NCD980602163_19820501_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Biotechnology in Hazardous Waste Management - Major Issues-OCR

.... ... -.•... , ...
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT:
' .
MAJOR ISSUES
S. w. Pirages
Senior Analyst
L. M. Curran
OTA Fellow
J. S. Hirschhorn
Project Director
u. S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment
Washington, D. C.
May 1982
' , /
The views expressed in this paper are those
1
of the authors and
not necessarily representative of the Office of Technology Assessment.
A recent report by the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
· (OTA) reviews the impact that applied genetics may have on a variety of
industries. The report findings suggest that new applications of genetic-
engineering techniques will have significant potential for addressing numerous
societal needs.(!)
ind us trial activities.
This potential has stimulated a broad spectrum of
Cash value for investment in new corporations has
increased from $92 million in all of 1979 to $339 million in the first quarter
of 1981. During this same period, value for industrial research and
development in biotechnology increased by $400 million to $600 million.(2)
Focusing on the specific area of pollution control, an ongoing study by
OTA includes review of the application of biotechnology to hazardous waste
management.(3) Biotechnology is defined as the directed use of biological
processes for industrial purposes. Because this assessment is not yet
complete, final conclusions about potential use of biotechnology in this area
are not discussed here. Rather, this paper reviews examples of directed
biodegradation of hazardous waste compounds and presents major issues that
require the attention of both the private and public sectors. Discussion of
these issues, ranging from problems of waste mixtures to barriers for
innovative application of biotechnology, could contribute to a determination
of whether substantial application of applied genetics to hazardous waste
management is desirable and indeed possible. It appears at this stage that
biotechnology is not a panacea for hazardous waste management, but it does
show some promise for specific waste application.
EXAMPLES OF DIRECTED .BIODEGRADATION
Microorganisms have been used for many decades to treat water, sewage,
and nonhazardous · waste. Wastewater treatment systems have relied upon
-1-
naturally-occuring organisms to remove suspended solids and undesirable
chemicals. Table 1 illustrates the industry waste streams to which biological
treatment has been applied. In most of these systems the intent has been
simple removal, rather than complete destruction, of harmful compounds from
the water. The material accumulates in sludge, wftich then must be disposed.
Often the sludge is deposited on land, relying upon soil organisms to complete
final degradation of the material. Sanitary landfills, used for disposal of
nonhazardous wastes, also rely on natural degradation of discarded materials.
In the past, industry has made limited use -, of manipulated biological
materials that are capable . of both treating wastes1 and concurrently reducing
the amount of sludge for ultimate disposal. New developments in genetics have
facilitated production of biological material specific to detoxification of
waste, and recently the industrial use of such maderial has expanded. These
developments include use of recombinant DNA, . development of new strains of
microorganisms through mutation and selection, tr~nsfer of plasmids between
organisms, and extraction of substrate-specific enzymes from selected cell
lines. Sales of packaged microorganisms to municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plants have increased and are expected to continue.(5)
Because of a lack of controlled experiments, ther~ is controversy about the
v~lue of adding "engineered" organisms to these systems. While it appears to
increase efficiency in small systems, with short detention times, effects on
larger facilities or longer detention times ha!s not been investigated
thoroughly.
Regulations promulgated under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) identify specific industrial waste streams and individual compounds
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as
-2-
hazardous.(6) Using a variety of genetic techniques, biodegradation of these
hazardous chemicals may be enhanced. A recent review by Chatterjee et al.
indicates that genetic approaches facilitate biological degrada~ion of
chlorinated aromatic compounds.(7) Enhanced biodegradation of pesticides has
been demonstrated in, for example, degradation of DDT(8) and 2,4-D(9) with
selected natural strains, parathion using acclimated bacteria(9), and 2,4,5-T
by plasmid-assisted molecular breeding.(11) Toluene and xylene also have been
biologically detoxified. (12) A review by Kobayaski and Rittman identifies a
diverse range of hazardous compounds that have been degraded using a variety
of selectively cultured microorganisms.(13)
Organisms developed using biotechnology have proved useful in remedial
activities related to hazardous chemical spills. The abilitf of mutant
bacteria to reduce environmental contamination following a 20,000 gallon spill
of orthochlorophenol and a 7000 gallon spill of acrylonitrile has been
demonstrated.(14,15) The long-term impact of applying manipulated organisms
to natural soil systems, however, has not been investigated thoroughly.
