Advertisement

Risk-Related Issues Affecting Bioimplementation

  • Kate Devine
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 54)

Abstract

Laws and regulations drive the supply of and the demand for many commodities, including technologies used for industrial waste treatment or control. There are many risk-related issues underlying or embodied in environmental statutes, regulations and policies/programs affecting the immediate or potential future commercial deployment of biore- mediation. These issues and their effect on the implementation of bioremediation are discussed below within the context of the applicable environmental statute. The term “risk” is used broadly to mean potential health or environmental effects due to exposure to chemicals considered to be detrimental to a pre-existing state of human health or ecological quality.

Keywords

Hazardous Waste Natural Attenuation Underground Storage Tank Acceptable Endpoint Exit Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barden, M., 1996, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, personal communication with K. Devine, March.Google Scholar
  2. Bioremediation in the Field, 1995, EPA to release proposed hazardous waste identification rule for contaminated media, EPA/540/N-95/500, No. 12, pp. 1 and 4, August.Google Scholar
  3. Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1996, Comments on the Biotechnology Industry Organization on the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR Rule), docket Number F-95-WHWP-FFFFF, 60 Fed. Reg. 66344, Dec. 21.Google Scholar
  4. Biotreatment News, 1992, EPA proposes revised hazardous waste identification rule, 2(7): 3 and 4.Google Scholar
  5. Biotreatment News, 1993a, EPA proposes long-awaited contaminated soils rule. 3(11): 7,8 and 10.Google Scholar
  6. Biotreatment News, 1993b, Wisconsin issues new rule requiring consideration of passive bioremediation, 3(6): 1 and 7.Google Scholar
  7. Biotreatment News, 1994a, EPA rolls contaminated soil treatment standards into HWIR 4(7): 4 and 19.Google Scholar
  8. Biotreatment News, 1994b, Second phase of LDRs issued, Superfund and CWA die, TSCA rule proposed, 4(12): 10–12.Google Scholar
  9. Biotreatment News, 1996, Reg review: Superfund reform, 6(5): 20.Google Scholar
  10. Blake, J., 1994, Approach to the regulation of bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls, in: Bioremediation of Chlorinated and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds, (R.E. Hinchee, A. Leeson, L. Semprini, and S.K. Ong, eds.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 432–435.Google Scholar
  11. Blake, J., 1995, USEPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, personal communication with K. Devine, December.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, R.A., Hinchee, R., Norris, R.D., and Wilson, J., 1995, Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: a flexible, variable speed technology, presented at: National Ground Water Association Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection and Restoration, Nov. 29–Dec.1, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, R.A., 1995, Regarding the advantages of using bioremediation to clean up Superfund sites, testimony of Dr. Richard A. Brown, Vice President, Remediation Technology, Groundwater Technology, Inc., testifying on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Inc. before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Devine, K. and Graham, L.L., 1995, States’ attitudes on the use of bioremediation, in: Applied Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, (R.E. Hinchee, J.A. Kittel, and H.J. Reisinger eds.), Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 61–71.Google Scholar
  15. Devine, K. and LaGoy, P., 1996, Regulatory issues applying to bioremediation as a risk reduction technology, In Bioremediation: Principles and Practice, (S. Sikdar and R. Irvine eds.), Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Environment Canada, Clean Technologies Advancement Directorate, 1996, Environmental applications of biotechnology: focus groups, draft, unpublished.Google Scholar
  17. Environmental Information, Ltd., 1995, Underground Storage Market: Cleanup: Status and Outlook, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  18. Evanson, T., 1995, Wisconsin’s efforts to encourage naturally occurring biodegradation as a cleanup option, paper presented at: Intrinsic Bioremediation: Strategies for Effective Analysis, Monitoring and Implementation, Oct. 16–17, Annapolis, MD, International Business Communications (Southboro, MA).Google Scholar
  19. Forlini, M., 1995, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, The hazardous waste identification rule and its effect on bioremediation, presented at bioremediation policy panel session at SUPERFUND XVI, Washington, DC, November 8.Google Scholar
  20. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 1994, XVI (2): 161–173.Google Scholar
  21. Gas Research Institute, 1995, Environmentally Acceptable Endpoints in Soil: Risk-Based Approach to Contaminated Soil Management Based on Availability of Chemicals in Soil, compilation of working papers for May expert meeting, draft, Washington, DC, April.Google Scholar
