sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bioremediation

BIOREMEDIATION OF EXPLOSIVES- CONTAMINATED : A STATUS REVIEW H.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, and Cleanup Division, 811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR, 97204, 503-229- 6530

ABSTRACT The investigation of past operational and disposal practices at federal facilities and formerly 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 in of soils with munitions residues. The primary constituents are nitroaromatic and nitramine organic compounds and . A number of sites have contamination remaining where waste disposal practices were discontinued 20 to 50 years ago.

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

Composting has been selected as the full scale remedial action treatment remedy at two National 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 the ability to achieve risk-based cleanup levels of 30 to 33 parts per million (ppm) for TNT and 9 to 30 ppm for RDX after 40 days of treatment, with a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of greater than 99.0%. Feasibility Study (FS) estimates of treatment costs range from $206 to $766 per ton for quantities of 1,200 to 30,000 tons—40% to 50% less than on-site . In the past, all NPL sites with explosives contamination have used incineration as the selected treatment technology. Actual costs for biotreatment will be refined during full scale remediation.

KEY WORDS explosives, munitions, ordnance, bioremediation, biological treatment

164 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Research BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY The investigation of past disposal practices METHODS at federal facilities and formerly used de- The preferred laboratory analytical method fense sites (FUDS) has dramatically in- for explosives analysis in soil and water is creased in the past several years. The EPA SW-846 Method 8330, Nitroaromatics manufacture; load, assembly and pack and Nitramines by High Performance Liquid (LAP); demilitarization; washout operations; Chromatography (HPLC). The use of HPLC and open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) of for munitions residue analysis is a well de- ordnance and explosives have resulted in veloped procedure capable of detecting soils contaminated with munitions residues. most explosives and degradation com- In conjunction with site investigations, bio- pounds of interest. HPLC does not destroy logical treatment studies have been under- the more thermally unstable compounds, taken to evaluate the potential for full scale such as RDX and tetryl, that may occur remediation. This paper evaluates the re- during use of gas chromatography (GC) sults of 15 bioremediation treatability stud- methods. Gas chromatography/mass ies conducted at eight sites for explosives- spectrometer (GC-MS) and gas chromatog- contaminated soils and the full scale re- raphy/electron capture device (GC-ECD) medial implementation status. methods may have published detection limits that are lower than HPLC, but their WASTE STREAMS results tend to exhibit poor repeatability and The primary constituents of waste streams are more erratic on low level analysis of from explosives operations that result in soil field soil and ground water sample matrices contamination are nitroaromatics and [1]. nitramines including: Recently developments in field screening Acronym Compound Name methods for TNT and RDX provide a valu- TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene able tool for guiding site characterization RDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- and optimization of laboratory analysis [2, triazine 3]. Two colorimeteric methods for TNT HMX Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7- tetrazocine (SW-846 Method 8515) and RDX (SW-846 Tetryl Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine Method 8510) exist, and four enzyme im- Picric Acid 2,4,6-trinitrophenol munoassay (EIA) methods for TNT (SW- PETN Pentaerythritol tetranitrate 846 Method 4050) and one for RDX (SW- TATB Triaminotrinitrobenzene 846 Method 4051) are commercially avail- able. The optimum method for use at a The most frequently occurring impurities particular site is based on the specific ob- and degradation products from these in- jectives for the field investigation and a clude: number of other factors. Field screening Acronym Compound Name methods are particularly useful due to the 2,4-DNT 2,4-dinitrotoluene heterogeneous nature of explosives in soil 2,6-DNT 2,6-dinitrotoluene and the uneven waste disposal history at 2A-4,6-DNT 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene many sites, such as open-burn/open- 4A-2,6-DNT 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene detonation (OB/OD) practices [4, 5]. Appli- TNB 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene DNB 1,3-dinitrobenzene cation of field screening methods to bio- NB Nitrobenzene logical treatment residues has been limited Picramic Acid 2-amino-4,6-dinitrophenol and may be subject to matrix interferences.

