Hazardous and Industrial Waste Proceedings, 28th Mid-Atlantic Conference

A. Scott Weber, A. Scott Weber

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000160048
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technologie et ingénierie
• Subtopic: Gestion de l'environnement

This book is a compilation of the papers presented at the Twenty-Eighth Mid-Atlantic Industrial and Hazardous Waste Conference. It aims to provide a forum for those who are interested in the advancement and applications of technologies and methods for managing industrial and hazardous waste.

SESSION 1: Bioremediation Demonstration in NYS

DEVELOPING PARTNERSHIPS TO ENHANCE BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NEW YORK STATE

DOI:10.1201/9781003075851-1

JAMES B. HARRINGTON

Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-7010

NICK KOLAK

Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-7010

This is an overview presentation of a project that demonstrated how government and technology vendors can cooperate to foster implementation of innovative technology. The project itself is innovative because it was the first time that something like this was ever done. This discussion will cover the background and history of the project as well as implementation of the project in general. Following this discussion, the technology vendors who actually participated in the demonstration will discuss their involvement in the project, the results of their work as well as their perspective on the project.

Several years ago Walt Kovalich from Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Technology Innovation Office was traveling from state to state discussing ways in which to foster implementation of innovative technology. Walt observed that while the research journals and trade publications were full of innovative technologies that were supposedly ready for field implementation, government was not selecting the technologies for use. He suggested that one of the reasons why this was happening was that no one wanted to be the first to try a technology and take a chance that it wouldn't work. Remediation of a hazardous waste site is never inexpensive and the idea of having to pay for it twice is incomprehensible. His idea to instill confidence in a technology was to put several vendors of one technology on one site at the same time to demonstrate that the technology was ready for field use. He called this demonstration a “Betty Crocker Treat Off.” He was looking for a state partner to provide a site and funding for the technology vendors. New York agreed to take on the challenge selecting bioremediation as the technology and the “EAT Off” was on. The project is officially named the Multivendor Demonstration of Bioremediation Technology.

The project was developed by three organizations who all had different responsibilities for the project. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, (NYSDEC), was responsible for overall project management, providing the site for the demonstration and the support facilities necessary for the demonstration, and procurement of the technology vendors. The USEPA was responsible for providing the sampling and analytical support through its SITE Program. The New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management (NYCHWM) was responsible for developing the protocol that was used as the centerpiece for the vendor procurement as well providing documentation of the project and sampling assistance to EPA's contractor.

All of theses organizations worked cooperatively in the development of the protocol. NYSCHWM convened a technical advisory committee made up of representatives from government, academia, and the private sector to determine how best to conduct the actual demonstration. Since this project was being procured by NYSDEC, there was a requirement for competitive bidding. This led to a concern that only one “variety” of technology would be selected. The format selected set up four different categories to ensure that different types of bioremediation technology would be selected. The categories were insitu and exsitu technology either as a stand alone technology or augmented by a nonbiological process. The procurement process chosen was selection by low bid using prequalified vendors in each of the four categories. The process allowed for one round of questions to clarify the proposals.

Site selection was based on several criteria. Obviously, site contamination had to be amenable to the technology being demonstrated. A second major criteria was that this demonstration project not impede the remediation of the site. This became the driving factor in site selection. The site chosen is called Sweden- 3 Chapman which is a drum disposal site where the drums and most of the contaminated soil had been previously removed. The residual contamination was selected for the site of demonstration. The contaminated area was divided into thirds with the ends being reserved for the insitu technologies and the center section being the source of contaminated material for the exsitu technologies. The Feasibility Study for the project was being completed and a Record of Decision (ROD) scheduled for March 1994. We had anticipated a one year “window” for this study while responsible parties were being pursued to implement the selected remedy. The drum removal had provided some information relative to potential responsible parties but none had stepped forward to conduct the RI/FS. As with most first of a kind projects, all of the steps seemed to take longer than projected. However, we were committed to get the project into the field in 1994. We recognized that the earlier we started the project, the better the chances that the technologies would meet treatment goals.

The schedule for vendor selection was driven by the need to get this project into the field as early in 1994 as possible. However, it was also recognized that site conditions in early spring might prevent a very early start because of high groundwater. As it turned out, the procurement process delayed the project beyond early spring but the site conditions still caused difficulties in the project. The project was finally advertised on November 18,1993 with qualification packages due December 23, 1993. This date was extended to December 30, 1993. Thirteen proposals were received and 11 vendors were determined to be qualified. The selected technology vendors were ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Environmental Laboratori...