-------
Regulating
Biotechnology
   This issue of EPA /mirmil
   concerns the  Agency's
role in insuring the safe and
productive use of
biotechnology, out; of llu;
newest ami most
controversial scientific
developments in modern
society.
  Dr.  John A. Moore, the
Agency's Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances,
responds to questions about
EFA's responsibilities to
regulate biotechnology. Dr.
David Kiiigsbury explains the
White House policy regarding
the development of
biotechnology. Kingsbury
was a key architect of the
White Mouse plan  lo
coordinate regulation  in this
field.
  Two expert observers
give their views regarding the
future of biotechnology and
what the federal
government's role should be.
Dr. Winston  Brill, research
director ol a biotechnology
firm, explains the potential ol
this new .science to help
society.  Jack Doyle, an
associate ol a national public
interest  group, raises some
concerns about
biotechnology's possible
impact.
  Concluding this issue's
look at biotechnology  is a
feature reporting on KI'A's
preparations to regulate ibis
new science and  exploring its
potential lo help clean up the
environment.
  Also featured this month
are articles on a mobile
classroom to train asbestos
cleanup workers, the practice
of the art of "biomonitoring"
to measure waler pollution in
KI'A's Region H. and a
retrospective  look .it a
                              A( tin Agricultural Research Service lab in Maryland, cj
                              microbiologist examines bocterin gnm-ing in petrf dishes.
                              Using DNA-cJoning techniques, srientisls  ivi/l genetically
                              alter the hocten'o  to lie//) speed (lie breakdoivn of cerfmn
                              pesticides.
close call with a pollution
disaster on  the Mississippi
River 25 years ago. A
photographic essay explores
environmental meanings in
life on  Tangier Island in the
Chesapeake Hay.
  The issue concludes with
two regular features—Update
and Appointments,
  Coming up next month in
KPA /onnuil are articles  on
how the nation will finance
the next generation of
municipal wastewater
treatment systems, which is
also the subject of an Agency
conference  scheduled for
November 18-20 in New
Orleans. D

-------
                               United States
                               Environmental Protection
                               Agency
                                Office of
                                Public Affairs IA-107)
                                Washington DC 20460
Volume  12
Number 8
October 1986
                           &EPA  JOURNAL
                                Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
                                Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
                                Linda Wilson  Reed, Director, Office of Public Affairs

                                John Heritage, Editor
                                Susan Tejada, Associate Editen-
                                Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
                                Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land, air. and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which  lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural  systems to support and
nurture life.
  The El'A journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of KPA
has determined  that tiie publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction oi  the public.
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.  Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect HP A policy. Contribu-
tions and  inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Kditor (A-107),
Waterside Mall. 401  M  St.. S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other  materials.
Developing Confidence
in Biotechnology:
An Interview with John A.
Moore  2

Regulating Biotechnology:
The White House Policy
by David T. Kingsbury  5

Biotechnology:
Its Potential
by Winston 1. Brill
Biotechnology:
Its Possible Dangers
by Jack Doyle   (!

Keeping Ahead
of a  New Technology
by Roy Popkin   |()

"Hands-On" Training
for Asbestos Control
by Dave; Ryan   14

Practicing the Art
of Biomonitoring
bv David \Yann
Meanings from
Tangier Island
Text by  John Heritage
Photographs by Steve
Delaney   17

Environmental Annals:
A Close Call
on the Mississippi
by Roy Popkin

Update   2:\

Appointments  24
   o
The annual rale lor subscribers in
the U.S. for the KJ'A Journal is
$20.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is S25.00 v John Keilh.
                                Folio. Inc.
                                EPA Journal Subscriptions
                               Design Cn.'dils:
                               Holier! f'liincigim:
                               (Ion Furnili:
                               Don mi U'fisylkiivskv)
 Name - First, Last
                                                PLEASE PRINT
 Company Name or Additional Address Line
 Street Address
 City
             Zip Code
      Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)

     Charge to my Deposit Account No	

-------
Developing   Confidence
in  Biotechnology:
An Interview with John  A. Moore
VVIiot tin; KPA's responsibilities and
plans lo reguJote biotechnology? To find
some o| (he onsivers. KPA Journal
interviewed Dr. John A. Moon,',
Assislmif Administrator loc Pes/i<:ic/<;.s
(UK/ Toxic Substances, ivlio is pJiiying «
major role lor the Agency in (lie
regulatory task. The infervj'f.'iv follows:
     What do you see as the greatest
risk in the emerging Held of
biotechnology?

A   The greatest risk we face; right now
is failure to develop public confidence
in the process that leads from the
laboratory to the marketplace.

     Js then; any way for
hiotechnological experiments to
proceed without the public feeling
threatened by them?

;\   1 think so. Hut an educational
process has to take place first, so that
tlic public can  develop a perspective on
the benefits ot  biotechnology and can
identify the checks and balances that
will he in place to prevent undesirable
effects from occurring. Hopefully, the
community will conclude that its initial
fears wen; unjustified, and that a
process does exist to safeguard its
interests. Then these experiments can go
forward.
  This is what happened in the early
days of recombinant DN'A research
about 10 years ago. People who lived in
communities where experiments were to
take place voiced objections. Scientists
worked to inform them fully about the
experiments. As a result, today this kind
of research is "business as usual" in
communities such as Cambridge, MA.

     Then you're saying that it's
possible for biotechnology to be
developed safely?

/\   No question about  it. It already has
been developed  safely.
  Let me give you some examples. The
Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) recently
anounced that FDA is licensing for
marketing a new vaccine against the
hepatitis B virus. The new vaccine is
believed to be vastly superior to the
vaccine currently on the market.
  Human insulin is being produced by
bacteria grown in fermentation vats.
  Blood components are being produced
using biotechnology.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) has permitted the testing and
sale of a pseudorabies virus vaccine,
Although there were concerns  about the
review procedure, the vaccine  is safer
than the virus and. on balance, society
is better off having it  available.

     Does biotechnology have a big
future as a component of our economy
and our health care system?

/\   That  depends. As a society, we
have a double challenge. We have to
find ways to exploit biotechnology in a
whole sphere of activities. Hut we also
have to think about the  consequences of
applying biotechnology, so that we
don't make serious errors.


     Will  EPA have a major role in
regulating the biotechnology industry?

A   Yes.  KPA is  probably going to
regulate under two statutes.
  Under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). EPA
will regulate biotechnology in the
development of pesticides. Under TSCA
(the Toxic: Substances Control Act), the
Agency will have a role in reviewing
the development and commercialization
of products that involve non-pesticidal
or non-agricultural usage, with the
exception of drugs. For example, we
could look at the development of
microorganisms that can degrade
certain chemical pollutants. Or we
could look at bacteria engineered
specifically to concentrate precious
minerals or commodities of one sort or
another that currently exist only in
extremely low quantities or
concentrations.
  Our role is to be sure  that the new
organisms do only what they are
supposed to do. If  a microorganism is
supposed to degrade a certain chemical,
we need to be sure that  it doesn't also
attack some other type of life, or
chemical  substance, or that it  doesn't
produce a new chemical substance
worse than the one it set out to destroy.
  As the field evolves over the next
decade or so, some legitimate concerns
may also  arise under RCRA (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act), as well
as under some of the water statutes.
EPA will  need to make certain that
companies in the biotechnology field
don't end up with  byproducts that they
can't safely dispose of.

     How is EPA going to make sure
that its regulations are effectively
enforced?

A.  Enforcement  is the challenge with
any set of regulations. Biotechnology
will be no different.
  First we must identify exactly what
needs to be regulated, and come up
with a clear set of  guidelines so that all
parties understand what is expected of
them. Then we have to identify
milestones that determine compliance
with the guidelines in an objective
fashion. Where people fail to comply.
we will take  them  through enforcement
action.

     The Administration has developed
a coordinated plan for oversight of
biotechnology. What is EPA's part in
this plan?