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 165 RISK ASSESSMENT include industrial and residential use, utiliz- ing EPA standard default exposure pa- The most immediate and profound risk from rameters [8]. explosives is that of potential reactivity. Explosives exist in soils and sediments as Toxicity values for explosives may be ob- small crystals to large chunks. Applying the tained from the EPA Integrated Risk Infor- correct initiating source to one of these mation System (IRIS) and Health Effects crystals will cause a detonation. The Summary Tables (HEAST) for carcinogenic amount of damage caused is in direct pro- Slope Factors (SF) and non-carcinogenic portion to the size of the crystal. The pres- Reference Dose (RfD). EPA classifies the ence or absence of water has minimal ef- data regarding carcinogenicity according to fect on the reactivity of the soil [6]. A two weight-of-evidence classification. Group B test protocol has been developed and (probable human) such as 2,4- tested to determine the relationship be- DNT and 2,6-DNT utilize carcinogenic tween explosives-contaminated soil content slope factors. Group C (possible human) and reactivity. The Zero Gap test and the carcinogens, such as TNT and RDX, are Deflagration to Detonation Transition (DDT) evaluated for carcinogenic and non- indicate that soils with 12% or less total carcinogenic risks, utilizing both SFs and explosives concentration will not propagate RfDs. Group D (non-classifiable) carcino- a detonation or explode when heated under gens, such as HMX and TNB are evaluated confinement [7]. U.S. EPA Region 10, the using non-carcinogenic RfDs only. The Oregon Department of Environmental carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic Quality (DEQ), and U.S. Army Environ- Hazard Index (HI) calculated for various mental Center (AEC) have used these re- land use scenarios indicate the need for sults for determining the characteristic haz- cleanup actions, based on Superfund Na- ardous waste status of explosives- tional Contingency Plan (NCP) criteria and contaminated soil as a reactive waste un- EPA policy guidance [9, 10]. der RCRA. The basis for the RCRA charac- teristic hazardous waste status is the as- ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND sumed explosive reactivity of the soils if subjected to a strong initiating force or if heated under confinement (40 CFR Under ambient environmental conditions, 261.23). These results apply to explosives explosives are highly persistent in surface such as TNT, RDX, HMX, DNT, TNB and soils and ground water, exhibiting a resis- DNB, and do not apply to initiating com- tance to naturally-occurring volatilization or pounds, such as azide, lead styphen- . A number of sites have ate or fulminate. high levels of soil and ground water con- tamination where waste disposal practices A baseline risk assessment is conducted to were discontinued 20 to 50 years ago. assess the potential human health and en- Where biodegradation does occur, vironmental impacts associated with soil monoamino-dinitrotoluenes (2A-4,6-DNT contamination. The primary exposure and 4A-2,6-DNT) and diamino- pathways evaluated for explosives- nitrotoluenes (2,4-DA-6-NT and 2,6-DA-4- contamin-ated surface soils are dust inha- NT) are the most commonly identified in- lation, soil ingestion and dermal absorption. termediates of TNT [11]. Biodegradation Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) beyond these intermediates is not com- concentrations are based on the 95% up- pletely understood, but suggested path- per confidence interval (UCI) on the arith- ways have been developed by Kaplan and metic mean of soil sampling data. The land Kaplan for aerobic degradation and by use scenarios quantitatively evaluated may

