United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-93/196
October 1993
&EPA Third EPA/Industry Meeting
Partnerships in Bioremediation
-------
EPA/600/R-93/196
October 1993
THIRD EPA/INDUSTRY MEETING
PARTNERSHIPS IN BIOREMEDIATION
Office of Environmental Engineering & Technology Demonstration
Office Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Technology Information Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
This report has been prepared as a part of the activities of
the Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG). The BAG is an
affiliation of academia, government and industry representatives
who share a common goal of working collectively to expand the
responsible use of biotechnology for the prevention and
remediation of environmental contamination. All information
contained within are based on information presented by
participants. The information contains much variation in details
and has not been verified by the compilers. Due to the
developing nature of the bioremediation industry and the lack of
standardized testing protocols, the report has not been formally
peer reviewed by the Agency; hence, the contents do not
necessarily represent the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or of other Federal agencies.
Mention of company names, trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for hire or use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
ADDRESS BY THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR 10
WELCOME 17
INDUSTRY PANEL ON BIOREMEDIATION 18
STATE PANEL 32
SCIENTIFIC PANEL 38
PUBLIC INTEREST PANEL 48
FEDERAL PANEL 52
HIGHLIGHTS OF BAG SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 55
EPA PANEL ON REGULATIONS 72
BREAKOUT SESSION RECOMMENDATIONS 82
APPENDIX A: PANEL MEMBERS
APPENDIX B: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX C: BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARIES
-------
SUMMARY
Introduction
The "Third EPA-Industry Meeting: Partnerships in Bioremediation" was convened by the
Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG) on June 28-29, 1993, in Arlington, Virginia. The BAC
is a partnership of experts from government, industry, academia, and the public that is dedicated
to expanding the use of bioremediation to treat, control, and prevent environmental
contamination. The BAC is chaired by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The meeting featured an address by EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, and discussions by
"stakeholder" panelists affiliated with industry, State agencies, scientific organizations, public
interest groups, and Federal agencies. The five panels provided a forum for individual
commentary on the current status of bioremediation; expectations and concerns for its future use;
specific technological, institutional, or economic barriers preventing wider use of bioremediation;
the roles of respective organizations in enhancing the use of bioremediation; and opportunities and
mechanisms for developing partnerships.
In addition to the five stakeholder panels, an EPA panel presented information on pertinent
regulatory developments and the BAC subcommittee chairpersons presented highlights of
subcommittee activities. Following each panel presentation, there was an opportunity for
attendees to ask questions and share comments.
Participants were divided into breakout session groups (1) to discuss the status of various
bioremediation technologies, barriers that currently limit expanded use, and potential roles of
various organizations in enhancing the use of bioremediation; and (2) to identify opportunities and
mechanisms for potential partnerships.
The following is a synopsis of panelist perspectives and accomplishments and opportunities that
were discussed during the meeting.
Stakeholder Perspectives
The Industry Panel provided unique insights into current applications of bioremediation and
methods for further encouraging the use of bioremediation. Government can assist expansion by
(1) considering the importance of cleanup timeframes—biotreatment may require a longer
1
-------
timeframe to achieve maximum performance; (2) helping industry to overcome the perception that
biological treatment technologies are unproven, as well as negative perceptions associated with
utilizing genetically engineered microorganisms (OEMs); (3) adopting a risk-based approach to
cleanup that examines bioaccessibility of contaminants; (4) communicating rational risks; (5)
evaluating the interface between cleanup goals and treatment standards; (6) considering the use of
leachable extract versus total constituent analysis; and (7) streamlining the permitting process.
The State Panel presented the following information regarding bioremediation use, progress, and
research:
• The Texas General Land Office is involved in a Coastal Oil Spill Simulation Project with
the Marine Spill Response Corporation. The simulation facility will have 12 test tanks,
each capable of simulating a wide range of marine environments. Parameters of
circulation, wave size and consistency, water distribution and quality, turbidity, and
sunlight intensity will be tested this summer.
• The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJ DEPE) is
tracking the cleanup progress of its hazardous waste sites—of the innovative technologies
selected, bioremediation has the highest percentage of use (approximately 40 percent).
New Jersey has developed technical rules to streamline the permitting process and
facilitate faster cleanup. In the technical rules, bioremediation is specifically included in
the definition of permanent remedy. If a responsible party chooses a permanent remedy,
they do not have to conduct a remedial alternative analysis.
• California has entered into a partnership with EPA Region 9 to clean up Fort McClellan
Air Force Base in California. Already, they have used vapor extraction and steam
injection to clean up an aquifer contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Bioremediation
also is being considered for application at the base.
• Louisiana is considering bioremediation as a response mechanism for oil spills and has set
aside $750,000 of its Oil Spill Contingency Fund for research and development in this
area.
-------
The Scientific Panel discussed the status of the science of bioremediation, the national and
international perspective on bioremediation, the scientific perception of the potential contribution
of genetically modified microorganisms to the field, and several research and development
partnerships (e.g., the U.S. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program [SERDP],
discussed below). Members of the panel identified the following areas as requiring further
research: interactions of microbial communities/consortia; nucleic acid probes and molecular
sensor technology for environmental diagnostics and site characterization; bioprocessing models;
microbial biofilms and activities at interfaces; roles and applications of biosurfactants, emulsifiers,
and exopolymers; and economic analysis of the cost and cost savings associated with utilizing
bioremediation.
The Public Interest Panel shared its perspectives on public perceptions of bioremediation and on
the relationship between the media and persons involved in cleanup of hazardous wastes. While it
was generally felt that the public supports bioremediation, the level of public awareness is low.
Journalists and site managers need to improve the lines of communication to ensure that the public
is informed of progress in the field of bioremediation.
The Federal Panel provided the following information on innovative technology initiatives and
the use of bioremediation at Federal facilities:
• Trends in the use of bioremediation and other innovative technologies were recently
published by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in Cleaning Up the
Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (National Technical Information
Service order number PB93-140762). The document addresses the future demand for
remediation services for all major cleanup programs in the United States. Information
contained in the document that is pertinent to the current use of bioremediation is as
follows:
- The selection of innovative treatment technologies for Superfund cleanup has been
increasing. In 1991, for the first time, innovative technologies accounted for more
than half of the treatment technologies selected for controlling the source of the
waste. Bioremediation was the second most frequently selected innovative
remediation technology at Superfund sites, constituting 21 percent of selected
innovative technologies.
-------
Based on a small sample of planned or implemented Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actions, approximately half of the sample use or
have selected innovative treatment technologies. Of the innovative technologies, in
situ bioremediation; above-ground treatment, primarily bioremediation; and soil
vapor extraction each make up approximately one-third of the selected innovative
technologies.
Limited data indicate that about 40 percent of the Underground Storage Tank (UST)
cleanups use innovative technologies. Soil vapor extraction, in situ bioremediation,
and thermal desorption are the most frequently cited innovative technologies.
• The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Restoration, which is
responsible for remediating the environment and decontaminating buildings that have
radioactivity, is looking for solutions that are cost-effective and permanent. To ensure
this, primary documents cannot be submitted to regulators unless they include innovative
technologies.
• The U.S. Air Force has established protocols for bioventing of petroleum, oils, and
lubricants. There is an $8 million program at Brooks Air Force Base that will aggregate
enough information to support increasing the use of bioventing in a variety of situations.
Another program will develop a screening matrix as a guideline for evaluating the
appropriateness of a remedial technology for a specific site. It is hoped that bioventing
will become a presumptive remedy.
Regulatory Developments
Regulations have consistently been cited as directly or indirectly limiting the development and use
of bioremediation. Significant efforts have been made by EPA to evaluate these regulatory issues
and to make changes that reduce constraints while maintaining needed controls. The following
recent rulemaking actions are evidence of important progress in this area:
• EPA published the Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) Rule on February 16,
1993. The rule essentially states that at a RCRA or Superfund cleanup site, the agency or
State in charge can designate a unit for remediation wastes. This allows consolidation of
wastes from different parts of a cleanup site into one unit. This unit is not subject to
-------
land disposal restrictions, thus providing additional flexibility for the use of
bioremediation. The rule is currently in litigation.
• In another rulemaking, petroleum cleanups in USTs were temporarily exempted from the
toxicity characteristics rule. Under this scenario, petroleum generally would not be
considered RCRA hazardous waste; thus the land disposal restrictions and other RCRA
rules would not apply. This exemption also increases flexibility for the use of
bioremediation.
• As part of the Land Disposal Regulations, EPA has proposed Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) standards for contaminated soil. The proposed treatment
standards are based on levels attainable by a variety of technologies. Biological treatment
has been proposed as one of nine general technologies considered to be demonstrated and
available for use. (Subsequent to the meeting, the proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on September 14, 1993.)
• Proposed revisions to the treatability sample exclusion rule involve (1) raising the amount
of test material from 1,000 kg to 10,000 kg of soil and debris contaminated with
nonacute hazardous waste and (2) increasing the amount of time allotted for conducting
treatability studies that utilize bioremediation to 2 years. This increases the flexibility
for development and testing of bioremediation.
BAC Subcommittee Activities
Since its establishment in 1990, the BAC has functioned to advance the development of
bioremediation by coordinating activities across organizations, transferring information, and
identifying priorities. Through the concerted efforts of its subcommittees, the BAC has
accomplished the following:
• The Education Subcommittee convened a 2-day meeting between industry and academia
to define curricula at the associate, bachelor, and advanced degree levels for workers
involved in bioremediation.
-------
• The Treatability Protocol Development Subcommittee developed a set of protocols for
testing the effectiveness of oil spill bioremediation products for use in open water,
beaches, and marshes.
• The Research Subcommittee convened a large workshop to identify specific short- and
long-term bioremediation research needs.
• The Spill Response Subcommittee developed interim guidelines for preparing
bioremediation spill response plans and, in conjunction with Region 6, completed the
"EPA Region 6 Bioremediation Spill Response Plan," a contingency plan for evaluating,
implementing, and monitoring bioremediation in response to oil spills along the Gulf of
Mexico.
• The Pollution Prevention Subcommittee developed preliminary case studies on methylene
chloride and phenol; completed a preliminary study identifying 10 to 12 technology areas
where biotechnology can have a significant impact on pollution prevention; developed a
biological pollution prevention seminar and presentation with the NJ DEPE; and
conducted a workshop on establishing partnerships in pollution prevention.
• The Data Identification and Collection Subcommittee published a report, States' Use of
Bioremediation: Advantages, Constraints, and Strategies, and sponsored a workshop with
EPA, State environmental agency officials, and petroleum industry representatives to
discuss the use of bioremediation for cleanup of UST and other petroleum-contaminated
sites.
Current/Evolving Partnerships
In addition to the BAG, the following current or evolving partnerships were highlighted during
the meeting:
• The Bioremediation Field Initiative involves partnerships among several EPA offices and
Regions, other Federal and State agencies, universities, potentially responsible parties,
and site owners. The purpose of the Bioremediation Field Initiative is (1) to collect full-
scale performance data on bioremediation, (2) to provide laboratory support to Regions
and States that are conducting bioremediation, and (3) to develop a database for tracking
-------
the progress of bioremediation demonstrations. The Initiative is actively working at 9
sites and has documented the progress of approximately 150 sites that are utilizing
bioremediation.
• The Remediation Technology Development Forum (RTDF) fosters public and private
sector partnerships for joint research, development, and evaluation of innovative
technologies with current focus on in situ processes and site characterization. Over the
past year, Federal, industrial, and academic representatives have been meeting to
identify innovative ways to clean up contaminated industrial hazardous waste sites at
lower costs. Representatives from chemical, automotive oil, pharmaceutical, and
electrical manufacturing industries, as well as from several universities, the EPA, the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOE, have convened a series of meetings to
investigate in situ soil and water remediation technologies.
• The National Research and Demonstration Facility is currently being established at
Wurtsmith Air Force Base in losco County, Michigan, as part of a long-range program
that has been approved by the SERDP. Advanced onsite and in situ biological and
physiochemical technologies will be evaluated at the facility for their ability to
completely and cost-effectively remediate oil and hazardous waste. Industrial
participation is welcomed. Led by the University of Michigan, this facility will be
managed as a partnership involving the State of Michigan, the U.S. Air Force, EPA,
other Federal agencies, States, universities, and the private sector.
• Public-Private Partnership Project. A partnership among several private companies,
Clean Sites, Inc., the U.S. Air Force, and EPA was established to demonstrate innovative
cleanup technologies at McClellan Air Force Base. Over the next several months, the
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) will be developing additional public-private
partnerships based on the prototype at McClellan. The partnerships have formed as a
result of (1) common need for technologies to address contamination problems in soil and
groundwater and (2) fear of failure that inhibits any one party from first attempts at new
treatment methods. All parties share the risk involved, but also benefit from the
partnership: the corporate partners contribute funds for evaluations and share their
technical expertise and the Federal regulators and the Federal facility realize progress
toward remedial decisions.
-------
• The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program encourages the
development and implementation of (1) innovative treatment technologies for hazardous
waste site remediation and (2) monitoring and measurement technologies for evaluating
the nature and extent of hazardous waste site contamination. The SITE Program
currently is administered by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and involves cooperative agreements with technology vendors,
responsible parties, and others. At the end of 1992, 4 bioremediation technologies had
been demonstrated (with 13 more pending), and 14 emerging bioremediation technologies
are currently under development.
• The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) established a cooperative
research program with its members. The program focuses on in situ bioremediation of
petroleum products. NCMS also is interested in evaluating and understanding natural
restoration.
Opportunities for Expanding/Developing Partnerships
The following issues were identified during the meeting and breakout sessions as requiring
cooperative interaction (new partnerships or expansion of existing partnerships):
Communication Issues
• Communicate rational risks (e.g., to overcome negative perceptions of genetically
modified organisms)
• Provide outreach to inform developing countries of biological technologies appropriate
for pollution prevention
• Cooperate with the media to disseminate information on bioremediation to the general
public and to relevant trade organizations
• Conduct economic analyses of costs and cost savings derived from bioremediation to
communicate benefits and limitations to the public, remediation experts, and
policymakers.
8
-------
Field Application/Engineering Issues
• Develop a generic framework for assessing sites to determine appropriate/effective
technologies
• Study site factors that limit biodegradation in the field
• Define the impact of waste characteristics on biotreatment
• Define factors controlling the rate and extent of biodegradation
• Translate process concepts into well-engineered biosystems.
(These activities need to be integrated into existing field activities such as those of the
National Research and Demonstration Facility and the Bioremediation Field Initiative.)
Education/Training Issues
• Promote education and training based on an approved curriculum and practical training
via practical application (e.g., internships).
Basic Science Issues
• Develop in situ biostimulation and bioaugmentation delivery systems
• Develop tools to assess performance and ecological/human health effects
• Augment understanding of bioavailability, bioinhibition, and biocatalysis
• Improve and standardize methods for dealing with in situ aquifer treatment, composting
systems, and windrows
• Ascertain the influence of non-aqueous-phase-liquids.
-------
ADDRESS BY THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR
Introduction
The introduction of the EPA Administrator was given by Mr. Stephen Lingle, Deputy Director of
the EPA Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Development. Mr. Lingle also is
the Executive Director of the Bioremediation Action Committee (BAC).
Address by EPA Administrator Carol Browner
Thank you for the opportunity to be here and thank you for that very nice introduction. I am still
trying to wake up. We were guests on Nightline last night, and it was about 2:00 a.m. before I
finally unwound from debating pesticide use in the United States. But, I am very eager to be here
this morning, first of all to talk to my colleagues in the Agency about this very important issue
and then also to individuals here from industry who work in this field. As I understand it, this is
the third meeting of this very important committee. I think that the work that has been done
previously is very important and, obviously, we want to see it continue.
I think it's safe to say that people all over the world are watching the progress of bioremediation
and quite frankly applauding every time bioremediation takes another step forward. I can tell you
that those of us in the Clinton administration are absolutely committed to seeing the use of
bioremediation expanded. The President has a personal deep commitment to environmental
technologies across the board. He believes, as I do, that technology innovation in general, and
environmental technology innovation in particular, are the key components of long-term,
environmentally sustainable economic growth. That it is a way for us, the United States, to
become successful in both international and domestic markets.
In the first few months of the Administration, the President has backed his commitment to these
technologies in several ways. On Earth Day, for example, the President asked the Department of
Commerce to lead a multiagency effort to increase exports of U.S. environmental technologies.
We are working hand and hand with the Department of Commerce. We frequently know where
the technologies are needed; the Department of Commerce can make the business link. It is a true
partnership—one that I think will reap many rewards.
The President also proposed, as part of the FY 94 budget, a new, EPA-led Environmental
Technology Initiative. This initiative would be funded at $36 million to EPA in FY 94, but as we
10
-------
look over the next 8 to 9 years there would be a total of $1.8 billion spent by the Federal
government in terms of environmental technologies. Under this initiative, EPA would work with
several other Federal agencies. We would help private businesses overcome impediments to the
use of innovative technologies both here and abroad. I think we are all aware of the impediments
that need to be overcome, but let me just mention a few that we think are important: insufficient
capital, uncertain performance capability, poor information flow from technology developers to
technology users, the lack of facilities to test new technologies, and regulatory barriers. These are
all things that we think need to be addressed and that we are committed to addressing. We
recognize that this is an ambitious agenda, but we also recognize that if we are going to be
successful as a country in the development of these technologies, these are the issues that we will
need to address.
For those of you here from industry, we really do appreciate your participation. You are a very
important part of our hopes for the future. We recognize that it is through partnerships with you
that we will ultimately be successful. Biotechnology and bioremediation are at the leading edge of
innovation. I am sure that there are many creative people here—people who have been in this field
for a very long time, even when everyone said, "it will never work, it's not a reality, why are you
wasting your time?" You deserve a lot of credit for staying with it, for making the developments.
Now we are actually seeing these technologies and developments being used. We believe that
successful bioremediation will help cut the staggering costs of waste management that we are
experiencing in this country and around the world. There are estimates that put cleanup costs in
the range of trillions of dollars for the cleanup of hazardous waste and petroleum spill sites.
We believe that biotechnology also can minimize the need for cleanup. If we can develop pest-
resistant strains of corn, wheat, and cotton, for instance, we will be able to reduce our dependence
on toxic chemicals. One of the announcements that we made on Friday relative to pesticide use is
that EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration for the
first time all came together and committed [ourselves] to the American public to use all the tools
available to us as the Federal government to reduce the use of pesticides. What that means is that
there is an opportunity for you, integrated pest managers and biotechnologists, that now we are
able to reduce the use of pesticides in this country, so another opportunity has been created by the
Administration's commitment to the reduction of pesticides.
11
-------
To move the promising technologies that are being developed from the lab to the testing site to the
marketplace, partnerships between industry and government are critical—partnerships like the ones
that are forged here in the Bioremediation Action Committee. I know that the subcommittees
have been meeting and you have already produced a lot of work in terms of testing protocols,
response plans, and research and education strategies.
The Remediation Technologies Development Forum is another place where we can bring together
government, industry, and academia to develop cheaper, more effective remediation technologies.
The ongoing work at McClellan Air Force Base is yet another example of partnership between
several private companies, Clean Sites, Inc., the [U.S.] Air Force, and EPA to demonstrate
innovative cleanup technologies at a defense facility. We are obviously very excited about the
opportunity for innovative technologies to be part of the base closure that will have to take place
over the next several years. We at the Agency see it as an opportunity for us to get out there and
demonstrate that there are other ways to deal with cleanups. So, we will look forward to using
your technologies and expertise to deal with this very difficult issue of base closure—seeing that
property in those communities is put back into productive use for the people that live there. We
need to make sure that there are more kinds of partnerships—partnerships that can overcome the
scientific, economic, and regulatory impediments to innovation, partnerships that can increase the
evolutionary momentum of the entire bioremediation industry. We are absolutely committed to
supporting you in every way we can and to dealing with the issues that you bring forward through
the work that you have done here, yesterday and today.
Let me lay out a new challenge, a challenge to sharply increase the use of biotechnology for
pollution prevention. That is, not just simply cleaning up pollution after it has occurred, but
actually preventing the pollution from occurring. I have worked in this field, as many of you
have for a long time. Some of you have been in it far longer than I have, for, I guess, most of
your adult lives. But, I think for all of us who have committed our lives to environmental
protection, it is increasingly clear that, if we are going to achieve that which we believe is so
important, to continue to focus the majority of resources and energy on end-of-the-pipe,
command-and-control regulatory schemes is to probably fail. We have made progress, we will
continue to make progress, but in terms of the staggering amount of work there is to do, I believe
we have got to begin to focus our efforts upstream to prevent pollution from occurring in the first
place. I think that it has got to be part of everything we do in the Environmental Protection
12
-------
Agency. There are opportunities for pollution prevention from the legislative packages that we
then have to implement, to the rulemaking, to the permitting, to the enforcement arm of the
Agency. We are looking for pollution prevention opportunities at every turn.
Biotechnology has huge potential as a pollution preventer. A recent report by your Pollution
Prevention Subcommittee identified 18 areas in industrial processing alone where biotechnology
has significant potential, areas like the production of chemicals and fuels, metals processing and
recovery, and the bleaching of pulp.
As part of our Design for the Environment Program, EPA already is supporting the development
of biocatalytic techniques that produce industrial chemicals in new ways. But, we need to and can
do more. We will be working together with EPA's research office to work with you, private
industry, and other agencies to explore how we can further develop the pollution prevention
potential of the biotechnology industry.