A  Along with other agencies, KPA
has a major role in developing a
common approach to assessing
biotechnology products. The goal is to
                                                                                                     EPA JOURNAL

-------
 agree on a single review process so that,
 in cases of joint jurisdiction between
 EPA and other federal agencies, the
 review can at least proceed on  parallel
 tracks. This should avoid undue delays
 for the person seeking to develop and
 sell a product.
  1 think we've made good headway in
 identifying which agency should  have
 lead responsibility in such cases.  We've
 also developed common definitions that
 are keyed to  .some of the regulatory
 actions.
  Also, along with USDA, EPA is
 co-chairing a subcommittee to develop
 guidelines for testing in greenhouses.
 These guidelines will help scientists
 who are testing new products, as  they
 move from the research phase in a
 laboratory to the  development phase in
 a greenhouse.
I)  How many reviews has EPA
conducted to date on biotechnology
products, and how many of these
products has the Agency actually
approved?

/\  If someone wants to do a
biotechnology experiment in tin;
environment, ho first consults with
EPA. The agency determines whether or
not a formal, experimental use permit
application will be required.
  As far as formal requests for reviews
are concerned, we have received nine so
far, all of them in the pesticide program.
To date we have ruled  that an
experimental use permit will be
required for three of these.
  We have acted on all three. We
approved two ice nucleation bacteria
                                                                                       potatoes
                                                                                 tippnived
                                                                                 experiineni t<> imp,
                                                                                 o! poi
                                                                                          .itil selfiemenf o' .
                                                                                 litigaii
experiments. One of these involves the
field experiment of Dr. Steven Lindow
of the University of California using the
bacteria on potatoes. The other involves
an experiment of Advanced Genetic:
Sciences. Inc., also  in California, using
the bacteria on strawberries. In the third
instance—a Monsanto proposal for an
experiment involving bacteria which
live on the  roots of corn plants - -we've
deferred making a final decision
pending the development of additional
data.
  In other instances, we've determined
that experimental use permits arc not
required and have allowed the
experiments to proceed. A couple of
formal requests are  still pending.

     Were  you  dismayed when you
learned that Advanced Genetic
Sciences, Inc. had  actually tested its
product outdoors before the agency
granted it a permit  to do so?

y\  Yes. of course. In that case, the
Agency found that  something improper
and illegal  had  indeed been done. But
we were convinced that  the company's
motive was characteri/ed by unwitting
error in judgment rather than .1
conscious and blatant disregard for
regulations or law.  The case lias been
closed, and tin;  company has  been
fined.

     Did EPA learn anything from this
experience  that it can apply to the
future?

i\  We  know that we really have to
evaluate the clarity  of (nil-
communications, so that this  kind of
misinterpretation can  be minimized in
the future.

     Do you think that Agency
personnel have kept abreast of
advances in biotechnology and that
they will continue  to he able  to do so in
the future?

/\  Yes, I  do think so. This  obviously
involves a bit of speculation on my part,
since I don't know  what's coming in the
future. But  based on proposals we've
received to  date, I'm confident that we
OCTOBER 1986

-------
can keep up with what's coming.
  Of course, we've relied heavily on
outside .scientific expertise in reviewing
every formal inquiry we've received to
date, and we will continue to do so in
the future. Tin; scope of science
involved in these early laboratory and
field trial venture's is so broad that
there's no way Hi'A could  anticipate all
the eventualities and hire an adequate
stable of resident experts. So  poor
review by outside experts  is. and will
continue to be. .1  key to our ability to
keep pace with the anticipated
workload.

     What steps dons EPA take Jo
insure that genetically altered products
an; reviewed confidently and
effectively?

     One key  step, as I  just mentioned.
is  peer review. Before HPA grants
permission to  do an experiment
involving biotechnology manipulations,
we assess ihe  adequacy ol information
about the experiment, as well as the
data generated for the experiment.  We
form a tentative interpretation of the
proposed study.
  We then share; all that information
with the appropriate exports,  both
inside the federal government and
outside, usually from academia. These
experts look .it the original data, form
their own conclusions, and match  their
conclusions against those ot tin; Agency.
Tin; more significant issues usually
involve a meeting where everyone can
talk out perspectives and viewpoints. If
there is concurrence among everyone.
we feel reassured that the  judgment is
correct and that errors of oversight have
been avoided. EPA can then make a risk
management  decision about what will
be allowed to go forward, and under
what circumstances.
  Another key step is our insistence
that results of all approved  experiments
be made available to EPA. Following
some experiments, a  company may
decide to  abandon development  of a
particular product because  it doesn't see
any commercial value in it.  Hut the data
the company has come up with may
still be of value to  us. When we  look at
that data,  we can find out if our
judgment, and the  judgment of the peer
review groups, was correct.
  The more data we  have, the better off
we are when  it comes to dealing with
future proposals, By  requiring that data
be given to EPA. we  will build a better
data  base, and our judgments will
become more and more  objective.

     What are the potential benefits of
hiotech products versus existing
pesticides and toxic  substances
products?

£\  Biotechnology allows  us to
develop products that function with
great specificity. This means we  can
look forward  to a marked reduction in
undesirable side effects  of certain
products.
  For example, many of the early
pesticides wen; indiscriminate. They
not only killed the insects they were
supposed  to kill; they got rid of every
other insect as well.  Another problem of
those pesticides was  that they persisted
in the, environment. Other organisms
would consume these pesticides, with
undesirable consequences all the way
up the food chain.  In the case of DDT.
                                                                                                 ll lies. (I pJdllf
                                                                                 removes pollen I'rnni u dnmuht-res;
                                                                                 petunia lo cross  nilli u neiv petunia
                                                                                 fright), en-died (Imnigli titicroin/r-clion
                                                                                 o! chromosomes. /-.'PA is helping lo
                                                                                 develop ym'di'lj'ne.s for gi-nefir fesfii
                                                                                 greenhouses.
                                                                                every creature in the food chain
                                                                                magnified levels of the pesticide, and
                                                                                the eagle, at the top of the food chain,
                                                                                ended up with huge concentrations of
                                                                                DDT.
                                                                                  Today we're developing products that
                                                                                work at a molecular biochemical  lesion
                                                                                level, and have great specificity as to
                                                                                the number of organisms affected.
                                                                                Biotechnology gives us strong tools to
                                                                                develop  pesticides  that are more and
                                                                                more specific.
     Does it surprise you that an
agency formed just to clean up the air
and water now finds itself in the center
of the most advanced science in
society?

/\  No. I think it's an appropriate
place for us to he.
  Let me give you  an example.  Some
people follow this  line of reasoning;
pesticides are poison; therefore, they are
bad; therefore, EPA shouldn't be
involved in any process that allows
them to be used.
  This same line of reasoning could also
be applied to biotech  products. In each
case, I think it is faulty reasoning. It is
important that someone be able to
assess both the benefits and the
detriments of biotechnology products, or
pesticides, or whatever. Indeed, that's
what environmental protection  is all
about.

\)  Is there any particular comment
you would like to  add concerning
biotechnology?