166 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research Funk for anaerobic degradation of TNT [12, soil/amendment mixture is formed into piles 13]. and aerated (natural convection or forced air) in a contained system or by mechani- Biological treatment processes have been cally turning the pile. Bulking agents are shown to both create and degrade amino- added to the to improve texture, DNT compounds. Abiotic processes may workability and aeration; carbon and nitro- also result in the formation of amino-DNT gen additives provide a source of metabolic compounds. Photodegradation of TNT to heat. The composting environment is char- TNB occurs in the presence of sunlight and acterized by elevated temperatures (> water, with TNB being generally resistant to 30ºC), plentiful nutrients, high moisture further degradation. Site characterization levels (> 50%), sufficient and a studies indicate that TNT is the least mobile neutral pH. Waste decomposition occurs at of the explosives, and RDX is the most higher temperatures resulting from in- mobile. A number of previous laboratory creased biological activity within the treat- scale treatability studies indicate the poten- ment bed. One potential disadvantage of tial to biologically degrade explosives. Bio- composting is the increased volume of degradation of explosives is considered to treated material due to the addition of be most favorable under co-metabolic bulking agents. Irrigation techniques can conditions [11]. Biodegradation of TNT, optimize moisture and nutrient control, and RDX and HMX has been observed under an enclosed system can achieve air emis- both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, al- sions control. During slurry phase biological though the rate of degradation varies de- treatment, excavated soils or sludges are pending upon the specific contaminant. mixed with water in a tank or lagoon to Laboratory biodegradation studies have create a slurry, which is then mechanically been performed on both spiked soil sam- agitated. The procedure adds appropriate ples and site-specific munitions residues. nutrients and controls the levels of oxygen, Studies conducted on site-specific muni- pH and temperature. A potential advantage tions residues are preferred because they of slurry phase treatment over solid phase exhibit different desorption characteristics treatment is the high degree of mixing and than spiked soil samples, and they are the effective contact between contaminated more representative of field operating soils and nutrients. Following treatment in conditions. This paper examines the results the reactor, the soil must be separated from of representative bench and pilot scale the slurry by gravity settling and/or me- treatability studies conducted on aged chanical dewatering for redisposal. The munitions residues. water from the slurry may be recycled and/or treated and disposed. Slurry phase TREATMENT PROCESSES systems tend to have the highest capital and operating costs as compared to other Five types of biological treatment systems biological treatment systems. White rot have been evaluated for explosives con- fungus treatment is similar to other forms of taminated soils: (1) composting, (2) an- solid phase treatment, with the addition of a aerobic bioslurry, (3) aerobic bioslurry, (4) fungal inoculant. Bulking agents such as white rot fungus treatment and (5) land- wood chip or corn cobs and nutrients spe- farming. Composting is a variation of solid- cific for growth of fungal populations may phase biological treatment. The composting be added to optimize treatment conditions. process can treat highly contaminated soil Landfarming places contaminated soil in a by adding a bulking agent (straw, bark, thin layer (typically 12 to 18 inches deep) in sawdust, wood chips) and organic amend- a lined treatment bed. Generally nutrients ments (manures, fruit and vegetable proc- such as nitrogen and phosphorus are essing wastes) to the soil. The added. The bed is usually lined with clay or

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 167 liners, furnished with irrigation, transfer to favorable conditions for growth drainage and soil-water monitoring sys- of native microbial populations. Bioaugmen- tems, and surrounded by a berm. This tation relies on these same factors to a process is one of the older and more widely lesser extent, and also relies on the use of used biological treatment technologies for additional inoculants to increase the per- waste treatment. Landfarming is relatively formance of the system. Inoculants usually simple and inexpensive to implement, but employ cultures taken from other sites has a lower level of process control com- known to contain explosives-degrading mi- pared to other forms of biological treatment. crobial or fungal populations. Landfarming is also relatively land intensive due to the thin layer of soil required for Composting and aerobic bioslurry systems aerobic treatment. for explosives-contaminated soils generally use the approach. Inocula- Explosives treatment processes use two tion of these systems has not substantially general approaches to bioremediation— increased the overall efficiency of the biostimulation and . treatment process [14-16]. Anaerobic bios- Biostimulation relies on altering external lurry, white rot fungus treatment and land- conditions such as temperature, mixing, farming have generally used the bioaug- nutrients, pH, soil loading rates and oxygen mentation approach. Some overlap occurs

Table 1. Bench scale treatability studies.

168 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research in the presence or absence of inoculants in complete TNT biodegradation pathway, aerobic and anaerobic bioslurry treatment laboratory and bench scale treatability systems [17-22]. studies have employed the use of radiola- beled (14C) TNT to establish mass balances MINERALIZATION/ for the extent of mineralization. Results of TOXICOLOGY radiolabeled studies indicate 5% to 30% mineralization in compost residues, 15% to With an incomplete understanding of the 23% in aerobic bioslurry reactors, and up to

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

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 169 80% mineralization in mixed anaero- that would be required. It is also doubtful bic/aerobic treatment system sludges [23- whether spiked, radiolabeled TNT samples 25]. The use of radiolabeled TNT in pilot can be considered truly representative of scale treatability studies is generally pro- aged munitions residues in soil. hibitive due to the administrative and safety requirements for handling and analysis of An alternative approach to mineralization the large quantities of radioactive material studies is to employ the use of toxicity and