We've made a lot of progress since this group first met in June of 1990. I understand that
bioremediation is now the second most frequently selected innovative technology at Superfund
sites. You've also heard about the growing use of bioremediation in the Underground Storage
Tank Program and the Corrective Action Program under RCRA [Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act]. Yet, the full promise of biotechnology is still on the horizon, and some people still
wonder whether it will ever get closer. You've no doubt read the recent articles that talk about
biotechnology in terms of "promising but uncertain," "potential and pitfalls." People in the
biotechnology business have expressed concern about the slow pace of technology development,
the barriers to market acceptance, the failure of government and other users to fully accept what
has been developed. Even the stock market seems to judge the biotechnology business as less
successful than it could be.
Those of us with undiminished faith in biotechnology must not allow the momentum to drag. The
next 3 to 4 years will be absolutely critical to the industry and to how we can use the technology
that you all in the industry are continuing to develop. We must apply bioremediation in areas
where it is known to be effective. It must become a routine in the cleanup of petroleum in soil.
In all these areas, partnerships like this, partnerships like the Bioremediation Action Committee,
will be critical to our success. We, the Clinton administration, are committed to innovative
13
-------
environmental technology. We know it's critical to our long-term environmental and economic
future. I think that it is an important message I want to leave with you: we do believe the
environment and the economy are inextricably linked and that to have a healthy economy you
have to have a healthy environment. When you talk about bioremediation/biotechnology, what
you have is an opportunity to show that protecting the environment has a direct and immediate
economic return for the businesses in this country and that it will allow for a return not only
domestically, but internationally as well.
We must aggressively demonstrate, document, and market biotechnology that has proven effective
on chemicals in the lab but not in the field. By the way, as some of you know, EPA already is
involved in a very promising project to demonstrate innovative cleanup technologies at Federal
facilities. We're working with several other Federal agencies and the Western Governors'
Association to overcome impediments to the use of biotechnology at Federal labs and military
bases. I want to take advantage of that program, and ensure that we do everything we can to help
industry move forward to help gain acceptance for the very hard work that you all have been
doing.
Finally, we must advance science and engineering in areas where the feasibility of biotechnology
is still in question. I think again there is a tremendous opportunity here and again we will do
everything we can to support that.
So we're committed to working with the biotechnology industry, and we're committed to
supporting new partnerships in this area. We really do hope there will be tremendous success. I
certainly hope that over the next 3i years, as I continue in my position as Administrator, that I
can be proud of the advances that are made, that I can be helpful in making sure that the public
understands the technology, and that industry recognizes the real opportunities that exist here. We
will work together so at the end of the first 4 years we can look back and say there were some
clear successes and some clear strides made in terms of this industry and the partnerships that we
forged. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Discussion
Following the Administrators* address, the floor was opened for questions and comments, as
follows:
14
-------
Q: Would you consider nonpoint source and stormwater issues in the category of pollution
prevention or would they still be end-of-the-pipe issues?
This issue will need to be resolved as we engage in dialogue with Congress over the Clean Water
Act (CWA) reauthorization. There is a lot we can do to deal with stresses being placed on our
rivers, lakes, and streams from agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater, and nonpoint sources
that involves pollution prevention. However, mixed land uses in certain areas make pollution
prevention difficult, so some command-and-control needs to be maintained. We need to build
pollution prevention incentives into the CWA reauthorization.
Q: Most Federal facilities have been sending petroleum-contaminated soils to landfills rather
than treating them. EPA states that over 55 percent of contaminated soils are sent to
landfills. What does EPA plan to do, relative to working with other Federal facilities, to
change this practice?
We see Federal facilities as an opportunity to be creative. As we deal with Federal facilities and
base closures, we will be looking for opportunities to try new technologies.
Q: Do you forsee the use of incentives for companies that utilize innovative pollution
prevention technologies or for small companies who voluntarily submit to cleanup (e.g., less
stringent cleanup standards)?
There are two issues here: voluntary cleanups and how clean is clean. In terms of voluntary
cleanups, EPA is currently reviewing proposed legislation on this issue. Regarding the issue of
how clean is clean, there needs to be a public dialogue. The Superfund Program has developed in
the direction of pristine cleanup standards. The cost effectiveness of this approach is now being
questioned. This is a site-specific issue because the resources affected (e.g., drinking water) and
the nature of the contamination need to be considered. It is fair to say there will be some changes
in how we deal with this issue. It is an issue that Congress will need to engage in.
Q: How do you feel about the use of genetically engineered microorganisms in this industry?
I need to make a family disclosure. I have a sister who is a Ph.D. molecular biologist. She would
be very disappointed if I did not support her in her work. I think mechanisms need to be
15
-------
understood and applications reviewed. I do not want to foreclose any future development or use
as long as appropriate safeguards are in place.
Q: Is EPA going to support a trained work force for environmental biotechnology?
Our work force will have to adapt as the technologies change. It is difficult in light of the
tremendous Federal deficit. But, for the first time, we are going to fully fund the work force at
EPA—making sure we are utilizing all the slots available to us. As we look to the future, this will
probably mean recruiting people with different areas of expertise. We need to be planning for
this now—it is part of what we bring to the partnership.
Q: What will EPA's role be in promoting innovative technologies overseas?
There is a tremendous role. That is why we are very excited about our partnership with the
Department of Commerce (DOC). For years, the DOC has put out a document like the yellow
pages, which lists U.S. companies that are interested in doing business abroad. We convinced the
DOC to put out the Green Pages, a list of American "environmental" companies that are interested
in doing business in the international arena. I bring this up because it demonstrates that the DOC
now recognizes the huge international environmental market. EPA knows what the technologies
are and where they are needed. EPA brings that expertise to foreign governments by giving
guidance and sometimes providing staff on a temporary basis.
Q: When you look at the Federal budget for biotechnology (approximately $4 billion) only 2 to
3 percent, at most, is allocated to environmental biotechnology. Can you give us your
perspective on this?
The EPA has been very successful at leveraging its resources with those of other Federal agencies
(the Department of Energy has a $6 billion cleanup program). EPA can come to the table with
these other agencies to discuss innovative approaches.
16
-------
WELCOME
Dr. Foley, Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD),
welcomed participants and expressed the Agency's continued strong interest under the new
Administration in promoting bioremediation. The Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG) was
initiated 3 years ago to talk about coordinating partnerships in this area. There is a strong interest
in the Clinton administration to facilitate the partnerships that are needed to bring alternative
technologies to bear on the many problems that exist at contaminated sites. There are numerous
initiatives to develop environmental technologies, to promote the ability of U.S. companies to
compete in the world environmental technology market, to encourage small environmental
technology businesses, etc. Meetings such as this will help keep bioremediation activities and
issues in the forefront. Renewed commitment to cleaning up Federal facilities offers
opportunities for demonstrating various bioremediation technologies. It is important that we bring
together EPA, industry, academia, and the public in developing these partnerships. This meeting
will be a success if, over the next 2 days, participants begin building partnerships to advance the
use of bioremediation technologies.
17
-------
INDUSTRY PANEL ON BIOREMEDIATION
Dr. Diane Saber, a bioremediation scientist at Fluor Daniel in Chicago, Illinois, served as the
chairperson for the Industry Panel. The panel's unique perspective provided important insights
into current applications of bioremediation and methods for further encouraging the use of
bioremediation.
Ron Unterman
Dr. Ron Unterman, Vice President of Research and Development at Envirogen, Inc., discussed the
growing demand for biotreatment technologies for soil, water, and air. Demand is driven by the
desire for onsite destruction, use of natural processes, and, most importantly, lower cost. There
are many ways to clean up waste—most are very expensive. EPA can bring bioremediation to bear
in the regulations that exist today. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1990 allows biotreatment as
a cleanup technology, and, because of its lower cost, biotreatment is being chosen in many cases.
Although bioremediation may be the lowest cost technology, it may not achieve the same cleanup
standards as alternate technologies, and it may require a longer timeframe to achieve maximum
performance. One has to weigh the importance of timing. Does cleanup need to be completed in
several days through incineration or can it take a year?
Dr. Unterman discussed four barriers and solutions to implementing biological treatment.
• EPA can help overcome the perception that biological treatment is an unproven
technology by supporting the field implementation of proven biotechnologies. Sewage
treatment plants have employed biological treatment in the United States for 100 years
and industrial wastewater treatment plants have employed biological treatment for over
20 years.
• EPA should be flexible and open-minded about using biotreatment when writing new
records of decision (RODs) and reviewing old RODs. Biotreatment is not written into
RODs because biological treatment of particular chemicals was not feasible 5 to 8 years
ago when many of the RODs were written.
• EPA should consider using a risk-based approach to cleanup that examines the
bioaccessibility of contaminants.
18
-------
• EPA can help industry overcome the negative public perception of genetically engineered
microorganisms (OEMs). EPA could help industry, as was done with the biopesticide
industry, by communicating rational risk, in which true risk is acknowledged; there is no
such thing as zero risk. For example, EPA could communicate to the public the true risk
posed by introducing a bacteria with an extra 20 kilobases of DNA that allows the
bacteria to catalyze a reaction that attacks and destroys aromatic compounds.
Dr. Unterman closed with summaries of industry's role and opportunities for partnership between
industry and EPA. Industry's job is to develop and rigorously demonstrate quality technology.
Envirogen, Inc., is aggressively pushing systems, such as fluidized bed reactors, biofilters, and
trichloroethylene (TCE) and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) biotreatment technologies, into the
field. As success is proven, industry will continue to grow. Industry asks that EPA have staff in
position to logically, rationally, and scientifically evaluate new technologies. Potential
partnerships between industry and EPA involve (1) working cooperatively to fund research and
development in EPA, university, and industrial laboratories; (2) conducting field demonstrations
to test biotreatment as an alternative cleanup technology prior to making a final ROD; and (3)
communicating to the public that biotreatment is a developing, not a new technology, presenting
the true risks posed by GEMs, and explaining that biotreatment is a safe, cost-effective process
that, where applicable, is the best choice for remediation.
John Smith
Dr. John Smith, Internal Consultant for Environmental Remediation at Aluminum Company of
America (ALCOA), concurred with the need for a risk-based approach to bioremediation,
particularly in approaching bioremediation of soils and sludges. Soil/sludge stabilization is an
established risk-based solution for immobilizing metals. It is already accepted that soil/sludge
contaminated with metals can be solidified and stabilized, that hazardous material is rendered
nonhazardous by fixation, and that treated material can be managed by removing the threat of
exposure to the general public. The same concept of stabilizing, reducing mobility, and reducing
biotoxicity should apply equally to organics. Acceptance of this concept for organics is critical
for promoting increased utilization of bioremediation processes over more costly, energy-intensive
technologies.
Bioremediation creates a condition whereby accessible organics (that is water mobile and/or
susceptible to biologically secreted enzymes) are destroyed. Dr. Smith presented a schematic
19
-------
diagram of the processes that affect biodegradation of organics in soil/sludge/water matrices. The
diagram showed how leachable or bioaccessible organic compounds in a biofilm are biodegraded
as a function of chemical and matrix characteristics into bacterial cells, carbon dioxide, and water.
Demonstrated benefits of bioremediation include
• Destruction of bioaccessible organics
• Reduction of the total concentration of organic constituents
• Reduction of organic mobility to low levels
• Reduction of biotoxicity (as is being demonstrated in root elongation tests and earthworm
tests)
• Reduction of actual risk to acceptable levels when followed by limiting access to the
general public (i.e., reducing exposure).
A responsible soil/sludge bioremediation management approach is to use bioremediation to destroy
mobile organics via an engineered biodegradation process that considers moisture, pH, surface
runoff, leachability, and volatilization. Treated material could be managed by limiting public
access and exposure. This is analogous to metals stabilization/solidification management with the
added benefit that bioremediation also reduces concentration levels and actual risk.
Future regulatory efforts should focus on (1) applying the metals stabilization/solidification risk-
based cleanup approach to organics reduction via bioremediation (i.e., biostabilization); and (2)
applying a combination of reduced organic concentration, organic mobility (e.g., toxicity
characteristics leaching procedure [TCLP] for organics), and biotoxicity. Future research and
development should focus on identifying factors that influence bioaccessibility, achieving
increased organic reduction, attaining long-term immobilization, ascertaining the influence of
non-aaueous-phase liquids (NAPLs), and defining risk-based cleanup levels in terms of specific
chemical species and properties (e.g., PCB congeners).
John Ryan
Dr. John Ryan, Vice President of Remediation Technologies, Inc. (RETEC), discussed critical
issues for the bioremediation industry. One issue is how a cleanup level interfaces with
technologies and cleanup action. When the use of bioremediation was suggested in 1983 for the
cleanup of a Superfund site in Minnesota, it was an outrageous concept. There was a great deal of
20
-------
resistance to the use of bioremediation by the agencies, the public, and in fact, by industry. But,
there also were compelling reasons to use bioremediation at that site, most notably, the lower cost.
The difference between incineration and bioremediation use was about $20 million. After about 2
years, during which field studies were conducted and permit conditions were negotiated, the first
ROD to use bioremediation as a cleanup technology was written. Since then, many sites have used
bioremediation, especially for cleanup of hydrocarbons.
There are some issues that are not relevent to the bioremediation industry in 1993. Acceptance of
bioremediation by regulators, private industry, and the public is not an issue. In fact, sometimes
it is now necessary to explain why bioremediation is not applicable at a site as opposed to why it
should be used. Also, the adequacy of the microbiological and engineering infrastructure,
including treatability laboratories to support these types of projects, is not an issue. There are 50
to 100 firms that have a very strong specialty in this area; 10 years ago there were very few. The
acceptance of bioremediation technology stems from the efforts of EPA and meetings such as the
one today.
The problem now is the interface between cleanup goals and treatment standards. Cleanup goals
developed for a site are based on the concept of minimizing health and ecological risks.
Generally, the goals are thought of in terms of background levels, the ability to drink water, the
ability to eat soils (edible soil is probably the strongest disincentive to using bioremediation), or
the ability to detect the constituent. Treatment action levels or treatment standards, on the other
hand, are technology specific, matrix specific (e.g., the age and type of the contaminant, the type
of soil), and concentration specific. The problem is that treatment standards derived using
conservative risk-based assumptions to account for uncertainties cannot be achieved at complex
sites. These sites cannot be cleaned up to these levels and will require some level of containment
and active treatment.
This point is illustrated by considering the relationship between soil volume and cleanup levels.
At most sites, there is very little highly contaminated material (high risk); 90 percent of the risk is
associated with 10 percent of the soil volume. The majority of the soil volume is associated with
very low-level contamination that is above risk-based levels. In these situations, a combination of
treatment and containment, as well as various treatment trains is beginning to be used for site
cleanup. In the upper zone for instance, where there are highly concentrated sludges, it may be
appropriate to remove the material from the site or to treat it with an extensive or high-cost
21
-------
treatment technology, such as incineration. There is another zone, however, where there is a
moderate level of contamination. For this zone, low-cost treatment technologies, such as
bioremediation, may be appropriate. After these zones, a plateau will be reached; at this point it
would be appropriate to use a containment technology, such as capping or constructing a slurry
wall.
The difficulty lies in how to define zones. One possibility is to use a leachable extract constituent
analysis as a parameter for defining where to delineate between areas that require active
remediation and areas where containment is appropriate. Leachable extract analysis using the
TCLP is favored over total constituent analysis for several reasons:
• The effectiveness of bioremediation to treat contamination as measured on the basis of
total content is affected by soil type, contaminant properties, contaminant matrix, and
age of contaminant.
• Due to the complexity of these variables, bioremediation performance for the same
chemicals varies significantly when performance is measured on a total constituent
analysis basis. For example, when three different soils were measured for loss of total
and leachable pyrene, the average loss using total constituent analysis was 74.5 percent
(range 29.5 to 99.0 percent) and the average loss using TCLP was 95.7 percent (range 87.7
to 99.8 percent). Another study that measured total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) concentration versus TCLP before and after biological treatment showed over 99
percent reduction of the leachable extract after biological treatment. More importantly,
the leachable extract was below detection levels.
• The total constituent analysis has no relation to the risk posed by contamination. It does
not measure the threat of groundwater contamination—TCLP does that. It does not
measure the threat posed by inhalation—air emission monitoring is required for that.
Ingestion is not a concern at industrial facilities where the bulk of contamination exists.
Total constituent analysis might make sense in terms of risk from direct contact, but
direct contact should be managed in most cases.
• TCLP measures contaminant concentration in groundwater.
22
-------
• Bioremediation is as effective as incineration in treating the leachable portion of the
contaminants.
Three important issues face the bioremediation industry in 1993:
• The interface between site cleanup goals and treatment action levels. As described
earlier, the use of leachable extract versus total constituent analysis should be considered.
There is also data on total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) criteria, which are arbitrarily
applied to soils in many States without due consideration of risk.
• Determining the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for contaminated soil.
Although the Agency will be promulgating criteria for BDAT for contaminated soils
shortly, right now criteria are expressed on a total constituent basis. As noted earlier,
this presents a problem for sites with complex matrices. Another institutional barrier is
the containment policy. The Agency is also in the process of evaluating the hazardous
waste identification rules and will have to establish cutoff levels for classifying when a
contaminated soil is a hazardous waste. These two decisions will have a big impact on
remediation programs.
• New frontiers in the areas of pesticides, chlorinated solvents, and in situ enhancement.
Examples include the use of bioventing, the concept of passive microbial fences for
preventing the spread of contamination from groundwater, and new in situ approaches
that provide low-cost risk reduction methodology.
Dan Abramowicz
Mr. Dan Abramowicz, Manager of the Bioremediation Laboratory for General Electric Company
(GE) Corporate Research & Development, discussed the future of bioremediation. As noted in
preceding presentations, bioremediation is generally accepted because it offers several advantages.
To begin, bioremediation is a natural process with the capacity to treat a large number of organic
and inorganic compounds. Bioremediation has been applied for decades to treat municipal and
industrial wastes. Currently, it is applied to readily degraded compounds, such as benzene,
toluene, and xylenes (BTX) and jet fuel. In addition, bioremediation is associated with less
environmental and worker exposure to hazardous substances, it can be very cost effective, and it
has the potential for in situ application. Bioremediation also offers the benefit of anaerobic
23
-------
dehalogenation, which has a future for recalcitrant halogenated organics (solvents, pesticides,
PCBs). This is one of the areas where GE is doing a lot of research.
A number of technical, institutional, and economic barriers exist to the use of bioremediation:
• In situ application of bioremediation requires direct field experience; delivery systems
for providing nutrients, oxygen, and organisms; methods to monitor progress in the field
(rapid field analytical techniques to nonintrusively determine contaminant levels); and
information on inoculation issues (survivability).
• Lack of information on bioavailability. The kinetics involved in the desorption of
organics have implications for the final cleanup levels that can be achieved and potential
associated risks.
• The primary economic barrier is hesitation among venture capitalists to invest in
innovative technologies because of potential instability of regulatory target levels and
inconsistency between regions.
There are also a number of regulatory impediments to be resolved:
• Cleanup targets that are more realistic need to be established. As discussed earlier, the
choice of technology-based versus risk-based cleanup targets is a major regulatory issue.
Bioremediation will not achieve the cleanup levels that are possible with other
technologies.
• The issue of releasing OEMs needs to be addressed. Canada is taking a very conservative
view on the release of OEMs. This will play a real role in the application of these
technologies.
• The process of obtaining permits to perform bioremediation research in the field needs to
be streamlined. The barriers here are both time and money.
24
-------
• The process of obtaining permits to perform laboratory research needs to be reevaluated.
There is inconsistency among the various EPA laboratories that grant permits. Research
exemptions are subject to different interpretation by regulators and scientists.
• Regulations should be developed that facilitate research with hazardous organics.
GE's efforts in bioremediation research are focused on recalcitrant organics. This research is
directed toward identifying whether these compounds are nondegradable or have the potential for
biodegradation and, if so, whether activity is occurring naturally in the environment.
Opportunities for partnerships in bioremediation exist through Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements (CRADAs) and the Remediation Technology Development Forum
(RTDF). GE is looking for opportunities to form CRADAs with government laboratories where
appropriate. A CRADA was formed with the Department of Energy (DOE)/Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) in 1991 and one is expected imminently with the EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida. The RTDF, which began with EPA Administrator
William Reilly, coordinates current research efforts to leverage limited resources, enabling more
rapid application of innovative in situ remediation technologies. Two areas where the RTDF is
focusing current efforts are rapid field analysis and in situ processes to treat chlorinated organics.
Discussion
Q: Bioremediation has always been touted as a cheaper technology. Many customers are already
comfortable with other technologies, particularly soil vapor extraction. When one does a
critical analysis of designs other than landfarming, bioremediation is perhaps not as
inexpensive as one might think.
Unterman: It must be proven that the technology is effective and competitively priced.
Bioremediation needs to compete head-to-head with alternative technologies—carbon adsorption,
incineration, and catalytic oxidation. Air treatment using biofilters and biotrickling filters has
capital costs that are equal to or lower than alternative technologies and operating costs that are 50
to 75 percent less. Overall, there is a payback in 1 to 3 years. For liquid-based treatment
(groundwater, pump and treat, above-ground to bioreactors), we are looking at a nitrobenzene
aniline site where the technology is 40 percent cheaper than carbon adsorption, which is the only
25
-------
alternative. For PCB-contaminated soils, although we still need to conduct field trials, we are
looking at technology costs for treatment in the $50 to $150/ton range.