/\  1 would like to  underscore the
statement I made at the outset:  it is
essential that we develop a clearly
outlined approval  process that
everybody can understand. "Everybody"
includes the general  public:. We've got
to be very open with the public as  we
look at specific cases, so  that the public
can feel assured that  our judgments
protect public interests. Anything short
of that will portend a very  rocky road
for the development  and
commercialization of  biotechnology
products. Q
                                                                                                           EPA JOURNAL

-------
Regulating  Biotechnology
The  White  House  Policy
by David T. Kingsbury
                                                           Plant
                                                           geneticists
                                                           (hi1 . 'VnnVtilfunil
                                                                irch
                                                           Sen
                                                           deieniune Ihr
                                                           structure ol' c;
                                                           soybean 1)\.\
                                                           segment Ilicil
                                                           n'sembles the
                                                           "jumping
                                                           genes"
                                                           discovered in
                                                           corn.  I
                                                           .scientisis HIT
                                                           trying (n  ti'ari;
                                                           how genes
                                                           control traits ID
                                                           soybeans v
                                                           that Iliev can
                                                           help bleeders
                                                           dev'gH befler
A fmmeivork to guide diuJ coordinate
federal regulation of biotechnology ivn.s
developed recently us a U'hite House
policy. The policy ivns issued by the
Office of Science and Technology (il Ilie
While; JJonse. The hinder in developing
this policy ivtis Dr. David Kingsbury of
the National Science Foundation. The
following cirticle by Kingsbury explains
(he policy:

   On June 20,  198(5, the federal
   government's final policy for a
"Coordinated Framework for the
Regulation of Biotechnology" was
published in the Federal  Register. The
framework invokes new regulatory

OCTOBER 1986
requirements and establishes two basic
principles:

• to the extent possible, government
agencies involved in regulating
biotechnology will use consistent
definitions of "genetically engineered"
organisms:
• all agencies will base decisions on
comparably rigorous scientific reviews.

  We believe this policy will protect
human health and the environment and.
at the same time, provide the flexibility
necessary to deal with a new and
rapidly developing industry.

  Biotechnology has broad applications
in many diverse aspects of industry and
commerce, and most observers expect
that it will affect the U.S.  economy
substantially. One recent analysis
predicted that the sale of biotechnology
products will rise to several  billion
dollars in  the 1990s and to a.s much as
$40 billion by the year 2000.
  Anticipated major products will
include pharmaceuticals. agricultural
chemicals and pesticides.
growth-promoting hormones for animals
and plants, and a  line of very valuable
industrial  chemicals.  Biological waste
treatment  processes and specially
engineered microorganisms  to degrade
pollutants are also probable  products tor
the relatively near future.
  Although the l.'.S. is currently  the
world leader  in this field, our lead is
not unbeatable. Japan and many
European  countries have the technical
sophistication to develop
biotechnology-based industries, and
these industries have been targeted tot-
special financial support from their
governments. They can be expected to
receive special regulatory  treatment
from their governments as well.
   That is  why the framework is so
important. Without a consistent, rational
approach,  some observers are concerned
that non-scientific issues may play a
dominant role in the future ol
biotechnology development and
implementation in the I'.S. They  tear
that an irrational or burdensome
regulatory  climate could fatally impede
the eventual  introduction of  products
now under development and lead to
luture disinterest in this area. There is
also worry in  the financial community
about the long-term stability  of
businesses in  environmentally regulated
fields. This worry  may reduce the
economic capability of many enterprises
to continue needed product
development and testing.
  Thus, a major goal  of the "framework"
agencies is to educate the public about
the true risks  and benefits  of
biotechnology. The public, has legitimate
concerns about the introduction ol some
products, .mil it's our  job to establish
principles  that ensure their sale
environmental use while allowing
research to proceed. The interageney
committees that worked on the current
policy are  very confident that existing
regulations cover the present and
near-term biotechnology- industry. We
are also confident  that we  will be able
to monitor and absorb changes as the
technology develops. We are proud of
our coordination policy, but  we
recogni/.e tli.it it  is only the
beginning.  -

-------
Biotechnology:
Its  Potential
by Winston J. Brill
    Not n \vcck goes by \vithout another
    headline or TV bulletin on tin:
emerging benefits of biotechnology,
especially applications of genetic
engineering. In  most cases, (tie focus is
on human health care with  promises of
safer vaccines, more sensitive diagnostic
tools, and ne\v cancer treatments like
targeted monoclonal antibodies.
Meanwhile, biotechnology is also  being
applied to agriculture, ami there is even
some activity in mining, oil recovery,
and toxic waste  removal (the latter topic
is discussed on page 10 of this issue by
KPA writer Roy  I'opkin). Biotechnology
also holds out the hope of safe
substitutes for toxic chemicals.
  The non-medical applications
presuppose tin; release of genetically
engineered organisms into tin;
environment, and (hat brings  Kl'A into
UK; piclure. The task of Kl'A and also of
the l!.S. Department of Agriculture is to
regulate released organisms without
inhibiting the advance ol biotechnology
as a whole,
  The genetic engineer can  take a  gene
from any organism and add that gene to
the chromosome of another organism.
The recipient cell does not  have to be
related to the donor.  Scientists an;
adding bacterial genes lo plants, plant
genes to bacteria, animal genes to
plants, etc. This work is teaching  us a
great deal about the pathology and
development of organisms.  Industry is
.swiftly applying what is learned to new
and improved products with enormous
potential to improve the quality oi lile.

Plant Agriculture
Traditional plant breeding just
randomly mixes tens of thousands of
genes from each parent, with  (lie
(I )r. Itril/ is V'ii <• President o|  Hi
mid ! )c\ rliipmrnl. Agrucetus. mi
     •ilfiim! biotechnology 'inn in
         U'J I lc Jius u i film frriji.'.
on (In         il bii iln •iinnj,
following disadvantages: a) the breeder
almost never can predict the exact
characteristics of the progeny from a
standard cross, b) the breeder has to
hunt among the progeny for the few
offspring with tin; desired  properties,
and c) painstaking reverse breeding is
necessary to dispose of undesirable
characteristics. Thus, the process of
breeding and backcrossing is very
labor-intensive; it can take 10 to 12
years  to develop a new variety. By
comparison, genetic, engineering adds
Biotechnology dovs hold oul
the, hope of safe substitutes for
toxic chemicals.
one or two well-characterized genes to
the tens of thousands of genes in the
recipient organism. Thus, a breeder
working with genetically engineered
plants: a] can easily predict the
characteristics of the modified plan, b)
does not  have to hunt  for the  rare
combination of desirable traits, and c:)
does not  need to spend a third of his
life backcrossing since no undesirable
genes have been added.  Faster
production of new and better
characterized varieties will  result.
   Laboratories have already achieved
major advances. A viral gene lias made
plants resistant to attack by that  virus. A
yeast gem; has made plants  resistant to a
bacterial  pathogen. A bacterial gene has
made plants resistant to  certain
caterpillars. These resistances  breed true
from one generation to another. The.
"pesticide" is built into the plant and  is
non-toxic to man and other non-target
species. Unlike chemical pesticides, it is
unlikely that  the pests will  become
resistant  to the  pestioidal action  of the
plant, except perhaps over thousands of
generations. This technology is clearly
going to cuit the use of toxic pesticides
in our environment.
  Several groups have used genetic
engineering to obtain plants that survive
application of a chemical that kills
weeds. This advance will allow farmers
to be more  selective in their
weed-killing methods. While
herbicide resistance in plants may seem,
at first, to make possible continued use
of toxic chemicals in the fields, it
should actually obviate them. Through
genetic engineering  we should  be able
to choose herbicides witli minimal
health and  environmental effects.
Chemical companies will be able to
market herbicides that are safer, more
beneficial, better targeted and ultimately
less expensive than  any available today.
  Another approach will utili/.e
microorganisms that kill or damage
weeds. The disadvantage  here is that
microbial herbicides are usually specific
for a single weed. However, a mix of
microbial herbicides may come on line
to kill a variety  of weeds at some point
in the future.
  Research  is also being focused on
genetically  modified microorganisms
that will improve a plant's ability to
utilize fertilizer. The farmer wouldn't
need to use as much and  run-off after a
heavy rain  would carry less fertilizer
into rivers,  lakes, and streams.  Bacteria
have been modified to protect plants
from early frost  damage, a development
that could prevent huge, economic
losses. Laboratories  are genetically
engineering bacteria and fungi  to protect
plants from diseases, too. Such bacteria
would be added to seed or soil or
sprayed on  the growing plant. Again,  all
these methods should greatly diminish
the use of toxic chemicals.
  Simple diagnostic: kits are being
developed to detect extremely low
levels of disease-forming
microorganisms. Farmers  will be able to
detect pathogens in  their fields before
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL

-------
                                                                       Sfes
plant symptoms become \ri.sibly
apparent. With this early-warning test,
farmers will be able to be much  more
selective in deciding the quantity and
type of pesticide to prevent damage by
disease.