As indicated in Table 2, not all compounds can be treated with equal ease
and success. Different microorganisms and different methods of application
(i.e., anaerobic or aerobic. degradation) will be required to apply
biotechnology to hazardous waste. However, with careful selection of
organisms, application of genetic techniques and increased attention to
acclimation and residence times, it may be possible to increase the use of
biotechnology as a viable commercial tool in the management of some industrial
hazardous waste streams.
-3-
MAJOR ISSUES
Although·the prospects for applying genetic -techniques to hazardous waste
management appear promising, there are some major issues that must be
addressed. These include
• suitability of industrial hazardous waste streams for biodegradation,
• need for guidelines/criteria for appropriate use of biotechnology,
• potential for adverse health and environmental impacts,
• incentives/disincentives for commercial development of biotechnology,
and
• research and development issues
The problems identified in each of these areas ~nnot be resolved readily.
Becaus~ the need exists for long-term consideration of these issues, it is
important for scientists, government officials and industrial leaders to begin
both formal and informal discussions.
Suitability of waste streams
As indicated previously, examples of successful biodegradation of
specific chemicals can be found in the literature. However, in most instances
three factors existed that make such examples unrepresentative of actual
industrial conditions. Attempts to scale-up the technology for treatment
facility applications may be difficult.
1. The test situations use bench-scale technolbgy. Very few experiments
reported to date have tested the efficiency of degradation in systems that are
typical for waste treatment facilities. In many ca~es, residence time in the
experimental situation has been on the order of months and in remedial
situations years. Limited field verification of laboratory results sugges·t
-4-
that for some chemicals degradation rates in the field can be much slower than
· laboratory rates. (16) The increased time periods · required for necessary
degradation levels could impose severe economic constraints on facility
owners/operators. Typical scale-up factors of biotechnology applications are
smaller than that required for hazardous waste treatments. Thus, large-scale
application of biotechnological systems, even using specially developed
microorganisms, may not be cost-effective for hazardous waste disposal.
2. The test compounds are present in relative pure form. When
developing new strains of biological material for. degrading hazardous waste
constituents, tests generally are conducted generally on pure compounds. The
actual application of biotechnology in hazardous waste management, however,
would be on waste streams that contain more than one chemical. Because of
the diversity of waste streams received by a disposal facility and the current
state of the art for biotechnology, it may be difficult to develop a community
of organisms that would effectively treat waste mixtures. Examples of
directed biodegradation suggest that individual compounds can be treated with
relatively few problems, but continuous and reliable treatment of mixed
compounds has yet to be demonstrated. While waste streams from one source may
be consistent in general composition, unpredictable fluctuations in levels of
individual constituents could occur over time, thus resulting in either
incomplete degradation or disruption to the community of microorganisms.
This problem is even more severe at an off-site disposal facility, which
receives heterogeneous waste streams from several clients. At the point of
generation, waste streams are relatively "clean" and thus degradative activity
could be achieved with minimal adjustment of nutrients and treatment, ~nd at
relatively low cost. At the off-site facility, however, wastes are received
-5-
from many sources and often are very different in composition and levels of
concentrations. In an ideal world the off-site fa~ility might separate these
diverse streams providing biotreatment containe~s for each. Real world
economics might dictate that such separations are too costly, thereby
precluding application of biotechnology at commercial treatment facilities.
3. Test conditions usually do not resemb~e those that would exist
during actual application of biotechnology in waste treatment. When developing
a new technique, tests are conducted under optimal conditions, thus increasing
the likelihood of success. However, industri~l application may reduce
opportunities for maintaining these optimal conditions. For example, scaling
up from the laboratory to a facility may reduc~ the ability to optimize
temperatures or maintain even distribution of suli>strate and microorganisms
within the containers. In a large facility there llli$Y be an additional problem
of increased spontaneous mutations by "engineered" organisms that could impact
the degradative effectiveness of a microbial cODUllU1lity. If a facility is to
comply efficiently with established performance1 standards, it will be
necessary to develop a system that can reliably maintain optimal conditions
and stable communities without constant and potenti~lly costly adjustments.