Smith: Soil venting will work for the more volatile compounds, especially the more chlorinated
ones. Right now, bioventing or soil venting makes the most economic sense for those compounds
because of the unknowns associated with some of the chlorinated solvents. Du Pont is showing
that anaerobic processes also work. Really, one needs to look at the chemical specificity. If the
chemical is volatile, soil venting does seem to win, but future research to better understand and
control bioprocesses is needed. Right now there are too many unknowns. Biotreatment also will
work for semivolatile compounds.
Ryan: I do not advocate a particular technology over another. Use the cheapest technology that
works.
Q: What data are there on reduced biotoxicity? What can we do to increase bioavailability?
Smith: Regarding reduced biotoxicity, there are limited data on root elongation and earthworm
toxicity from a coal tar site with treated and untreated soils. Results showed complete survival in
the treated material, whereas mortality was seen with the untreated material. Biotoxicity does not
imply toxicity associated with direct contact. In terms of reduced mobility, the mobile fraction,
but not the immobile fraction, appears to have an enhanced toxicity. Again, more research is
needed. One of the research and development efforts will be to conduct pilot studies to
demonstrate the toxic effect of treated and untreated soils.
Unterman: I did not mean to state that bioremediation techniques are necessarily less toxic.
Industry is asking EPA to make sure that we do the assessment. As to the second part of your
question, BAG identified about a year ago, that more research on bioavailability/bioaccessibility is
needed. Work in our research laboratory on the use of surfactants and biosurfactants, solvents,
and temperature to increase bioavailability are excellent research areas that should be encouraged.
Comment: To expand on something Ron Unterman stated, I agree 100 percent that it is
industry's role to implement quality technology. I disagree, however, with Mr.
Ryan's statement that the bioremediation industry has an adequate infrastructure. It
is a mistake to assume that everyone who claims they can conduct bioremediation can
26
-------
actually implement bioremediation effectively. One of the greatest threats to the
biotreatment industry as a whole is loss of credibility. We need a certification
program. Applied Biotreatment Association has been working on such a program.
EPA should require certification before certain work plans are implemented and
approved. This should also be done at the State and local levels. The greatest threat
to the bioremediation industry is working without a scientific foundation; this could
cause potentially irreparable damage. I would like the panel to comment on this
issue.
Abramowicz: I agree 100 percent. It was an item that was actually at the bottom of one of my
slides. It is more than just a potential threat to our industry. It is a threat that has occurred
already. Bioremediation was initially oversold. There has been some very poor work done that
the industry is now trying to recover from. Conduct of credible research with science as the
foundation is critical if this industry is going to succeed. It is an important hurdle that still needs
to be overcome. I interact with vendors that know very little about bioremediation.
Ryan: I have a strong reaction to certification programs in general because part of me always
questions who will be doing the accreditation. It also feels a little bit like a closed-door society. I
have a problem with the way that Hazardous Waste Treatment Council has acted in terms of their
legislative activities. It tends to become a very single-minded program, where in effect you end
up being an advocate for a specific technology. I think you really have to be careful about
becoming advocates for a specific technology. We are providing solutions to problems, and there
is a myriad of different ways of approaching each problem.
Q: Mr. Ryan, how do you differentiate a right way from a wrong way? How do you protect the
public's perception? How do you protect the regulatory framework's perception of a right
and a wrong way to conduct bioremediation vis-a-vis the engineering, geotechnical, and
hydrogeologic certifications that are required? You know as well as I do that some people's
idea of in situ bioremediation is to drill a hole and pour some fertilizer in it. That has
created more problems than it has helped—some very serious ones—creating subsurface
methane bubbles for example. If you do not believe in certification, I would like to know
what you perceive as an appropriate alternative.
27
-------
Ryan: While I think there are a number of charlatans out there, I think the free market system has
a lot to control in weeding them out. That does not take away from the responsibility to do good
work. Clearly, you stay in business by doing good work. I think we have come a very long way
in a short period of time.
Comment: If some company makes a very serious mistake, the memory of that mistake and the
damage that it will cause on the National level, from the perception standpoint, can
be irrevocable. That is the problem with the free-market method of protection.
Unterman: The problem I have with certifying technologies is that the same technology may work
at one site but not at another. I think we need to be certifying the ways that we analyze and assess
the effectiveness of bioremediation. Bubbling oxygen through an open reactor that contains
nitrobenzene and chlorine for 56 days and then handing a report to the industrial client stating
that you have biodegraded those materials is not an acceptable system of evaluation.
Comment: We are trying to certify individuals not technologies.
Comment: Regarding bioaccessibility/bioavailability, we need to undertake a longer term (20-
to 50-year) examination of what happens in the environment. Geovolatilization,
what occurs in sediments, and what happens in an aquatic sediment need to be
examined. I think you have to be careful when you say that if you cannot get it out
with the TCLP then you are home free.
Smith: You are absolutely right. That is why one of the steps in taking a scientific approach to
bioremediation is to manage the soils—not just to treat them and leave them open to the public.
Public access and exposure to treated material need to be limited until further data are gathered
and evaluated. Sediments are another issue. However, the issue of bioaccessibility also applies to
sediments, and I think research and development should begin to examine this issue.
Abramowicz: I agree that we are talking about timeframes, and that a resistant fraction will
slowly desorb over time—laboratory data support that. We need to understand if that poses a
different level of risk than the very labile material. It is not that the material is inert and
therefore of no significance; it is probably of some different significance. We need to qualify
that.
28
-------
Q: Have you considered expanding the definition of bioremediation to include other tools such
as plants?
Unterman: Absolutely. It is just that most of the technologies out there are bacterially based.
Ryan: There are actually some programs under way to use plants to enhance biodegradation (e.g.,
nitrogen-fixing legumes). There are a lot of opportunities for partnership through research
programs with DOD.
Q: Have you, in any of your field trials with OEMs in particular, had any organized resistance?
And if so, what have you done to change the public perception? I cannot see where the
industry can go forward without GEMs—they are the only way to economically develop
organisms specific for degrading many compounds.
Unterman: All of the field work we have done to date is with naturally occurring strains. As
strong as a proponent as I am of GEMs, I do not believe genetic engineering is the only way to
find better organisms. I think it is one of the good ways to make them. Envirogen, Inc., and
EPA/Gulf Breeze have independently applied to the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
program for permission to use GEMs in the field. EPA responded that there is already a research
exemption. Commercial applications will need to go through another approval process. We are
just now getting to the point where GEMs are more effective than naturally occurring microbial
strains. I think we will have some public hurdles to overcome. However, bioremediation is the
second wave, already there have been over 200 releases of genetically modified organisms,
primarily from the pesticide industry, in the United States.
Abramowicz: GE has had the opportunity to interact with local regulators concerning a number of
field tests of GEMs. The one that is the most pertinent here is an experiment that is ongoing on
the Housatonic River. We had to get permits from a number of organizations, down to the local
conservation board. When we initially contacted the local conservation board, they handed us a
contract that said that GE guaranteed that no organism would be released from the caisson used in
the experiment. If any single organism were released, then GE would pay $5 million immediately,
but this of course would not limit their liability.
29
-------
The issue here is one of information not lack of intelligence. What we did was work with the local
conservation board in a number of ways. They hired an independent scientific consultant who
gave them advice. We began frequent discussions with them on the progress of the research. We
reached the point where, by the end of the experiment, they were suggesting we bring in
nonindigenous organisms from other sites because of the potential demonstrated in the laboratory.
The use of OEMs is clearly not a trivial matter, but is one that could be well managed by the
people in this room if we educate the public.
Comment: I am concerned about cleaning up a site to certain levels and then leaving the rest to
nature.
Unterman: I did not mean to state that we should get to some number and turn our backs. As was
mentioned, these sites would continue to be managed, perhaps forever. The point is we need to
conduct a risked-based analysis. We need to ask, is this clean? It may not be. You may degrade
75 percent of the nitrobenzene and conclude that is not good enough, that there is still a
risk—whether it is leachability or some other parameter.
Abramowicz: With bioremediation you usually reach a plateau. Microbes will attack the leachable
fraction, but then management is definitely necessary, as well as a lot of continued research on
long-term mobility and biotoxicity issues. The goal of a risk-based approach is to protect human
health and the environment.
Smith: The points that we made pertain to general remediation as well as to bioremediation.
Clearly, what we are running up against in this country is that it is not possible to restore complex
sites to pristine levels. There is going to be a residual fraction on some of these complex sites that
will require some form of management. We need to search for what that level should be and
determine the long-term implications of the contaminated matrix. There are, for instance, various
studies that can be done on the weathering of that residual-^freeze-thaw effects, heating, etc. It is
clear that we are not going to restore all sites to pristine levels.
Abramowicz: I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that if you remove 80 percent of the
contamination that the other 20 percent is of no concern. That is why the industry panelists have
stated that good testing/methods are needed to evaluate the differential risks. It would be just as
irresponsible to assume that the last 20 percent of the contamination is just as dangerous as the
30
-------
original without knowing. The point here is that we have got a nontrivial data gap. It is well
understood that the cost of removing the first 80 percent is much different from the cost of
removing the last 20 percent. It is not something to be entered into lightly. We need quality
science to understand this. It has sufficient priority to warrant resource expenditure.
31
-------
STATE PANEL
Mr. Jim Solyst, chairperson of the State Panel, introduced Mr. Gary Mauro, Commissioner of the
Texas General Land Office, an elected official since 1983, who is in charge of managing 20.5
million acres of Texas land and mineral rights. Mr. Mauro oversees the production of 18,000 oil
and gas wells. His jurisdiction extends to all the beaches, bays, and estuaries along the Gulf
Coast. His goal is to link environmental protection to economic opportunity and to promote
bioremediation for cleaning up oil spills. Mr. Mauro was responsible for urging the Texas
legislature to pass the Oil Spill Prevention Response Act, which would give the Land Office
complete jurisdiction over all spills on State water.
Gary Mauro
Mr. Mauro explained that of the 20 million acres of land he manages, 4 million are submerged.
After seeing the news story on the Exxon Valdez, he realized that, had the spill occurred in Texas,
he would be responsible for managing the damaged lands. This is a realistic threat since half of
the oil imported into the United States comes through Texas. At that point, he made a vow that if
something similar to the Valdez occurred in Texas, they would be prepared.
Two spills that occurred in Galveston Bay raised awareness of oil-spill response and allowed for
the passage of the Oil Spill Prevention Response Act. Funding of $1.25 million was set aside for
the Coastal Oil Spill Simulation Project to build a state-of-the-art facility for testing
bioremediation and other chemical countermeasures.
To facilitate the Coastal Oil Spill Simulation Project, a partnership between the Land Office and
the industry-funded Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) was developed. The facility will
have 12 test tanks, each capable of duplicating a wide range of marine environments. Testing for
parameters of circulation, wave size and consistency, water distribution and quality, sediment, and
sunlight intensity will occur this summer. There also will be an attempt to simulate open sea
water, the groundwater-sea water interface at the shore line, and tidal rise and fall at the shore
line.
Paul Kurisko
Mr. Paul Kurisko, Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment in the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJ DEPE), stated that New
32
-------
Jersey is tracking the progress of over 600 of the more environmentally complex sites. Of these,
113 are original Superfund sites. The comprehensive list totals over 33,000 sites. Of the 113
Superfund sites, 80 are completed, with one site using bioremediation. At another site, the use of
bioremediation was attempted but failed. Of the 33,000 sites, 50—primarily manufacturing
sites—are using bioremediation. Sixteen percent of New Jersey's bioremediation sites also are
using soil venting. Failures [of the bioremediation technologies] have been attributed to heavy
metals and pesticides. Of the innovative technologies used by New Jersey, bioremediation has the
highest percentage of use, 40 percent.
In the past, there have been barriers to the use of innovative technologies, but some have been
eliminated through regulatory changes. The State of New Jersey has systematically outlined all
administrative and technical requirements, and reduced duplication of the permitting process to
facilitate faster cleanups. A responsible party can voluntarily come forward to the State and enter
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and outline its own work plan. The New Jersey
technical rules outline the minimum requirements.
In New Jersey's technical rules, bioremediation is specifically included in the definition of
permanent remedies. If the responsible party chooses to use a permanent remedy, they do not
have to conduct a remedial alternative analysis, which is similar to a feasibility study. There must
be an identification of emerging and innovative technologies. Mr. Kurisko also mentioned that
New Jersey prefers onsite permanent remedies to excavation and disposal.
New Jersey realized there were permitting process barriers. Therefore, over the past 2 years, they
have reorganized and centralized the NJ DEPE to improve consistency and expedite the
permitting process. They also realized there was a need for more education and training. Looking
toward the future, New Jersey saw a need to improve communication. Therefore, they formed a
partnership with the New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technologies to combine the best
planning effort of business, government, and academia to promote the advancement of technology
in the State.
Paul Hadley
Mr. Paul Hadley, of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development of the
California Department of Toxic Substance Control, announced that California entered into a
partnership with EPA Region 9 to clean up Fort McClellan Air Force Base. They used vapor
33
-------
extraction and steam injection to clean up an aquifer contaminated with chlorinated solvents and
also are considering bioremediation as a possible solution. They are looking to expand this
partnership with Federal funding for innovative technology investment.
Certain conclusions were drawn from the cleanup of McClellan Air Force Base. When conducting
a risk assessment, the mass of the contaminant should be a factor. Also, there is a need for
correctly designed control cells. A question raised during the cleanup addressed the amount of
nutrients added. It was found that the amount of nutrients added was roughly equivalent to the
amount of hydrocarbon contaminants. It is not known if this level of nutrient addition is a
problem. California's average site is an underground storage tank and most sites are not on the
National Priority List.
Steven Underwood
Mr. Steven Underwood from Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources stated that Louisiana
has 41 percent of the Nations' wetlands. After passing the Louisiana Oil Spill Response Act of
1991, an Oil Spill Coordinator's Office was created within the Office of the Governor (Mr. Roland
Guidry is the Oil Spill Coordinator.) This provided a centralized, neutral State agency. The
money from oil and gas revenues is put into a wetlands trust fund and used to develop projects.
Thus far, bioremediation efforts have been limited, but Louisiana wants to follow Texas' lead.
There is a key interest in developing bioremediation technologies because Louisiana is a major
producer of oil and gas. Louisiana is considering bioremediation as a response mechanism for oil
spills. It is projected that by the year 2000, Mexican oil production will double, thus increasing
Louisiana's need to be prepared for a Valdez-typt oil spill. To be better prepared, Louisiana has
set aside $750,000 of the Oil Spill Contingency Fund for research and development.
Discussion
Q: Does the State [of Texas] currently have an oil spill contingency plan that approves
biotreatment options, and if so is that technology available?
Mauro: We require every plan on file with us to encourage bioremediation.
Q: Will the Coastal Oil Spill Simulation Project facility be available to the scientific community?
34
-------
Mauro: The idea is to make the facility a self-sustaining industry/government partnership.
Eventually it will be made available to the scientific community.
Q: What steps are being taken to make your results and standards usable by other States?
Mauro: We are working with the academic community to develop testing protocols that will be
acceptable to all States.
Q: How do you envision gaining acceptability?
Mauro: First, we want to be parochial and determine what products we want to use in Texas.
After we have started testing products we are most interested in, we will work with the academic
community to develop some general protocols everyone can be satisfied with.
Q: In Texas, what is the size of the oil-contaminated-soil problem? How much contaminated
soil is being landfilled? How is that soil being treated? What bioremediation changes are
perceived over the next 10 years?
Mauro: A lot of bioremediation is occurring in old refinery and oil well sites. There is no central
repository for that information so I cannot give you the real break out, but I believe 20 percent is
bioremediated. The rest are landfilling contaminated soils. You will see that bioremediation, as a
recycling tool, has a real future. I see industry using bioremediation to solve their problems. For
instance, Coastal Corporation just created a subsidiary that will recycle/bioremediate the mud
used in the oil refinery process. When refining, oil is run through mud, and the mud becomes
contaminated. Coastal Corporation has developed a process that recycles and reuses 100 percent
of the mud, eliminating the need for landfilling. That was done by private industry without any
urging from my office because it is currently economical. There will be more industry-driven
solutions in the future.
Q: Did you say that New Jersey now has the authority to waive RCRA permits for treatment of
contaminated soils?
35
-------
Kurisko: If a site involves hazardous waste and the cleanup is under some type of oversight
document, there is no need to get a separate New Jersey RCRA permit. New Jersey has been
delegated RCRA program authority.
Q: Does it take a lot of pushing to get biotechnology accepted?
Kurisko: Bioremediation has been used at least 50 times. It has been approved and New Jersey is
using it now in over 20 ongoing treatability studies.
Comment: I have looked at a lot of States' approaches, and I fail to see regulatory agencies look
upon bioremediation favorably.
Kurisko: New Jersey just adopted the Industrial Site Recovery Act, which includes a requirement
to use the technical manual. In the technical manual are guidelines, which include
bioremediation, for treatability studies. New Jersey is trying to develop fair, reasonable, and
flexible regulations and requirements, so that everyone knows from the beginning what is
expected of them.
Mauro: You are speaking of institutional inertia. Every State has bureaucrats in place who do not
like bioremediation or do not know anything about it. Texas is committed to moving that
institutional inertia. Governor Richards has made that quite clear. If Texas can say it has tested
and used a product, it will help eliminate institutional inertia in Texas. Institutional inertia has
been Texas' biggest problem.
Comment: In regard to a statement made earlier that in two or so New Jersey sites,
bioremediation failed due to pesticides and metals, bioremediation does not work on
pesticides and metals, therefore the problem was not bioremediation.
Kurisko: The sites containing metal contamination were chosen for bioremediation, and it was
perceived that the inhibition of the metals caused the failure. And the other site was right for
bioremediation but it had pesticides. It was perceived that the pesticides were the problem.
Q: Did you indicate that treatability studies do not require approval?
36
-------
Kurisko: If a treatability study is conducted during the remedial investigation phase of the
project, no prior approval from the department is necessary. Compliance with discharge
regulations is required if there are any air or water discharges. Latitude and flexibility are given
to the responsible party and to the consultants. A work plan does not need to be submitted if
cleanup will occur in less than 5 years.
Q: High-priority sites require an AGO, and medium-priority sites require a memorandum of
agreement (MOA), and State sites consider using a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
How much time in comparison to permitting requirements does it take for a medium-priority
site or high-priority site to actually start bioremediation with those requirements?
Kurisko: I would say it has taken as long as 2 years. We have a success story that has taken 11
months of real hard work to get to the soil cleanup stage.
Q: What is meant by successful bioremediation? Would Louisiana be looking at the parameter
of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) as a cleanup level? And if so, define TPH.
Underwood: Cleanup level success will be determined on a site-specific basis.
Mauro: Texas is trying to develop very scientific, common-sense approaches.
37
-------
SCIENTIFIC PANEL
The chairperson of the Scientific Panel was Dr. Martin Alexander, a professor in the Department
of Soil, Crop, and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University and chair of the Research
Subcommittee of the BAC. Dr. Alexander opened the panel presentations by noting that over the
last 8 to 10 years, there has been enormous progress in the area of bioremediation. In many cases,
however, the technology is not new; bioremediation has been used for well over 50 years in
municipal and industrial waste treatment systems. In recent years, the focus on discrete organic
compounds has resulted in a tremendous amount of research. Although answers have been found
to many questions, it is evident that there remain some enormous gaps in scientific knowledge.
Walter J. Weber, Jr.
Dr. Walter Weber, Director of the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research
Center (GLMAC), discussed the Center's evolving research and education partnership, which is
aimed at improving the scientific foundation of bioremediation technologies.
GLMAC is a recent research partnership primarily with the EPA Office of Research and
Development but also with the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE),
and Chrysler, to establish a national bioremediation research field facility. GLMAC is one of five
EPA centers formed in 1988 to pursue research in the development of innovative technologies for
addressing control and remediation of contaminated sites. Phase I of the bioremediation field
research initiative extends from June 1, 1993, to May 31, 1995.
GLMAC is also an educational research partnership between the University of Michigan,
Michigan State University, and Howard University. The underlying basis of this partnership is to
provide technology transfer through a formal academic program, to train specialists to deal with
hazardous waste, and to develop an extensive outreach program to educate potential technology
users. One product of this initiative is a videotape on bioremediation, which was developed for
Region 3 and Region 5 field personnel. The videotape will be made available to the public (for a
small fee that covers materials and handling) in the near future.
The focus at GLMAC is on in situ remediation processes, especially biochemical technologies.
Virtually all of the research at GLMAC deals with the application of in situ bioremediation
techniques and integrated systems that interface bioremediation and complementary technologies.
38
-------
GLMAC conducts basic laboratory studies on the genetic engineering of microorganisms, the
adaptation of microorganisms, and biochemical pathways of microbial degradation. Basic
laboratory work is transferred to bench-scale and field evaluations. The most recent activity in
the latter category is COBIOREM, a cooperative effort between GLMAC and the Michigan Oil
and Gas Association to develop an extensive field bioremediation demonstration.
