Phytotechnology Project Profiles
Phytoremediation at the Annette Island Site, Former US Army Air Force Landing Field in Alaska
Last Updated: January 2006 |
||
| Site Information | ||
| Site Name, Location: | Former US Army Air Force Landing Field, Metlakatla, AK, United States | |
| Site Type: | Federal Facility | |
| Is this a Federal Superfund Site? |
No | |
| Is this a Federal or Military Site? |
Yes | |
| Entity Responsible for Cleanup: | Air Force | |
Project Information |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Name: | Phytoremediation at the Annette Island Site, Former US Army Air Force Landing Field in Alaska | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site History and Background: | Currently owned by the Metlakatla Indian Community, the landing field was established in 1940 under a use permit granted by the Department of the Interior. Approximately 35 fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 100 million gallons were installed at various points on the island. Waste source is presumed to be from operations involving this fuel storage tank farm. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scale: | Pilot/Field Demonstration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Status: | Complete | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Start Date: | Summer 1998 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Completion Date: | Not available | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Media Treated: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contaminants Treated: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Phytotechnology Mechanism(s): | Phytoremediation Rhizodegradation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plants and other Vegetation Used: | Clover Rye Grass Fescue |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Planting Description: | A seed mixture containing three species of cold-tolerant grasses (10-15% Annual Rye Grass, 60-70% Arctared Red Fescue, and 20-25% White Clover) was used. 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. Two control areas were prepared: one with only fertilizer but no seeds; and one with seeds but no fertilizer. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Climate: | The climate is wet and relatively mild by cold-region standards. The area receives a high annual precipitation averaging 155 inches/year, with an average temperature of 45.9F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| O & M Requirements: | Site setup included initial site delineation; obtaining time-zero samples; collecting, compositing, preparing, and installing soil socks for later sampling; data-logger setup; and seeding and nutrient additions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Data: | Contaminant concentrations were reduced (quantitative results were not available). 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 ft^2 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): | ESTCP Technology Demonstration Final 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. Report No. ERDC/CRREL/LR-04-18, 97pp, June 2004 http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/LR-04-18.pdf Reynolds, C.M. 2004. ESTCP Technology Demonstration Final Report: Field Demonstration of Rhizosphere-Enhanced Treatment of Organics-Contaminated Soils on Native American Lands with Application to Northern FUD Sites. ERDC-CRREL, Hanover, NH. Report No ERDC/CRREL/LR-04-18, 97 p. Reported in Technology Innovation News Survey - February 16-28, 2005. http://www.clu-in.org/products/tins/ EPA. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 2005. Technology Cost and Performance Report: Rhizosphere-Enhanced Bioremediation of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL)-Contaminated Soils at Three Sites in Alaska. http://costperformance.org/pdf/20050614_367.pdf 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