It is important to emphasis that, unlike wastewater treatment systems,
the goal in biological treatment of solid waste (as defined by EPA)· would be
to degrade or detoxify hazardous constituents. Wastewater treatment aims to
produce potable water, and hazardous residues remaj.n in sludge that must be
treated or disposed in an environmentally acceptable manner. While this
separation function is useful in hazardous waste1 treatment, it does not
resolve problems of ultimate disposal.
-6-
Guidelines/criteria
· Responding to concern over the emergence of genetic-engineering
techniques, specifically recombinant DNA (rDNA), the National Institute of
Health (NIH) has developed guidelines for c~nducting research. (See
references 1 and 17 for a discussion of these guidelines). These guidelines
address only research activities using rDNA and not any other manipulative
technique. Proposed research is classified as either prohibited, exempt or
contained. Most projects are reviewed by an advisory committee, and those not
prohibited or exempt are governed by certain rules related to levels of
potential hazard posed by the work. Compliance with the guidelines, however,
is voluntary. Recently, the original guidelines have been substantially
liberalized as most experts agree that potential risks are minimal.(17)
Current: regulations under RCRA do not provide detailed standards for
those facilities or activities that incorporate biotechnology in hazardous
waste management. (18) Basically, operators are required to meet effluent
guidelines as established under other environmental acts (e.g., Clean Air or
Clean Water). These standards do not cover the scope of potential pollutants
that could be produced and discharged from biological treatment facilities or
during remedial activities using selected microorganisms. Most applications
of biotechnology probably would occur in contained systems, and the potential
for release of pollutants or biological material could be reduced by careful
monitoring of hazardous waste management practices. In those instances when
organisms are applied directly to soil or in water (e.g. during remedial or
landfarming activities), however, release of potentially disruptive material
to the environment is very likely. At P?='esent, no existing or proposed
regulatory directives address issues of containment or control levels for use
-7-
of biotechnology. (See the following section for a more _ thorough discussion
of this point. )
As biotechnologies advance and applications increase, particularly in
response to emergency and remedial action at hazardous material spills or
leaking landfills, public awareness of these new technologies will increase.
At that time, there may be demands for strict control and regulation of
activities to minimize potential for damage to human health or the
environment. Because the public can react adversely and strongly to the idea
that "new kinds" of microorganisms are being used for hazardous materials
management, establishment of specific criteria or mechanisms for monitoring
proper use of applied biological techniques ma~ be a prudent course of
action. Given the current citizen concern for environmental protection, a
favorable public image for emerging biotechnology !industries may be enhanced
by initiating voluntarily the development of operating guidelines and criteria
(e.g. guidelines/criteria for appropriate monitoring of a site after
application of microbial communities to detect changes in the natural
ecosystem or formation of hazardous metabolites).
Potential for adverse impacts
In applying biotechnology to either disposal o~ remedial activities, the
possibility exists for adverse health and environmental effects through the
release of "engineered organisms" or hazardous degradative products into the
environment. This is more likely to occur when the technology is used in
remedial activity at a hazardous material spill, old surface impoundments
(e.g., lagoons or ponds), a problem waste site, or during disposal activities
that involve nonsecure facilities (e.g., landfills or landfarms). Concern has
been expressed about the release of novel genetic material into the
-8-
environment during these types of activities. While this concern may be
exaggerated, a review of the literature and conversations with industry
personnel suggest that, to date, little work has been done to evaluate the
effect new biological materials may have on soil ecosystems.
A recent paper by Sharples discusses the potential for environmental
release of novel genotypes.(19) Introduction of new strains or entirely new
species has occurred in the past. This has happened through inadvertent
releases resulting from attempts to control pest species or to enhance species
diversity within specific ecosystems (e.g., development of DDT resistent
insects and introduction of the Chestnut blight with plants brought into the
United States fran Asia). Although laboratory-bred organisms may not be
expected to survive in a natural setting, it is possible for spontaneous
mutations to occur that might enhance survivability of these organisms. Also,
an additional consideration is the transfer of genetic information to an
already established organisms.