Bioremediation, the core of GLMAC's technology, is a combination of a number of different
scientific fields, including microbiology, chemistry, and engineering. In microbiology, there must
be an understanding of microbial populations and their distribution, microbial competence, and
microbial specificity for biodegradation. Chemistry plays an important role in understanding the
fate and transport of degraded chemicals and also can help in the characterization and
identification of chemical intermediates and products of biological reactions. Lastly, there is an
engineering component to address containment of microbial populations, delivery of nutrients and
microorganisms, and parameters for improving the efficiency of bioremediation.
The GLMAC brings the microbiology and chemistry research from the laboratory into the field in
a realistic engineering setting. The objectives of Phase I of the bioremediation research at
Wurtsmith Air Force Base (WAFB) in losco County, Michigan, are (1) to establish baseline
environmental conditions for one of the major prospective research sites (FT-2 site) on the base,
and (2) to comprehensively evaluate the character and effectiveness of subsurface
decontamination by natural biological processes (intrinsic bioremediation). The long-range
program, which was approved by the U.S. Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP), calls for the development of a National Research and Demonstration Facility at
WAFB to focus on advanced technologies for decontamination of hazardous wastes and
remediation of spills and disposal sites. These advanced technologies will involve onsite and in
situ processes, which integrate biological and physicochemical methods to meet the criteria of
complete and cost-effective remediation with minimal environmental disruption. Dr. Weber
invited industrial participation in this cooperative effort.
WAFB began as a training base for fighter planes in the late 1930's and eventually wound up with
B-52's. The schematic of WAFB indicates sites of specific contamination that have been
reasonably well characterized. The intent is to fully characterize all of the sites and use them as
test cells. Efforts under the GLMAC initiative will allow bioremediation research and
39
-------
demonstration under controlled conditions in the field in order to further understand the factors
that influence, drive, and determine success or failure of bioremediation technologies.
Rita Colwell
Dr. Rita Colwell, President of the Maryland Biotechnology Institute, based her presentation on the
white paper from the American Academy of Microbiology colloquium held April 10-12, 1992,
titled, Scientific Foundations of Bioremediation: Current Status and Future Needs. The
colloquium concluded that there is a substantial scientific basis for bioremediation.
Microorganisms are part of the ecosystem and have been doing bioremediation since the dawn of
time. Bioremediation simply harnesses microorganisms in a much more effective way.
Biochemical, molecular, and ecological research has provided a fundamental scientific knowledge
base that forms much of the basis for bioremediation. Insights into the diversity of microbial
populations with biodegradative capabilities in the environment can be found in the research on
physiology of microorganisms that has been conducted over the past 15 years. Knowledge of
xenobiotic degradation has evolved from studying pathways of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
degradation and other xenobiotic compounds. Researchers have gained (1) a sense of the existence
of central intermediary metabolites in biodegradative pathways; (2) knowledge of the biochemical
transformation of pollutants that do not serve as growth substrates for microorganisms, but are
transformed as part of the process of microbial use of other substrates for metabolism (co-
metabolism); and (3) an understanding of the role of oxygenases in the degradation of a wide
range of biosynthetic and xenobiotic compounds. Research is beginning to capitalize on the
ability to use specific degraded plasmids and to conduct site-directed mutagenesis of sequences to
enhance the capability of microorganisms to degrade compounds.
Microorganisms do not work in isolation in the environment. One critical research need is to
understand how microbial communities/consortia work and how the interactions of different
species can be organized, regulated, and enhanced in the natural system. In the last 4 to 5 years, a
great deal has been learned about anaerobic reductive degradation pathways.
Environmental biotechnology has advanced rapidly. The patent award for Chakrabarty's
engineered organism, which was designed specifically for bioremediation, was a major step
forward. Secondly, the work of Dr. Kent Timmis and his colleagues in constructing a complete
degradative pathway allows the spectrum of substrates that can be degraded to be addressed.
40
-------
Thirdly, the ability to regulate biodegradative operons to achieve more efficient process control is
an important area that is still not fully understood. The use of the nucleic acid probe and
molecular sensor technology for environmental diagnostics and site characterization is another area
that has been established, but needs to be further developed.
There are information gaps at the interface between engineering and microbiology. Research
needs to be conducted on bioprocessing models. The paradigms from the laboratory have to be
transported to the field. Although industry has been making some major contributions, research
needs to be more focused.
The engineering framework involves being able to characterize sites. Effective characterization of
the site is critical for achieving the full degradative capacity of any indigenous or introduced
microbial consortia. An assessment of biodegradation contaminants also is needed. Techniques
are needed for ascertaining contaminants and their concentrations, and for determining the kind
of nutrient additives that are needed in order to achieve full degradation.
The microbiology framework involves overcoming our limited knowledge of the processes
involved in the formation of biofilms, as well as developing methods for enhancing the microbial
consortium. There is little knowledge about microbial biofilms and activities at interfaces. There
is a need to define the roles and the applications of biosurfactants, emulsifiers, and exopolymers,
and to ascertain bioavailability and immobilization of the various hydrophobic contaminants.
Molecular genetics and physiology also need to be integrated with environmental microbiology.
Ecological verification and process credibility is an important issue. Practitioners in
bioremediation need to collect the necessary data to convince their clients, the public, and the
scientific community that beneficial processes occur as a result of the efforts being made in
bioremediation. Measurements now used to indicate microbial activity involve demonstrating
decline in the concentration of a pollutant and decline in the added nutrients. But, there are no
criteria that consistently and reliably indicate that reactions have occurred fully and effectively.
Data gaps pertaining to nonindigenous microorganisms include insufficient evidence that
nonindigenous or engineered organisms work in specific environments for bioremediation
purposes. Evidence exists demonstrating that these organisms can persist in groundwater
ecosystems, in reactors, and in subsurface soils in the field. However, the question of persistence,
41
-------
especially of genetically engineered microorganisms, remains an area of uncertainty. On the one
hand, we would like them to persist—to continue carrying out remediation; on the other hand, we
would like a mechanism for them to self-destruct so that they do not adversely affect the
environment in the long run.
Several conclusions can be drawn:
• Bioremediation as a group of technological processes is supported by a broad science
base.
• Predictability of process performance can not be made with a high level of confidence at
this time. In some cases, predictability is limited by lack of biological information, in
other cases, it is limited by lack of appropriate models. In the next 4 to 5 years, we will
get past this hurdle.
• Modern biotechnology has been responsible for the rapid advances in the knowledge base
supporting bioremediation. These advances in molecular biology need to be incorporated
into the strong engineering research base.
• There is a need for realistic economic analyses of the cost and cost savings associated
with utilizing bioremediation. Some data already exist, but a strong focus in the next
few years will build a strong and irrefutable base of information that shows the economic
advantage of bioremediation with the understanding that bioremediation will not work in
every case.
Ronald Atlas
The third presentation from the scientific panel was by Dr. Ronald Atlas. He described the
European, U.S., and Japanese perspectives on bioremediation, and their differing research needs.
These summaries were based on perspectives from (1) Biotechnology for a Clean Environment:
Science and Technology for Prevention, Detection, and Remediation, a white paper which was
generated by the EPA and the U.S. government through the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and (2) a meeting of scientists held in June 1993 to
develop research priorities that are necessary to further the science of bioremediation.
42
-------
The perspective of bioremediation is much broader than has been discussed today.
Bioremediation is not only site remediation. Beyond cleanup, prevention and detection come into
play. A biological detection system that relates to risk as opposed to just a chemical measurement
is needed.
The European perspective is that biotechnology has been used for a long time in wastewater
treatment and in treatment of solid wastes and that the commercialization of biotechnology rests
in wastewater treatment. A major research initiative is needed to design better wastewater
treatment and composting facilities to handle industrial and domestic wastes and prevent
environmental contamination.
The U.S. perspective focuses on bioremediation, especially in situ technologies, for the cleanup of
contaminated sites as more cost-effective than other measures. There is a need for a better
understanding of how to introduce organisms, how to get indigenous organisms to function in the
environment, and how to monitor and maximize the use of their genetic potential, or to
genetically modify organisms for safe introduction into the environment. Some scientists believe
that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should not even be mentioned since 95 to 99 percent
of the tasks that must be accomplished in terms of prevention and remediation can be
accomplished by indigenous organisms. The science would move along faster by ignoring the
remaining 5 per- cent of the problems that might require the use of GMOs. Other scientists do
not feel that is scientifically credible. They feel that there is no greater risk with GMOs than with
other organisms of equivalent phenotype and that in bioremediation most of the recombinant
organisms would have altered regulatory functions rather than truly novel genes. Attention should
be focused on the product and not the process by which organisms might be formulated for
introduction. This will require better understanding of communities, including their physiological
functions and how survival is maintained and limited.
The Japanese perspective is oriented toward the next century—rather than worrying about
wastewater problems and contaminated sites, the focus is on global changes. In particular,
bioremediation research should concentrate on restoring the atmosphere and reversing global
warming. Other areas for bioremediation research include developing superplants and/or
microbes with plants for reforestation and the production of better biodegradable compounds
(e.g., bioplastics).
43
-------
Robert Menzer
Dr. Robert Menzer, Director of the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Gulf Breeze,
Florida, explained that several years ago, the BAG put forth a number of recommendations for
research needs to the Agency, and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) formed a
planning process that involved organizing the entire Agency research program into risk-based
issues. Two of those issues were bioremediation and the environmental release of biotechnology
products. Fortunately, both of these areas have been coordinated by one issue planner (Dr.
Menzer) since the initiation of the planning process.
There are both intramural and extramural components to ORD research. The intramural
component takes place primarily at EPA laboratories (Gulf Breeze, Florida; Athens, Georgia; Ada,
Oklahoma; Cincinnati, Ohio). There is however, a second activity operated out of the Office of
Exploratory Research's Hazardous Substance Research Centers. Two of the five centers—the
Michigan Center and the Center at Stanford—are part of EPA's research activity in bioremediation.
Unfortunately, the office that runs the centers and the office that runs the bioremediation activity
in the intramural program have not communicated well in the past. The problem has been
addressed within ORD and there is heightened awareness of the need to coordinate activities.
The EPA is not the only Federal agency involved in bioremediation research and development.
The DOD and DOE also have major programs and activities underway. There have been two
encouraging developments in the last year. Within the last 6 months, the directors of the DOE
national laboratories and the EPA laboratories have met twice. One of the focus areas for those
meetings was to coordinate the bioremediation activities underway in the DOE laboratories with
those of the EPA laboratories. Another development, SERDP, holds promise for enhancing
bioremediation R&D. This activity was begun several years ago in response to a congressional
request that DOD devote a portion of its budget to environmental restoration efforts. A joint
DOD-DOE-EPA effort was formed, which essentially became a mini-grant agency for
environmental restoration projects. A major part of those efforts was bioremediation with a focus
on military and DOD installations. Although EPA does not have installations, the Agency's
research and development for bioremediation technologies was done in concert with DOD and
DOE. The effort at WAFB is an example of a project supported partially through SERDP.
Coordination of bioremediation research and development efforts is improving within the Federal
government. This minimizes duplication of effort and moves research and development forward
44
-------
to accomplish the science that is necessary to develop bioremediation as a useful technology for
the future.
Discussion
Several questions were posed to the members of the scientific panel. A brief summary of the
questions and responses from the panel members follows.
Comment: Chemistry is necessary for working with microorganisms in the field (to determine
whether bioremediation works or not). I suspect that, although our knowledge of
chemistry could act synergistically with microbiology, more knowledge of chemistry
is needed.
Weber: I agree. The key to the ultimate success of bioremediation lies in a comprehensive
understanding of chemical factors that control the process, particularly in the subsurface
environment and in water and waste treatment applications or bioprocesses used in industrial
operations. For example, in subsurface remediation, issues include absorption and desorption
relationships and how they impact bioavailability. There are chemical factors which must be
understood in order to apply techniques to assess, for example, the bioavailability of compounds.
One of the procedures currently being researched at GLMAC pertains to establishing levels of
contaminant binding energy to soils and correlating that type of information to bioavailability,
"bioventability", soil "washability", and extraction efficacy. That is definitely going to hinge on a
rapid chemical technique. In this particular case, the utilization of supercritical fluid extraction
can be tied back very nicely to chemical thermodynamics as a method for assessing binding
energy. I fully agree with you.
Alexander: I agree 100 percent. This morning we heard basically every one on the industrial
panel talk about bioavailability. But, the concept of bioavailability to an engineer or a
microbiologist is very different than to a physical chemist. And one needs to have some
environmental scientists. Very rarely do I find someone (other than a hydrogeologist) who is
really knowledgeable in sediments, soils, and aquifers.
Q: Both the United States and Japan are taking more of a pollution prevention stance. In this
conference, we are not hearing a great deal about pollution prevention. Do you find that to
45
-------
be the case as well? How can research from the academic level help us move into a global
pollution prevention mode?
Atlas: I do not think we have ignored pollution prevention, but we are certainly not focusing on
it. Research tends to follow funding. In some instances academia directs funding, in other
instances it responds to funding allocations.
Colwell: In the Antarctica, the United States cleaned up the waste from the last 30 years and is
preventing pollution by implementing an incinerator to treat wastes as they are generated and
examining the use of in situ bioremediation. This is an important psychological first step.
Weber: One of the reasons you have not heard much talk about pollution prevention is the fact
that this meeting is on bioremediation which addresses contamination that has already occurred.
It is an unfair angle to hang on our industry to say that they are not paying as much attention to
pollution prevention as the Japanese. I think from my personal knowledge that the Japanese will
probably take some lessons from our industry in pollution prevention. Our industry is putting a
great deal of effort into pollution prevention and the Federal government established several
pollution prevention research centers around the country. We are not lagging, we are doing a good
job. It always could be better but we are moving ahead.
Q: The project described at WAFB is an initial effort that involves other academic institutions
and industry. What are the incentives for industry (e.g., GM, Monsanto, Du Pont) or other
academic institutions to initiate research at Wurtsmith?
Weber: As we move forward into Phases II and III, one of the incentives will be the availability of
a large number of control plots. Experimental control is important to anyone who wants to
understand a process. Too many things that are site specific are observed onsite and not
elsewhere. It is very difficult to translate the sort of information that is being developed
now—even in field tests of bioremediation—to a general level of knowledge and understanding.
Another big incentive for universities is that one of the greatest expenses associated with
establishing a field research program is laying the foundation for it—doing the field preparations
and so forth. Hopefully that will all be done at the expense of the national facility. An academic
institution then can move in with a research idea, try it, have the monitoring done, and have the
46
-------
tests all set up. Third, we will be structuring peer review to establish a sound basis for the
credibility of the information.
47
-------
PUBLIC INTEREST PANEL
Dr. Ed Berkey, the President of National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAC), served as the chair of the Public Interest Panel. He opened by stating that
bioremediation has come a long way in terms of public acceptance.
Jim Snyder
Mr. Jim Snyder, Chairman and CEO of Enterprise Communications and Editor-in-Chief of
Environment Today, provided his opinion on perceptions of bioremediation. Business and industry
are not aware of the mechanics of the bioremediation but are generally supportive of
bioremediation. They mainly pay attention to the cost and time factors. If these are favorable,
business and industry will support more sophisticated forms of bioremediation. They are
interested in regular industrial uses of bioremediation such as biofiltration for low-level volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and industrial composting of brewery, food, and pharmaceutical
waste.
The general public has a low-level awareness of bioremediation. There seems to be no general
opposition to utilizing bioremediation, even if it involves genetically engineered microorganisms.
There also appears to be a growing lack of concern about utilizing bioremediation for oil spills.
There needs to be more public pressure to encourage the government to embrace biotreatment.
In the regulatory community, EPA is praising bioremediation but saying nothing concrete. There
is low and uneven awareness of bioremediation technologies throughout the Agency. Confusion
over what is officially accepted and what works is accompanied by fear of being held liable for
wrong decisions. There is a need for empowerment. The issue of what is clean enough also needs
to be resolved.
Kate Devine
Ms. Kate Devine, President of DEVO Enterprises, Inc., stated that the media has a strong
influence on society. In the 1980's there was a great deal of "hype" regarding bioremediation,
which is perhaps one reason why the technology has not advanced as far as it should have. The
media coverage of the Exxon Valdez spill cleanup brought favorable public attention to
bioremediation.
48
-------
In order for the media to be up to date on advances in bioremediation, the public and private
sectors need to inform the media. The information cannot be delivered to the public if the media
is not kept abreast of new information. There needs to be an open line of communication between
the media and scientists.
Deborah Rubin
Ms. Deborah Rubin, Senior Editor of Environment and Engineering questioned, "Why don't we
hear more about bioremediation?" She then listed several reasons. For example, the topic is not
sexy and instantaneous, the results are slow in coming, and the public gets bored waiting. The
public wants quick fixes.
She recently visited the French Limited and Savannah River sites. Both look promising. The
French Limited site, the first Superfund site to use bioremediation, is running ahead of schedule
and soon should have results. The Savannah River Demonstration site shows promising results in
cleaning the groundwater to drinking water standards at 40 percent of the cost of the pump-and-
treat solutions. They hope the results will be a catalyst for convincing regulators and site owners
that bioremediation works.
When Ms. Rubin writes a story, she looks for a success story. She mentioned that not all
journalists are discrediting bioremediation efforts, many are looking for successful efforts. She
has found that there is a growing "jitteryness" about talking to the media. Many site owners want
to hide from the press. She sees that the time is coming to track successes. As a journalist, she
needs the chance to see the sites and talk to all the participants both on- and offsite.
Bowman Cox
Mr. Bowman Cox, editor of the Defense Clean Up Newsletter and founder of the Society for
Environmental Journalism, feels there should be a framework of goals for picking successful
technologies. He believes the public is both fascinated and repulsed by genetic engineering.
There is a need for better monitoring technologies, and a need to know more about microbes.
Risk assessors need to move away from the worst-case scenario and move toward a best-guess
approach. He feels that bioremediation is getting lost in the crowd of other innovative
technologies.
49
-------
Discussion
Comment: Stories focus on controversy, not facts.
Rubin: I do not intentionally seek out controversy, I try to present a balanced story with both
sides represented.
Cox: I am frustrated with having to present two sides of a story when it may not be necessary.
However, journalists do not have the training to judge scientific issues. There is a need for
journalists to get up to speed on technical issues so that journalists can make their own call and
avoid presenting only controversy.
Comment: Dr. Weber noted that last year the Society of Environmental Journalism had their
Annual Meeting. It coincided with a visit of the Center's Scientific Advisory
Committee and the EPA Oversight Consortium. There were a number of very
enthusiastic people who wanted to make the communication link with environmental
journalists. A session on bioremediation was widely advertised and an auditorium
was set aside. When the time came, 50 graduate students showed up, not one
environmental journalist.
Cox: I am sorry about that, I am sure they would have gotten a lot out of that. I went to that
meeting, and I did not know about the forum you are referring to. This is the first I have heard
about it, which is most unfortunate.
Comment: Dr. Weber noted that both sides are responsible for the communication flow.
Comment: Dr. Alexander stated that the information presented is blown out of proportion.
Cox: Dr. Alexander's perception is correct. The situation will only get worse because writers are
under increasing pressure to shorten stories. The readers claim not to have time to read. But, a
story cannot be done justice in articles the size of "sound bites."
Comment: Why has the panel not taken steps to bridge the communication gap by taking courses
in biology and chemistry?
50
-------
Comment: Mr. Smith noted that there is sensationalism in technical journals as well as in the
general media. The first two paragraphs of an article are to catch the reader's eye
and often contain falsehoods.
Cox: I try to look for the interesting angle of the story; and a story is more interesting when it is
unexpected.
51
-------
FEDERAL PANEL
Walter Kovalick
Dr. Walter Kovalick, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), served as the chairperson of the Federal Panel. Dr. Kovalick
stated that EPA is rolling out new products at a fast rate. He presented data on the applications of
bioremediation. Superfund is using treatment at the sites 70 percent of the time and containment
30 percent of the time. Over the past 2 years, there has been an increasing trend toward choosing
innovative treatment technologies over established technologies (e.g., on- or offsite incineration
and solidification/stabilization). Based on preliminary data through fiscal year 1992, established
technologies are utilized for Superfund remedial actions at approximately 56 percent of the sites
(342/612 of remedial actions) whereas innovative technologies make up approximately 44 percent
(270/612) of the remedial actions. Soil-vapor extraction, the most popular innovative method, is
being used at approximately 38 percent of the innovative technology project sites (102/270 of the
innovative remedial actions). Combined, in situ and ex situ bioremediation efforts constitute 23
percent of the innovative remedial actions (63/270). In addition, there are about twenty
innovative technology projects in the Superfund removal and quick cleanup programs. In sum,
there are almost three hundred innovative treatment technology projects.
Bioremediation continues to be a technology of interest. However, if bioremediation is going to
be successful, the size of the site, the nature of the contaminant, and the price that buyers are
willing to pay need to be evaluated. In any case, a mixture of treatment technologies will
probably be applied. There are so few completed projects that cost and performance data are
difficult to obtain in the public sector; however, obtaining these data and making them public is a
priority. In the RCRA program, land treatment is still a leading solution followed by in situ
treatment. There are currently 180 sites where some form of innovative treatment is being
applied. Bioremediation is chosen one-third of the time. For underground storage tanks, 20
percent (equaling 7,800 sites) of the treatment is in situ. Of the 7,800 in situ sites, 150 to 200 sites
are attempting in situ bioremediation.
