=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #306
—October 7, 1992—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
NEW ALTERNATIVES TO INCINERATION
A new industry is growing up to replace hazardous waste
incineration. Incineration isn’t dead by any means, but it is
expensive and it has aroused citizen opposition everywhere.
Citizen opposition, in turn, has forced the government to
investigate incineration carefully, and the evidence indicates
that incineration is a dirty, dangerous technology that creates
at least as many problems as it solves. [See RHWN #283, #281 and #280.]
One candidate for replacing incineration is called
“bioremediation” and it uses bacteria to “eat” hazardous waste.
Specialists within EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] are
promoting bioremediation for getting rid of wastes, particularly
at Superfund sites (old chemical dumps), and the marketplace is
filling up with companies advertising that their bugs (bacteria)
will eat more waste faster and cheaper than the other guys’ bugs.
Is bioremediation a good idea?
Bioremediation IS a good idea, at least in principle. But, like
anything else, bioremediation can be done badly, or carelessly,
or even dangerously. A new report, THE OVERSELLING OF
BIOREMEDIATION: A PRIMER FOR POLICY MAKERS AND ACTIVISTS, tells
the story well.
The bulk of hazardous wastes are “organic molecules”–relatively
large molecules containing many atoms strung together, with
carbon atoms as the glue. These molecules are made up of simple
elements like hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur which are not, by
themselves, very toxic. But strung together into big molecules,
and particularly when a halogen (chlorine or bromine or fluorine)
atom is attached, these organics can interfere with living things
like humans. In short, they become toxic. Some organic molecules
are millions of times more toxic than any of the elements from
which they are formed.
The goal of an incinerator is to break the chemical bonds that
hold large organic molecules together, to break them down into
their constituent elements, thus detoxifying them.
Now it happens that some natural microorganisms (bacteria, fungi,
and algae) have the ability to break certain chemical bonds. In
principle, if the right bugs could be placed in contact with
wastes, they would break the chemical bonds, thus detoxifying
wastes.
The trick, then, is to find the right bugs and put them into
contact with the hazardous wastes you want to detoxify. In
theory, the microorganisms will absorb the wastes, break them
down, and excrete less-toxic by-products.
This has in fact worked at some locations. For example, the City
of San Francisco has successfully bioremediated soils
contaminated with hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline, jet fuel,
kerosene, diesel, and bunker oil) at a cost of $16 to $22 per
cubic yard–more than 10 times cheaper than an incinerator could
have done the job. In Oakland, California, the Pacific
Renaissance Plaza was successfully bioremediated. Ten thousand
cubic yards of gasoline-contaminated soil were successfully
decontaminated over a two-year period at a cost of $130 per cubic
yard.
But for every success story, there’s another kind of story in
which someone has tried bioremediation and claimed a success but
has based the claim on questionable data. For example, a
highly-publicized oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 1991 was
treated with microorganisms. A hundred pounds of bugs were spread
over a 40-acre patch. The company that did the job claimed 30% of
the oil disappeared the first day but their experiment lacked any
controls, so their findings lacked scientific validity. One
microbiologist said it would take weeks to months to achieve a
30% reduction and what probably happened, he said, was that the
oil merely sank. The point is, without a proper experiment,
including controls, the results cannot be interpreted. But
proponents of a new technology need to claim success so they do.
Using bacteria to degrade waste isn’t new. Composting uses
naturally-occurring bacteria to degrade wastes. Sewage treatment
plants have been using bacteria to degrade sewage since 1914.
The simplest bioremediation technique is so-called “land farming”
in which wastes are plowed into the soil and, with luck,
degraded. A more complex scheme involves some kind of enclosure
(ranging from a lined lagoon to a completely-enclosed vessel)
called a reactor vessel, where wastes and bugs are mixed together
under controlled conditions.
The simplest bioremediation scheme provides nutrients and oxygen
to bacteria that are already present at a site, thus helping them
grow so they can degrade a waste.
A somewhat more complex scheme involves finding bacteria
elsewhere that can do the job, growing them in a laboratory, then
putting them on the site and enhancing their growth.
The most complicated scheme envisions genetic engineering, taking
genes from one creature and implanting them in another. The goal
of genetic engineering is to add the survivability of one bug to
the pollutant-grading abilities of another, or to add several
pollutant-degrading abilities to one bug, thus creating a
superbug.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that companies can patent
new forms of life (such as genetically engineered
microorganisms), so there is great incentive to create a
superbug. But there are obvious dangers in releasing new forms of
life into the environment. Suppose someone creates a superbug to
degrade creosote wastes but the bug degrades telephone poles
treated with creosote. Or suppose a bug is created to degrade
oily wastes but the bug degrades the oil that most mammals carry
in their skin.