  22. Gas Research Institute, 1996, How Clean is clean?: Research initiative on environmentally acceptable endpoints (EAEs) for contaminated soils, issue 3, Dec. 1995.Google Scholar
  23. Haas, P., 1996, Brooks Air Force Base, TX, personal communication with K. Devine, March.Google Scholar
  24. Jonesi, G., 1989, Impact of RCRA land disposal restrictions on bioremediation, USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, presented at: SUPERFUND X, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and University of California, 1995, Recommendations to Improve the Cleanup Process for California’s Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs), Oct. 16.Google Scholar
  26. Liptak. J.F. and Lombardo, G., 1994, The development of chemical-specific risk-based soil cleanup guidelines results in timely and cost effective remediation, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Groundwater Protection Bureau, Concord, NH.Google Scholar
  27. Piontek, K., 1995, An evaluation of field methods for intrinsic bioremediation measurements, presented at: Intrinsic Bioremediation: Strategies for Effective Analysis, Monitoring and Implementation, Oct. 16–17, Annapolis, MD, International Business Communications (Southboro, MA).Google Scholar
  28. Piontek, K., 1996, CH2M Hill, St. Louis, MO, personal communication with K. Devine, March.Google Scholar
  29. Ritz, S., 1996, States speak out on natural attenuation. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, Jan./Feb., pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
  30. Ruffin, M., 1995, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Superfund reauthorization and the environmental biotechnology industry’s perspective, presented at: bioremediation policy panel session at SUPERFUND XVI, November 8, Washington, DC, December.Google Scholar
  31. Soils, 1994, State cleanup standards for hydrocarbon contaminated soil and groundwater, Dec: 14–60.Google Scholar
  32. Underground Tank Technology Update, 1995, Michigan’s cleanup program, Dept. of Engineering Professional Development, the College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 9(6): 10, Nov./Dec.Google Scholar
  33. USEPA, 1987, The Layman’s Guide to the Toxic Substances Control Act, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), interim final, EPA/540/1-89/002, December, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA, 1990a, RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA/530-SW-90-036, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA, 1990b, Quality Assurance Project Plan for Characterization Sampling and Treatment Tests Conducted for the Contaminated Soil and Debris (CS&D) Program, Office of Solid Waste, Washington.Google Scholar
  37. USEPA, 1992a, Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current Practice, EPA/542/R-92/010, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office and Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. USEPA, 1992b, CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual EPA/542/R-92/005, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. USEPA, 1993, Land disposal restrictions for newly identified and listed Hazardous wastes and hazardous soil, 58 Fed. Reg. 48092–48204, Sept. 14, 1993.Google Scholar
  40. USEPA, 1995a, Hazardous waste management system: Identification and listing of hazardous waste: hazardous waste identification rule (HWIR), 60 Fed. Reg. 66344–66469, Dec. 21.Google Scholar
  41. USEPA, 1995b, OSWER directive 9610.17: Use of risk-based decision-making in UST corrective action programs, memorandum from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator to Regional Administrators, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  42. USEPA, 1996, Requirements for management of hazardous contaminated media; Proposed rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 18780–18864, April 29.Google Scholar
  43. Walsh, W.J, 1990, Making science, policy, and public perception compatible: A legal/policy summary, In Ground-water and Soil Contamination Remediation: Toward Compatible Science, Policy, and Public Perception, National Academy Press, Washington, DC., pp. 206–249.Google Scholar
  44. Western Governors Association Develop On-Site Innovative Technology Committee’s Interstate Technology and Regulatory Work Group, and Colorado Center for Environmental Management. 1996, A Study of Selected In Situ Bioremediation Across the United States, draft, Jan. 4.Google Scholar
  45. Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T., Miller, R. and Kampbell, D., 1995, United States Air Force Guidelines for Successfully Supporting Intrinsic Remediation with an Example From Hill Air Force Base.Google Scholar
  46. Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R. and Hansen, J. 1996. Technical Protocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long Term Monitoring for Natural Attenuation of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater, Vols. I and II, Air Force Center for Excellence, Technology Transfer Division, Brooks AFB, Texas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Devine
    • 1
  1. 1.DEVO Enterprises, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations