. Bioaugmen-tation relies on these same factors to alesser extent, and also relies on the use ofadditional inoculants to increase the per-formance of the system. Inoculants usuallyemploy cultures taken from other sitesknown to contain explosives-degrading mi-crobial or fungal populations.

Composting and aerobic bioslurry systemsfor explosives-contaminated soils generallyuse the biostimulation approach. Inocula-tion of these systems has not substantiallyincreased the overall efficiency of thetreatment process [14-16]. Anaerobic bios-lurry, white rot fungus treatment and land-farming have generally used the bioaug-mentation approach. Some overlap occurs

Table 1. Bench scale treatability studies.


in the presence or absence of inoculants inaerobic and anaerobic bioslurry treatmentsystems [17-22].

MINERALIZATION/TOXICOLOGY

With an incomplete understanding of the

complete TNT biodegradation pathway,laboratory and bench scale treatabilitystudies have employed the use of radiola-beled (14C) TNT to establish mass balancesfor the extent of mineralization. Results ofradiolabeled studies indicate 5% to 30%mineralization in compost residues, 15% to23% in aerobic bioslurry reactors, and up to

Table 2. Pilot scale treatability studies (continued in next table).


80% mineralization in mixed anaero-bic/aerobic treatment system sludges [23-25]. The use of radiolabeled TNT in pilotscale treatability studies is generally pro-hibitive due to the administrative and safetyrequirements for handling and analysis ofthe large quantities of radioactive material

that would be required. It is also doubtfulwhether spiked, radiolabeled TNT samplescan be considered truly representative ofaged munitions residues in soil.

An alternative approach to mineralizationstudies is to employ the use of toxicity and

Table 2 (cont.). Pilot scale treatability studies.


leachability tests to evaluate bioremediationtreatment residues. The advantage of thisapproach is that it can be conducted onpilot scale studies and can be used toevaluate the environmental effects of mul-tiple explosives, intermediate compounds,final degradation products and interactionswith soil humic materials in the sametreatment process. This approach is alsoconsistent with the Superfund NationalContingency Plan (NCP) objectives ofevaluating the toxicity, mobility and volumereduction effects of innovative treatmenttechnologies. Toxicity tests that have beenused for explosives bioremediation treat-ment residues include: (1) Microtox (2)Ames assays for mutagenicity, (3) aquatictoxicology tests on soil leachates, (4) oralrat feeding studies and (5) earthworm tox-icity tests. Toxicology and leachability testswere performed on pilot scale compostresidues from the Umatilla Army Depot Ac-tivity to evaluate toxicity and mobility effectscompared to untreated soils. Toxicity re-sults showed 87% to 92% reduction ofleachate toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia,and 99.3% to 99.6% reduction inmutagenicity for Ames assays using strainsTA-98 and TA-100. A brief oral rat feeding

study did not produce mortality from con-sumption of compost residues. Leachableconcentrations for TNT, RDX and HMXwere reduced by greater than 99.6%,98.6% and 97.3%, respectively, using theEPA Synthetic Precipitation Leach Proce-dure (SPLP) (SW-846 Method 1312) [14,26, 27]. Toxicology tests are currently beingperformed on treatment residues from theanaerobic bioslurry pilot scale test con-ducted at the Weldon Springs OrdnanceWorks, Missouri, NPL site as part of theEPA Superfund Innovative TechnologyEvaluation (SITE) Program. An InnovativeTechnology Evaluation Report will be avail-able in 1995 [28]. Planned toxicology testsfor the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant(JAAP) pilot scale demonstration of aerobicslurry-based treatment will be similar tothose conducted at the Umatilla site.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONSThe results of bench scale treatabilitystudies are shown in Table 1, and pilotscale studies are shown in Table 2. Thewaste disposal history and site characteri-zation at explosives-contaminated sites in-dicate that munitions residues in soils areextremely heterogeneous. The variability in

Table 3. Summary of pilot/field scale TNT biotreatment parameters.