Pat Whitfield
Mr. Pat Whitfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the DOE Office of Environmental Restoration,
stated that the program is responsible for remediating the environment and decontaminating
buildings that have radioactivity. The greatest expense in the long run will be building
52
-------
decontamination. The immediate goals of the program are to protect the health and safety of
workers and the public and to protect the environment. The ultimate goal is to return sites to
unrestricted use. However, in many cases, that will not be possible and they will have to be
remediated to a restricted-use level that is acceptable to all concerned parties.
There is a need for solutions that are cost effective and permanent. Pump and treat is not an
effective long-term solution. The public needs to be willing to accept new solutions. Mr.
Whitfield's department is planning for 100 records of decision (RODs) in FY 95 for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater. They are looking at the most cost-effective methods
available. To ensure this, primary documents cannot be submitted to regulators unless they
include innovative technologies. The Environmental Restoration Program is looking at placing a
ceiling on the total cost of environmental restoration, which is inclusive of treatment costs for
remediation wastes that will be generated over the next 1 to 2 years.
Jim Owendoff
Colonel Jim Owendoff of the U.S. Air Force presented information on protocols established for
bioventing of petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POLs). There is an $8 million program at Brooks
Air Force Base in Texas that will aggregate enough information to make a case to increase the use
of bioventing in a variety of situations. Another program will develop a screening matrix to
provide remedial project managers with a guideline for evaluating remediation technologies and
determining which technologies are most appropriate for a specific site. The matrix is expected to
be released in August 1993. If another solution for a POL site is proposed, it must be peer
reviewed. Colonel Owendoff hopes bioventing will become a presumptive remedy—he is a strong
proponent of presumptive remedies because many of the Air Force's sites have the same
contamination characteristics. He also feels very strongly about the use of cost and performance
evaluations.
Discussion
Kovalick: Jim Snyder's comment about needing approval for technologies was exemplified by Jim
OwendofFs presumptive remedy for POLs. There is a National Superfund meeting and a National
Advisory Committee meeting being held this summer where one of the topics will be presumptive
remedies for wood-preserving sites, groundwater, and other specific categories.
Q: Will bioventing sites be unrestricted or managed?
53
-------
Owendoff: The Air Force is looking at both scenarios with the goal of unrestricted use.
Comment: There is a danger in assuming that presumptive remedies are foolproof and fail-safe
for every situation. They need to be adjusted to different site-specific situations.
Owendoff: Many resources are needlessly spent treating each site as a complex site and set of
problems when presumptive remedies are appropriate.
54
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF BAC SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Brief reports of each of the six BAC subcommittees were presented by each subcommittee
chairperson.
Education Subcommittee
Dr. Rashalee Levine, chairperson of the Education Subcommittee, presented information on the
group's last meeting, which was held November 16-18, 1992. The mission of this meeting was (1)
to define curricula for workers in the area of bioremediation, and (2) to encourage partnerships
between academia and industry (based on the defined curricula). The agenda of the meeting
included an exercise to determine the kinds of bioremediation problems that exist, group
discussions to develop curricula for various levels of education, and sessions to develop
recommendations and to identify issues necessary for promoting bioremediation education.
For the bioremediation exercise, the group was asked to consider a mythical site, "Paradise Lost,"
and was given a charge to regain paradise. Participants discussed their approach for
characterizing the site, planning the bioremediation, performing the bioremediation, and
monitoring the cleanup.
Additionally, the exercise involved defining bioremediation, discussing the state of the art of
bioremediation, determining what expertise was required to conduct bioremediation, and
determining how academia could contribute to providing bioremediation training. These issues in
turn raised the following:
• How to establish and expand the bioremediation knowledge base.
• What kind of knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed from the community?
• What kind of training is needed? (Ideally, training would be available to develop specific
skills as well as multidisciplinary skills.)
• How to identify leaders for conducting bioremediation. (An ideal leader would have
strong management and communication skills, and a broad knowledge of problems and
how to proceed in resolving them.)
55
-------
Curriculum development was divided into three levels, the associate level, the bachelor's level, and
the advanced degree (master's, Ph.D.) level. At the associate level, the group identified the need
for trained technicians to operate equipment and analyze measurements in the laboratory and the
field. The group cautioned against overspecialization—workers should retain their ability to
translate their skills to other cleanup areas. Another issue was "dovetailing" curricula for
technicians who wanted to advance to the bachelor's level.
At the bachelor's level, the group wanted to train students to be generalists. The curriculum
developed ended up being more than a 4-year program. It was felt that this might inhibit a well-
rounded college experience.
The participants assumed that persons enrolling in the master's or Ph.D. program would have an
engineering, biology, or physical science background. The advanced degree program would
afford students the opportunity to learn about other disciplines (i.e., engineers would be taught
biological/physical sciences and biologists and physical scientists would be taught engineering
sciences.)
Current needs identified by the subcommittee are as follows:
• Financial resources to train bioremediation workers and to conduct more research in
bioremediation
• Internships to provide practical work experience in bioremediation
• Bioremediation education at both the upper (Ph.D. and master's) and lower (associate)
levels
• Interdisciplinary action facilitated by communication, technical writing, creative
thinking, and problem-solving skills; knowledge of bioremediation regulations and health
and safety issues; and an overall perspective of how environmental cleanup works.
• Minority access to educational opportunities in bioremediation.
56
-------
Future issues identified by the subcommittee include
• Providing continuous opportunities for further education
• Encouraging greater interaction between the Education and Research Subcommittees
• Developing partnerships between government, industry, and academia
• Establishing funds for bioremediation internships in industry and academia.
Dr. Levine provided a handout of the subcommittees recommendations on curricula for the
associate, bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. levels and asked for review and feedback.
Treatability Protocol Development Subcommittee
Dr. Ed Berkey, chairperson of the Treatability Protocol Development Subcommittee, defined the
mission of the subcommittee as developing standard protocols for testing the effectiveness and
safety of bioremediation products for oil spill response and hazardous waste cleanup.
Primarily, the subcommittee has focused on oil spill response. Their goals in this arena were (1) to
develop a tiered set of laboratory testing protocols that provide a baseline ability for evaluating
various bioremediation products, (2) to develop field evaluation protocols, (3) to validate the field
evaluation protocols, and (4) to establish a database of product test information. Substantial
progress has been made on each of these four areas.
The subcommittees approach has been to
• Use a balanced panel of experts to assist in the process of protocol development. There
are a total of 59 members from the academic, industrial, and government sectors.
• Use EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD) laboratories and the
Bioremediation Products Evaluation Center (SPEC) to validate the protocols. (BPEC was
established at the National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
[NETAC] through a cooperative agreement between NETAC and EPA.)
57
-------
The subcommittee defined a five-tiered framework for the protocols. The framework involves
successive tiering from simpler to more complicated evaluations. The base tier, which gives
information about a product, provides some "go, no-go" criteria. Tier 1, which is a feasibility
assessment, determines the products functional ability. Tier 2 involves acquiring laboratory-scale
(bench-scale) data. Tier 3 is a simulated field test demonstration (microcosm). Tier 4 is a limited
field-scale demonstration.
Three tiers—the base tier, and tiers 1 and 2—have been completed, and substantial progress has
been made for tier 3. A products evaluation methods manual, which is a culmination of the
efforts of this group over the past 21 years, also has been created. The manual defines all five
tiers and provides a description of the laboratory and toxicity data necessary for product
evaluation. Considerable progress also has been made on the database of product information.
The validation for tier 2/tier 3 protocols has been conducted jointly by NETAC and several EPA
laboratories—EPA/Cincinnati conducted the tier 2 validation, EPA/Gulf Breeze conducted the tier
3 validation for the open water protocol, and NETAC/BPEC provided intralaboratory
comparisons, working on both the tier 2 and 3 protocols.
The first tier 3 attempt was an open water spill scenario. The subcommittee also is very close to
beginning validation of a tier 3 wetlands ecosystem and a tier 3 beach ecosystem. (These have
been defined and are contained in the methods manual.)
In recognition of the differences between ecosystems and how they are modeled in microcosms,
the subcommittee prioritized protocol development as follows:
• Open water
• Marsh and wetlands
• Cobble/sandy beach
• Inland shorelines
• Mangrove swamp
• Arctic ocean
• Land/soils.
58
-------
The time and effort spent in developing each of the protocols has benefitted subsequent protocols.
The products information database is being developed with the assistance of the Marine Spill
Response Corporation (MSRC) as well as EPA. The initial architecture of the database was
developed by NETAC; the BAG Spill Response Subcommittee provided data input; the Coast
Guard, the MSRC, the On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), and the Regional Response Teams (RRTs)
participated in defining the data fields. The database, which now contains information on over
100 products, is still under development.
The Bioremediation Products Protocol Manual contains information on all five protocol tiers. The
draft edition was completed in February 1992. The latest edition (completed in June 1993) is
available to the public and can be ordered (for a fee, which covers reproduction, handling, and
mailing costs) by calling (412) 826-5511.
Dr. Berkey ended by thanking and commending all the subcommittee members for their input
over the years.
Research Subcommittee
Dr. Martin Alexander, chairperson of the Research Subcommittee, stated that the goals of the
subcommittee are to develop a consensus between industry and researchers on major research
needs, to publicize these needs, to overcome constraints to bioremediation implementation, and to
increase funding for bioremediation research. (The funding is abundant in some areas but lacking
in others.)
The group has held three small meetings, as well as one large workshop (held 3 years ago), which
resulted in a series of very specific recommendations on bioremediation research needs.
At the large workshop, both short- and long-term needs were considered. Participants looked
both at organic pollutants, which are subject to biodegradation, and inorganic pollutants, which
are not biodegraded but can be immobilized or rendered less toxic. The interface between
bioremediation and other remediation technologies and between in situ and above-ground
treatments also were considered. The group felt that it is important to analyze economics in order
to ensure technology viability in the market place.
59
-------
The full recommendations are available in the summary of the workshop. One of the group's
recommendations, which has not been adequately addressed, is bioavailability. Bioavailability is
an issue because the pollutants are adsorbed, they are present in non-aqueous-phase liquids
(NAPLs), they are present in the soil matrix, and they often behave differently over time.
Dr. Alexander emphasized that research on bioavailability is not being addressed adequately in
industry, academia, or the Federal government, although it is an obvious need.
Research issues that relate to process design and are important in developing a system appropriate
for field application or end-of-pipe bioreactor-type systems for pollution prevention
("bioprophylaxis") include the following:
• Rate limitations
• Stability/durability
• Monitoring and control
• Multistage processes
• Mass transport
• Low contaminant concentrations
• Environmental heterogeneity
• Inoculation
• Toxicity
• Models.
While laboratory studies have been conducted, no good scale-up approaches have been developed.
Problems in this area involve
• Mass transport of nutrients, pollutants, and organisms
• Pilot-scale facilities
• Microcosms
• Permitting for conducting field research.
In the long term, problems related to complex mixtures need to be examined. Most researchers
prefer working chemical by chemical because results are well defined, it is easier to write a thesis,
and grants are easier to obtain. This, however, is not the real-world situation.
60
-------
There are real problems associated with compounds that are toxic to microorganisms. There are
very few technologies for compounds that do not allow microbial growth (e.g., PCBs).
Future direction/needs:
• Involve other Federal agencies—each agency operates independently when often they are
addressing the same or similar problems.
• Establish research consortia. (Many companies are faced with similar problems-
proprietary issues need to be examined and down-played when possible.)
• Fund long-term research. (For the most part short-term research is well funded.)
• Become more aware of other countries' research. [German, Japanese, and Dutch
researchers are contributing significantly to environmental biotechnology (e.g., Dutch
research on biofilters).]
• Locate/establish sites for field research. (One site is actively being pursued at the
present time—this is very important in order to validate laboratory and pilot-scale
research.)
• Convene conferences/workshops on long-term research issues.
Spill Response Subcommittee
Mr. Steve Luftig, chairperson of the Spill Response Subcommittee, explained that the
subcommittee plans for the use of bioremedial agents when spills occur, as well as for monitoring
after bioremediation. The group last met on May 26, 1993. Members include representatives
from EPA Regions, State agencies (Texas, sometimes Alaska and Louisiana), the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Coast Guard, MSRC, vendors, and the trade press.
The subcommittee developed an interim guideline, which has been used in a few Regions to
develop a spill response plan. Every Region has a contingency plan for responding to oil and
hazardous materials spills, but very few include bioremediation. Now, the Region 6 spill response
plan contains bioremediation.
61
-------
The subcommittee is working with Region 8 to tailor the Region's bioremediation spill response
plan to freshwater, terrestrial spills, and large pipeline breaks. In both Regions 6 and 8, the
subcommittee is working with the RRTs.
The Spill Response Subcommittee is developing an action plan to monitor the effectiveness of
bioremedial agents in an actual spill event. The first draft of the plan is under review by the
subcommittee. Mr. Luftig's initial reaction to the document is that it is too long and that the
monitoring, in terms of cost, might dissuade someone who is considering using bioremedial agents.
However, he felt that for the first few times it would be helpful for obtaining quality data. A
revised draft of the action plan will be completed before the end of year.
While many people have proposed conducting bioremediation on intentional spills, roughly 19,000
oil spills are reported to the Federal Government each year—somewhere on the order of 50 a day.
Somewhere out there is a good spill scenario for demonstrating bioremediation.
Region 2 is independently working on their own spill response plan for bioremedial agents. Their
plan is tailored to the Caribbean (Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands), which has mangroves and other sensitive habitats. The subcommittee is
considering working with Region 5 on one of the Great Lakes and with Region 4 to deal with a
coral reef ecosystem (in the Florida Keys).
While plans have been made for using bioremedial agents, not many are actually being used.
There is the sense from the response community that bioremedial agents are not good primary
response tools. Mr. Fred Lindsey and Mr. Luftig recently testified at a House hearing about a big
pipeline leak that occurred in northern Virginia, leaking about 400,000 gallons into a creek.
Probably the last response to be considered was the application of microbes. The response team
was concerned with stopping the flow of oil toward the Potomac. Now that the oil flow largely
has been stopped, the response team is considering bioremediation techniques to treat the oil
which has seeped into the shoreline. This is a paradigm shift for oil spill response and is perhaps
where bioremediation will come into play.
The fund for the Federal government to respond to oil spills, about 50 million dollars, is not that
large when compared to the Superfund for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Thus, it is realistic
to continue expending resources to clean up immediate problems. As more companies respond to
62
-------
spills, perhaps there will be more interest in cleaning up residuals on the shoreline and stream
bottoms.
The next steps for the Spill Response Subcommittee are to
• Complete the monitoring plan (the action plan)
• Continue to work with Region 8 to get their response plan in place
• See if Regions 4 and 5 are still interested in making bioremediation spill response part of
their contingency plans.
Pollution Prevention Subcommittee
Drs. George Pierce of American Cyanamid and Laura Meagher of Rutgers University co-chair the
Pollution Prevention Subcommittee. Dr. Pierce presented information for the subcommittee. He
stated that effective environmental management involves remediation, emergency response, and
pollution prevention. U.S. companies are recognizing the benefits of pollution prevention. For
example, American Cyanamid's 1993 budget for pollution prevention is over $55 million in
capitol.
The subcommittee has expanded the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act definition of pollution
prevention to include and incorporate the use of biologically mediated reactions or biologically
derived products to prevent pollution in manufacturing processes through materials substitution
(elimination via replacement), recovery and reuse, and in-line process treatment.
The goals of the Pollution Prevention Subcommittee are to foster and promote biotechnology as a
technology for pollution prevention—biotechnology has potential and is being used; however, it is
generally applied to active processes where there are proprietary interests. For this reason, it is
important to establish partnerships between industry and EPA in order to get this information
outside of the control of private interests and to increase the awareness and educational level of
biotechnology as it applies to pollution prevention.
Recently, the United States witnessed a refocusing of biotechnology away from the
pharmaceutical sector. (Wall Street has discounted the potential performance of Pharmaceuticals
in 1993.) Industry is now looking toward innovations in biotechnology for pollution prevention to
generate future profits.
63
-------
The subcommittee's primary objective for 1993 is to promote informed and effective use of
biological pollution prevention and, in so doing, to benefit both the environment and the
economy. Economics are important because biotechnology must be able to compete with other
technologies.
The real purpose of pollution prevention is to put remediation out of business. Pollution
prevention has been shown to make sense in the United States. Recently, Dr. Pierce attended an
internal American Cyanamid meeting that involved 300 participants, including representatives of
the Pacific rim and the European Community (EC). Pollution prevention outside the United
States was presented as very significant in terms of the long-term success of an industry.
Recycling laws in Germany and potential carbon dioxide taxes in the EC will impact markets. In
fact, the companies that produce and market the EC will have to demonstrate eco-
friendliness—real incentives to change and to start to use biology and other technologies for
pollution prevention.
It is reasonable to assume that the United States can contribute significantly to advances in
pollution prevention because prevention technologies use two U.S. strengths—environmental
engineering and science, and biotechnology.
Subcommittee achievements include
• Developing preliminary case studies on methylene chloride and phenol. The case studies
are in the process of being further enhanced. [In the 1989 Toxic Reduction Inventory
(TRI) data, methylene chloride, xylene, and benzene—compounds that are known to
biodegrade—make up the bulk of the toxics in the TRI. These toxics can be attacked.
American Cyanamid, Merck, and other companies have stated that they will develop no
new products that use methylene chloride as a solvent.]
• Completing a preliminary study identifying 10 to 12 technology areas where
biotechnology can have a significant impact on pollution prevention.
• Developing a Biological Pollution Prevention Seminar and Presentation with the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJ DEPE) (May 1993)—New
64
-------
Jersey is being used as a test case to see what can be done to partner it with industry,
government, and universities and to publicize pollution prevention messages.
• Conducting a 1992 workshop on establishing partnerships for pollution prevention. The
meeting, held at Rutgers University, was chaired by Dr. Meagher.
Due to considerable interest in the case studies, the subcommittee will continue developing case
study evaluations of industry-specific demonstrations. Where bioremediation has proven to be
successful, it is successful at the expense of other technologies—it truly is competitive and reliable.
Dr. Martin Alexander mentioned biofilters. Perhaps the largest biofilter in operation in the
United Stated is at the American Cyanamid facility in Maine. The biofilter treats 30,000 cubic
feet per minute of methyl methanonate (50 ppm). The facility is recognized in the State of Maine
as being a major pollution prevention contributor. This kind of information needs to be
publicized.
Regarding proprietary concerns, one possible solution to proprietary concerns that is being
pursued by the subcommittee is to develop short articles on emerging uses and applications of
biotechnology for pollution prevention. Just a partial listing of applications would help show
directions for pollution prevention. For example,
• Replacement of hazardous chemicals: the use of aromatic oxidases rather than
diazotization to produce fluorophenols from fluorobenzene; not only has this resulted in
purer products but it also has resulted in elimination of toxic substrates in production.
• New Cars: Abbott Laboratories is working on using gelatin-based materials to create
biodegradable polymers.
• In the case of conversion of wastes into value-added products, benzene, toluene, and
xylenes (BTX) can be converted to muconic acids and other biological polymers. In
Japan, work has been done to convert waste hydrocarbons into macrocyclic musks
(fragrance chemicals). A material, which basically was sent offsite for burning, now has
the value of roughly $200/ounce. The Japanese are obviously very excited about this—of
course they are not going to turn the total of the world's petroleum residuals into
macrocyclic musks, but it is a good example.
65
-------
Due to the success of the Rutgers workshop and NJ DEPE meeting, the subcommittee wants (1) to
conduct a Brainstorming Workshop to identify obstacles to the development of biological pollution
prevention and to define action steps for addressing these obstacles, (2) to hold a Senior
Executives Meeting to obtain a mandate and a consensus for pollution prevention from leadership,
and (3) to organize a national conference focused on biotechnology's role in pollution prevention.
Data Identification and Collection Subcommittee
Mr. Jim Solyst, Chairperson of the Data Identification and Collection Subcommittee, explained
that the groups1 objectives are to collect information in a manner in which it can be included in
the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) database; and to provide
opportunities for personal interaction and information exchange for State, industry, and Federal
officials.
The subcommittee, which has no set membership, has had several meetings—mainly as a result of a
cooperative agreement with ORD that allows the subcommittee to bring in State officials to
exchange information.
The subcommittee's biggest achievement was reprinting their book States Use of Bioremediation:
Advantages, Constraints, and Strategies. Two subcommittee-sponsored events over this past fiscal
year include
• An ORD/American Petroleum Institute (API) Meeting held September 1992 designed to
bring State and industry representatives together to talk about the use of bioremediation
in the clean up of underground storage tank (UST) sites. States that participated
included Minnesota, Delaware, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New York, and Oregon. The
meeting was successful in addressing how to improve the chances of getting
bioremediation through the State system; but was less successful in getting hard cost and
performance data—something the subcommittee has strived to do, with limited success,
over the past few years. In general States have more information on landfarming than on
in situ bioremediation, but as a result of the meeting some cost information was obtained.
• An ATTIC issues meeting, held December 1992, at the NJ DEPE in Trenton. Attendees
included representatives from New Jersey, New York, and Delaware, as well as ATTIC
managers. Discussions focused on uses of ATTIC, benefits derived by States that use
66
-------
ATTIC, and the type of information States could provide to ATTIC. As a result of the
meeting, ATTIC managers gained a better sense of how people, particularly State
officials, are using ATTIC.