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

170 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research leachability tests to evaluate bioremediation study did not produce mortality from con- treatment residues. The advantage of this sumption of compost residues. Leachable approach is that it can be conducted on concentrations for TNT, RDX and HMX pilot scale studies and can be used to were reduced by greater than 99.6%, evaluate the environmental effects of mul- 98.6% and 97.3%, respectively, using the tiple explosives, intermediate compounds, EPA Synthetic Precipitation Leach Proce- final degradation products and interactions dure (SPLP) (SW-846 Method 1312) [14, with soil humic materials in the same 26, 27]. Toxicology tests are currently being treatment process. This approach is also performed on treatment residues from the consistent with the Superfund National anaerobic bioslurry pilot scale test con- Contingency Plan (NCP) objectives of ducted at the Weldon Springs Ordnance evaluating the toxicity, mobility and volume Works, Missouri, NPL site as part of the reduction effects of innovative treatment EPA Superfund Innovative Technology technologies. Toxicity tests that have been Evaluation (SITE) Program. An Innovative used for explosives bioremediation treat- Technology Evaluation Report will be avail- ment residues include: (1) Microtox (2) able in 1995 [28]. Planned toxicology tests Ames assays for mutagenicity, (3) aquatic for the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant toxicology tests on soil , (4) oral (JAAP) pilot scale demonstration of aerobic rat feeding studies and (5) earthworm tox- slurry-based treatment will be similar to icity tests. Toxicology and leachability tests those conducted at the Umatilla site. were performed on pilot scale compost residues from the Umatilla Army Depot Ac- RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS tivity to evaluate toxicity and mobility effects compared to untreated soils. Toxicity re- The results of bench scale treatability sults showed 87% to 92% reduction of studies are shown in Table 1, and pilot toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia, scale studies are shown in Table 2. The and 99.3% to 99.6% reduction in waste disposal history and site characteri- mutagenicity for Ames assays using strains zation at explosives-contaminated sites in- TA-98 and TA-100. A brief oral rat feeding dicate that munitions residues in soils are extremely heterogeneous. The variability in

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

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 171 soil concentration is often attributed to greatest destruction and removal efficien- analytical error, but is usually representa- cies and meet or approach preliminary tive of site conditions. The heterogeneous remediation goals (PRGs) for site cleanup. nature of explosives in soils presents a These processes are also the most highly challenge for adequately designing and as- engineered systems with the greatest level sessing the performance of biological of process control. At the current state of treatment systems. Bench scale treatability development, white rot fungus treatment studies cannot adequately address vari- and landfarming have been substantially ability in soil concentrations and material unable to meet PRGs, show low or mod- handling issues related to full scale reme- erate treatment performance, and appear diation. Due to these factors, process con- to be nutrient and/or bioavailability limited. trol is a major component in optimizing the In addition, white rot fungus exhibits toxicity performance of biological treatment tech- inhibition at moderate and high concentra- nologies for explosives-contaminated soils, tions of TNT, and competition from native and it strongly supports the use of ex-situ microbial populations [14, 20, 29, 30]. Ta- treatment technologies. In-situ biological ble 3 provides a summary of representative technologies for explosives have many in- biotreatment parameters for pilot/field scale herent difficulties due to: (1) heterogeneous studies of TNT degradation for each of the concentrations in soil, (2) extremely low five processes. Composting is the most volatility, (3) unfavorable soil/water partition- fully optimized treatment system to date, ing, particularly for TNT, (4) co-metabolic followed by anaerobic bioslurry, aerobic degradation is optimum, (5) an increase in bioslurry, landfarming and white rot fungus the mobility of parent explosives and inter- treatment. In general, two pilot scale treat- mediate compounds during biological ability studies have been required to fully treatment, and the (6) strong influence of optimize a particular treatment process. mixing on treatment performance. Initial The results indicate the following optimiza- results also indicate that soils from open tion parameters for biological treatment burn/open detonation (OB/OD) sites may processes: temperature, mixing, nutrient have more tightly bound residues than selection, pH, soil loading rate, oxygen wastewater lagoons or spill sites. OB/OD transfer and inoculant addition. sites may require more intensive mixing and materials handling procedures and RECOMMENDATIONS longer treatment times during full scale remediation. Five primary criteria are suggested for evaluating bioremediation as the full-scale Composting, aerobic bioslurry and anaero- treatment alternative for explosives- bic bioslurry treatment have shown the contam-inated soil. Table 4 indicates how