soil concentration is often attributed toanalytical error, but is usually representa-tive of site conditions. The heterogeneousnature of explosives in soils presents achallenge for adequately designing and as-sessing the performance of biologicaltreatment systems. Bench scale treatabilitystudies cannot adequately address vari-ability in soil concentrations and materialhandling issues related to full scale reme-diation. Due to these factors, process con-trol is a major component in optimizing theperformance of biological treatment tech-nologies for explosives-contaminated soils,and it strongly supports the use of ex-situtreatment technologies. In-situ biologicaltechnologies for explosives have many in-herent difficulties due to: (1) heterogeneousconcentrations in soil, (2) extremely lowvolatility, (3) unfavorable soil/water partition-ing, particularly for TNT, (4) co-metabolicdegradation is optimum, (5) an increase inthe mobility of parent explosives and inter-mediate compounds during biologicaltreatment, and the (6) strong influence ofmixing on treatment performance. Initialresults also indicate that soils from openburn/open detonation (OB/OD) sites mayhave more tightly bound residues thanwastewater lagoons or spill sites. OB/ODsites may require more intensive mixingand materials handling procedures andlonger treatment times during full scaleremediation.

Composting, aerobic bioslurry and anaero-bic bioslurry treatment have shown the

greatest destruction and removal efficien-cies and meet or approach preliminaryremediation goals (PRGs) for site cleanup.These processes are also the most highlyengineered systems with the greatest levelof process control. At the current state ofdevelopment, white rot fungus treatmentand landfarming have been substantiallyunable to meet PRGs, show low or mod-erate treatment performance, and appearto be nutrient and/or bioavailability limited.In addition, white rot fungus exhibits toxicityinhibition at moderate and high concentra-tions of TNT, and competition from nativemicrobial populations [14, 20, 29, 30]. Ta-ble 3 provides a summary of representativebiotreatment parameters for pilot/field scalestudies of TNT degradation for each of thefive processes. Composting is the mostfully optimized treatment system to date,followed by anaerobic bioslurry, aerobicbioslurry, landfarming and white rot fungustreatment. In general, two pilot scale treat-ability studies have been required to fullyoptimize a particular treatment process.The results indicate the following optimiza-tion parameters for biological treatmentprocesses: temperature, mixing, nutrientselection, pH, soil loading rate, oxygentransfer and inoculant addition.

RECOMMENDATIONSFive primary criteria are suggested forevaluating bioremediation as the full-scaletreatment alternative for explosives-contam-inated soil. Table 4 indicates how

Table 4. Explosives-contaminated soils bioremediation remedy selection considerations.


each of the explosives bioremediationtreatment processes meet these criteria: (1)Has a pilot scale treatability study beencompleted? This addresses optimizationparameters, materials handling, and refinesanalytical variability, reaction kinetics,treatment times and unit costs. (2) Doesthe pilot scale study meet preliminaryremediation goals (PRGs) or cleanup lev-els? The pilot scale study should clearlydemonstrate the ability to achieve PRGs orcleanup levels. Extrapolation of data shouldnot be used, since many explosives bi-otreatment studies do not demonstratepredictable degradation rates such as lin-ear or first-order decay. The range oftreatment cleanup criteria established inRecords of Decision (RODs) for seven fa-cilities with explosives-contaminated soils infive EPA Regions [31-33, 41] are shown inTable 5. Based on these criteria, PRGs of30 ppm for TNT, 50 ppm for RDX, and 5ppm for 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT are sug-gested. (3) Do the treatability studies(bench and pilot scale) suggest nutrientand/or bioavailability limitations? If thereare substantial differences in the perform-

ance of the system between the bench andpilot scale treatability studies, the problemshould be evaluated. Operating parameterswhich were controlled during bench scalemay have been different under field condi-tions. These parameters should be re-solved before proceeding to full scale. (4)Does inoculation increase the performanceof the system or is it required to meet thecleanup levels? If inoculation is required,then acclimation of the inoculant to fieldconditions becomes critical to success ofthe treatment system. Inoculation may alsoaffect whether the technology is proprietaryand requires an agreement or license toimplement. (5) Is the process sensitive tosoil type? Biotreatment systems may per-form differently on different soil types. If thetreatment technology has not been testedon soils similar to the site under considera-tion, a treatability study should be con-ducted to verify performance. Unlike incin-eration, bioremediation is always a site-specific remedy.

Table 5. Summary of explosives cleanup levels.