Indigenous ecosystems are more susceptable to invasion of new organisms
during conditions of stress. While distruption of ecosystems may not occur in
every instance, ecologists would agree that the effect of introducing new
biological material is not always predicable. As emphasized by Sharples(19)
"Two things must, however, be .kept in mind. The more disturbed,
artificial or simplified an enviroment is the less likely it is that
a new balance can be struck in a reasonable time. Second, even if an
exotic becomes integrated and is no longer explosive, the system it
entered has been modified and is different and perhaps simpler. The
desirability of creating such new systems will in many cases remain a
matter of debate."
The conditions surrounding spills of hazardous chemicals or treatment of
chemicals at nonsecure sites can produce stress for natural ecosystems and
-9-
likely may create disturbed and artificial enviro~ents. Thus, introduction
of biological material could impact -the normal eco.system balance in an adverse
. manner by reducing populations of . natural microorganisms responsible for
nutrient recycling within soil.
People tend to be concerned about the disappe~rance of visible organisms,
i.e., trees, fish and mammals. They forget tne many large and diverse
ecosystems, which may be less visible but are equally necessary for continued
viability of all · biota. Soil ecosystems, for example, provide a major
function for recycling necessary nutrients upon which the more visible plants
and animals depend. Therefore, it seems only prudent that we understand, as
fully as possible, potential environmental impacts that may result from use of
biotechnology.
Adverse effects also could result through inadvertent release of toxic or -
hazardous compounds as a result of biological i~teractions. Examples of
natural microorganisms producing more toxic bypr'oducts are well known in
agricultural settings.(i6,20) The conversions of phenoxy herbicides in soil
can yield phytotoxic intermediates that may pers:Lst for some time. Soil
transformations of pentachlorobenzyl alcohol (a fungicide used on rice)
produce tri-and tetrachlorinated benzoic acids, which can suppress plant
growth. These metabolites of persistent compounds ,can have long half-lives;
thus, a persistent parent can be transformed to an equally long-lived
compound. Such transformations also can occur using artificially selected
microorganisms.
Before applying biotechnology to industrial waste streams, particularly
those with mixtures of constituents, it will be necessary -to understand
thoroughly the mechanisms at work and to be aware of the potential fo·r
-10-
developing materials that may be even more hazardous than parent compounds.
The extent to which toxic byproducts are formed may depend on such operating
factors as anaerobic or aerobic conditions and rate of reactions. In any
given treatment situation, the compounds of concern may be reduced in
accordance with· particular performance standards; however, equally hazardous
compounds couid be produced for which toxicity data or concentration standards
may not be available.(21) This situation could create particular problems for
wastewater treatment systems. Standards specified for a National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit currently cover only a limited
number of chemicals. Thus, a facility in compliance with NPDES still could
discharge very hazardous compounds to municipal water-treatment systems or to
surface waters.
Incentives/disincentives for development
There are two major types of barriers to commercial development of
genetic techniques for use as alternative options in hazardous waste
management: educational impediments and economic disincentives. The first
originates from professional differences between those trained to design waste
treatment systems and those experienced with microbial degradation of
chemicals. Traditionally, engineers have been called upon to design cost-
effective. operations. Even now, engineering curricula do not require courses
in biology and, more specifically, microbiology. Thus, most engineers lack
knowledge of and familiarity with the capability of biological treatments.
Similarly, microbiologists previously have not ventured into the engineering
world. Scale-up of biotechnology from laboratory to commercial facilities is
hampered by thi& communication gap.
-11-
With the · ever growing problems of environmental pollution and attendant
potential health impacts,. th~se two disciplines may find common interests.