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

172 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research each of the explosives bioremediation ance of the system between the bench and treatment processes meet these criteria: (1) pilot scale treatability studies, the problem Has a pilot scale treatability study been should be evaluated. Operating parameters completed? This addresses optimization which were controlled during bench scale parameters, materials handling, and refines may have been different under field condi- analytical variability, reaction kinetics, tions. These parameters should be re- treatment times and unit costs. (2) Does solved before proceeding to full scale. (4) the pilot scale study meet preliminary Does inoculation increase the performance remediation goals (PRGs) or cleanup lev- of the system or is it required to meet the els? The pilot scale study should clearly cleanup levels? If inoculation is required, demonstrate the ability to achieve PRGs or then acclimation of the inoculant to field cleanup levels. Extrapolation of data should conditions becomes critical to success of not be used, since many explosives bi- the treatment system. Inoculation may also otreatment studies do not demonstrate affect whether the technology is proprietary predictable degradation rates such as lin- and requires an agreement or license to ear or first-order decay. The range of implement. (5) Is the process sensitive to treatment cleanup criteria established in soil type? Biotreatment systems may per- Records of Decision (RODs) for seven fa- form differently on different soil types. If the cilities with explosives-contaminated soils in treatment technology has not been tested five EPA Regions [31-33, 41] are shown in on soils similar to the site under considera- Table 5. Based on these criteria, PRGs of tion, a treatability study should be con- 30 ppm for TNT, 50 ppm for RDX, and 5 ducted to verify performance. Unlike incin- ppm for 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT are sug- eration, bioremediation is always a site- gested. (3) Do the treatability studies specific remedy. (bench and pilot scale) suggest nutrient and/or bioavailability limitations? If there are substantial differences in the perform-

Table 5. Summary of explosives cleanup levels.

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 173 REMEDY SELECTION with contaminated soil. The process utilizes native aerobic thermophilic Based on the results of the treatability and requires no inoculation. Amendments studies and a number of other factors, serve as a source of carbon and nitrogen composting was selected as the full scale for thermophiles, which degrade explosives remedial action treatment remedy at two under co-metabolic conditions. Optimiza- National Priority List (NPL) sites: (1) tion process parameters that affect com- Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Hermiston, posting performance are shown in Table 6 Oregon, for 14,800 tons of TNT-, RDX- and [11, 14, 17, 27]. The composting process is HMX-contaminated soils, and (2) the U.S. suitable for soils and sludges. Rocks and Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washing- debris can be crushed or shredded and ton, for 2,200 tons of TNT-contaminated treated with soils. The process does not soils [31, 32]. The pilot scale composting appear to be particularly sensitive to soil treatability studies demonstrated the ability type. Umatilla soils are sands/gravel and to achieve site specific risk-based cleanup SUBASE Bangor soils are loams and gla- levels of 30 to 33 ppm for TNT and 9 to 30 cial till. Additionally, composting produces ppm for RDX after 40 days of treatment, no emissions of explosives into the air, no with a destruction and removal efficiency leachate, and does not require dewatering (DRE) of greater than 99.0%. Feasibility upon completion of treatment. Compost Study (FS) estimates indicate projected residues will support growth of vegetation treatment costs of $206 to $766 per ton for after treatment, unlike incinerator ash or quantities of 1,200 to 30,000 tons—40% to soils treated by solidification/stabilization. 50% less than on-site incineration [34, 35]. The composting process mixes organic amendments, such as manure, wood chips, alfalfa and vegetable processing wastes

Table 6. Optimization parameters for explosives composting.

174 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL [36]. The RD should include an explosives ACTION (RD/RA) safety hazards analysis by a competent explosives safety expert. All contaminated Since a majority of explosives- soils handling and treatment equipment contaminated sites are federal facilities or should be evaluated to identify any con- formerly used defense sites (FUDS), a dis- cerns or equipment modifications required cussion of government contracting proce- for full scale materials handling operations. dures for Remedial Design/Remedial Ac- Unexploded ordnance (UXO) may also be tion (RD/RA) is appropriate. The pilot scale present at disposal sites and presents a treatability test may serve as a 30% Re- serious safety concern. UXOs must be lo- medial Design (RD) and should be included cated and removed or deactivated before as government-furnished information in the excavation work begins. Remedial Action (RA) solicitation/contract documents to provide independent verifica- Umatilla Army Depot and Naval Submarine tion that the selected biotreatment system Base Bangor are currently involved in Re- is capable of achieving the cleanup levels medial Design (RD) of composting biore- required for the site. The Remedial Design mediation treatment systems [37]. Umatilla (RD) should also focus on developing per- has completed excavation and stockpiled formance specifications so that a Request 14,800 tons of soil for treatment. The Seat- for Proposals (RFP) or pre-placed Reme- tle District Corp of Engineers (COE), EPA dial Action contract can be bid and Region 10, Oregon DEQ and the U.S. awarded. An RFP or pre-placed RA con- Army Environmental Center are reviewing tract will allow the site's technical evalua- the Remedial Action Management Plan tion team to clearly evaluate the contrac- (RAMP) for full scale treatment operations tor's capability to perform in accordance [38]. Full scale treatment trials are sched- with the solicitation requirements prior to uled to begin in mid-1995. SUBASE Ban- implementation of the full scale treatment gor has completed pilot scale treatment tri- system. als which began in late 1994. The results of the treatability study and development of If proprietary biotreatment processes are the Remedial Design will be reviewed by proposed, sole source contracting or pro- the U.S. Navy, EPA Region 10 and the curement may be required to obtain the Washington Department of Ecology [39]. services of the treatment vendor. Sole Both the Umatilla and Bangor sites utilize source procurement under government an asphalt liner and temporary building to contracting procedures requires extensive house the biotreatment system [40]. Con- justification and, in many cases, may not be sistent with the Superfund National Contin- possible if there are other processes or gency Plan (NCP) objectives, biological contractors that can meet the government's treatment of explosives-contaminated soils minimum performance specifications. Con- provides the opportunity to implement ef- tracting officers should also clearly evaluate fective innovative treatment technologies at what procedures are in place should the a lower cost than incineration. In the past, contractor's treatment system fail to meet incineration has been used as the selected the cleanup criteria established for the site. treatment technology at all NPL sites with Full scale treatment trials, similar in function explosives-contaminated soil. Actual costs to incineration test burns, should be per- for biological treatment will be refined dur- formed before beginning full scale opera- ing full scale remediation. tions. Value engineering (VE) sessions may be of limited usefulness where there is no previous full scale treatment experience, except for materials handling processes