Mining and Oil Recovery
Bacteria have been used for many years
to leach metals from ores; biotechnology
should give us microorganisms with
very effective mechanisms for
accumulating specific metals. Such
organisms could be added to a crude ore
and then, full of metal, harvested.
Uranium, molybdenum, tungsten, gold,
silver, and  copper may be mined by
such methods.
  Oil wells that are no  longer active
usually have large amounts of oil
remaining,  but the internal pressure of
the  well is  not sufficiently high  to raise
it to the surface.  Organic materials that
could help  push the oil out of such
wells are being examined. For instance,
a material that clogs rock pores or
materials that expand when water is
added has potential value. Many
bacteria synthesi/.e such materials (e.g.,
polysaccharides) and genetic engineers
are  examining ways to modify bacteria
to produce  large amounts of
polysaccharides in an oil well, thus
pushing the oil to the surface.

Concerns
Some people have expressed concern
about releasing genetically engineered
organisms into the environment, fearing
thai genetically engineered crop plants
could become problem weeds. In fact,
thi! likelihood of forming problem
weeds through genetic engineering
(adding  one or two characterized genes
to an  organism) is much smaller than
the chances of forming a problem weed
through traditional breeding (randomly
mixing tens of thousands of genes). As
with any technology, however, we
should be alert to possible problems. A
plant  engineered to be resistant to one
pathogen may unintentionally become
susceptible to another. These types of
problems are the kind that breeders
have traditionally been on  the lookout
for, and they are routinely detected
during extensive field testing before a
new variety is marketed.
   There is more  concern about the
release of genetically engineered
microorganisms  because they are
associated  in the public mind with
disease. But thousands of different
microorganisms, added to  many types of
environments in amounts of billions per
acre,  have been used experimentally
                                                                                form-


                                                                                one ii
                                                                                                           •

                                                                                u'dtcr in'li


                                                                                    ''
                                                                               and commercially in agriculture and
                                                                               mining for the past 80 years without
                                                                               any health or environmental side
                                                                               effects. The evidence  is rather
                                                                               persuasive that a deleterious pathogen
                                        It is improbable that adding
                                        one or two genes to improve a
                                        safe microorganism  will
                                        render that organism
                                        dangerous.
cannot be formed by genetically
modifying a safe microorganism. A
pathogen is  a problem not because it
contains a single "patho-gone." but
because it contains many genes all
finely tuned and integrated.
representing natural bacterial selection
over many millions  of generations.
Thus, it is improbable that adding one
or two genes to improve a sate
microorganism for agriculture, mining.
waste removal, etc.. will render  that
organism dangerous.

Conclusions
Genetic engineering is one of the inanv
techniques being applied (o improve
products, develop new services, and
help us get a grip on environmental and
health  problems  resulting from heavy
use of man-made chemicals,  Farmers
and miners will be utilizing organisms
modified by genetic engineering just as
they have used organisms  modified by
traditional techniques. Farming, in Ihe
future, will be based more on biology
than chemistry. Biotechnology HUMUS
going "back  to nature." In this light, any
advantage the U.S. now enjoys in
biotechnology can easily be eroded.
Pointless regulation  will impose a
burden on an inherently safe technology
and delay the phasing out  of
undesirable  chemical products.  -
OCTOBER 1986

-------
Biotechnology:
Its  Possible  Dangers
by Jack Doyle
«/"«ene splicing" is no longer an
   VJexotic technology of tin: far
future: it is here today. And despite
what newspaper headlines might
suggest about postponed field tests and
progress, biotechnology is a going
business, rapidly becoming an
established part of  every major industry
based on biology or genetics.
  Genetically engineered organisms are
currently being field-tested, new
products are being  sold, and  millions of
dollars continue to be invested in
biotechnology  research as major
industries "re-tool" for the Age of
Hiology. American  Cyanamid, for
example, one of the nation's  major
chemical concerns, now defines  itself as
"a research-based biotechnology  and
chemical company  which develops
proprietary medical, agricultural,
chemical and consumer products ..."
  In medicine, genetically altered
insulin and interleron have been
approved by FDA and are on the
market. In agriculture, a number of new
genetically engineered livestock
vaccines an; currently in use, including
the first live virus lo prevent
pseudorabies in hogs. Genetically
altered crops are also being field-tested.
  Wall Street,  meanwhile, has been very
receptive to biotechnology, In recent
months, the "biotechnology index" lias
outperformed the Standard & Poors 500.
In July, the first public stock offering by
Calgene, a California biotechnology
company, sold out  in one day. with 2.25
million shares selling at .$14  per share,  a
price more than three times the
company's book value. In addition.
some unlikely corporations, such as
Kodak, have turned on a dime to launch
major in-house biotechnology R&U
programs, while others, such as
Bristol-Meyers do.  and  Kli  Lilly,  have
gobbled up promising new biotech
companies (Bristol  Meyers acquired the
Seattle-based Genetic Systems for 8295
                        'iienlnl Policy
                       ni/.utJon
             . ironmenlci! oiul natural
            •• v in IVd.shingfon. !).('.. I lis
              - •  I o|  agricultural
              Altered I larvest. U'lis
                 i In  Viking  Press.)
million last October, while Lilly paid
$350 million in March to buy up San
Diego's Hybritech.)
  But the business boom in
biotechnology does not mean that all
thi! questions about ecological risks
have been adequately answered. Nor
(ioes it suggest that there is an adequate
regulatory system in place, or that the
public is well informed about this new
technology. Quite the contrary.

Ecological Risks

Only since 1983 have government
agencies and scientific institutions
begun to think in-depth about what
genetically altered organisms might do
in the environment outside the
laboratory. And only as recently as June
19H5 did molecular biologists and
ecologists, meeting in Philadelphia for
the first time on the question of
deliberate release and ecological risks,
begin a scientific dialogue on the
subject. Hut in the last three years, as
more and  more  ecologists have
participated in the debate, more
questions  have begun to be asked and
more uncertainty and data gaps have
begun to appear.
  In  February 1985. the Cornell
University Ecosystems Research  Center
issued one of the first comprehensive
overviews of what was  possible and
what was  lacking in the way of
assessing the environmental risks of
new biotechnology products. The,
findings of that  report are fairly
astonishing and  underscore how little
we know about  microorganisms—how
they survive, why some grow and others
do not, and how they disperse in the
environment.
  Hut the  clincher in the Cornell  study
is what it  said about our ability to make
predictions about the behavior of
organisms in the environment.
"Methods  lor predicting the likelihood
of survival and  proliferation of a given
organism in the environment are  crude."
says  the report.  "Methods are available
for assessing some potential effects, but
there are many deficiencies in current
knowledge and  theory. Generally, we
hick any true data base  against which to
compare test results or predict
environmental consequences."
  F.PA's Scientific Advisory Hoard
released a January 1986 study that
echoed some of the same concerns
about data deficiencies and the present
state of ecological knowledge. In
addition, a growing list of ecologists.
entomologists, population biologists.
and evolutionary biologists continue to
raise new concerns independently of
official government bodies.
  Some scientists estimate that as many
as 80 percent of soil microbes have yet
to be cultured in the laboratory, and
perhaps as many as 90 percent don't
even have names. Of those that are
named, we don't know much about
their relationship with other microbes.
Scientists are unable to prove
conclusively that a given organism has
completely "died out." We can measure
when organisms have "died back," only
down to a certain level, beyond which
we can't  measure them accurately or
even detect them.
   Although EPA has so far approved
one field test for the much-maligned
"ice-minus"  bacterium (currently
blocked by litigation in California) as
well as a few other laboratory-mutated
and killed microbials, it has called for
more information in the case of a
Monsanto soil bacterium combined with
an insect toxin gene from bacillus
thuringiensis.
  As the Administration's current
multi-agency regulatory scheme wends
its way through a court challenge and a
public comment period, it is unclear
what regulatory scheme will finally
emerge, and  how effective the new
regulations will he. Congress has yet to
take a clear position on the  matter, and
there is some sentiment running in
favor of EPA having more authority in
reviewing release experiments, and
USDA and FDA having less.
In any case,  the issues of risk
assessment and scientific uncertainty
are sure; to figure prominently in all
future debates in Congress and
elsewhere. Yet, the most immediate
need is for publicly funded research to
tackle some  of the data shortcomings
and  upgrade assessment tools.
  Hut, assuming for the moment that
these problems will be overcome, there
are still other issues surrounding the
application of biotechnology that have
more to do with side effects, economic
impacts, and the setting of social
priorities than they do with microbes
running amuck.