Recognizing that the interests exist, however, does not automatically reduce
the educational barrier. Mechanisms may be n~eded that encourage both
prospective engineers and microbiologists to learn and understand the basj.c
principles of the other discipline. For example, it may be necessary to
expand curricula options for both engineers and microbiologists as a means to
formally educate them in concepts of both fields and to improve working
relationships. Although interest in industrial development of biotechnology
exists, there still is a growing need for qualified personnel, and special
training courses may be needed to meet the immediate shortages.(22)
,'f< A major economic barrier to development of biotechnology results from the I
emphasis placed by EPA on landfilling, a more tJtaditional method of waste
disposal~ Because of apparently lax regulation,, particularly those for
monitoring, landfilling is considered to be the least expensive technology
available today. It is important to note, however, that most cost comparisons
between land disposal and other technologies (inclu~ing biotechnology) do not
reflect the additional expenses of long-term ~onitoring and liability
insurance. If RCRA regulations were to reflect thel true risk to human health
an~ the environment posed by land disposal, extensive and long-term monitoring
of all environmental media would be required. Compliance with more stringent
regulations could force internalization of the true cost of land disposal.
Thus, biological treatment used as a detoxification technology might become
more competitive with land disposal. As long as landfill costs remain
artificially low, however, it might be difficult for .bio-industries to compete -------in the hazardous waste market.
Another economic disincentive to development tjesides in the very nature
-12-
of biological systems. If biological treatment systems are to operate
optimally, there are many factors that must be controlled carefully.
Specified levels of nutrients, pH, temperature, and substrates must be
maintained and monitored. Because population sizes and composition of
biological organisms can change over time in response . to relatively minor
fluctuations in operating conditions, it may not be -economically feasible for
a disposal facility to rely heavily on biotechnology. Until there is a better
understanding of the mechanisms at work, substantial application of
biotechnology may be "hit or miss". Most commercial operations, either those
producing supplies of microorganisms or those using them, may be unable to
conduct business in such uncertain circumstances. Thus, use of this
technology may be limited to degradation of specific wastes or waste
cons~ituents rather than a broader application in hazardous waste management
systems.
Research and development issues
Many of the issues discussed in this paper will require further research,
much of it basic rather than applied. The federal government has supported a
diverse range of biotechnology research including halogenated pollutant
degradation, aliphatic biodegradation, microbial resistance to mercury, fate
and degradation of toxic compounds, · microbial fate processes in soil and
aquifers, landfarming of toxic organics, and novel biotechnological
processes. Research conducted by the private sector often focuses on more
applied work with short-term goals that are directed at specific industry
problems, (i .e, developing a particular community of organisms that will
degrade or respond to a specific waste problem).
-13-
Given the current economic climate, governmeJit-supported basic research
may not continue. Such projects require large expenditures of time and money;
if government support is reduced, op.portunities fozr resolving the • above issues
may be lost. Because of the economic disincentives just discussed, industrial
research may become focused upon •identifying. 1appropriate organisms for
degrading a specific chemical (an applied research effort) rather than
determining the fate of both microorganisms and metabolites when applied in
natural environments. Without a complete understanding of the potentially
adverse impacts of using biotechnology (a basic research topic), protection of
human health and the environment (e.g., during use of biotechnology for clean-
up of spills or abandoned land disposal sites) cannot be assured. The
increased research burdens that may be placed on private sectors could
I . adversely impact timely development of biotechnology for pollution control.
As these research problems increase, greater ties between industry and
universities may result. ·Because shortages of qualified personnel have
developed, researchers in universities and foundations are joining newly
formed industries.(23) This situation can creaFe problems for industry,
governments and universities. First, university land foundation scientists
generally have concentrated their research efforts on. more basic research
projects. Because of the absence of proprietary eoncerns, there has been a
willingness to share results, ideas, specimens, and! even equipment with their
colleagues. As these researchers become focused on -1more applied problems that
might include industrial proprietary concerns, a conflict could arise between
traditional freedom for scientific exchange and exclusive rights of
corporations.
Second, government agencies often have re~ied upon the scientific
-14-
community to provide advice about: new · research directions. Generally,
advisory boards have been formulated with careful attention given to a
balanced perspective between basic and applied research interests and between
industrial and nonindustrial concerns. If the nonindustrial and basic
research pool of scientists is reduced through increased university-corporate
ties, government research programs could become more narrowly focused · and
reduce our collective ability to take neutral and long-range views about the
type of research being supported.