REMEDY SELECTIONBased on the results of the treatabilitystudies and a number of other factors,composting was selected as the full scaleremedial action treatment remedy at twoNational Priority List (NPL) sites: (1)Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Hermiston,Oregon, for 14,800 tons of TNT-, RDX- andHMX-contaminated soils, and (2) the U.S.Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washing-ton, for 2,200 tons of TNT-contaminatedsoils [31, 32]. The pilot scale compostingtreatability studies demonstrated the abilityto achieve site specific risk-based cleanuplevels of 30 to 33 ppm for TNT and 9 to 30ppm for RDX after 40 days of treatment,with a destruction and removal efficiency(DRE) of greater than 99.0%. FeasibilityStudy (FS) estimates indicate projectedtreatment costs of $206 to $766 per ton forquantities of 1,200 to 30,000 tons—40% to50% less than on-site incineration [34, 35].The composting process mixes organicamendments, such as manure, wood chips,alfalfa and vegetable processing wastes

with contaminated soil. The process utilizesnative aerobic thermophilic microorganismsand requires no inoculation. Amendmentsserve as a source of carbon and nitrogenfor thermophiles, which degrade explosivesunder co-metabolic conditions. Optimiza-tion process parameters that affect com-posting performance are shown in Table 6[11, 14, 17, 27]. The composting process issuitable for soils and sludges. Rocks anddebris can be crushed or shredded andtreated with soils. The process does notappear to be particularly sensitive to soiltype. Umatilla soils are sands/gravel andSUBASE Bangor soils are loams and gla-cial till. Additionally, composting producesno emissions of explosives into the air, noleachate, and does not require dewateringupon completion of treatment. Compostresidues will support growth of vegetationafter treatment, unlike incinerator ash orsoils treated by solidification/stabilization.

Table 6. Optimization parameters for explosives composting.


REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIALACTION (RD/RA)

Since a majority of explosives-contaminated sites are federal facilities orformerly used defense sites (FUDS), a dis-cussion of government contracting proce-dures for Remedial Design/Remedial Ac-tion (RD/RA) is appropriate. The pilot scaletreatability test may serve as a 30% Re-medial Design (RD) and should be includedas government-furnished information in theRemedial Action (RA) solicitation/contractdocuments to provide independent verifica-tion that the selected biotreatment systemis capable of achieving the cleanup levelsrequired for the site. The Remedial Design(RD) should also focus on developing per-formance specifications so that a Requestfor Proposals (RFP) or pre-placed Reme-dial Action contract can be bid andawarded. An RFP or pre-placed RA con-tract will allow the site's technical evalua-tion team to clearly evaluate the contrac-tor's capability to perform in accordancewith the solicitation requirements prior toimplementation of the full scale treatmentsystem.

If proprietary biotreatment processes areproposed, sole source contracting or pro-curement may be required to obtain theservices of the treatment vendor. Solesource procurement under governmentcontracting procedures requires extensivejustification and, in many cases, may not bepossible if there are other processes orcontractors that can meet the government'sminimum performance specifications. Con-tracting officers should also clearly evaluatewhat procedures are in place should thecontractor's treatment system fail to meetthe cleanup criteria established for the site.Full scale treatment trials, similar in functionto incineration test burns, should be per-formed before beginning full scale opera-tions. Value engineering (VE) sessions maybe of limited usefulness where there is noprevious full scale treatment experience,except for materials handling processes

[36]. The RD should include an explosivessafety hazards analysis by a competentexplosives safety expert. All contaminatedsoils handling and treatment equipmentshould be evaluated to identify any con-cerns or equipment modifications requiredfor full scale materials handling operations.Unexploded ordnance (UXO) may also bepresent at disposal sites and presents aserious safety concern. UXOs must be lo-cated and removed or deactivated beforeexcavation work begins.

Umatilla Army Depot and Naval SubmarineBase Bangor are currently involved in Re-medial Design (RD) of composting biore-mediation treatment systems [37]. Umatillahas completed excavation and stockpiled14,800 tons of soil for treatment. The Seat-tle District Corp of Engineers (COE), EPARegion 10, Oregon DEQ and the U.S.Army Environmental Center are reviewingthe Remedial Action Management Plan(RAMP) for full scale treatment operations[38]. Full scale treatment trials are sched-uled to begin in mid-1995. SUBASE Ban-gor has completed pilot scale treatment tri-als which began in late 1994. The results ofthe treatability study and development ofthe Remedial Design will be reviewed bythe U.S. Navy, EPA Region 10 and theWashington Department of Ecology [39].Both the Umatilla and Bangor sites utilizean asphalt liner and temporary building tohouse the biotreatment system [40]. Con-sistent with the Superfund National Contin-gency Plan (NCP) objectives, biologicaltreatment of explosives-contaminated soilsprovides the opportunity to implement ef-fective innovative treatment technologies ata lower cost than incineration. In the past,incineration has been used as the selectedtreatment technology at all NPL sites withexplosives-contaminated soil. Actual costsfor biological treatment will be refined dur-ing full scale remediation.