Promises, Promises
In agriculture, for example.
biotechnology offers some very
interesting and promising opportunities,
                                                                                                        EPA JOURNAL

-------
                             \
from genetically engineered cereal crops
that "fix" their own nitrogen to the
development of safe biological
pesticides that could replace toxic
insecticides and herbicides. But, as with
all new technology, what  is promised is
not always what is delivered.
  In the agrochemical industry, for
example, companies such as Monsanto,
Ciba-tieigy. Stauffer Chemical, VV. R.
Grace, and others have teamed up with
biotechnology companies  and university
scientists to develop all kinds of new
"farm inputs." Some of these
companies,  to their credit, are working
to exploit molecular and cellular
mechanisms of disease and  insect
resistance within crops, a development
that could save farmers money while
cutting the use of pesticides.
  However, at  least 26 companies are
also engineering crops to  make them
genetically resistonl to the damaging
side effects  of herbicides,  raising
concerns about further ground-water
contamination. In addition, some
universities, USDA researchers, and
chemical firms are also fashioning a
new generation of fine-molecule
chemistry for  agriculture,  developing
chemical plant growth regulators
designed to "turn on" or "turn off" the
genes of field  crops in order to set more
flowers, capture more sunlight, or
produce stronger stalks. These "new"
products—essentially in the pattern of
the same "old" agricultural  chemistry,
but tied more  closely to plant
genetics—will extend the  pesticide era
rather than end it, continuing the health
and environmental risks associated with
pesticide use.

Biotech & the Ag Surplus
In quite another vein, biotechnology's
awesome powers of productivity  on the
farm may very well prolong and
increase the current agriculVuial
surplus—not only in the U.S.. but
worldwide—bringing further
management headaches to both fanners
and government planners; creating
pricing and  market instabilities; inviting
agricultural  trade and subsidy wars: and
ultimately forcing more farm
consolidation and the further demise <>t
the family farm.
  Bovine growth hormone (BGH), a
projected $1 billion product being
pursued by several major chemical and
pharmaceutical companies for use in ttu>
dairy industry,  will increase milk yields
per cow by 20 to 40 percent, reduce the
need for about a third of the present
U.S. dairy herd, and squee/.o out  of
business an  equivalent number of
farmers,  most of them small-to-medium
operators. This  new yield-enhancing,
genetically engineered product  (and
there are others coming for hogs,  sheep.
and cattle) will  come on the market
precisely when Congress must again
grapple with a new farm hill in
1989-1990, against a backdrop of
mountains of stored dairy products and
a darkening  economic picture for family
dairies.
   If agricultural biotechnology  simply
adds new increments of pedigree
improvement to the high-yield system
already in place, ivilh the same crop
varieties and the same livestock breeds
currently in  use, we will continue to
overproduce, driving more farmers off
the land and pushing more shaky rural
communities to the brink of bankruptcy.
But there are choices with this
technology,  and there is an opportunity
to be "smart" with the new knowledge
that  is coming to agriculture every day.
Biotechnology can be used to broaden
the mix of crops and livestock,  reduce
                                                                                 Hn.Miiiu. WA
                                                                                 thtit a
production costs for farmers, and help
eliminate the use of pesticides and other
supplements that have! IKK! negative
enviroiiment.il and  public health side-
effects. The1 choices, it would seem, are
ours to make.

The Vulnerable Thoroughbred

Our agricultural  system is very  much
like a thoroughbred race; horse:  it is a
system fully capable of achieving very
high yields, but. like the pampered and
sensitive! race horse, it must be
nwrnUnunl ,mil supported by all
manner of artifices. Today's hybrid
crops and pedigree  livestock must be
sustained and nourished by lu-avv
inputs of energy, water, fertili/J'r.
pesticides, medicated  leeds, hormones.
antibiotics, and capital. In short, ours  is
a high-strung agricultural system.
capable ol yielding  surplus, hut one
which is also vulnerable- to the- whims
of nature and technological "quirks."
  Biotechnology may  be used to isolate
and amplify the thoroughbred genes in
agriculture, creating a system Uuit is
made to "run fash'r."  but one- that is also
genetically locked in to chemicals,
capital, and big equipment  tei keep it
performing at peak  levels. In the long
run. that could be a elangerous and
vulnerable deployment of
biotechnology, produe ing a
"house-of-cards" system in  which one
unforeseen mutation or errant gent1
could bring down, the  whole system.
   .And beyond agriculture1, of course,
biotechnology is already bring used in
the forest products  industry, and will
certainly be used tor mining, enhanced
oil  recovery, toxic waste cleanup, and
various  marine applications. Virtually
every natural re-source! industry will be
affected,  as well  as  the! resounds
themselves, from ground water to the  air
wt! breathe.  Kcononiic anil
environmental questions will surely
emerge; in all ol these usejs. as well as
new ones not yet envisioned, So it
behooves us now to move! ahead with
deliberate caution and measuiiMi
forethought  in fully assessing the: risks
we will  lace, as well as making some
hard choices as to what we want  from
this "new fire," and how we want to
apply it.  [
OCTOBER 1986

