|
In Situ When does it work? Committee on In Situ Bioremediation Water Science and Technology Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 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-93213271, 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, 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. Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, October 1993 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
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 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 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.
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION
How Microbes Destroy Contaminants How Microbes Demobilize Contaminants Indicators of Microbial Activity Complicating Factors Contaminants Susceptible to Bioremediation Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Derivatives Halogenated Compounds Nitroaromatics Metals Environments Amenable to Bioremediation Two Types of Bioremediation: Intrinsic and Engineered Site Conditions for Engineered Bioremediation Site Conditions for Intrinsic Bioremediation Impact of Site Heterogeneity on Bioremediation Further Reading Boxes Key Terms for Understanding Bioremediation Intrinsic Bioremediation of a Crude Oil Spill—Bemidji, Minnesota Site Characteristics that Favor In Situ Bioremediation 3 THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF BIOREMEDIATION
Basics of Bioremediation Process Design Engineered Bioremediation Intrinsic Bioremediation Integration of Bioremediation with Other Technologies Good Practices Box Standards of Practice for Bioremediation Contractors 4 EVALUATING IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION
Techniques for Demonstrating Biodegradation in the Field Measurements of Field Samples Experiments Run in the Field Modeling Experiments Limitations Inherent in Evaluating In Situ Bioremediation Boxes Proving Engineered Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents in a Field Test—Moffett Naval Air Station, California Proving Engineered Bioremediation of an Oil and Fuel Spill—Denver, Colorado Testing Bioremediation of PCBs in Hudson River Sediments—New York Proving Intrinsic Bioremediation of a Spill at a Natural Gas Manufacturing Plant—Northern Michigan 5 FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR BIOREMEDIATION
The Increasing Importance of Evaluating Bioremediation Recommended Steps in Research Recommended Steps in Education BACKGROUND PAPERS
John M. Shauver An Industry's Perspective on Intrinsic Bioremediation Joseph P. Salanitro Bioremediation from an Ecological Perspective James M. Tiedje In Situ Bioremediation: The State of the Practice Richard A. Brown, William Mahaffey, and Robert D. Norris Engineering Challenges of Implementing In Situ Bioremediation Lisa Alvarez-Cohen Modeling In Situ Bioremediation Philip B. Bedient and Hanadi S. Rifai Testing Bioremediation in the Field John T. Wilson APPENDIXES A Glossary B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff INDEX Top of Document | NAP Home Page | Document Home Page |