Next steps for the subcommittee are to increase emphasis on getting cost and performance data.
States feel bioremediation is a viable alternative, one that they are pursuing, but they need cost
and performance data.
The Data Identification and Collection Subcommittee approach is to continue to ask for
information and, when it is obtained, submit it to ATTIC. This approach is not intended to
downplay the importance of personal information exchange—meetings have been very valuable for
getting industry and States representatives together and for allowing States to compare
information.
The Bioremediation Field Initiative
Ms. Nancy Dean of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response presented information on
the Bioremediation Field Initiative. The Field Initiative is a result of a recommendation from the
February 1990 EPA-Industry Meeting. The program is designed to fill the information gaps that
were identified as barriers to the increased use of bioremediation. The purpose of the
Bioremediation Field Initiative is to
• Collect full-scale performance data on bioremediation
• Provide laboratory assistance to Regions and States conducting bioremediation
• Develop a bioremediation database. (A hard copy of the database is printed in the
Bioremediation in the Field newsletter.)
1993 Accomplishments of the Field Initiative:
• Nine full-scale field evaluations are underway; five of these, sites which have been in
the program since 1991, are near completion. (Completion is anticipated by the end of
the year.)
67
-------
• Additional sites are being pursued for future evaluation—targeting pesticides, munitions,
and solvents.
• A workshop was held on bioremediation of pesticides. The goal of the workshop was to
identify potential sites and categories of pesticides that could be included in the field
evaluation program.
The nine sites that are currently under evaluation (listed by major contaminant type) are as
follows:
Petroleum
• Public Service Company of Colorado
• Park City Pipeline
• Hill Air Force Base (AFB) Superfund Site
• Eielson AFB Superfund Site
Creosote/pentachlorophenyl (PCP)/Coal Tar
• Escambia Wood Preserving Site/Brookhaven
• Libby Groundwater Superfund Site
• Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. Superfund Site Solvents
• Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive Superfund Site
• West KL Avenue Landfill Superfund Site
The Field Initiative involves cooperative efforts. Participants are as follows:
ORD participants
• R.S. Kerr Laboratory
• Research Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
• Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) participants
• Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
68
-------
Regional participants
• Regions 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10
Universities
• Utah State University
• Stanford University
• Michigan State University
• University of Colorado
Other Federal and State Agencies
• U. S. Air Force
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources
• City of St. Louis Park
Federal Technology Transfer Act Agreement
• Coastal Remediation Company
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and Site Owners.
The following is an update on the five sites that will have completed evaluations by the end of the
year. (Information on the evaluations should be available by early 1994.)
• Libby Groundwater Superfund Site in Libby, Montana. An above-ground fixed film
bioreactor; a surface soil prepared-bed, lined land treatment unit (LTU); and in situ
bioremediation of groundwater treated with hydrogen peroxide are being evaluated at the
site. The bioreactor was sampled in 1991 and 1992 and analyzed for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCPs, and other standard chemical, physical, and biological
parameters. A parallel bench-scale bioreactor was constructed to mimic the onsite
bioreactor. Final data are currently being peer reviewed. The LTU was sampled five
times from 1991 to 1992, and there was an additional laboratory test that involved using
radiolabeled compounds to conduct mass balance investigations. For the in situ
bioremediation, the last sampling occurred in March of this year. The effect of
preferential flows on biotreatment in the aquifer is being examined.
69
-------
• Public Service Company of Colorado. This is an unusual UST site. A small tank leaked
used oil, diesel, and gasoline into the aquifer over a 30-year period. It was treated with
hydrogen peroxide. Region 8 asked the laboratory to conduct a retrospective evaluation
of the site in order to determine how and when to allow site closure. Preliminary results
indicate that there is some residual BTX in low permeability zones. Modeling to
determine levels of recontamination indicate there will be no recontamination at the
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Information on this site should appear in the
August issue of Bioremediation in the Field.
• As part of an EPA-U.S. Air Force cooperative effort, bioventing is being evaluated at
two Air Force sites. The Field Initiative is compiling a design manual on bioventing
using Air Force data. At the Eielson AFB in Alaska, three different methods of heating
soil, passive warming, active warming, and buried heat tape, are being evaluated to
determine their ability to increase biodegradation rates. Final hydrocarbon analysis is
anticipated in late 1993.
• The Hill AFB evaluation in Utah is designed to determine optimum air injection rates
for bioventing. Last December-January, a helium treatment study to determine the
heterogeneity of the air movement through the site was completed.
• At the Escambia Wood Preserving Site in Brookhaven, Mississippi, RREL is using white
rot fungus technology to treat PCP and PAHs. This evaluation was initiated in 1991 with
a treatability study to evaluate the efficacy of three fungal species. In 1992 a scale-up
demonstration was initiated using Phanerochaete sordida. Data are currently being
evaluated. The SITE Program also is involved with this demonstration.
Another major activity for 1993 will be producing the database of bioremediation applications.
The system will look like the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT) database. The data in the system currently comes from Federal and State Project
Managers; however, the Field Initiative is planning to expand data collection efforts to the private
sector, pending approval of a survey.
70
-------
Discussion
Q: Why did the subcommittee develop the open water protocol first?
Berkey: Motivation was largely circumstantial, e.g., following the Mega Borg, there was a need
for a quick scientific look a bioremediation for open water spills. It was felt that a lot of the
effort that went into the open water protocol would also be invaluable for other ecosystems—that
has proven to be the case.
Q: Is there a questionnaire or check list that you have developed for collection of UST
biotreatment information?
Solyst: Nothing quite that formal has been compiled. After our meeting, a letter was sent asking
for cost and performance data. The subcommittee received thorough responses from a few States
and a project description from Chevron. In general, I feel this type of information does not exist.
Paul Chalmers
Mr. Paul Chalmers of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences presented information on
the Center's bioremediation efforts. The Center set up a cooperative research program with its
members that focuses on in situ bioremediation of petroleum products. General Motors of Florida
is participating, several other members are also very interested. The Center is sponsoring a
conference on natural restoration July 20-21, 1993. Over the past decade there have been
improvements in recognizing when and how bioremediation occurs, understanding pathways,
determining how to monitor and assess bioremediation, and evaluating the risks involved. Less
success has been made in incorporating this knowledge into actual work plans. There needs to be
a better understanding of the extent to which nature is doing the job and where and at what sites
it is significant/nonsignificant.
The goals of the conference will be to assess accomplishments in the field of natural restoration
over the last 2 years, to project where the field will be in the next few years, and to determine
what the regulators need to convince their constituencies and the general public that natural
bioremediation is a viable cleanup alternative.
71
-------
EPA PANEL ON REGULATIONS
David Giamporcaro
Mr. David Giamporcaro, Section Chief of the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Biotechnology Program, stated that it is very fitting that the month of June should be ending with
this meeting. The month of June has really been biotechnology month. In addition to this
meeting, just to recount the meetings that the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
has been involved in, 2 weeks ago there was a meeting in Duluth, Minnesota, that involved a
review of risk assessment for bioremediation; the week before, the TSCA Biotechnology Program
convened a national conference of representatives from industry, academia, the EPA research
community, and public interest groups to get an idea of the types of TSCA biotechnology products
that are being developed and when they are likely to enter the regulatory system.
To address a question that was posed to the Administrator, one of the objectives of the TSCA
conference was to determine whether the Agency has appropriate personnel and resources to
address the new types of products in a timely manner. EPA ought to be doing its homework on its
own time rather than on the time of the companies that submit products for review under the
TSCA Program.
The biggest biotechnology event of the entire month, an exciting and unfortunately somewhat
negative one, is of course Jurassic Park. The negative implications of biotechnology, in the book,
although much less so in the movie, are precisely the kinds of things that the Federal government
and industry have to overcome. We are all working collaboratively to convince the public that
biotechnology is not science run amok.
The TSCA Biotechnology Program is administered under section 5 of TSCA. That section requires
that persons intending to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for commercial
purposes (subject to TSCA), must notify EPA at least 90 days prior to doing so. Notification takes
the form of a premanufacture notice (PMN). During the 90-day review, EPA can determine
whether the new chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk, and if it does, take appropriate
regulatory action.
In 1984, EPA clarified that the statutory definition of chemical substances applied to living
organisms. In a 1986 policy statement, the Agency stated the types of microorganisms that would
72
-------
be considered new chemical substances under TSCA, section 5 and hence subject to PMN
requirements—namely intergeneric microorganisms, those that involve the exchange of genetic
material from source organisms in different genera. These are the types of microorganisms the
Agency thinks could exhibit novel characteristics in the environment, and which warrant Federal
oversight prior to introduction as commercial products.
The 1986 policy statement also requested that persons intending to introduce novel organisms into
the environment for research purposes submit a voluntary PMN to the Agency prior to initiating
such research. Half of the submissions under the program today have been voluntary submissions.
Although EPA considers intergeneric microorganisms to be new chemical substances, all other
microorganisms are considered already to be in commerce in the United States and hence are
considered to be implicitly listed on the TSCA inventory of chemical substances. Therefore,
naturally occurring microorganisms are not considered to be subject to the provisions of TSCA,
section 5. This is why OPPT does not get involved with naturally occurring microbes for
bioremediation purposes. That is not to say that naturally occurring microorganisms could not be
regulated under TSCA. (TSCA's definition of a chemical substance incorporates living organisms.)
The Agency could exercise its authority under TSCA with respect to naturally occurring
microorganisms if it determined that a particular naturally occurring microorganism or a
particular use of that microorganism were to pose an unreasonable risk. The Agency has not had
to exercise that option with respect to any naturally occurring microorganism.
In 1986, the Agency tried to clarify that certain contained research and development activities
would continue to be eligible for the small quantities exemption under TSCA, section 5(h)(3),
which essentially provides that persons who are using small quantities of a new chemical substance
solely for research purposes, are exempt from the PMN requirement. There are certain
requirements to establish eligibility for the exemption. In the Code of Federal Regulation, 40
CFR section 720.36 provides that all persons involved in research on a new chemical must be
notified of any risks to health and that the research be conducted under the supervision of a
technically qualified individual. There are also certain recordkeeping provisions set forth in 40
CFR section 720.70 (a) and (b).
Research that was eligible for the contained structure exemption included research conducted in a
laboratory that complies with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Recombinant Activity
73
-------
Committee Guidelines, or if it is conducted in a contained fermenter, greenhouse, or another
contained structure. A contained structure was defined as a structure with a roof and walls that
has characteristics intended to minimize release of microorganisms.
In the last year, the Agency has had three inquiries as to whether certain bioreactors are eligible
for the contained structure exemption. In all cases, the Agency responded that the bioreactor was
considered a contained system. However, the exemption is not working the way the Agency wants
it to work because, in each case, the Agency has been asked to make a case-by-case
determination. The contained structure exemption is really just a modification of the small
quantities exemption—it should be applied and understood in much the same way. The same
criteria should be used in assessing eligibility—a technically qualified individual should be making
the decision as to the appropriate level of containment.
To date no applications regarding environmental bioremediation using intergeneric
microorganisms have been received, however, there are indications that the first such submissions
may be received by EPA before the end of this year. The role genetic engineering will have in
the bioremediation sector is unclear. It is safe to say that it will constitute some portion of the
market for bioremediation products. It is a question of when, rather than if.
Lisa Lund
Ms. Lisa Lund, Deputy Director of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks, explained that the
UST Program has a very large regulated community. They regulate approximately 1.4 million
tanks at over 700,000 facilities. EPA decided at a very early stage to delegate authority to the
States and has been flexible with how States implement the Program.
There are two program areas that are important when considering remedial technologies and their
use in UST cleanups: corrective action and financial responsibility. Corrective action describes a
process—basically if these conditions exist, take these steps. Many States have adopted a very
conservative interpretation that every step must be taken at every site. There are over 220,000
confirmed releases, about 75,000 of the sites have been remediated and closed. Because of the
enormous number of active sites, it is not appropriate to use a traditional State or Federal
approach for all sites. The Office of Underground Storage Tanks is trying to help States deal with
their tremendous backlog.
74
-------
Many States have developed assurance funds to help as a mechanism for demonstrating financial
responsibility. Forty-three States have funds; three States are currently in the legislative process
of adopting funds. In essence, the assurance funds are cleanup funds. Many of these funds have
the authority to determine what the fund will pay for and what technologies might be acceptable.
This can pose a real barrier for new technology. There are also solvency considerations. Many of
the larger States that have a history of claims and claim payment have started to experience
financial difficulty. These States are looking to minimize costs and to streamline processes.
EPA has searched for and encouraged alternative approaches to managing sites and believes that
all sites should be able to progress toward site closure. For example, one option the Agency is
currently endorsing is a system of categorizing sites based on risk. Since there are no Federal
cleanup standards, States have developed their own standards—and in most cases have some
numerical standard. As a result, active or long-term cleanup is required at many sites that, based
on risk, do not need that level of cleanup activity. The cleanup that occurs at these sites is
extremely costly and not very effective. The use of numerical standards and a traditional process
demands a high level of State oversight at every site, regardless of the risk posed. By grouping
sites, the States may be able to provide categorical guidance on how to progress toward site
completion, regardless of the level of oversight that the State is able to provide. This approach
would allow States to focus on the worst sites.
One priority for the national program is to streamline corrective action. This involves improving
administrative processes, and encouraging innovative or improved technologies—those that are
ready for use, but are not yet widely used.
Action towards this goal includes
• Issuing a corrective action streamlining directive through OSWER that lays out the
Federal regulations for corrective action section by section and discusses actions that are
mandatory and those where flexibility exists. It also endorses the use of alternative
technologies.
• Drafting a memorandum that addresses alternative technologies.
75
-------
• Discussing with States their concerns about using bioremediation and other alternative
technologies. Lack of knowledge/expertise, lack of cost and performance data,
permitting problems, strict interpretation of the UST corrective action regulations, and
hesitation to use State funds to cover those costs often are cited.
• Working with States to address these barriers. For example, in conjunction with the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the program
cosponsored a bioremediation seminar to explain the theory and process behind
bioremediation at petroleum sites. The program is also working on a series of hands-on
technical workshops for State regulators.
• Circulating research information and serving as a clearinghouse for information on
bioremediation and other alternative technologies.
• Trying to streamline the permitting process.
• Developing a user's manual for alternative technologies.
Ms. Lund encouraged participants to help program/State officials to overcome lack of knowledge
by disseminating information and inviting State officials to visit sites.
Caroline Wehling
Ms. Caroline Wehling of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) discussed developments to limit or alter
the scope of hazardous waste regulations as they apply to contaminated media. Historically, the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program has treated contaminated media the
same way it treats newly generated hazardous wastes (in terms of permitting and land disposal
restrictions). This has created a disincentive for people to engage in remediation.
EPA is working on a separate program for remediation wastes and has developed several rules to
deal with this. The first rule put forth by the Agency, the Corrective Action Management Unit
(CAMU) Rule, was published February 16, 1993. This is the first final rule that declares the
Agency policy that remediation waste is different from newly generated waste. The declaration
comes about in the applicability of land disposal restrictions to remediation wastes. The rule
essentially states that at a RCRA or Superfund cleanup site, the Agency or State in charge can
76
-------
designate a unit for the remediation wastes where land disposal restrictions do not apply.
Basically, the placement of wastes into that unit is not considered land disposal under RCRA, and
therefore the treatment standards do not apply.
The major benefit of the rule is that it allows consolidation of wastes from different parts of a
RCRA or Superfund cleanup site into one unit. It also allows people to engage in other kinds of
treatments (e.g., in tanks) without the necessity of meeting land disposal requirements.
Limitations of the proposed rulemaking:
• It does not preempt State requirements
• It does not define when a party is engaged in the act of treatment (e.g., when a permit is
required for bioremediation of a site).
This CAMU rule is currently in litigation. EPA was recently sued by the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council and several environmental groups. One question they are raising is what is a
hazardous waste. In terms of redefining hazardous waste, a 1992 proposal, that was later
retracted, indicated the same philosophy that contaminated media should be treated differently
from other hazardous wastes—that there should be a separate program for contaminated
media—presumably subject to lesser requirements depending on toxicity.
In another rulemaking, petroleum cleanup in USTs was temporarily exempted from the toxicity
characteristics rule. In December 1992, the Agency proposed the extension of the UST petroleum
exemption to all petroleum cleanups. In February 1993, the Agency proposed that the rule be
made permanent.
Matt Straus
Mr. Matt Straus, Division Director of the Waste Management Division (WMD), discussed
developments in the Land Ban Program. In 1984, Congress created the Land Ban Program (RCRA
Amendments). [The Program prohibits land disposal of hazardous waste unless it meets treatment
standards or it can be demonstrated that no migration of the hazardous constituent will occur.]
EPA is developing additional rules because the land ban statute indicates that, as new wastes are
identified and listed, EPA must set levels or methods of treatment, which will substantially
diminish toxicity or reduce migration. When the original land ban standards were set, any waste
77
-------
or residue that contained or exhibited [hazardous] characteristics was subject to those same land
ban standards. Most of the standards, at least for organic wastes, are based on incineration. In
revisiting the Land Ban Program to make it less complex and more user-friendly, EPA is looking
at the medium involved. For example, last August EPA developed land ban standards specific to
hazardous debris, taking into account the characteristics of the material.
EPA is in the process of developing treatment standards that are specific to hazardous soil.
One of the original premises in revising standards is that incineration should not be the basis for
setting treatment standards. The process has involved gathering all available information on
various innovative technologies. The current database has several thousand data points (about
2,000 data bits).
The types of technologies examined included:
• Bioremediation/Biotreatment
• Solvent extraction
• Dechlorination
• Immobilization (in metals)
• Vacuum extraction
• Soil washing, acid washing
• Vitrification
• Pyrolysis
• Thermal desorption
• Hydrolysis.
The database includes information on 123 innovative technology demonstrations (66 bench scale,
41 pilot scale, and 14 full scale). The database is being used to determine treatment standards.
EPA is actually proposing a series of options for treatment standards.
• Option 1: places priority on achieving a universal standard or achieving a 90 percent
reduction or removal efficiency—once the universal standard is achieved, the 90 percent
treatment standard does not have to be met (e.g., the proposed universal standard for
benzopyrene is 8 ppm; once the 8 ppm standard is met, there is no need to achieve 90
78
-------
percent cleanup). Data show 86 percent of the technologies in the database will meet this
option.
• Option 2: the treatment must either meet the universal standard or achieve levels
between the universal standard and 10 times the universal standard, provided 90 percent
treatment is achieved (e.g., for benzopyrene, levels must be in the range of 8-80 ppm and
90 percent treatment must be demonstrated).
• Option 3: allows levels between the universal standard and 10 times the standard—it is
not necessary to achieve 90 percent treatment, if the level is below 10 times the universal
standard, BDAT is achieved (e.g., for benzopyrene, levels must be in the range of
8-80 ppm.)
Universal standards were developed for each of 80+ chemicals based on information in the
database. The program is being designed to encourage the use of innovative technology.
Participants were encouraged to comment on the proposed options and to provide additional
alternative technology treatment data, particularly for bioremediation.
Walter Kovalick
Dr. Walt Kovalick discussed proposed revisions to the existing treatability sample exclusion rule.
The proposed revisions involve
• Raising the amount of testing material from 1,000 kg (a couple of drums of soil) to
10,000 kg of soil and debris contaminated with nonacute hazardous waste—those who
conduct treatability studies under the exemption will not be bound by many of the
requirements for sample shipment, storage, and transportation. Appropriate
recordkeeping is required. This also allows processing of up to 10,000 kg of soil or
debris in a batch reactor or soil washer (the old model limit was 250 kg).
• Increasing the amount of time allotted for conducting treatability studies that utilize
bioremediation to 2 years. Comment is being solicited on whether other technologies
require increased timeframes.
79
-------
The downside of the proposed rulemaking is that RCRA is a delegated program—States will need
to parrot these changes.
EPA has created a document titled Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology
Trends that addresses the nature of the Nation's contaminated soil. Referred to as the Market
Study, it aggregates data from Superfund, RCRA, UST, DOD, DOE and other Federal and State
programs. It explores the issues of future demands for remediation services and addresses site
characteristics, market size, and other demand factors. The document can be ordered from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 487-4600. When ordering, refer to
document number PB93-140762.
Discussion
Q: In certain cases, too much flexibility is not a good thing. Federal government delegates to
States, States delegate to the city or county—by the time is gets to the people we have to work
with on a day-to-day basis, anything goes. For example, in certain counties, cleanup levels
for total petroleum hydrocarbons in USTs vary from 100 to 1,000 ppm, and a few counties in
California require cleanup of soils to drinking water standards. How are you dealing with
the issue of consistency?
Lund: EPA's perspective is that our charge is to protect human health and the environment. If a
locality wants to be more stringent, that is their option. In California, their assurance fund is
beginning to pay for cleanups. Once a State begins to pay for cleanups, they often reexamine the
issue of cleanup standards.
Q: Will contaminated soil LDR also include criteria for groundwater?
Straus: At this point we are looking at soil only. Another thing that will be included in the
proposal is the contained-in rule, which basically is a demonstration that this level of the media
no longer contains the contaminant and you can consider site-specific factors. We are laying out a
process for petitioning either the Regional Administrator or the State Director to make these sorts
of determinations. We have focused primarily on soil because that is where the need has been.
Q: Will the CAMU Rule be the overriding rule as to whether bioremediation can be applied?