REFERENCES1. Hart-Crowser Inc., Remedial Investiga-

tion/Feasibility Study, Site F, NavalSubmarine Base Bangor, Bangor,Washington, prepared for EngineeringField Activity Northwest, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command, Silverdale,Washington, November 12, 1993.

2. T.F. Jenkins, Development of a Simpli-fied Field Screening Method for theDetermination of TNT in Soil, SpecialReport 90-38, U.S. Army Corps of En-gineers, Cold Regions Research andEngineering Laboratory, November1990.

3. M.E. Walsh and T.F. Jenkins, Devel-opment of a Field Screening Method forRDX in Soil, Special Report 91-7, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Cold RegionsResearch and Engineering Laboratory,June 1991.

4. H.D. Craig, A. Markos, H. Lewis and C.Thompson, Remedial Investigation ofSite D at Naval Submarine Base Ban-gor, Washington, In: Proceedings of the1993 Federal Environmental Restora-tion Conference, Washington, D.C.,Hazardous Material Control ResourcesInstitute (HMCRI), May 25-27, 1993.

5. A. Markos, H. Craig and G. Ferguson,Comparison of Field Screening Tech-nologies Implemented During Phase IRemediation of Explosives WashoutLagoons Soils, In: 1995 Federal Envi-ronmental Restoration Conference IVProceedings, Hazardous Material Con-trol Resources Institute (HMCRI), At-lanta, GA, March 14-15, 1995.

6. W.E. Sisk, Reactivity Testing andHandling Explosive-Contaminated Soil,In: Proceedings of the 1992 FederalEnvironmental Restoration Conference,Vienna, VA, Hazardous Material Control

Resources Institute (HMCRI), April 15-17, 1992.

7. F.T. Kristoff, T.W. Ewing and D.E.Johnson, Testing to Determine Rela-tionship Between Explosive Contami-nated Sludge Components and Reac-tivity, Arthur D. Little, Inc., prepared forU.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Mate-rials Agency, Contract DAAK11-85-D-0008, January 1987.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Human Health Evaluation Manual,Supplemental Guidance: Standard De-fault Exposure Factors, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response(OSWER) Directive 9285.6-03, March1991.

9. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 300,National Oil and Hazardous SubstancesContingency Plan: Final Rule, 55 FR8666, March 8, 1990.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Memorandum from Don R. Clay to Re-gional Directors, Re: Role of the Base-line Risk Assessment in SuperfundRemedy Selection, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response(OSWER) Directive 9355.0-30, 1991.

11. R.F. Weston, Inc., Task Order 8 - FieldDemonstration-Composting of Explo-sives-Contaminated Sediments at theLouisiana Army Ammunition Plant(LAAP), prepared for the U.S. ArmyToxic and Hazardous Materials Agency(USATHAMA), Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD, Contract No. DAAK-11-85-D-007, September 1988.

12. D.L. Kaplan and A.M. Kaplan, Thermo-philic Biotransformations of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene Under Simulated Com-posting Conditions, Appl. Environ. Mi-crobiol., 44 (1982) 757-760, Natick/TR-82/015.


13. S.B. Funk, D.J. Roberts, D.L. Crawfordand R.L. Crawford, Degradation ofTrinitrotoluene (TNT) and SequentialAccumulation of Metabolic Intermedi-ates by an Anaerobic Bioreactor Duringits Adaptation to a TNT Feed, pre-sented to the Annual Meeting AmericanSociety for Microbiology, Atlanta, GA,May 16-21, 1993.

14. R.F. Weston, Inc., Optimization ofComposting for Explosives Contami-nated Soils, Final Report, prepared forthe U.S. Army Toxic and HazardousMaterials Agency (USATHAMA), Aber-deen Proving Ground, MD, November1991.

