BIOTECHNOLOGIES AT SOIL & GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION

Transcription

1 BIOTECHNOLOGIES AT SOIL & GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION Lenka Wimmerova OECD Workshop, Rimini, September

2 Presentation outlines Introduction SME company R&D driving factors Current state-of-art of remedial biotechnology Key factors for successful bioremediation Impediments / barriers LCA in remediation Figures, case study Conclusions 2

3 Introduction DEKONTA, Czech Republic Established in 1992 Solely as a bioremediation company Presently extensive technological background (physical, chemical, thermal) Over 120 employees Czech and Eastern European leader in biotechnological remediation of contaminated sites Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Vietnam 3

4 Research activities R&D unit Established in 2000 As a support for company innovation in bioremediation Ca 25 research projects majority national (Czech Ministries), 10% international (EU) Various technical fields staff (working on a commercial base) Cooperation with universities, research institutions (Czech + European) 4

5 R&D driving factors Company competitiveness Customer's requirements Market demands Business type company strategy development Funding / co-funding resources Universities / research institutions requests 5

6 Bioremediation state-of-art Natural attenuation / enhanced biodegradation Bacteria (autochthonous, allochthonous, GMO) Yeast, fungi, plants Enzymes and other commercial preparations Conditions (aerobic, anaerobic) Additives (common, innovative) Nutrients, oxygen, HS, by-products Application forms (in situ / on site / ex situ) 6

7 Bioremediation principle Ability of a special genus to exploit pollutants as C + energy sources Organic pollutants decomposed to water and carbon dioxide Acceleration of the process possible and technically feasible 7

8 Biological factor Bacteria mostly aerobic Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Alcaligenes, Rhodoccoccus, Achromobacter, Arthrobacter, Nocardia, Bacillus sp. Dehalococcoides sp. (anaerobic, bioaugmentation costly and problematic) Yeasts, moulds Candida, Rhodotorulla, Trichoderma, Aspergillus sp. White rot fungi (basidiomycetes) Plants (phytoremediation) 8

9 Bioremediation in situ A. Contamination plume B. GW depression C. Contaminant pumping D. Biopreparation infiltration E. Venting boreholes F. Air sparging G. Application of the biotechnology H. Biofermentor I biopreparation production I. Biofermentor II pumped GW treatment J. Filtration venting units 9

10 Bioremediation ex situ / on site 10

11 Removal efficiency [%] Biodegradation rate [mg.l -1.day -1 ] Key factors for successful bioremediation Effectiveness for contaminant of concern Feasibility (tailor made approach, site specific) Applicability (technical considerations, knowledge transfer) Monitoring / assessment (COD/TOC, biomarkers ) Organic load [mg.l -1.day -1 ] 0 11

12 Barriers to overcome Environmental legislation Conflict waste law versus demands for on site remediation EIA process time consuming, costly, not fully applicable State authorities Disbelief, low interest in innovation Lack of knowledge law, technical news Unrealistic expectations Realistic / achievable target limits 12

13 LCA in remediation Rarely used rather research purposes No legislation support (RA, EIA have it!) Low expertise Costly Time consuming Used RA, EIA, a GIS tool (costs) LCA useful tool for a remediation sector But not fully applicable Proper definitions Sustainable measures, multi-criteria clarification 13

14 UK Environment Agency publications 14

15 Figures / case study DEKONTA 18 years in remediation Performed ca 1,800 remedial projects Treated soil ca 3.6 M t, water ca 2.1 M m 3 Ca 50% bioremediation (900 projects) 10% bioremediation in situ, 89% ex situ, 1% on site Only 2 projects performed on site in the Czech Republic case study TRIANGLE ŽATEC and ŠKODA PLZEŇ On site abroad SFOR (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Slovnaft (Slovakia), IFA (Serbia, Macedonia), UNDP (Albania), WB (Azerbaijan), local administrations (Romania, Turkey) Mainly based on customer requirements, not law requirements, rather knowledge transfer, partly on our decision 15

16 Conclusions Biotechnologies already successfully established in a remediation field But mostly applied ex situ (90%) Need to increase on site / in situ applications Lack of environmental legislation (waste, EIA, LCA) Awareness knowledge of state authorities LCA useful but not fully applicable properly defined Open discussions technological platforms, Sustainable Water Resources 16

17 Thank you for your attention! DEKONTA, a.s. Czech Republic 17