These problems are not unique to research associated with biotechnology,
but have broader implications for all research with common university and
industry interests. A conference was held recently focusing on discussions
and debates of these issues.{24) Topics discussed .included problems that may
arise regarding secrecy and proprietary information, issues of exclusive
rights for industry-supported research, and the potential conflict that may
develop in universities between professional association with commercial firms
and university obligations.
initiate development of
The participants at this conference attempted to
national guidelines for university-industry
collaboration similar to NIH guidelines for research on rDNA. The issues have
not been resolved and continuing dialogue will be necessary. The outcome
could have major impacts on commercial development of biotechnology in
hazardous waste management.
SUMMARY
Review of the literature indicates that there are many examples of the
successful enhancement of biodegradation of hazardous chemicals using genetic
techniques. · Increased use of microbial degradation has been. documented in
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment · systems. There is a di vers·e
-15-
range of organisms that can be developed for degrading a variety of hazardous
chemicals. Although the potential exists for ·reducing levels of environmental
pollution through detoxification and degradation of hazardous compounds and
industrial waste streams, several issues must be addressed by both public and
private sectors. Thes.e include consideration of 1) suitability of industrial
hazardous waste streams to biodegradation, 2) a need for guidelines/criteria
for appropriate use of biotechnology, 3) the potential for adverse health and
environmental impacts when biotechnology is used :i!n noncontained situations,
4) incentives/disincentives for commercial development, and 5) research and
development issues. If a working consensus can be achieved on these issues,
it will be to the advantage of both supporters and skeptics of the use of
biotechnology in hazardous waste management.
-16-
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. ( 1981) IMPACTS
OF APPLIED GENETICS. U.S. Government ·Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2. U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Human Resource
Program. Project for a Comparative Assess~ent of the Commercial Development
of Biotechnology. Washington, D.C. 20510.
3. U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Materials
Program. Assessment of Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste. Washington,
D.C. 20510.
4. D.J.
ORGANIC WASTES.
De Renzo. (1980) BIODEGRADATION TECHNIQUES FOR INDUSTRIAL
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, N.J.
5. Engineer News Record. (1981)
206: 28-29.
Superbugs soothe sewage systems.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations 40,
part 261.3 and Appendix VIII.
7. D.K. Chatterjee, s. T. Kellogg, IC. Furukawa, J .J. Kilbane, and A.M.
Cl\akrabarty. (1981) Gen~tic Approaches to the problems of toxic chemical
pollution. In MACROMOLECULES: RECOMBINANT DNA, 3rd Cleveland Symposium
Proc. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.
8. R. V. Subba-Rao, M. Alexander. ( 1977) Cometabolism of products of
1,1,1-tri-chloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT) by Pseudomonas putida.
J. AGRIC. FOOD CHEM. 25: 855-858. J.P.E. Anderson, E.P. Lichtenstein.
(1971) Effect of nutritional factors on DDT degradation by Mucor alternans.
CAN. J. MICROBIOL. 17(10):1291-8.
9. G.E. Pierce, T.J. Facklam, J.M. Rice. (1981) Isolation and
characterization of plasmids from environmental strains of bacteria capable of
degrading the herbicide, 2,4-D. DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL MICROBIOLOGY 22:
401-408.
10. R.W. Barles, C.G. Daughton, D.P.H. Hsieh. (1979) Accelerated
parathion degradation in soil inoculated with acclimated bacteria under field
conditions. ARCH ENVIRONM CONTAM. TOXICOL. 8: 647-660.
11. S.T. Kellogg, D.K. Chatterjee, A.M. Chakrabarty. (1981) Plasimid-
assisted molecular breeding: New technique for enhanced biodegradation of
persistent toxic chemicals. SCIENCE 214(4): 1133-1135.
12. J.A. Shapiro, A. Charbit, S. Benson, M. Caruso, R. Laux, R. Meyer,
F. Banuett. (1981) Perspectives_ for genetic engineering of hydrocarbon
oxidizing bacteria. In TRENDS IN THE BIOLOGY OF FERMENTATIONS FOR FUELS AND
CHEMICALS, ed. A. Hollaender. Plenum Press, N.Y.: 243-272.