-------
Keeping  Ahead
of  a  New  Technology
by Roy Popkin
"Now hen;, you .see. it dikes till the. running you can do,
In keep in tin.' someplace. If you wont to get somewhere else,
you must run ot Jcnsf ttv/cf; ris fa si as thai.
                                   -The Rod Queen in Through  1 'In; Lookin
    As biotechnology moves "somewhere
    else" into tin; urn of genetic
engineering, the Environmental
I'roteclion Agency finds itself running at
least twice as fast to stay ahead of this
burgeoning new technology. But. unlike
Lewis (Carroll's Red Queen, KPA also
has an  unprecedented opportunity to
make haste slowly and to anticipate the
problems—and benefits—that might conic
with genetic engineering and other
recombinant I)\'A breakthroughs.
  Proponents of genetic engineering say
that it has potential application to every
facet of modern life, particularly
medicine, industry, agriculture, and
pollution abatement or prevention, and
they hold out promise for:
• microbes that remove specific
pollutants from ground water,
wastewater, and soil:
• plants bred "to order" lor nutritional
composition and drought-, salt-, and
pest-resistance;
• improved  mining and oil extraction
methods: and
• low-cost manufacture of medicines
anil various proteins, en/ymes, and
hormones used in medical treatment.
  Opponents of widespread use of
genetically engineered  organisms, on the
other hand, fear tbat assessment of their
possible risks has been inadequate.
They charge thai introducing changed
organisms into the environment has
enormous potential for medical or
environmental catastrophe; they cite the
already alarming increase in bacterial
resistance tn antibiotics which has
occurred  because of widespread use of
antibiotics in animal feed as an example
ol the impact on the environment or
human activities.
  Other opponents raise concerns about
social impacts of biotechnology—for
example, will farming with genetically
engineered products eliminate all but a
handful of farmers?
  In this charged atmosphere, EPA is
running hard to stay ahead of the game.
And the game may, in fact, be a lot
longer and harder than was first
expected. In an early  study sponsored
by the National Science Foundation and
the Carnegie-Mellon Institute, a panel of
experts was  asked  to  predict  the major
 "This  time, we're doing  f/io
 worrying up front."—Dr.
 Elizabeth Milewski.
developments in genetic engineering
that would take place between 1980 and
the year 2000. As reported in the April
1981 issue of Futures magazine, the
experts were very optimistic. By the
early 1980s, they expected
biotechnology to have developed
nitrogen-fixing and predator-resistant
crops, one-celled edible proteins.
bacteria for use  in wastewater and
pollution control, techniques to isolate
genes causing birth defects as well  as
gene therapy to correct monogenic
diseases such as sickle-cell anemia, and
increased knowledge of immunological
processes, aging, and cancer.
   This ambitious agenda has not been
fulfilled. Few of the expected
breakthroughs have occurred even in
the laboratory,  much less in
the real  world of hospitals, farms, and
waste treatment plants. In addition.
legal challenges to the release of
genetically engineered organisms have
also served to slow commercial
development. As one trade magazine
                        •  tin !  i',\
commented several years ago, "... the
expectation that 'two geneticists and a
pair of white rats make a business'
seems now . . .  behind us."
  But. while industry may be'marking
time for the present, EPA is putting this
slowdown to good use, seeking to
develop a framework to  regulate this
new  industry without stifling it.
  The Agency's scientists generally
believe that most current and future
products of genetic: engineering will not
threaten the environment or human
health. But they want to be sure that
each product's  possible  risk is
adequately considered, that no accidents
inadvertently create a deadly virus or a
crop blight.
  Dr. Hli/.abeth Milewski, formerly in
the Office of Recombinant DNA
Activities at the National Institutes of
Health and now Special Assistant to the
EPA Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, puts it
this way: "This  is one time we are
attempting to evaluate the down-side of
a new technology before it is  widely
applied. When  the automobile was
introduced, people  said  tin; machines
would frighten horses and could  cause
accidents,  but no one envisioned the
impact cars and the fuel they used
would have on the  air we breathe or
that they would cause, lead poisoning in
children. At the start of  World War II,
when shipbuilding  increased  rapidly, no
one stopped to think about the asbestos
poisoning that would affect shipyard
workers in the years to come, even
though the  impact of asbestos on the
human lung was known at the time.
  "This  time, we're doing the worrying
up front. We're trying to determine what
problems genetic engineering might
create, and how we can  monitor the
technology and  use of its products so as
to prevent problems before they occur.
We want to know what  the risks are, so
we can regulate them properly, from a
base of scientific knowledge rather than
fearful conjecture."
                                                                                                      EPA JOURNAL

-------
                               .At (i treatment pimit. n worker mid's
                               microbiul products to nuslrivdtrr. 1
                               naturally 01 rum" NU  rnicrooi
                               he;l() destroy certain ormrriie compounds
                               in  (he ivasteivdter. Propon-
                               en^ineeri'iii" lioJd out projnisc lor
                               development of' "designer bugs" thai
                               can dei;nide toxic rhejni, ciJs in ground
                               ivuler, ivosfrivdter. (ind soil.
   In some ways, .she says, tin; future of
genetic; engineering will be like that  of
any  other new technology, hut EPA feels
that  "we must know more about and be
sure of the safety factors before our
regulations can be seen as credible by
those who may need reassuring that  the
new microorganisms are useful and
aren't to be feared."
OCTOBER 1986
  So far. EPA has only been asked to
license or otherwise approve a handful
of experimental applications of
genetically engineered
microorganisms—or potential
"superbugs"—in the environment.
  But there is no doubt that the Agency
will receive scores of  applications in the
future. Milewski believes that an
important future exists in genetic
engineering of "designer bugs"
(microbes that can degrade specific
toxic chemicals at their source in toxic
waste dumps or in ground water). While
microbes have been used to treat waste
for many years, their use has largely
been confined to bacterial contaminants.
The big challenge now is to find a way
to treat toxics with microbes.
  A step in the direction of producing
such bugs has occurred at EPA's
laboratory in Ada, OK, where
microbiologists John and Barbara
Wilson have  encouraged the growth of
microorganisms  that gobble  up and
detoxify chlorinated hydrocarbons such
as EDB and TCE. (These organisms will
be tested in wells next year in
conjunction with the Air Force, which
is a major user of TO!.) The Wilsons
and their colleagues are now seeking to
develop organisms to work on other
chemicals such as dioxin and PCBs.
  A similar effort at the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory could remove
selenium from the polluted  waters of
the Kesterson Wildlife  Refuge.
Biochemist Robert Taylor and geneticist
Emilio Garcia are working to combine
the genes of one bacterium that absorbs
selenium with the genes of .mother that
chemically detoxifies it. If they succeed.
Kesterson's 2.3 million gallons of water
could he filtered for a few hundred
thousand dollars  annually, rather than
the $1.1 million  to $145 million
estimated for other methods.
  EPA today  has  a multi-million dollar
research program in place. Coordinating
these activities is Dr. Morris Levin,
Biotechnology Program Coordinator in
the Office of  Environmental Processes and
Effects Research of the Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
  "At this point  in time, we are ahead
of the curve insofar as genetic
engineering is concerned," Dr. Levin
says. "The steady growth of commercial
research and  development has led to a
parallel growth of government concern
and activity."
                 Continued to next page

-------
  EPA's research efforts are focused
primarily on developing methods t (lie use nl booms lo
conhiin tin oil spill. Researchers ure
seek i                     itl tlnif ivi/J !)(.'
     to i nniml oil spills bio/ogiouJly.
and genetically engineered products
were identified. This effort culminated
in a 1984 conference at which panels
organi/.ed by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science
reviewed the proposed research plans.
The panels recommended an overall
research program concentrated on
environmental  effects and how to
estimate them,  ami a case-by-case
approach to evaluating the release of
specific microorganisms. (The
case-by-case approach is currently being
used by EPA to review applications  for
approval of experiments in real world
testing areas.) Funds allocated for the
research program were $1.5 million  for
fiscal year  1!JH5, $4.f> million in fiscal
year 1980 and $4.8 million for the
coming year.
   The? program now being carried out
in a number of  EPA and university
laboratories is built around risk
assessment. It includes development of
methods and protocols for laboratory
studies, evaluation and modification of
methodology in laboratory microcosms,
comparison of equivalent data Irom
field studies, and the preparation of risk
assessment guidelines. Eighty percent of
the funds are being used for
environmentally oriented research
because of the uncertainty regarding the
effects of manufactured superbugs on
the environment.
  Research at EPA's Corvallis, OK,
laboratory is on terrestrial ecological
assessment problems. The Gulf Breeze,
FL. lab is focusing on the aquatic
equivalent of those problems. The
Health Effects Research Lab, Research
Triangle  Park, NC, is seeking ways to
estimate  health effects and to develop
risk assessment guidelines. In
Cincinnati, OH,  Agency scientists are
looking at the problems of accidental
release, containment, and
decontamination. In addition to research
at its own facilities, EPA has
cooperative or related studies going on
at more than  a do/en universities and at
the Battelle Memorial Institute
Northwest.
  These scientists are a collective
equivalent of Alice's "Red Queen."
They're running twice as fast so that
before a product is ready for  release  into
the environment, the  world will know it
is safe. When genetically engineered
organisms arrive. EPA intends to have
in place a credible, well-founded
regulatory program with which to meet
the superbugs and see that they are
properly  introduced into the
environment.  :-
'
                                                                                                             EPA JOURNAL

-------
Some  Possible  Uses  for  Biotechnology
Here is a partial list of pending or
potential environmental uses of
genetically manipulated organisms.
• Using killed bacteria as a pesticide
  The delta-endotoxin gene from
Bacillus ihuringiensis (Bt) is cloned and
inserted into a species of Pseudomonas
which is cultured to produce large
amounts of the protein that acts as a
pesticide. The bacteria are then killed,
their cell walls fixed, and the resulting
"poison capsule" administered  as an
insecticide. Small-scale field trials by
the developer, Mycogen, San Diego, CA,
are under way. The Monsanto Co., St.
Louis, MO, is working on a similar
product involving the use of live
Pseudomonas /Juorescens containing the
Btgene.
• Ice minus
  Strains of Pseudomonas syringae and
Pseudomonas /Juorescens from which
the ice-nucleation gene has been deleted
will be applied to strawberry blossoms
to see if the "ice minus" bacteria will
make the strawberries frost resistant.
EPA approval of small-scale field testing
by the developer, Advanced Genetic
Sciences, Oakland, CA, is pending.
  A similar experiment by the
University of California at Berkeley
involves manipulating bacteria  to confer
increased frost resistance on potatoes.
Although approved by EPA, field testing
has been delayed because of legal
challenges against the university and
the State of California.
• Cell fusion product for fungus control
  A Cornell University scientist has
received EPA approval to field test
genetically altered strains of the fungus
Trichoderma  harzanfum to determine if
these  new strains are effective for
controlling fungi responsible for such
plant  diseases as damping off and root
rot. The strain was produced by fusing
cells of two closely related strains of the
fungus. The hybrid fungus will be
applied to pea and cucumber seeds.