15. M.J. McFarland, S. Kalaskar and D.Baiden, Composting of ExplosivesContaminated Soil Using the White RotFungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium,Utah Water Research Laboratory, UtahState University, Logan, Utah, preparedfor U.S. Army Research Office, Re-search Triangle Park, NC, ContractDAAL03-91-C-0034, December 1,1992.

16. M. Zappi, D. Gunnison, J.C. Penningtonand C. Teeter, Evaluation of BioslurrySystems for Treating Explosives Con-taminated Soils from the Hastings EastIndustrial Park, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Waterways Experiment Sta-tion, September 1993.

17. URS Consultants, Inc., Phase II FinalReport for Bench Scale TreatabilityStudy of Ordnance Contaminated Soils,U.S. Naval Submarine Base Bangor,Silverdale, WA, prepared for Engineer-ing Field Activity Northwest, Naval Fa-cilities Engineering Command, ContractNo. #N62474-89-D-9295, March 1993.

18. Personal communication with CeciliaTapia, Remedial Project Manager, Wel-don Springs Ordnance Works (WSOW),MO, Superfund Innovative Technology

Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Re-gion 7, Kansas City, Kansas, May 4,1994.

19. Personal communication with CharlesCoil, Environmental Engineer, BioslurryPilot-Scale Demonstration for Treat-ment of TNT Contaminated Soil by Ar-gonne National Laboratory and ArmyEnvironmental Center; Joliet ArmyAmmunition Plant (JAAP), Joliet, IL,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MissouriRiver Division, Omaha, NE, November2, 1994.

20. Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc.,and Utah State University, White RotRemediation of Ordnance-Contaminat-ed Media, prepared for Naval Civil En-gineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,CA, Contract No. F49650-90-D5001/DO 5013, No date.

21. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Biological Treatment FieldTests for Trinitrotoluene (TNT) Con-taminated Soils, Hercules, CA, CALEPA Department of Toxic SubstancesControl, Alternative Technology Divi-sion, Staff Report, December 1991.

22. RUST Environment and InfrastructureInc., Thermal and Biological TreatabilityStudies on Explosives ContaminatedSoils from a DOD Site, In: 1994 FederalEnvironmental Restoration II & WasteMinimization II Conference and Exhibi-tion Proceedings, Volume I, HazardousMaterial Control Resources Institute(HMCRI), April 27-29, 1994.

23. J.C. Pennington, C.A. Hayes, K.F.Meyers, M. Ochman, D. Gunnison, D.R.Felt and E.F. McCormick, Fate of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene in a Simulated CompostSystem, U.S. Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,MS, September 1994.


24. D. Gunnison, J.C. Pennington, C.B.Price and G.B. Myrick, Screening Testand Isolation Procedure for TNT-Degrading Microorganisms, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Waterways Ex-periment Station, July 1993.

25. L.J. Pumfrey, D.J. Roberts, D.L. Craw-ford and R.L. Crawford, A Pure Cultureof an Obligately Anaerobic Bacteriumthat Utilizes 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)as a Sole Source of Carbon, Nitrogen,and Energy, University of Idaho Haz-ardous Waste Remediation ResearchCenter, submitted to Appl. Environ. Mi-crobiol., September 1993.

26. W.H. Griest, R.L. Tyndall, A.J. Stewart,C.H. Ho, K.S. Ironside, J.E. Canton,W.M. Caldwell and E. Tan, Characteri-zation of Explosives Waste Decomposi-tion Due to Composting, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,prepared for U.S. Army Medical Re-search and Development Command,Ft. Detrick, MD, November 1, 1992.

27. R.F. Weston, Inc., Windrow Compost-ing Demonstration for Explosives-Contam-inated Soils at the UmatillaDepot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, pre-pared for the U.S. Army EnvironmentalCenter (AEC), Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD, August 1993.

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Ex-Situ Bioremediation of TNT, Dinseb& Other Pesticides/Herbicides, In: TechTrends, The Applied TechnologiesJournal for Superfund Removals & Re-medial Actions, & RCRA Corrective Ac-tions, Office of Solid Waste and Emer-gency Response (OSWER), Washing-ton, D.C., Document No. EPA 542-N-94-006, August 1994.