80
-------
Wehling: Determining whether bioremediation is appropriate is part of the remedy selection
process for RCRA/Superfund sites. Remedy selection involves many issues including the CAMU
rule. I am not sure the CAMU Rule plays as much into a land treatment scenario as it does into
the combustion scenarios. The CAMU Rule changes the interpretation of land disposal. Another
point to keep in mind is that CAMU is restricted to RCRA/Superfund cleanups, it does not apply
to voluntary cleanups.
Q: Do the proposed treatment standards take into account both in situ and ex situ designs?
Straus: We are looking at primarily ex situ treatment. We are setting treatment standards that can
be met by a number of innovative treatment technologies. We have a fairly extensive
database—that does not mean that there are no limitations. If EPA receives additional, bench-,
pilot-, or full-scale data on bioremediation or any other technology, it will be incorporated into
the database—this may change the numbers. The database will be made publically available.
Comment: In a recent article, EPA criticized California for not taking aggressive enforcement
actions on UST sites. In California there are two bioremediation treatment sites,
unfortunately, both are operating on Indian reservations with the purpose of
circumventing the five to six permitting Agencies within the State of California. In
San Diego County alone, there are over 1,000,000 yd8 of petroleum-contaminated
soil. The cost savings for locally treating as opposed to hauling the soil to the closest
landfill outside of San Diego would be $24 million dollars. Over 600,000 gallons of
diesel fuel would be consumed to haul that soil from San Diego County to the closest
landfill. There is a sense of urgency in terms of sorting out the regulatory
framework in which treatment can take place. We are not getting through to the
responsible regulatory officials that bioremediation can and should be done.
81
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Following Panel discussions, participants were divided into breakout sessions to discuss the
following:
I. Opportunities
A. What key opportunities exist for bioremediation within the next 5 years?
B. To address each of these opportunities, what role(s) can/should be played by
The Bioremediation Action Committee (BAC)
EPA
Other governmental bodies
Industry
Academia
Others?
C. What specific partnerships would accelerate the implementation or improve the
effectiveness of bioremediation, relevant to the opportunities? How could these
partnerships be initiated, maintained, and made productive? Can the BAC play a helpful
role?
II. Barriers
A. What specific barriers to the use of bioremediation exist (technological, institutional, or
economic)?
B. To tackle each of these barriers, what role(s) can/should be played by
The BAC
EPA
Other governmental bodies
Industry
Academia
Others?
82
-------
C. What specific partnerships would best tackle each of these barriers? How could these
partnerships be initiated, maintained, and made productive? Can the BAC play a helpful
role?
A collective summary of recommendations is presented below. Individual breakout session
summaries are provided in Appendix C.
U.S. Competitiveness/Market Viability of Bioremediation
• The United States should maintain its lead in applied technologies and export to foreign
markets. There is a world market for existing bioremediation technologies, and EPA
should inform foreign countries of technologies that are accepted for use in the United
States. Assurance of the Agency's backing would make an important difference to small
emerging companies. Cooperation between EPA and other agencies can help in the
foreign marketplace; e.g., there is funding in the FY 94 budget for "U.S. Technology
Innovation for Environmental Solutions" (USTIES), a joint effort between EPA and the
Department of Commerce to fund data development and provide information about
appropriate technologies (without certifying technologies or promoting particular firms).
• In order to promote acceptance of the pollution prevention concept, the BAC and
industry groups such as the Environmental Business Council should mount an effort to
inform the world that bioremediation technologies are available to help developing
countries take the pollution prevention route instead of reinventing the pollution
generation wheel. Pollution prevention offers an opportunity for industry to develop
generic bioremediation technologies. Problems include lack of money, proprietary nature
of specific processes, etc.
• Incentives are needed to spark innovative approaches in the engineering communities and
among curriculum developers. Solutions to training problems will require an
interdisciplinary approach. Lack of U.S. infrastructure provides foreign companies an
opportunity to fill our needs, two examples are (1) the Dutch provided a biofliter for
achieving clean air in New Jersey (it is the second largest site in the world and has been
working for a year and a half), and (2) soil-washing plants have been in operation in
Germany for 3 years.
83
-------
Research and Development
• There needs to be involvement of all key parties, i.e., industry, government, and
academia in research and field studies. Without solid data, design and construction of
innovative technologies is hindered. Also, industry needs to derive cost estimates from
physical modeling. The in situ system could close the loop on deterministic models,
however, there is not enough research or field data to support a hypothesis.
• A generic framework needs to be developed for properly assessing a site to determine
effective technologies. Lack of data, in addition to hindering technology development
and pricing, inhibits the ability to properly assess a site in order to apply the correct
technology. Typically a client demands that nationally approved technology be re-
proven from site to site. If a generic framework were established based on solid data,
unnecessary costs associated with re-proving technologies could be avoided. It is in the
interest of the key parties to ensure that a bioremediation contractor can successfully
operate the technology onsite.
• Academia should move away from the "R" of R & D to applications.
• Need to better understand bioavailability, bioinhibition, and biocatalysis.
• Need to discover best implementation of different approaches.
• Some situations need extensive work and standardization, e.g., in situ aquifers,
composting systems, windrows.
Education and Training
• EPA needs to make a commitment to support development of the work force because of
the lack of people trained to understand the complexities of emerging bioremediation
technologies. Even modest funding would be helpful. Especially critical in
bioremediation is the need for interdisciplinary expertise. Variations in the
characteristics of individual sites demand individuals trained in many disciplines
(biologists, chemists, agronomists, etc.) who are able to communicate among themselves
84
-------
and with the public. EPA needs to retain good people and to raise the priority of
funding for education and training in applied research. Industry should play a role in
educating as well.
• Curriculum changes may be needed as well as introduction of internships or industry-
sponsored practical programs where students not only get a good academic background
but also an introduction to the real world through on-site experience and exposure to the
language of the trade.
Need for Approval/Public Acceptance
• A policy statement and comments from EPA on bioremediation would help both
domestically and internationally. The public looks to EPA for reassurance that
bioremediation is accepted and that its use is good for the environment. With the
Administrator behind it, with congressional support, and with the industry poised for
growth, the time seems right for EPA to make and stand behind a carefully targeted
policy statement. The BAG, as a result of this third joint EPA/Industry Meeting, should
take a more proactive role.
• Need to develop protocols.
• Need to develop regulatory/public acceptance, which can be achieved through
responsible media coverage.
• Need to increase market and public acceptance of GEMs.
• States need cost-effective methods for cleaning up environmental problems. Costs
should go down in the next 5 years, but we do not know what technologies will be
available in the future. A dialogue on wants and needs would be helpful. There is a
need for improved public awareness of possibilities, and EPA could play a role in public
education.
85
-------
BACs Role
• The BAG would be more effective as a Coordinating Committee. There is a definite
need for information dissemination. The biomedical field has the National Library of
Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which contains national and
international data. The BAC could establish a parallel operation for bioremediation and
other technologies through a national information network. It could be used as a means
of communication within the user community as well as a way to access information.
• BAC could take on the role of conducting a partnership mechanism assessment and
keeping it updated, providing a clear guide to resources, funding, programs, and contacts
useful in furthering partnerships.
• Improvements in conveying information would help in many ways, such as keeping the
BAC members informed of recent changes and developments and helping States take
more initiative in using BAC-generated information to support actions and contingency
plans. The BAC should continue to serve as a forum for bringing industry, government,
and academia together.
• The BAC could act as a referral service.
Regulatory Issues
• EPA, State agencies, and industry need to focus on overcoming barriers for cleaning up
petroleum-contaminated soils.
• A faster track needs to be developed to perform analytical and characterization
assessments of a site. Currently too much time, effort, and money is spent on this phase.
• A certification program needs to be developed. The lack of a certification program
leaves the doors open to "snake-oil salesmen." The large number of unregulated, fly-by-
night operators gives the bioremediation industry a bad name.
86
-------
• EPA can provide leadership, but there needs to be State and local presence along with
industry participation to provide impetus. EPA must be committed to the success of this
endeavor. Regulatory parameters and the perception of regulations plays a key role in
EPA and industry partnerships in bioremediation. A few years ago, EPA was working
on a initiative to define "how clean is clean." They should go forward with it for obvious
reasons.
• There is a need for site cleanup standards. Uncertainties in funding and changing rules
do not help. The Europeans are ahead of the United States in setting standards (e.g., the
Dutch ABC standards).
Partnerships
To effectively address most bioremediation issues/opportunities, EPA, industry, States,
public interest groups, and (often) universities should be consulted. Essentially, good
partnerships will involve the problem, the right problem-solver, and regulators.
In addressing "how clean is clean," EPA could take the lead in a partnership with States,
industry, and environmental groups to address petroleum spills.
Partnerships could be formed to define opportunities in pollution prevention. A full-
fledged thrust could be developed, involving EPA, industry, academia, and others to
identify the opportunities for biology-based pollution prevention, to communicate about
the potential, and to provide feedback from users. EPA could work on statutory
definitions of pollution prevention that incorporate biological methods.
White paper/studies/assessment of existing and potential partnership mechanisms and
communication mechanisms would be helpful. These could include
• Grants, Federal Technology Transfer Agreement (FTTA)
• Common facilities (Texas, Michigan)
• Federal lab partnerships
• Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
• State grants/programs
87
-------
Testing at government sites could be facilitated with government indemnification. Also
working with States that are flexible could help to build a track record. These and other
approaches could help to minimize a perception of risk associated with bioremediation.
Partnerships should be formed between industry, and Federal and State governments to
encourage bioremediation to be coupled with other technologies. There is need for
engineering and biology technologists to work together.
EPA should involve industry in Research Technology Center activities. EPA would
benefit from industry data that are collected in carefully controlled studies.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
PANEL MEMBERS
-------
THIRD EPA/INDUSTRY MEETING: PARTNERSHIPS IN BIOREMEDIATION
PANEL MEMBERS
INDUSTRY PANEL
Chairperson
Diane L. Saber, Ph.D.
Principal Bioremediation Scientist
Fluor Daniel
Environmental Services Division
200 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Panelists
Dan Abramowicz
Manager, Bioremediation Laboratory
General Electric Company, Corporate
Research and Development
P.O. Box 8, Building K-l, Room 3A25
Schenectady, NY 12301
John Ryan
Vice President
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (RETEC)
1011 S.W. Klickitat Way, Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
John R. Smith, Ph.D.
Internal Consultant
Environmental Remediation
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
Alcoa Tech Center, Building C
100 Tech Drive, EPC-C
Alcoa Center, PA 15069-0001
Ron Unterman, Ph.D.
Vice President
Research and Development
Envirogen, Inc.
4100 Quakerbridge Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
STATE PANEL
Chairperson
Jim Solyst
National Governors' Association
444 North Capital Street, Suite 267
Washington, DC 20001-1572
Panelists
Paul Hadley
Engineer
Associate Waste Management
California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
(Alt P.O. Box 806)
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Paul C. Kurisko
Chief, Bureau of Environmental Evaluation
and Risk Assessment
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
CN-413
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
Trenton, NJ 08625
Gary Mauro
Commissioner
Texas General Land Office
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Steve Underwood
Geoscience Program Supervisor
Coastal Restoration Division
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 94396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396
A-l
-------
SCIENTIFIC PANEL
PUBLIC INTEREST PANEL
Chairperson
Martin Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Soil, Crop, and
Atmospheric Sciences
708 Bradfield Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Panelists
Ronald M. Atlas, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
University of Louisville, Belknap Campus
139 Life Sciences Building
Louisville, KY 40292
Rita R. Colwell, Ph.D.
President
Maryland Biotechnology Institute
4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 500
College Park, MD 20740
Walter J. Weber, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Hazardous
Substance Research Center
Department of Civil Engineering
The College of Civil Engineering
The University of Michigan
Suite 181 Environmental Engineering
Building 1A-2125
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125
Robert E. Menzer, Ph.D.
Laboratory Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32651
Chairperson
Edgar Berkey, Ph.D.
President
National Environmental Technology
Applications Corporation
University of Pittsburgh Applied
Research Center
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Panelists
Bowman Cox
2216 Portavela Street
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Katherine Devine
President
DEVO Enterprises, Inc.
704 Ninth St., S.E.
Washington, DC 20003-2804
Deborah Rubin
Engineering News Record
McGraw-Hill
1221 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10020
James D. Snyder
Editor in Chief
Environment Today Magazine
8657 S.E. Merritt Way
Jupiter, FL 33458
A-2
-------
FEDERAL PANEL
Chairperson
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
(OS-100)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Panelists
Colonel James M. Owendoff
Headquarters U.S. Air Force CEVR
115 Brookley Avenue Suite 1
Bowling Air Force Base, DC
20332-5106
R. P. Whitfield
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Environmental
Restoration (EM-40)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
BAC PANEL
Rashalee Levine, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Office of Technology Development
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, EM-541
Washington, DC 20585-0002
Edgar Berkey, Ph.D.
President
National Environmental Technology
Applications Corporation
University of Pittsburgh Applied
Research Center
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Martin Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Soil, Crop, and
Atmospheric Sciences
708 Bradfield Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Stephen D. Luftig
Deputy Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
George Pierce, Ph.D.
Manager
Bioremediation Technology Development
American Cyanamid
Foot of Tremley Point Road
Linden,NJ 07036
Jim Solyst
National Governors' Association
444 North Capital Street, Suite 267
Washington, DC 20001-1572
Nancy Dean
Environmental Scientist
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OS-HOW)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA PANEL ON REGULATIONS
Chairperson
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OS-100)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
A-3
-------
Panelists
Matthew A. Straus
Division Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-320W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Caroline H. Wehling
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(OS-300)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
David Giamporcaro
Section Chief
TSCA Biotechnology Program
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-794
Washington, DC 20460
Lisa Lund
Deputy Director
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-400WF
Washington, DC 20460
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
-------
Third
EPA/Industry Meeting:
Partnerships in Bioremediation
Sponsored by the Bioremediation Action Committee
June 28-29. 1993
Hyatt Regency Crystal City "Arlington, VA
FINAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
A.S. Abdul, Ph.D.
Section Manager
Staff Research Scientist
General Motors Research/Development Ctr.
30500 Mound Road, Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055
Daniel A. Abramowicz
Manager
Bioremediation Laboratory
Corporate Research and Development
General Electric Company
P.O. Box 8, Building K-l, Room 3A25
Schenectady, NY 12301
Martin Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor
Dept. of Soil, Crop/Atmospheric Sciences
Cornell University
708 Bradfield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Ronald M. Atlas, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Biology
University of Louisville
139 Life Sciences Building
Belknap Campus
Louisville, KY 40292
Bruce Bauman
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Bob Beckerich
Manager
Market Development for New Business
Novo Nordisk Bioindustrials, Inc.
33 Turner Road
Danbury, CT 06813-1907
Edgar Berkey, Ph.D.
President
Nat'l. Envir. Tech. Appl. Corp. (NETAC)
Univ. of Pittsburgh Applied Res. Center
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Dolloff F. Bishop
Chief
Biosystems Branch
Risk Reduction Eng. Lab.
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
5-1
-------
Michael Broder
Microbiologist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-778
Washington, DC 20460
Kandi Brown
Project Manager
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN 37923
Gunter H. Brox
Manager
EIMCO Process Equipment
P.O. Box 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84110-0300
Paul Campanella
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-794
Washington, DC 20460
Beverly J. Campbell
President
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
4 Research Place, Suite 210
Rockville, MD 20850
Paul Chalmer
Project Manager
NCMS
3025 Boardwalk
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Ed Chan
Risk Management Specalist
PRC EMI
1505 PRC Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Russell Chianelli, Ph.D.
Environmental Sciences
Exxon Corporate Research
Route 22 East
Annandale, NJ 08801
John Christiansen
Executive Vice President
ERI
P.O. Box 45212-210
Baton Rouge, LA 70895
Ellie Clark
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-794
Washington, DC 20460
B-2
-------
Rita R. Colwell, Ph.D.
President
Maryland Biotechnology Institute
4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 500
College Park, MD 20740
Bowman Cox
2216 Portavela Street
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Jarad Daniels
Student Intern
Office of Technology Development
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-54, Trevion II, Room 417
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-0002
Nancy Dean
Environmental Scientist
Office of Solid Waste/Emergency Response
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-HOW
Washington, DC 20460
Katherine Devine
President
DEVO Enterprises, Inc.
704 - 9th Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003-2804
Dave Ellis, Ph.D.
Senior Consultant
DuPont
300 Bellevue Parkway
Wilmington, DE 19809-3722
Ralph W. Emerson
Chief Executive Officer
Mycoprobe
719 Second Street, #3
Davis, CA 95616
David Emery
President
Bioremediation Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 2010
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-1200
Christopher H. Falkler
Soil Scientist
PA Department of Environmental Resources
555 North Lane, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Marcus R. Ferries
Manager
Environmental Remediation
Tenneco, Inc.
P.O. Box 2511
Houston, TX 77252-2511
B-3
-------
Michael Forlini
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
David Giamporcaro
Section Chief
TSCA Biotechnology Program
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-794
Washington, DC 20460
Richard B. Glazer
Division Dean
Westchester Community College
75 Grasslands Road
Valhalla, NY 10595
Alan Goldhammer, Ph.D.
Director
Technical Affairs
Industrial Biotechnology Association
1625 K Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
Frank M. Gregorio
Chief Executive Officer
Envi ro f1ow, Inc.
12181 Balls Ford Road
Manassas, VA 22110
Kris Gregorio
Enviroflow, Inc.
12181 Balls Ford Road
Manassas, VA 22110
Steve Guth
Chief Scientist
Vanguard Research, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 450
Fairfax, VA 22030
Paul Hadley
Engineer
Associate Waste Management
CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Jeff Heimerman
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, T-10
Washington, DC 20460
Joe Hoenscheid
HazMat Manager
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station (MMSLP)
Alexandria, VA 22310
B-4
-------
Kurt Jakobson
Program Manager
Oil Spills Research
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, RED-681
Washington, DC 20460
Douglas E. Jerger
Technical Director
Bioremediation
OHM Remediation Services Corporation
16406 U.S. Route 224 East
Findlay, OH 45840
Donald R. Justice
President
Horizontal Wells Division of H.D.S.I.
P.O. Box 150820
Cape Coral, FL 33915-0820
A. Keith Kaufman
Director
Bioremedial Services
Resna Industries/ABTA
5301 Beethoven Street, Suite 255
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Julia Kilduff
Environmental Scientist
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Attn: EMAEC-TS-D
APG, MD 21010-5401
David P. Knorowski
Deputy Director
Office of Policy and External Affairs
Agency for Toxic Sub. and Dis. Registry
1600 Clifton Road, Mail Stop E-28
Atlanta, GA 30333
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr, Ph.D.
Acting Deputy Asst. Admin.
Office of Solid Waste/Emergency Response
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SE, OS-100
Washington, DC 20460
Kenneth R. Kryszczun
Chief
Superfund Program Branch
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Paul C. Kurisko
Chief
Bureau of Environ. Eval./Risk Assessment
Div. of Publicly Funded Site Remediation
Dept. of Environmental Protection/Energy
State of New Jersey
401 East State Street, CN-413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
Arnold M. Kuzmack, Ph.D.
Senior Science Advisor
Office of Water
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, WH-551
Washington, DC 20460
B-5
-------
Missy Lathrop
Special Assistant
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Rashalee Levine, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Office of Technology Development
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, EM-541
Washington, DC 20585-0002
Alfred W. Lindsey
Director
Off. of Env. Eng. and Tech.
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Dem.
Steve Lingle
Deputy Director
Office of Environ. Eng./Tech. Demon.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Stephen D. Luftig
Deputy Director
Office of Emerg. & Remedial Response
U.S. EPA - Headquarters
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Lisa Lund
Deputy Director
OUST
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-400WF
Washington, DC 20460
John F. Manning, Jr., Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Research Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Gary Mauro
Commissioner
Texas General Land Office
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Timothy G. McKinna
Deputy Land Commissioner
Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Texas General Land Office
Stephen F. Austin Building
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701-1495
Laura Meagher, Ph.D.
Industry/Government Liaison
Agricultural Biotech Center
Rutgers University
Cook College
P.O. Box 231
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
B-6
-------
Robert E. Menzer, Ph.D.
Laboratory Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Ryan Messier
Environmental Engineer
Vanguard Research, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 450
Fairfax, VA 22030
Jim Mueller, Ph.D.
Environmental Microbiologist
SBP Technologies, Inc.
U.S. EPA Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Dick Murray
President
In-Situ Fixation, Inc.
P.O. Box 516
Chandler, AZ 85244-0516
Royal J. Nadeau
Environmental Response Branch/OSWER
U.S. EPA
2890 Wpodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Kirk O'Reilly, Ph.D.
Research Biochemist
Chevron Research and Technology Co.
P.O. Box 1627
Richmond, CA 94803
Gregory Ondich
Director
Program Development Staff
Office of Environ. Eng./Tech. Demon.
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Daniel Orlowski
Correspondent
The BioRemediation Report
2106 National Press Building
Washington, DC 20045
James M. Owendoff
Headquarters, CEVR
U.S. Air Force
115 Brookley Avenue, Suite 1
Bowling A.F.B., DC 20332-5106
J. Peter Perez
President
ERI
P.O. Box 45212-210
Baton Rouge, LA 70895
B-7
-------
George Pierce, Ph.D.