• Fungus strains altered by ultraviolet
irradiation
  Four strains of the fungus Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum, genetically changed by
ultraviolet radiation, are being field
tested by Montana State University to
determine their  efficacy as herbicides
against the weeds Canada thistle and
spotted knapweed:
• Baculoviruses as pesticides
  By manipulating the organization and
expression of viral chromosomes,
researchers at universities in Florida,
Texas, and Idaho, and at Genetics
Institute, Cambridge, MA, hope to
increase the usefulness of baculoviruses
as pesticides.
• Engineered marine algae
  Protoplast  fusion techniques are being
used by scientists at Northeastern
University, and  other recombinant  DNA
techniques are being used in Australia
to increase the efficiency of marine
algae  in producing beta-carotene, agar,
and other useful algal by-products.
• Toxic waste disposal
  Researchers are seeking to engineer
bacteria to metabolize specific toxic
wastes such as PCBs or PBBs, dioxin,
and oil spills. One such bacterium,
developed by EPA distinguished visiting
scientist Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty, is a
Pseudomonas strain capable of
metabolizing several crude oil
components. This may improve the
possibilities of biologically controlling
oil spills by combining in one bacterium
functions that now must be performed
by several.
• Toxic waste disposal—heavy metal
recovery
  Bacteria are being experimentally
engineered to extract or concentrate
heavy metal contaminants from land fill
or mine tailings to minimize toxicity
problems and allow future agricultural
use of reclaimed land,  or more efficient
recovery of mineral resources. Similar
applications are being  developed in
relation to wastewater  and industrial
effluent treatment.
• Plants engineered for increased
tolerance to environmental factors
  Plants can be genetically engineered
tu increase their tolerance to such
limiting environmental factors as
salinity, drought, sensitivity to heavy
metal toxicity, pests, etc. This artificial
expansion of ecological niches could be
exploited to bring marginal lands into
use or to decrease problems of
deforestation and erosion. Such
developments could also reduce
dependence on environmentally
harmful pesticides.
• Pollution control
  Phosphorus removal, ammonia
oxidation, and flocculation are three
significant problems in municipal water
purification systems that could be dealt
with through use of engineered bacteria.
Developing the potential for using
genetically modified microorganisms
created at EPA's Ada, OK, laboratory for
use in removing toxic chemicals from
underground water supplies and wells
also represents a potential widespread
application of the new biotechnology, o
OCTOBER 1986
                                                                                                                 13

-------
"Hands-On"  Training
for  Asbestos  Control
by Dave  Ryan

< (  A sbestos" and "hands-on" would
   ZXseem to he mutually exclusive
terms these days, but not to the folks at
the University of Kansas National
Asbestos Training Center. Using a
retrofitted tractor trailer, the first ot its
kind in the country, they've built a
mobile training unit lor people who
work with asbestos. Their clients are
contractors, schools and building
owners, and workers: their mission is to
provide a real, bill safe, experience in
working  with asbestos.
  Asbestos is a proven human
carcinogen, causing as many as 12.000
cases ol lung  and other cancers in  the
U.S. every year. Since the early 1970s,
KI'A has  taken steps to reduce the  risks
of  asbestos to the public, most recently
proposing to phase out all asbestos use
in  new products. But while these
actions will help to eliminate problems
in  the Inlure.  KI'A estimates that
millions  ol people still live, work,  and
study in  buildings that hold friable
asbestos-containing materials. (Friable
materials are  those thai can he crumbled
under hand pressure and are therefore
likely lo  release libers when disturbed.
KI'A considers asbestos potentially
ha/ardous whim it is  in friable
material.| In their concern over the
presence of asbestos,  many building
owners have inadvertently hired
untrained contractors whose poor
removal efforts have sometimes made
exposures worse than had the asbestos
been left  in place.
  Aside Irom  providing grants to states
to  establish contractor certification
programs, KI'A is providing contractors
and workers with training in proper
methods  ot asbestos abatement. Since
I'lHf). the Agency has helped set up and
partially  fund five asbestos information
and training centers: Tults University in
Boston; the Georgia Institute ol
Technology in Atlanta: the University ot
Kansas at Lawrence; the University of
Illinois at Chicago; and  the University of
California ,it Berkeley. In the last Hi
months, these five centers have trained
over 7.000 participants in correct
methods  ol identifying and abating
asbestos.

[Hycjn is 
-------
 Practicing  the  Art
 of  Biomonitoring
 by  David Wann
 J.ovs J'urnsli. (in J-.'J'.A (it/imhV
 studies nrgmiisms from the sireimi
 bottom ol Denver's (,'lie.ny (.'reek.
 searching for si^ns liui! ivill indicate (lie
 quality of (lie creek's uuter.
 (IV'unn is a ivnler \vith KI'/Vs Hegion fi
 office in Denver.)
   Some of the techniques currently used
   by environmental scientists seem to
be as much art as science.
Biomonitoring is a good example, iiy
growing "indicator" species such as
fathead minnow, crustaceans like
daphnids, and algae in selected water
samples,  scientists can quickly
determine! if a given stretch of waterway
should he studied  in more  detail. The
artistry lies in deciding exactly where
and how  to use the indicators.
  According to Del Nimmo, an aquatic:
toxicologist with Region 8 of  the
Environmental Protection Agency in
Denver, "The advantages of this sort ol
testing are its simplicity,
cost-effectiveness, and quirk  results.
This technique can be used as a first
line of defense in the  protection of our
surface waters."
  There's no doubt that plant and
animal species have served as reference
points for environmental quality
throughout human history. One of the
first formalized uses of biomonitoring
was the canaries which miners took
with them into the coal mines to
forewarn of lethal gases. When the
canaries died from accumulating
methane, the miners got out fast. In
recent years, biomonitoring techniques
have become so finely tuned and
reliable that they are now being built
into the regulatory process.
  The Clean Water Act specifically
refers to biological testing for assessing
environmental hazards, especially  in
conditions where the mix of potential
pollutants is complex. Instrumental
techniques such as atomic absorption
spectroscopy, which have become
astonishingly sensitive in recent years,
can detect concentrations as small  as
parts-per-trillion, but  they can't
effectively demonstrate the interaction
of chemicals with each other, and with
variables such as acidity, hardness,
solubility, and exposure time.
  Biomonitoring integrates these
variables and  can definitely tell us
when chemicals have reached the toxic
level. It can also  help us trace
contaminants hack to such sources as
hazardous waste facilities, since it
can quickly reveal where the hot spots
are.
  Del Nimmo and his colleagues |im
Lazorchak and Tom Willingham have
been working with bioindicators lor
years, all over the U.S. and even as l.ir
afield as Egypt. Hut their recent work
has been  focused on using liny
crustaceans to monitor water quality in
the generally pristine streams and lakes
of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado. I'tah,
and North and South  Dakota.
   Sometimes they work out ol Region
8's  Environmental Services mobile  lah
for  several weeks at a time, but when
flexibility and a quick turnaround are
called tor. they can pack an entire Held
laboratory into a briefcase and an ice
chest. The most crucial equipment  is
the crustacean itself, hundreds of which
can be carried in a container no bigger
than a canning jar.
  In function, these organisms  are
similar to well-trained hunting dogs or
falcons, except that their repertoire of
skills  is limited: they dart around, eat a
specially  prepared diet, and. after only
four days, produce their first brood, if
the  water sample is clean thev  live: they
die  if  it's not.  II the water quality hills
OCTOBER 1986
                                                                                                                  :.