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 175 REFERENCES Resources Institute (HMCRI), April 15- 17, 1992. 1. Hart-Crowser Inc., Remedial Investiga- tion/Feasibility Study, Site F, Naval 7. F.T. Kristoff, T.W. Ewing and D.E. Submarine Base Bangor, Bangor, Johnson, Testing to Determine Rela- Washington, prepared for Engineering tionship Between Explosive Contami- Field Activity Northwest, Naval Facilities nated Sludge Components and Reac- Engineering Command, Silverdale, tivity, Arthur D. Little, Inc., prepared for Washington, November 12, 1993. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Mate- rials Agency, Contract DAAK11-85-D- 2. T.F. Jenkins, Development of a Simpli- 0008, January 1987. fied Field Screening Method for the Determination of TNT in Soil, Special 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report 90-38, U.S. Army Corps of En- Human Health Evaluation Manual, gineers, Cold Regions Research and Supplemental Guidance: Standard De- Engineering Laboratory, November fault Exposure Factors, Office of Solid 1990. Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.6-03, March 3. M.E. Walsh and T.F. Jenkins, Devel- 1991. opment of a Field Screening Method for RDX in Soil, Special Report 91-7, U.S. 9. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 300, Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions National Oil and Hazardous Substances Research and Engineering Laboratory, Contingency Plan: Final Rule, 55 FR June 1991. 8666, March 8, 1990.

4. H.D. Craig, A. Markos, H. Lewis and C. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Thompson, Remedial Investigation of Memorandum from Don R. Clay to Re- Site D at Naval Submarine Base Ban- gional Directors, Re: Role of the Base- gor, Washington, In: Proceedings of the line Risk Assessment in Superfund 1993 Federal Environmental Restora- Remedy Selection, Office of Solid tion Conference, Washington, D.C., Waste and Emergency Response Hazardous Material Control Resources (OSWER) Directive 9355.0-30, 1991. Institute (HMCRI), May 25-27, 1993. 11. R.F. Weston, Inc., Task Order 8 - Field 5. A. Markos, H. Craig and G. Ferguson, Demonstration-Composting of Explo- Comparison of Field Screening Tech- sives-Contaminated Sediments at the nologies Implemented During Phase I Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant Remediation of Explosives Washout (LAAP), prepared for the U.S. Army Lagoons Soils, In: 1995 Federal Envi- Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency ronmental Restoration Conference IV (USATHAMA), Aberdeen Proving Proceedings, Hazardous Material Con- Ground, MD, Contract No. DAAK-11- trol Resources Institute (HMCRI), At- 85-D-007, September 1988. lanta, GA, March 14-15, 1995. 12. D.L. Kaplan and A.M. Kaplan, Thermo- 6. W.E. Sisk, Reactivity Testing and philic of 2,4,6- Handling Explosive-Contaminated Soil, Trinitrotoluene Under Simulated Com- In: Proceedings of the 1992 Federal posting Conditions, Appl. Environ. Mi- Environmental Restoration Conference, crobiol., 44 (1982) 757-760, Natick/TR- Vienna, VA, Hazardous Material Control 82/015.