There are no federal regulations controlling the design, testing
and release of genetically-engineered microorganisms for
waste-degradation, so there is considerable opportunity for
something to go wrong.
Even the simplest bioremediation cannot be considered a proven
technology. It should all be approached as an experiment.
Although more than 100 chemicals have been degraded by bugs under
laboratory conditions, this has not readily translated into field
successes. And success at one site does not guarantee success at
another. Local conditions make all the difference.
Questions about the hazards remain:
1) What are the effects of adding trillions of non-native
microorganisms to a site–will native organisms be displaced with
adverse consequences for the local environment?
2) What is the effect of creating conditions for enhanced growth
of microorganisms?
3) Little is known about the fate of the chemicals that are
remediated. How do we know by-products won’t be as toxic as, or
more toxic than, the original chemicals? How complete can
degradation be? How do we know there aren’t hot spots remaining
after a cleanup?
These are questions that citizens should ask when bioremediation
is proposed at a site. Bioremediation is a good idea and it
should be tried, but it should be tried carefully and with proper
controls.
Joel Hirschhorn, a private consultant, says, “The most important
thing to do in the near term is to apply biological cleanups to
simple problems in ways that build public confidence and a
reliable database. This means biological application chiefly on
sites where: there are only one or two chemical contaminants
(e.g., spills, leaking underground storage tanks, and simple
manufacturing sites); materials are easily transferred to closed
treatment systems; naturally occurring microorganisms from the
site are used; and complete information is made public on
exactly what living organisms and other materials are used and,
possibly, produced. It seems inappropriate at this time to
attempt to apply biotechnology to chemically complex sites such
as landfills and open dumps where there are also many physical
obstacles to effective biotreatment.”
GET: Doreen Stabinsky, THE OVERSELLING OF BIOREMEDIATION: A
PRIMER FOR POLICY MAKERS AND ACTIVISTS (Sacramento, California:
California Biotechnology Action Council, 1992). Available for
$5.00 from the Council at: 1912 F Street
Suite[10]0, Sacramento,
CA 95814. Phone (916) 446-3350.
To keep abreast of bioremediation and other non-incineration
technologies for cleanup of Superfund sites, you should know
about four sources of information:
The EPA’s SITE [Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation]
program, which has been publishing reports on alternative
treatment technologies for several years. To get a free list of
SITE publications, request a copy of COMPENDIUM OF SUPERFUND
PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS, [Publication No. PR-881], which is free
from National Technical Information Service (NTIS): (703)
487-4650]. If you get your name on the SITE mailing list, you can
receive notice of new cleanup technologies as they become
available. This is a good idea because new reports are often
available free for a period of time before they are handed off to
NTIS, which then sells them. To get your name on the SITE mailing
list, write to: ORD Publications, 26 West Martin Luther King
Drive (G72), Cincinnati, OH 45268. Or phone SITE at (513)
569-7758.
EPA operates two free computer bulletin boards that contain
current information on alternative treatment technologies. The
ATTIC system (Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center) can be reached at (301) 670-3813 (1200 or 2400 baud,
8N1), or at (301) 670-3813 (9600 baud, 8N1). To talk to a human,
call (301) 670-6294. The ATTIC system has a database of 2200
abstracts of articles and reports on alternative treatment
technologies; after you find something interesting, call them and
request a free photocopy of the full document. The ATTIC system
also contains a database of experts on various cleanup
technologies, and a SIG (special interest group) on
bioremediation, plus a lot more. There is a great deal of
information on alternative treatment technologies available from
this source. A user’s manual can be downloaded from the board.
The second EPA bulletin board is called CLU-IN, the Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board; phone (301) 589-8366 (1200, 2400 or
9600 baud, N81). To talk to a human: (301) 589-8368. CLU-In has
at least 6 SIGs (special interest groups) open to the public,
including one on “innovative technologies”; each contains a dozen
or more relevant documents available for downloading. A user’s
manual can be downloaded as well.
On both these systems the software is somewhat clunky, cryptic
and idiosyncratic, but it’s better than nothing and if you need
information you’ll probably find it worth your time (and
telephone money) to explore these sources.
Another source of information is EPA’s Vendor Information System
for Innovative Treatment Technologies, or VISITT. This is a
diskette containing descriptions of companies that sell
innovative cleanup technologies. To get a free copy, call the
VISITT hotline: 1-800-245-4505 or (703) 883-8448. It gets updated
annually. Companies wishing to have their technology listed must
request an official entry form from: (513) 569-7562.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: incineration; bioremediation; composting; gulf
of mexico; land farming; closed reactor vessel; waste
degradation; alternative treatment technologies; waste treatment
technologies; remedial action;