National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Agreement No. CR 820730-01-0, the National Science Foundation under Agreement No. BCS-9213271, the Electric Power Research Institute under Agreement No. RP2879-26, the Gas Research Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron USA, Inc., and the Mobil Oil Corporation.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
In situ bioremediation / Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-04896-6
1. In situ bioremediation—Evaluation. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Water Science and Technology Board.
TD192.5.153 1993 93-5531
628.5'2—dc20 CIP
Copyright 1993 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
B-184
Cover art by Y. David Chung. Title design by Rumen Buzatov. Chung and Buzatov are graduates of the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. Chung has exhibited widely throughout the country, including at the Whitney Museum in New York, the Washington Project for the Arts in Washington, D.C., and the Williams College Museum of Art in Williamstown, Massachusetts.
In brilliant colors, the cover art shows the amazing variety of unusual shapes found in bacterial life forms.
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, October 1993
Second Printing, December 1994
COMMITTEE ON IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION
BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Chair,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
LISA ALVAREZ-COHEN,
University of California, Berkeley
PHILIP B. BEDIENT,
Rice University, Houston, Texas
RICHARD A. BROWN,
Groundwater Technology, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey
FRANCIS H. CHAPELLE,
U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina
PETER K. KITANIDIS,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
EUGENE L. MADSEN,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
WILLIAM R. MAHAFFEY,
ECOVA Corporation, Redmond, Washington
ROBERT D. NORRIS,
Eckenfelder, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee
JOSEPH P. SALANITRO,
Shell Development Company, Houston, Texas
JOHN M. SHAUVER,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan
JAMES M. TIEDJE,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
JOHN T. WILSON,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma
RALPH S. WOLFE,
University of Illinois, Urbana
Staff
JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Study Director
GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant
GREICY AMJADIVALA, Project Assistant
WYETHA TURNEY, Word Processor
KENNETH M. REESE, Editorial Consultant
BARBARA A. BODLING, Editorial Consultant
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
DANIEL A. OKUN, Chair,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
A. DAN TARLOCK, Vice Chair,
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, Illinois
J. DAN ALLEN,
Chevron USA, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana
KENNETH D. FREDERICK,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
DAVID L. FREYBERG,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
WILFORD R. GARDNER,
University of California, Berkeley
DUANE L. GEORGESON,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles
LYNN R. GOLDMAN,
California Department of Health Services, Emeryville
WILLIAM L. GRAF,
Arizona State University, Tempe
THOMAS M. HELLMAN,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New York
ROBERT J. HUGGETT,
College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Consultant,
Bethesda, Maryland
JUDY L. MEYER,
University of Georgia, Athens
STAVROS S. PAPADOPULOS,
S. S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland
KENNETH W. POTTER,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
BRUCE E. RITTMANN,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
PHILIP C. SINGER,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
JOY B. ZEDLER,
San Diego State University, San Diego, California
Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
SARAH CONNICK, Senior Staff Officer
SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer
CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer
GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer
JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Staff Officer
JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate
ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant
PATRICIA L. CICERO, Senior Project Assistant
GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant
COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
ALBERT R. C. WESTWOOD, Chair,
Martin Marietta Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
NANCY CONNERY,
Woolwich, Maine
RICHARD A. CONWAY,
Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, West Virginia
GERARD W. ELVERUM, JR.,
TRW Space & Technology Group, Banning, California
E. R. (VALD) HEIBERG III,
J. A. Jones Construction Services Company, Charlotte, North Carolina
WILLIAM G. HOWARD, JR.,
Scottsdale, Arizona
JOHN McCARTHY,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
ALTON D. SLAY,
Slay Enterprises, Inc., Warrenton, Virginia
JAMES J. SOLBERG,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
CHARLES F. TIFFANY,
Boeing Military Airplane Company, Yuma, Arizona (Retired)
JOHN A. TILLINGHAST,
TILTEC, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
PAUL TORGERSEN,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
GEORGE L. TURIN,
Teknekron Corporation, Menlo Park, California
JOHN B. WACHTMAN, JR.,
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey
BRIAN J. WATT,
Joy Technologies, Inc., Houston, Texas
WILLIAM C. WEBSTER,
University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT V. WHITMAN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Staff
ARCHIE L. WOOD, Executive Director
MARLENE BEAUDIN, Associate Executive Director
MARY FRANCES LEE, Director of Operations
ROBERT KATT, Associate Director for Quality Management
LYNN KASPER, Assistant Editor
TEREE DITTMAR, Administrative Assistant
SYLVIA GILBERT, Administrative Assistant
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Preface
Bioremediation is a technology that is gaining momentum in technical, policy, and popular circles. It also is a technology associated with mystery, controversy, and "snake oil salesmen." When a representative of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested in the fall of 1991 that the Water Science and Technology Board conduct a study on bioremediation, it converged with the board's internal initiative to "do something" in the area. Several high-quality workshops and conferences had occurred in the previous year that generated publications describing what is needed for bioremediation to fulfill its potential. The board needed to design a study that would do more than repeat what was already available, that would be completed in a time frame commensurate with the urgent needs of those involved in bioremediation, and that would meet the high standards expected of the National Academy of Sciences. These criteria inevitably led to the subject of this report and to a unique format for conducting the study.
