Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Biological Remediation Project

Biological Remediation Project

Ratings: (0)|Views: 35 |Likes:
Published by Dan Lockward
Biological Remediation Project
Biological Remediation Project

More info:

Published by: Dan Lockward on May 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Running head: BIOLOGICAL REMEDIATION PROJECT 1Biological Remediation Project
Dan Lockward, Kevin O’Donnell
 The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
BIOLOGICAL REMEDIATION PROJECT 2AbstractTwo superfund sites were used to exemplify biological remediation technologies thatcould in theory work at those specific sites. Biological remediation is broken down into twosubdivisions: bioremediation and phytoremediation. Bioremediation is the use of microorganisms to break down contaminants, and phytoremediation is the use of plant life toingest contaminants or cap the land off. The criteria for choosing each site was that one had tohave contaminants like TCE, PCBs, or VOCs so that bioremediation technologies could beapplied and the other had to have inorganic pollutants so that phytoremediation technologiescould be applied. The first site, Bog Creek Farm in Howell, NJ applies a specific bioremediationtechnique that could work and the second site, Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company in Bayville, NJ applies a phytoremediation technique that could work.
BIOLOGICAL REMEDIATION PROJECT 3Site 1: Bog Creek Farm, Howell, NJDuring the early 1970s, various contaminants were dumped into a trench on this propertyincluding VOCs such as benzene, TCE, chloroform, and toluene (EPA, 2011, p.1). All of thesechemicals are known to either be harmful to human health, either by causing cancer, problemswith the central nervous system, or various other problems (ADSTR, 2011, p.1). They leachedinto the groundwater and then into other water bodies nearby. The EPA rated the groundwater contaminant plume migration as more hazardous before remediation was done, but concludedthat there was no threat to drinking water wells (EPA, 2011, p.1). Even though the site hasalready undergone remediation, there are several bioremediation techniques that could have beenused. The most effective was deemed bioventing, which will be the focus of this analysis. Thismethod involves microbial respiration which requires an electron donor and acceptor to yieldwaste products. These microorganisms would destroy the contaminants and the whole process isenhanced by the injection of oxygen through wells or nutrient injection.There are a couple operable units that would need to be established. The first would be aset of injection and monitoring wells in the area where the dumping occurred, at the 150 footlong trench on the eastern part of the property. These wells would penetrate into the vadose zonewhere the contaminated groundwater is. Bioventing does not work well with moist soils becauseit dehydrates them and reduces the availability of oxygen, so it is important to keep the wellsaway from the water table as well as introduce oxygen through the wells along with themicroorganisms (EPA, 1994). A monitoring device for vapor at the soil surface will also beinstalled for extra assurance. In addition, high water tables would also impact the bioventing process negatively, which is why it would be important to ensure that the wells go down far enough to where they can be of use but at the same time not come in contact with the water table.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->