176 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 13. S.B. Funk, D.J. Roberts, D.L. Crawford Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration, U.S. and R.L. Crawford, Degradation of Environmental Protection Agency Re- Trinitrotoluene (TNT) and Sequential gion 7, Kansas City, Kansas, May 4, Accumulation of Metabolic Intermedi- 1994. ates by an Anaerobic Bioreactor During its Adaptation to a TNT Feed, pre- 19. Personal communication with Charles sented to the Annual Meeting American Coil, Environmental Engineer, Bioslurry Society for , Atlanta, GA, Pilot-Scale Demonstration for Treat- May 16-21, 1993. ment of TNT Contaminated Soil by Ar- gonne National Laboratory and Army 14. R.F. Weston, Inc., Optimization of Environmental Center; Joliet Army Composting for Explosives Contami- Ammunition Plant (JAAP), Joliet, IL, nated Soils, Final Report, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous River Division, Omaha, NE, November Materials Agency (USATHAMA), Aber- 2, 1994. deen Proving Ground, MD, November 1991. 20. Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc., and Utah State University, White Rot 15. M.J. McFarland, S. Kalaskar and D. Remediation of Ordnance-Contaminat- Baiden, Composting of Explosives ed Media, prepared for Naval Civil En- Contaminated Soil Using the White Rot gineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium, CA, Contract No. F49650-90- Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah D5001/DO 5013, No date. State University, Logan, Utah, prepared for U.S. Army Research Office, Re- 21. California Environmental Protection search Triangle Park, NC, Contract Agency, Biological Treatment Field DAAL03-91-C-0034, December 1, Tests for Trinitrotoluene (TNT) Con- 1992. taminated Soils, Hercules, CA, CAL EPA Department of Toxic Substances 16. M. Zappi, D. Gunnison, J.C. Pennington Control, Alternative Technology Divi- and C. Teeter, Evaluation of Bioslurry sion, Staff Report, December 1991. Systems for Treating Explosives Con- taminated Soils from the Hastings East 22. RUST Environment and Infrastructure Industrial Park, U.S. Army Corps of Inc., Thermal and Biological Treatability Engineers, Waterways Experiment Sta- Studies on Explosives Contaminated tion, September 1993. Soils from a DOD Site, In: 1994 Federal Environmental Restoration II & Waste 17. URS Consultants, Inc., Phase II Final Minimization II Conference and Exhibi- Report for Bench Scale Treatability tion Proceedings, Volume I, Hazardous Study of Ordnance Contaminated Soils, Material Control Resources Institute U.S. Naval Submarine Base Bangor, (HMCRI), April 27-29, 1994. Silverdale, WA, prepared for Engineer- ing Field Activity Northwest, Naval Fa- 23. J.C. Pennington, C.A. Hayes, K.F. cilities Engineering Command, Contract Meyers, M. Ochman, D. Gunnison, D.R. No. #N62474-89-D-9295, March 1993. Felt and E.F. McCormick, Fate of 2,4,6- Trinitrotoluene in a Simulated Compost 18. Personal communication with Cecilia System, U.S. Army Engineer Water- Tapia, Remedial Project Manager, Wel- ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, don Springs Ordnance Works (WSOW), MS, September 1994. MO, Superfund Innovative Technology

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 177 24. D. Gunnison, J.C. Pennington, C.B. and other White Rot Fungi, U.S. DOD Price and G.B. Myrick, Screening Test Small Business Innovation Research and Isolation Procedure for TNT- (SBIR) Program Project Summary, Degrading Microorganisms, U.S. Army Phase I Summary and Phase II Pro- Corps of Engineers, Waterways Ex- posal, MYCOTECH Corporation, Butte, periment Station, July 1993. MT, March 30, 1995.