13. H. Kobayaski, B.E. Rittman. (1982) Microbial removal of hazardous
organic compounds. ENVIRONM SCIENCE & TECHN. 16(3): 170A-184A.
-17-
14. G.T. Thibault, N.W. Elliott. (1980) Biological detoxification of
hazardous organic chemical spills. In CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS,
Conf. Proc. Vanderbilt University, Nashville~ TN: 398-402.
15. G.C. Walton; D. Dobbs. (1980) Biodegradation of hazardous materials
in spill situations. In CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS MAtrERIAL SPILLS, Conf. Proc.
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN: 23-25.
16. M. Alexander. (1980) Biodegradation of toxic chemicals in water and
soil. In DYNAMICS EXPOSURE AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF TOXIC CHEMICALS, ed. R.
Hague. Ann Arbor Science Public. Inc., Ann Arbor, ~I: 179-190.
17. G.M. Karny. ( 1982) Biotechnology: Regulatory and legislative
environment. Presented at Energy Bureau Conf.,. Biotechnology Industries,
Washington, D.C., April 13-14.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations
40, Part 264.
19. F.E. Sharples. (1982) Spread of organisms with novel genotypes:
Thoughts from an ecological perspective. Oak Ridge 1National Laboratories, Oak
Ridge, TN. (in press).
20. M. Alexander. (1981) Biodegradation of chemicals of environmental
concern. SCIENCE 211: 132~138.
21. E.M. Davis, H.E. Murray, J.G. Liehr, and E.L. Powers. (1981) Basic
microbial degradation rates and chemical byproducts of selected organic
com.pounds. WATER RESEARCH 15: 1125-1127.
22. N. Howard. (1982) Genetic engineering's I manpower problem. DUN'S
BUSINESS MONTH 119: 92-95.
23. B. Rensberger. (1981) Tinkering with life. SCIENCE 81(2): 45-
49.
24. D. Dickson. (1982) Industry funds in universities:
emerge from Pajaro Dunes. NATURE 296: 381-382.
-18-
New guidelines
I
Table 1. Industries with Limited Use of Biotechnology
i~ Waste Management
Industry
Steel
Petroleum Refining
Organic Chemical
Manufacture
Pharmaceutical
Manufacture
Pulp & Paper
Textile
Source: De Renzo(4)
Effluent Stream
coke-oven gas
scrubbing operation
primary distillation
process
intermediate organic
chemicals & byproducts
recovery & purification
solvent streams
washing operations
wash waters, deep
discharges
Major Contaminants
NH3, sulfides, cyanides
sludges containing hydrocarbons
phenols, halogenated hydro-
carbons, polymers, tars, cyanides
sulfated hydrocarbons, ammonium
compounds
alcohols, ketones, benzene,
xylene, toluene, organic residues
phenols, organic sulfur com-
pounds, oils, lignins, cellulose
dyes, surfactants, solvents
Table 2. Relative Degradation of Hazardo~s Chemicals
M a,
0 i:: i:: a, a, N a, .c: i:: i:: ~ a, a, 0 .c N 1-1 0 e a, i:: 0 1-1
i:: a, M 0 0 M CX) a, •••➔ .c .c: M ~ N ~
i:: "d 0 CJ .c: 0 N N M a, •••➔ 1-1 t1' CJ 1-1 M M 0
N N 0 .i t1' 0 I I i::
i:: i:: M i:: >< M ,:Q ,:Q a, a, a, .c: a, a, .c: u u .c:
,:Q ,:Q u i::i.. ::c u i::i.. i::i.. i::i..
Readily degradable + +
Degradable with AC + + + +
Partially degraded + with AC
Refractory with . + adapted populations
Readily degraded + + +
with SAM
Degraded with SAM + + +
Partially degraded + with SAM
Biologically refractory + I
AC -acclimated culture
SAM -selectively adapted mutant
Source: M. Krupka, Polybac Corporation, Allentown, PA.