Phytotechnology Project Profiles
Phytoremediation at RTDF Site D in Alaska
Last Updated: December 2006 |
||
| Site Information | ||
| Site Name, Location: | RTDF Site D, Galena, AK, United States | |
| Site Type: | Aboveground Storage Tank | |
| Is this a Federal Superfund Site? |
No | |
| Is this a Federal or Military Site? |
No | |
Project Information |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Name: | Phytoremediation at RTDF Site D in Alaska | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Site History and Background: | This site is a former long-range radar site, located approximately six miles east of the interior town of Galena, Alaska. Operational from 1952 to 1984, Campion served as a communications facility supporting a high-frequency radio system, WACS, and a satellite communication system at various times during its operation. The facility was deactivated in 1984 and demolished in 1986. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Scale: | Pilot/Field Demonstration | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Status: | Complete | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Start Date: | September 1998 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Completion Date: | September 1999 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Media Treated: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Contaminants Treated: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Phytotechnology Mechanism(s): | Rhizodegradation Phytodegradation |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Plants and other Vegetation Used: | Clover Rye Grass Fescue |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Planting Description: | Treatment 1 & 2: 10-15% Annual Rye Grass, 60-70% Arctared Red Fescue, and 20-25% White Clover Treatment 3 & 4: unvegetated There was minimal soil preparation prior to seeding. Seeds were surface-applied using handheld seeders and then pressed into the soil. The maximum permissible (less than 2,000 mg nitrogen/kg of soil) quantity of standard agricultural fertilizer was added to Treatments 1 and 3. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Planting Area: | 6,000 square feet | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Climate: | This site is interior Alaska and is cold and somewhat dry. Precipitation and surface winds are generally light with a mean annual precipitation of about 12 inches. Temperature variations between winter and summer can be extreme with a mean annual temperature of 27 F. Growing season - 100 days; Average first frost - September 1; Average last frost - May 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| O & M Requirements: | Treatments 1 and 3 were fertilized. Unvegetated plots were weeded by hand. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Data: | Contaminant concentrations were reduced, but there was no evidence of increased contaminant degradation with the presence of plants. Significant plant growth was observed in fertilized areas, and long term cleanup goals are anticipated to be achieved only after continued remediation during future thaw periods. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cost of the Phytotechnology Project: | Capital cost - $7,250 O&M - $1,400/year Other costs - $6,000/year (includes long-term monitoring, regulatory oversight, compliance testing/analysis, excavation, and disposal of residues) Total cost (based on 10,000 ft2 treatment area, 2 ft treatment depth, and 10 year period of operation) - $27,250 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Lessons Learned: | 1. Plants have a positive effect on petroleum depletion relative to either nutrients alone or control treatments. 2. The effect is not uniform across all petroleum fractions. 3. The effect is not seen by standard monitoring techniques. 4. Nutrients alone can have an inhibitory effect on depletion of some petroleum fractions. 5. There are measurable microbial changes that support, and probably drive, the contaminant changes. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments: | Lessons learned during field demonstrations are applicable to applications at a larger scale. Though implementation is relatively straightforward, unfortunately, so are ineffective or incorrect implementation steps. Consideration should be given to altering the monitoring strategy to fit the technology being used; such as timing the sampling event with respect to the status of the system rather than the calendar, selecting an appropriate variable to monitor, and determining how to sample with respect to the selected monitoring variable. The appropriate variable may vary with the degree of "completeness" of the remediation process. | Point(s) of Contact |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
C. M. (Mike) Reynolds Technical lead ERDC-CRREL 72 Lyme Road Hanover, NH United States Telephone: (603) 646-4394 Fax: (603) 646-4561 E-mail: charles.m.reynolds@erdc.usace.army.mil |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information Source(s): | Kulakow, P. 2000. Annual Report of the RTDF Phytoremediation Action Team - TPH Subgroup Cooperative Field Trials. Kulakow, P. 2006. Final Report - RTDF Phytoremediation Action Team TPH Subgroup: Cooperative Field Trials (draft). Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. 2004. ESTCP Cost and Performance Report: Field Demonstration of Rhizosphere-Enhanced Treatment of Organics-Contaminated Soils on Native American Lands with Application to Northern FUD Sites. Reynolds, C.M., ERDC-CRREL, Hanover, NH. ERDC/CRREL/LR-04-19 http://costperformance.org/pdf/20050614_367.pdf Phytoremediation at Galena/Campion Site (former Air Force station) in Alaska http://cluin.org/products/phyto/search/phyto_details.cfm?ProjectID=85 EPA. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 2005. Technology Cost and Performance Report Summary: Rhizosphere-Enhanced Bioremediation of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL)-Contaminated Soils at Three Sites in Alaska. http://costperformance.org/profile.cfm?ID=376&CaseID=376 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||