25. L.J. Pumfrey, D.J. Roberts, D.L. Craw- 30. J.K. Spiker, D.L. Crawford and R.L. ford and R.L. Crawford, A Pure Culture Crawford, Influence of 2,4,6-Trinitrotol- of an Obligately Anaerobic Bacterium uene (TNT) Concentration on the Deg- that Utilizes 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) radation of TNT in Explosives-Contam- as a Sole Source of Carbon, Nitrogen, inated Soils by the White Rot Fungus and Energy, University of Idaho Haz- Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Appl. ardous Waste Remediation Research Environ. Microbiol., 58 (1992) 3199- Center, submitted to Appl. Environ. Mi- 3202. crobiol., September 1993. 31. U.S. Army, U.S. EPA Region 10 and 26. W.H. Griest, R.L. Tyndall, A.J. Stewart, Oregon Department of Environmental C.H. Ho, K.S. Ironside, J.E. Canton, Quality, Umatilla Army Depot Activity, W.M. Caldwell and E. Tan, Characteri- Washout Lagoons Soils Operable Unit, zation of Explosives Waste Decomposi- Record of Decision (ROD), September tion Due to Composting, Oak Ridge 1992. National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, prepared for U.S. Army Medical Re- 32. U.S. Navy, U.S. EPA Region 10 and search and Development Command, Washington Department of Ecology, Ft. Detrick, MD, November 1, 1992. Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA, Operable Unit 2 (Site F) Record of De- 27. R.F. Weston, Inc., Windrow Compost- cision (ROD), September 28, 1994. ing Demonstration for Explosives- Contam-inated Soils at the Umatilla 33. U.S. Navy, U.S. EPA Region 10 and Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, pre- Washington Department of Ecology, pared for the U.S. Army Environmental Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA, Center (AEC), Aberdeen Proving Operable Unit 6 (Site D) Record of De- Ground, MD, August 1993. cision (ROD), September 28, 1994.

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 34. CH2M Hill and Morrison Knudsen Envi- Ex-Situ Bioremediation of TNT, Dinseb ronmental Services, Feasibility Study & Other /, In: Tech for the Explosives Washout Lagoons Trends, The Applied Technologies (Site 4) Soils Operable Unit at the Journal for Superfund Removals & Re- Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA), medial Actions, & RCRA Corrective Ac- Hermiston, OR, CH2M Hill, Seattle, tions, Office of Solid Waste and Emer- WA, April 1992. gency Response (OSWER), Washing- ton, D.C., Document No. EPA 542-N- 35. URS Consultants, Inc., Final Remedial 94-006, August 1994. Investigation/Feasibility Study, Oper- able Unit 6, Naval Submarine Base 29. Personal communication with Dr. Carl Bangor, WA, prepared for Engineering Johnston, Senior Bioremediation Scien- Field Activity Northwest, Naval Facilities tist, Degradation of Ordnance Ingredi- Engineering Command, Silverdale, WA, ents by Phanerochaete chrysosporium

178 Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research Contract #N62474-89-D-9295, Decem- 41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ber 1993. Handbook: Approaches for the Reme- diation of Federal Facilities Sites Con- 36. W.L.S. Oresik, M.T. Otten and M.D. taminated with Explosive or Radioactive Nelson, Minimizing Soil Remediation Wastes, U.S. EPA Office of Research Volume Through Specification of Exca- and Development, Cincinnati, OH, Doc. vation and Materials Handling Proce- No. EPA/625/R-93/013, September dures, In: 1994 Federal Environmental 1993. Restoration II & Waste Minimization II Conference and Exhibition Proceed- 42. Personal communication with David ings, Volume I, Hazardous Material Emery/Charles Bird, Results of the Control Resources Institute (HMCRI), Phase II Full Scale Trial Test, Umatilla April 27-29, 1994. Army Depot Activity, Bioremediation Service, Inc. (BSI), Portland, OR, May 37. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle 18, 1995. District, Request for Proposal for Phase II Contaminated Soil Remediation at 43. Personal communication with Elona Explosives Washout Lagoons, Umatilla, Tuomi/Merv Coover, Results of the Pilot OR, RFP No. DACA67-94-R-0007, Scale Treatability Study for Explosives Seattle, WA, December 15, 1993. Contaminated Soils, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA, Remediation Tech- 38. Bioremediation Service, Inc., Final Re- nologies, Inc. (ReTech), Seattle, WA, medial Action Management Plan March 15,1995. (RAMP), Phase II, Contaminated Soil Remediation, Explosives Washout La- goons, Umatilla, OR, Phase 1, Trial Test, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Contract No. DACA67-94-C-0031, October 4, 1994.

39. URS Consultants, Inc., Phase III Final Work Plans, Pilot-Scale Treatability Study of Ordnance Contaminated Soils, U.S. Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale, WA, prepared for Engineer- ing Field Activity Northwest, Naval Fa- cilities Engineering Command, Contract No. #N62474-89-D-9295, September 2, 1994.

40. Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), Assessment of Standard Tech- nical Practices for Contained Solid Phase 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.

Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research 179