29. Personal communication with Dr. CarlJohnston, Senior Bioremediation Scien-tist, Degradation of Ordnance Ingredi-ents by Phanerochaete chrysosporium

and other White Rot Fungi, U.S. DODSmall Business Innovation Research(SBIR) Program Project Summary,Phase I Summary and Phase II Pro-posal, MYCOTECH Corporation, Butte,MT, March 30, 1995.

30. J.K. Spiker, D.L. Crawford and R.L.Crawford, Influence of 2,4,6-Trinitrotol-uene (TNT) Concentration on the Deg-radation of TNT in Explosives-Contam-inated Soils by the White Rot FungusPhanerochaete chrysosporium, Appl.Environ. Microbiol., 58 (1992) 3199-3202.

31. U.S. Army, U.S. EPA Region 10 andOregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Umatilla Army Depot Activity,Washout Lagoons Soils Operable Unit,Record of Decision (ROD), September1992.

32. U.S. Navy, U.S. EPA Region 10 andWashington Department of Ecology,Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA,Operable Unit 2 (Site F) Record of De-cision (ROD), September 28, 1994.

33. U.S. Navy, U.S. EPA Region 10 andWashington Department of Ecology,Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA,Operable Unit 6 (Site D) Record of De-cision (ROD), September 28, 1994.

34. CH2M Hill and Morrison Knudsen Envi-ronmental Services, Feasibility Studyfor the Explosives Washout Lagoons(Site 4) Soils Operable Unit at theUmatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA),Hermiston, OR, CH2M Hill, Seattle,WA, April 1992.

35. URS Consultants, Inc., Final RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study, Oper-able Unit 6, Naval Submarine BaseBangor, WA, prepared for EngineeringField Activity Northwest, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command, Silverdale, WA,


Contract #N62474-89-D-9295, Decem-ber 1993.

36. W.L.S. Oresik, M.T. Otten and M.D.Nelson, Minimizing Soil RemediationVolume Through Specification of Exca-vation and Materials Handling Proce-dures, In: 1994 Federal EnvironmentalRestoration II & Waste Minimization IIConference and Exhibition Proceed-ings, Volume I, Hazardous MaterialControl Resources Institute (HMCRI),April 27-29, 1994.

37. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SeattleDistrict, Request for Proposal for PhaseII Contaminated Soil Remediation atExplosives Washout Lagoons, Umatilla,OR, RFP No. DACA67-94-R-0007,Seattle, WA, December 15, 1993.

38. Bioremediation Service, Inc., Final Re-medial Action Management Plan(RAMP), Phase II, Contaminated SoilRemediation, Explosives Washout La-goons, Umatilla, OR, Phase 1, TrialTest, prepared for U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Seattle District, Contract No.DACA67-94-C-0031, October 4, 1994.

39. URS Consultants, Inc., Phase III FinalWork Plans, Pilot-Scale TreatabilityStudy of Ordnance Contaminated Soils,U.S. Naval Submarine Base Bangor,Silverdale, WA, prepared for Engineer-ing Field Activity Northwest, Naval Fa-cilities Engineering Command, ContractNo. #N62474-89-D-9295, September 2,1994.

40. Science Applications International Corp.(SAIC), Assessment of Standard Tech-nical Practices for Contained SolidPhase Biological Treatment Processes,Interim Final, prepared for U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, Technol-ogy Innovation Office (TIO), Arlington,VA, EPA Contract: 68-Co-0048, No-vember 12, 1993.

41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Handbook: Approaches for the Reme-diation of Federal Facilities Sites Con-taminated with Explosive or RadioactiveWastes, U.S. EPA Office of Researchand Development, Cincinnati, OH, Doc.No. EPA/625/R-93/013, September1993.

42. Personal communication with DavidEmery/Charles Bird, Results of thePhase II Full Scale Trial Test, UmatillaArmy Depot Activity, BioremediationService, Inc. (BSI), Portland, OR, May18, 1995.

43. Personal communication with ElonaTuomi/Merv Coover, Results of the PilotScale Treatability Study for ExplosivesContaminated Soils, Naval SubmarineBase, Bangor, WA, Remediation Tech-nologies, Inc. (ReTech), Seattle, WA,March 15,1995.

bioremediation of explosives- contaminated soils · pdf file164 proceedings of the 10th annual...

Documents