Manager
Bioremediation Technology Development
American Cyanamid
Foot of Tremley Point Road
Linden, NJ 07036
Michael Piotrowski, Ph.D.
Director
Remediation
Biotransformations, Inc.
1670 Newport Center Road, Suite 300
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Tim Reilly
Environ. Health Res. Analyst
Marine Spill Response Corporation
1350 I Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Paul Richey
President
BTS
P.O. Box 3246
Sonora, CA 95370-3246
John Riley
Emergency Response Division
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, 5202G
Washington, DC 20460
Nancy Rios
Toxic./Biorem. Specialist
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Mail Code 3HW15
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Deborah Rubin
Engineering News Record
McGraw-Hill
1221 - 6th Avenue
New York, NY 10020
John Ryan
Vice President
RETEC
1011 S.W. Klickitat Way, Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
Diane L. Saber, Ph.D.
Principal Biorem. Scientist
Fluor Daniel
200 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Karen A. Sahatjian
Emergency Response Division
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, 5202G
Washington, DC 20460
B-J
-------
Philip G. Sayre, Ph.D.
Microbiologist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-796
Washington, DC 20460
Andrew R. Segal
Director
Business Development
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
35 Nagog Park
Acton, WA 01720
Steven Setzer
Correspondent
ENR McGraw-Hill
2571 Park Road
Smyrna, GA 30080
Janet Shoemaker
Director
Public Affairs
American Society for Microbiology
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20550
Subhas K. Sikdar, Ph.D.
Director
Water/Haz. Waste Treat. Res. Div.
Risk Reduction Eng. Lab.
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
John R. Smith, Ph.D.
Internal Consultant
Environmental Remediation Technology
Aluminum Company of America
Alcoa Technical Center, Building C
100 Technical Drive,
Alcoa Center, PA 15069-0001
James D. Snyder
Editor-in-Chief
Environment Today Magazine
1483 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
McLean, VA 22101
Jim Solyst
Program Director
National Governors' Association
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20001
Katie Stimmel
Reporter
Bureau of National Affairs
1231 - 25th Street, NW, Suite 370
Washington, DC 20037
Matthew A. Straus
Division Director
Waste Managment Division
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-320W
Washington, DC 20460
B-9
-------
Thomas E Sulpizio
Commercial Devel. Associate
W.R. Grace and Company
7379 Route 32
Columbia, MD 21044
Deborah Tremblay
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-420, WF
Washington, DC 20460
Steve Underwood
Supervisor
Geoscience Program
Coastal Restoration Division
Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 94396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396
Ron Unterman, Ph.D.
Vice President
Research and Development
Envirogen, Inc.
4100 Quakerbridge Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Hans Van der Pool
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, T-10
Washington, DC 20460
John E. Vidumsky
Senior Program Manager
Radian Corporation
2455 Horsepen Road
Herndon, VA 22071
Carolyn P. Watt
President
University Micro Reference Lab., Inc.
611 (P) Hammonds Ferry Road
Linthicum, MD 21090
Walter J. Weber, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic HSRC
University of Michigan
Environ. Engineering Bldg., Suite 181
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125
R. P. Whitfield
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Environ. Restoration, EM-40
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
John B. Wilkinson
Section Head
Site Characterization & Remediation
Environmental Safety/Civil & Marine Div.
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
180 Park Avenue, Building 101, Room E004
Florham Park, NJ 07932
B-10
-------
Oskar R. Zaborsky, p
President
Ozcom International,
P.O. Box 7604
McLean, VA 22106
Inc.
Larry Zeph, Ph.D.
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Subst.
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, TS-788
Washington, DC 20460
Thomas G. Zitrides
President & CEO
Bioscience, Inc./ABTA
1530 Valley Center Parkway
Bethlehem, PA 18017
Total Participants 101
B-ll
-------
APPENDIX C
BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARIES
-------
THIRD EPA/INDUSTRY MEETING: PARTNERSHIPS IN BIOREMEDIATION
Breakout Session A
Tuesday, June 29, 1993
1:00 p.m.
Breakout Session A convened with Martin Alexander taking the lead as facilitator. Ed Berkey
acted as cofacilitator by recording highlights. Other participants include
Bob Beckerich, Novo Nordisk Bioindustrials, Inc.
Kandi Brown, IT Corporation
Paul Chalmer, NCMS
Katherine Devine, DEVO Enterprises
Richard B. Glazer, Westchester Community College
Walter W. Kovalick, U.S. EPA
Jim Mueller, SBP Technologies, Inc.
Gregory Ondich, U.S. EPA
Michael Piotrowski, Biotransformations, Inc.
Steve Underwood, Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources
Thomas G. Zitrides, Bioscience, Inc./ABTA
A summary of the important points made under each of two discussion topics follows:
I. Opportunities
• Potential end-users of bioremediation technologies need encouragement and incentives.
People who might buy bioremediation services have worries about the level of EPA
support.
• The United States should maintain its lead in applied technologies and export to foreign
markets. There is a world market for existing bioremediation technologies, and EPA
should inform foreign countries of technologies that are accepted for use in the United
States. Assurance of agency backing would make an important difference to small
emerging companies. Cooperation between EPA and other agencies can help in the
foreign marketplace; e.g., there is funding in the FY 94 budget for "U.S. Technology
Innovation for Environmental Solutions" (USTIES), a joint effort with the Department of
Commerce to fund development of data and provision of information about appropriate
technologies without certifying technologies or picking firms.
C-l
-------
• In order to promote acceptance of the pollution prevention concept, the BAC and
industry groups such as the Environmental Business Council should mount an effort to
inform the world that bioremediation technologies are available to help developing
countries take the pollution prevention route instead of reinventing the pollution
generation wheel. Pollution prevention offers an opportunity for industry to develop
generic bioremediation technologies and for the industry in general to get involved, not
just polluters. Problems include lack of money, proprietary nature of specific processes,
etc.
• There is considerable resistance to replacing chemical degradation processes with
enzymatic processes, which can be useful in pulp bleaching, textiles, coatings,
bioplastics, etc., because of high capitalization costs and long lead times for having
replacement processes up and running. Any change in the future will likely be driven by
economic pressure toward pollution prevention.
• States need ways to clean up environments. Costs should go down in the next 5 years,
but no one knows what technologies will be available then. A dialogue on wants and
needs would be helpful. Questioning of results is common. There is a need for improved
public awareness of possibilities—EPA could help educate the public. Academia should
move away from the "R" of R & D to applications, and state governments should work
with the universities.
• Lack of U.S. infrastructure leaves an opening for foreign companies to fill our needs, for
example, a Dutch company provided a biofilter to achieve clean air in New Jersey
(second largest site in the world and working for a year and a half), and soil-washing
plants have been in operation in Germany for 3 years but not here. Incentives are
needed to spark innovative approaches in the engineering communities and among
curriculum writers. Solutions to training problems will require an interdisciplinary
approach.
• The lack of people trained to understand the complexities of emerging bioremediation
technologies creates a need for EPA to make a commitment to support development of
the work force. Even modest funding would be helpful. Some effective 2-year and 4-
year college programs are already attracting many students. Especially critical in
C-2
-------
bioremediation is the need for interdisciplinary expertise. Variations in the
characteristics of individual sites demand individuals trained in many disciplines
(biologists, chemists, agronomists, etc.) who are able to communicate among themselves
and with the public. EPA needs to retain good people on its own roles and to raise the
priority of funding for applied research, education, and training. Industry should play a
role in educating as well.
A policy statement and comments from EPA on bioremediation would help especially at
this time, both domestically and in terms of exporting technologies. People look to EPA
for reassurance that bioremediation is accepted and that its use is good for the
environment. With the Administrator behind it, with congressional support, and with the
industry poised for growth, the time seems right for EPA to make and stand behind a
carefully targeted policy statement. The BAC, as a result of this third joint
EPA/industry meeting, should take a more proactive role. The BAC should step forward
with a strong voice.
II. Barriers
Bioremediation is inadequately defined and poorly understood. Clear communication of
what does and does not work is lacking. Semantic problems exist, and accurate
information about successes needs to be disseminated. Some information handling
problems include:
lack of "conclusive" field data
- need for better monitoring skills
need for data validation methods
- need to keep up with assessment techniques and evaluation of new site requirements
lack of adequate consensus on performance standards.
Students receive a lack of appropriate training and experience. Curriculum changes may
be needed as well as introduction of internship type or industry-sponsored practical
programs where students not only get a good academic background but also an
introduction to real world, on-site experience and the language of the trade.
C-3
-------
• Lack of a certification program leaves the doors open to "snake-oil salesmen." The large
number of unregulated, fly-by-night operators gives the bioremediation industry a bad
name.
• Lack of site clean-up standards is a barrier. Uncertainties in funding and changing rules
do not help. The Europeans are ahead, e.g., the Dutch ABC standards.
• Bioremediation has a communications problem - a need to overcome misperceptions and
bad press. Because of site problems and chemical problems bioremediation is not the
appropriate technology in many instances, but it is still an appropriate choice for many
sites and chemicals. People in bioremediation should get the word out about
opportunities but should recognize the down sides and not oversell it. It is better to
indicate the limitations and hazards up front, e.g., toxic by-products and unknown
mechanisms. Remedial investigation protocols lack adequate data to make proper site
evaluations. Good site evaluations are needed so that the response can be appropriately
positive while acknowledging that there are circumstances where biological systems will
not work.
The BAG has brought educators and business people together under government sponsorship.
The field has moved markedly, and the focus has broadened since the first BAG meeting. BAG
activities have been reasonably successful but are open to improvement and modification.
Improvements in conveying information would help in many ways, such as keeping BAG members
informed of recent changes and developments and helping States take more initiative in using
BAG generated information to support actions and contingency plans. The BAG should continue
to serve as a forum for bringing industry, government and academia together.
C-4
-------
THIRD EPA/INDUSTRY MEETING: PARTNERSHIPS IN BIOREMEDIATION
Breakout Session B
Tuesday, June 29, 1993
1:00 p.m.
Breakout Session B was facilitated by Dr. Laura Meagher. Other participants are as follows:
Ronald M. Atlas, University of Louisville
Fred Bishop, U.S. EPA
John Christiansen, ERI
David Ellis, Du Pont
David Emery, Bioremediation Service, Inc.
David Giamporcaro, U.S. EPA
Frank M. Gregorio, Enviroflow, Inc.
Kris Gregorio
David P. Knorowski, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
Steve Lingle, U.S. EPA
Laura Meagher, Rutgers University
Dick Murray, In Situ Fixation, Inc.
Kirk O'Reilly, Chevron Research and Technology Co.
Tim Reilly, Marine Spill Response Corporation
Nancy Rios, U.S. EPA, Region 3
Ron Unterman, Envirogen, Inc.
John Wilkinson, Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
Larry Zeph, U.S. EPA
The following are the attendees comments based on the categories "Opportunities" and "Barriers."
I. Opportunities
The breakout session considered key opportunities for bioremediation over the next 5 years. From
their discussion, 25 key opportunities were identified. They are as follows:
• Cost savings, U.S. and international
• Demonstrated niche in different situations
• Prevention or mitigation of human health risks
• Pollution prevention, e.g., air emission control; all low-level, hydrocarbon soils
• Bioconversion and biotransformation in various sectors, e.g., pulp and paper, chemicals
• Biotreatment processes for Third World countries
• In situ remediation of various materials including chlorinated solvents
C-5
-------
• UST treatment (eliminate placing 1 billion cubic yards of soil in landfills)
• Storm water and nonpoint source runoff
• Metals, stabilization and fixation
• Remediation methods for metals, etc., based on plants
• Increased use in composting
• Treatment of pesticide formulation sites
• Bioemulsifiers (e.g., biosurfactants for a number of applications to enhance degradation)
• New designs for bioreactors, e.g., with aerobic, anaerobic products
• Basic and applied research (e.g., toxicity, uptake, transport, fate)
• Initiation of basic research programs for emerging global environmental problems
• Learning from other countries, e.g., Germany and biofiltration
• Development of protocols
• Develop criteria for use of natural recreation processes
• Definition of how clean is clean
• Integrated system of regulations, rules, and permits to facilitate the use of technology
• Increased consistency among states
• Development of appropriate flexible guidelines that evolve with experience
• Increased market and public acceptance of OEMs
The attendees then developed broader categories for the key 25 opportunities. They are
remediation applications, protocols, regulatory/public acceptance, and pollution prevention,
reducing current emissions and future products, "green products" (e.g., pesticide replacement).
In order for these opportunities to be realized in the next 5 years, the EPA, industry, academia,
and other bioremediation participants need to develop and assume certain positions within the
bioremediation process.
• In order to address most of theses opportunities, EPA, industry, States, public interest
groups and often universities will need to be included. Essentially, good partnerships
will involve the problem, the right problem-solver and regulators. To address the "How
clean is clean?" issue, e.g., with petroleum spills, EPA could take the lead in a
partnership with States, industry and environmental groups.
C-6
-------
• Generally, in bioremediation applications or matching technology development with
needs, roles played in a partnership could include
- ATTIC
Literature searches
States (their technical assistance programs might be a useful model for a national
level program)
- Industry identification of problems and searching for problem solvers on a bulletin
board
BAG could act as a referral service with a bulletin board or in some other way
Discussion sessions, possibly organized by BAG, could involve identification of
common problems in industry sectors and identification of problem solvers
• Partnerships could be formed to define opportunities in pollution prevention. A full-
fledged thrust could be developed, involving EPA, industry, academia and others to
identify the opportunities for biology-based pollution prevention, to communicate about
the potential, and to provide feedback from users. EPA could work on statutory
definitions of pollution prevention to allow biology to be included.
• It is important to promote laboratory- and field-based partnerships, with research taking
place on sites being cleaned. This could involve
Funding
Regulatory analysis
Use of Federal facilities
Development of case studies
Fostering cross-disciplinary approaches to integrate engineering, microbiology,
chemistry, and so on.
These partnerships are very important to the advancement of bioremediation technology.
However, they are not always easy to form.
C-7
-------
• To help catalyze these partnerships, a white paper, study, or assessment of existing and
potential partnership mechanisms and communication mechanisms would be helpful.
This could include information on
Grants, Federal Technology Transfer Agreement (FTTA)
- Common facilities (Texas, Michigan)
Federal lab partnerships
- Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
- State grants/programs.
• The BAG could take on the role of conducting this assessment and keeping it updated,
providing a clear guide to resources, funding, programs, and contacts useful in
furthering partnerships.
II. Barriers
Though there are quite a few opportunities to be developed, and potential partnerships to
facilitate bioremediation advancement, there are barriers to the use of bioremediation.
• To address risk aversion, testing at government sites could be facilitated with government
indemnification. Also, working with States that are flexible could help to build a track
record. These and other approaches could help to minimize a perception of risk
associated with trying out bioremediation. Frequently, there is an expectation of 100
percent performance bonds for in situ work; there need to be reality checks.
• Most barriers are not perceived or imagined. Some are self-imposed, such as regulatory
barriers. Some regulatory barriers include inconsistency, unintended consequences of
regulations, and inhibition of laboratory studies and research.
• Some biological problems include issues associated with bioavailability, bioinhibition,
biocatalysis, microbial consortia, genetically modified organisms, and anaerobic/aerobic
sequencing in situ.
C-8
-------
• Engineering barriers can be very difficult to overcome. The best implementation of
different approaches can be very difficult to decipher. Some situations need work and
standardization, e.g., in situ aquifers, composting systems. Networking and
interrelationships among all the issues is critical. Heavy hydrocarbons need test sites.
Additional Federal sites are needed where the vendor does not need to assume liability.
Though these barriers can be difficult to overcome, mechanisms to address these barriers is
needed.
• EPA could take leadership, by means of the Policy Executive Research Forum (PERF),
and form multiple industry consortia based upon common problems, where there is joint
funding to get work done. For instance, this could be done for an industry subsector,
such as exploration of carbon bisulfide treatment by a rayon industry consortium.
• There needs to be a focus on barriers to cleanup petroleum-contaminated soils by EPA,
State agencies, and industry.
• There could be help with the financial burden and liability to implement and test
developmental stage products.
• Regulatory financial and insurance frameworks make it difficult for small companies in
this field.
• There is a need for adequate research dollars.
To summarize the breakout sessions discussion, the group quickly went through what is needed for
the advancement of bioremediation technology. They are
• Exploring funding sources
• Developing a guide to funding sources
• Avoiding of duplication
• Catalyzing partnerships—the Environmental Technology Initiative should provide an
opportunity
C-9
-------
Providing feedback about problems between industry and universities and funding
agencies, e.g., petroleum-contaminated soils
Considering work in other countries
Training students.
C-10
-------
THIRD EPA/INDUSTRY MEETING
Breakout Session C
Tuesday, June 29, 1993
1:00 p.m.
Facilitator: Jim Solyst, National Governors' Association
Session Attendees:
Russell Chianelli, Exxon Corporate Research
Steve Guth, Vanguard Research, Inc.
Paul Hadley, California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Douglas E. Jerger, OHM Remediation Services Corporation
A. Keith Kaufman, Resna Industries/ABTA
Ryan Messier, Vanguard Research, Inc.
J. Peter Perez, ERI
Paul Richey, BTS
Diane L. Saber, Fluor Daniel
Walter J. Weber, Jr., University of Michigan
Oskar R. Zaborsky, Ozcom International, Inc.
Group C chose to make their comments under the broad categories of opportunities, roles, barriers
and tackling barriers.
I. Opportunities
• Partnerships should be formed between industry, and Federal and State governments to
encourage bioremediation to be coupled with other technologies. There is need for
engineering and biology technologists to work together.
• EPA should involve industry in Research Technology Center activities. EPA would
benefit from industry data collected in carefully controlled studies.
• Federal government should initiate action at the State level which would involve key
parties, i.e., rely on State components for partnership alliances.
C-ll
-------
II. BAC/EPA Roles
• EPA should play a catalytic role in coordinating Federal guidelines by using all the
resources in the District of Columbia to drive national policy.
• Priorities should be established at the Federal level in relationship to legislation.
Currently, much time is spent on litigation because of the Pollution Prevention Act.
Companies that develop litigation materials for pollution prevention are not financially
motivated to work on bioremediation.
• The BAG would be more effective as a coordinating committee. There is a definite need
for information dissemination. The biomedical field has the National Library of
Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that contains national and
international data. The BAG could establish a parallel operation for bioremediation and
other technologies through a national information network. It could be used as a means
of communication within the user community as well as a way to access information.
III. Barriers
• There is a lack of involvement of all key parties, i.e., industry, government, and
academia in research and field studies. Without solid data, design and construction of
innovative technologies is hindered. Also, cost estimates become difficult with regard to
site cleanup. Industry needs to derive cost estimates from physical modeling. The in situ
system could close the loop on deterministic models, however, there is not enough
research or field data to support a hypothesis.
• Lack of data, in addition to hindering technology development and pricing, also inhibits
the ability to properly assess a site in order to apply the correct technology. Typically a
client demands nationally approved technology be re-proved from site to site. If a
generic framework were established based on solid data, unnecessary costs would not
have to be incurred to re-prove the technology. It is in the interest of the key parties to
ensure that a bioremediation contractor can successfully operate the technology on site.
C-12
-------
• A faster track needs to be developed to perform analytical and characterization
assessments of a site. Currently too much time, effort, and money is spent on this phase.
IV. Tackling Barriers
• EPA can provide leadership, but there needs to be State and local presence along with
industry associations participation to provide the impetus. EPA must be committed to
the success of this endeavor. Regulatory parameters and the perceptions of those
regulations play a key role in EPA and industry partnerships in bioremediation. A few
years ago, EPA was working on a initiative to define "how clean is clean." They should
go forward with it for obvious reasons.
• Another useful partnership task would be to define centers in the United States that
perform site testing, and provide bioremediation contractors with a certification of
competency.
C-13
-------
Third
EPA/Industry Meeting:
Partnerships in Bioremediation
Sponsored by the Bioremediation Action Committee
June 28-29, 1993
Hyatt Regency Crystal City •Arlington, VA
Monday. June 28. 1993
9:00 a.m. Registration
9:30 a.m. Welcome
9:45 a.m. Industry Panel on Bioremediation1
11:15 a.m. State Panel on Bioremediation
12:15 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
1:30 p.m. Scientific Panel on Bioremediation
2:30 p.m. Public Interest Panel on Bioremediation
3:30 p.m. Break
4:00 p.m. Federal Panel on Bioremediation
5:00 p.m. Adjourn
5:15 pjn. Social Hour (Cash Bar)
Tuesday. June 29.1993
8:30 a.m. Highlights of BAG Subcommittee Activities
9:30 a.m. Break
10:00 a.m. Address by Administrator Carol Browner
11:00 a.m. EPA Panel on Regulations
12:00 a.m. Lunch (on your own)
1:00 p.m. Simultaneous Breakout Sessions to Identify
Future Needs and Partnership Opportunities2
3:00 p.m. Summarization of Breakout Session Conclusions
3:30 pjn. Closing Remarks - Adjourn
Washington Room Foyer
Washington A/B
Chesapeake Grill-Rooftop
Washington A/B
Group A - Washington A
Group B - Washington B
Group C - Kennedy Room,
3rd floor
1 During each panel session, there will be an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and share comments.
1 All pre-registered participants have been divided into small groups for breakout sessions. Room assignments can be
found in the meeting folder. If your name is not included, please report to the registration desk.
•irU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 - 550-001/80310
------- |