The study's subject—"In Situ Bioremediation: When Does It Work?"—narrows the focus to two critical facets of bioremediation. First, it addresses the use of microorganisms to remove contamination from ground water and soils that remain in place (i.e., in situ) during the cleanup. This focus distinguishes in situ bioremediation of the subsurface from significantly different applications of bioremediation, such as to treat oil tanker spills, wastewaters, or sludges. Second, the
primary object of the study is to provide guidance on how to evaluate when an in situ bioremediation process is working or has worked. This focus is most important because the in situ environment is highly complex and very difficult to observe. Therefore, tools from several scientific and engineering disciplines must be used in a sophisticated manner if the success of a bioremediation effort is to be evaluated. Guidance is acutely needed today because most people faced with making decisions about bioremediation projects do not have the interdisciplinary knowledge to integrate all of the necessary tools.
The format for this study was unique and designed to meet two criteria: meaningful interdisciplinary interchange and timeliness. To gain interchange, a committee of 14 was carefully chosen to include recognized leaders in academic research, field practice, regulation, and industry. A balance was achieved between those involved in research fundamentals and those involved in the practical aspects of application, as well as between scientists and engineers. Once the committee of interdisciplinary experts was assembled, meaningful interchange was fostered by an intensive week-long workshop at the National Research Council. The goals were to maximize opportunities for formal and informal interchange among the committee members and to build a common purpose. Both goals were achieved, directly leading to a consensus about the issues and what were to be the committee's recommendations.
Timeliness was a prime consideration in designing the study's format. In order to accelerate interdisciplinary communications, nine committee members prepared seven background papers in advance of the week-long workshop. At the workshop, the committee initially generated its own discussion topics and then systematically discussed them. Key to timeliness and keeping the committee "on target" was preparation of a draft report during the workshop. Near the end of the workshop, the committee reviewed the draft report, which refocused the entire group on exactly what it wanted to say.
Appearing first in this volume is the committee's report, which describes the principles and practices of in situ bioremediation and provides practical guidelines for evaluating success. The report's guidelines should be immediately useful to regulators, practitioners, and buyers who are involved in decision-making processes involving bioremediation. We envision that the report will provide a commonly accepted basis for which all parties can agree to specific evaluation protocols. Also included here are the seven background papers. These papers will give the reader added insight into the different perspectives that were brought to the committee. The entire report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors, but only the committee
report was subjected to the report review criteria established by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The background papers have been reviewed for factual correctness.
Special acknowledgment must go to several individuals who contributed to the committee's overall effort in special ways. First, Dick Brown and Jim Tiedje joined me on the executive committee, which had the all-important tasks of identifying and recruiting committee members and which also oversaw the committee's management. Second, Eugene Madsen, the committee's rapporteur, wrote the first draft of the report during the workshop and prepared an excellent second draft after the workshop. Eugene did these crucial and grueling tasks with skill and good humor. Finally, Jackie MacDonald, staff officer for the committee, made this unique effort possible. She efficiently arranged all the logistics for the workshop and for publishing the book. Even more importantly, she used her exceptional technical and editorial skills to ensure that the report and the background papers are logical, correct, understandable, and interesting to read. The committee members owe Jackie a debt of gratitude for making us sound more intelligent and better organized than we might actually be.
Finally, I want to mention two possible spin-off benefits of the study and report. First, most of the principles and guidelines described here also apply to evaluating bioremediation that does not occur in situ. Although the inherent difficulties of working in an in situ environment make evaluation especially challenging, other bioremediation applications also are subject to uncertainties and controversy that can be resolved only with the kind of rational evaluation strategies described here. Second, the format for the workshop might provide a prototype for effective interdisciplinary communications, one of the most critical needs for implementing bioremediation, as well as other technologies.
Bruce E. Rittmann, Chair
Committee on In Situ Bioremediation
|
||||
A Regulator's Perspective on In Situ Bioremediation |
||||
An Industry's Perspective on Intrinsic Bioremediation |
||||
Bioremediation from an Ecological Perspective |
||||
In Situ Bioremediation: The State of the Practice |
||||
Engineering Challenges of Implementing In Situ Bioremediation |
||||
Modeling In Situ Bioremediation |
||||
Testing Bioremediation in the Field |
||||
|
||||
|