-------
somewhere between the two extremes, a
"chronic" test to observe the number
,iiul vigor of offspring will yield
valuable informal ion about the degree of
toxicity.  In some cases this information
can In; used to calculate the dilution
necessary to reduce the toxicity of a
given discharge to  acceptable levels.
  One ol (hi! biggest advantages of being
a test crustacean is that the food is good.
Trout chow, the entree, is concentrated
into  highly nutritious "soup" by being
gently bubbled  for  a week. The soup is
kept chilled until use. The second
course is a tea prepared  from powdered
rye grass or dried alfalfa usually
obtainable at a local health food store.
An equal serving of baker's yeast rounds
out the menu.
  Hut lest this begin to sound like a
)ulia Childs' luncheon buffet, it should
be emphasized  that these platoons of
daphnids are on very critical
assignments. Like the rest of the
conntrv.  Rocky Mountain and High
Plains states are experiencing water
contamination Irom both point sources
like wastewater discharges and
nonpoiiit sources such as agricultural.
urban, and mining  runoff. Since
mmpoint source contamination  can
result in  a wide range of potential
toxicants, hiuinoiiitoring is very
etleclive in homing in on the
troublespots in  large stretches of
waterway. Tin; technique is also a
natural for detecting the relative toxicity
ol treatment plant and industrial
effluent,
  Biomonitoring is being carefully looked
at both regionallv and nationally as a
means of meeting the objectives of the
Clean Water Act: to restore and
maintain tin; natural biological balance
ol the nation's waters, and prevent the
discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic:
amounts. Hiomonitorinng techniques
can also  be very effective; in the proper
assessment of risk, and the setting of
appropriate; toxic effluent  limits.
   In fact, the nation's first official
industrial application of biomonitoring
is now on line at the Ciby-Ceigy
chemical plant  in New Jersey. The
state's  Department  of Environmental
Protection has required that the plant
continuously monitor a colony of mysid
shrimp, an organism smaller than the
tip of a pencil point and  extremely
sensitive to contamination.
Biomonitoring is especially valuable in
this case because the company uses
hundreds of chemicals in  its
manufacturing processes, and
determining the impact of each
interacting chemical would consume a
lot of time and money.
  The role of "Toxic Busters" seems to
suit the EPA  crew of water quality
experts, who are often accompanied in
their efforts by state and local
employees. Their detective work has
already uncovered many cases of
toxicity with serious environmental and
health impacts.
 The most crucial equipment is
 the crustacean itself,  hundreds
 of which cun be curried in  a
 container no higher than  a
 canning jar.
  For example, late in 1985, EPA
•worked with the Colorado Water
Quality Control Division and the Denver
Metropolitan Sewage District on a
thorough profile of the South Platte
River.  Acute 48-hour tests and chronic
7-day tests revealed that one of Denver's
major wastewater treatment facilities
was in far worse shape than previously
realized. The results were unequivocal:
above the treatment plant, 100 percent
of the tiny crustaceans survived,
whereas directly below the plant's
discharges all perished.
  For 16 miles downstream from the
plant's effluent, survival and
reproduction of the bioindicators was
markedly reduced, which demonstrated
that a complete range of testing was
necessary.  Region 8's Environmental
Services lab took over at this point,
running fish bioassays and the whole
spectrum of chemical tests.
  Another discovery  resulting from the
South  Platte study was  that one  of the
river's tributaries, the prairie-born
Cherry Creek, had high levels of
contaminants in it.  At the confluence of
the river and the creek, right  where
Denver had first been settled, there was
something in the water that didn't
appeal at all to the  daphnid crustaceans.
A later, more in-depth,  biomonitoring of
Cherry Creek pinpointed several sources
of toxicity of both point and nonpoint
origins.
  Included in the Cherry Creek profile
was an evaluation of invertebrate life in
the bottom  level of the streambed. The
quantity and type of  organisms present
in a given  square foot of stream  bottom
can yield valuable information about
how clean the water  is. In general, as
water quality decreases, one observes a
higher population of midge larvae (a
mosquito-like insect), more caddis flies
and snails, and fewer mayfly and stone
fly larvae. Though the biologists wading
through Cherry Creek seemed to be
panning for gold as Denver's pioneers
had done, actually they were in search
of something even more valuable: signs
of the kinds of living things proving that
the water was clean and safe.
  "There are  a whole lot of variables
here," Nimmo remarked as he looked up
from his microscope. He was evaluating
the results  of an acute toxicity test
which he and personnel from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife had
performed  on water samples taken
upstream from the Chalk Cliff fish
hatchery just east of the Continental
Divide.  The facility and a  sister
hatchery supply many of the trout
stocked in  the state's cold-water
streams. But  in recent years, during
periods of high runoff, substantial
percentages of fingerling trout
transferred from Mt. Shavano to Chalk
Cliff had not  survived the move. When
the transfers were made experimentally
to other receiving waters, the die-off
didn't occur.  Apparently there was
something  odd about the water  in Chalk
Creek, especially in the springtime.
  Biologists observed the transferees
closely and noticed that as soon as they
arrived  they would start jumping. At
first they thought the fish  had too much
darkness en route and were just reacting
to the light. But  within 24 to 48 hours
many of the trout were dead.
  Extensive testing was performed on
Chalk Cliff's waters for heavy metals,
dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia,
hardness, etc., but the problem could
not be pinpointed. Among the many
possible causes were the amount of
runoff during a given year, the presence
of septic leach fields and greenhouse
operations  along the creek, the routine
pesticide spraying nearby  on national
forest lands,  and the interaction of
various  compounds under differing pH
and temperature conditions. Finding  the
exact source of the fish-killing
contaminants was about as easy as
juggling tenpins  in a space station.
  Yet, biomonitoring gave quick and
conclusive results. In water collected
upstream from two abandoned mines,
the daphnids were thriving, but water
directly below the mine tailings was
100 percent fatal to the crustaceans.
  "I'm proud of  these critters",
remarked Del Nimmo. "It looks  as if
they've  once  again saved us a lot of
time, expense and aggravation."  n
16
                                                                                                           EPA JOURNAL

-------
   Wteanftigs
      |     from
      {Tangier
           Island
                  Text
      by John Heritage
          Photographs
      by Steve Delaney
             he sea is our
      life, our highway, our
         farm, our prison."

       So wrote a native of
Tangier Island describing his
hometown: two am) one-half
   square miles of low-lymi;
  land on the Virginia side of
    the Chesapeake Bay. On
  Tangier Island, "waterman"
  is the occupation of  choice.
  Nearly all the island's men
earn their living from the sea,
    dredging for oysters and
      harvest in;.; 1'iue crabs.
Tangier has only a few miles
of roadway. Most of its traffic
           is on the water.

     The people of Tangier
  Island have a long tradition
of living simply and close to


-------
                                                                                             \

Continued/rom p«ge 17

     Ihc environment. A man
   checking his crab pots on a
     quiet summer morning; a
      bird  flitting through the
      marsh grass — these are
  everyday scenes on Tangier.
     Life here is very different
      from the urban life with
         which most of us are
       familiar. Hut the island
 triggers reflections  that might
        help us rediscover the
    meaning of our own daily
            efforts to improve
    environmental conditions,
   including the waters where
      the Tangier Island crabs
                    flourish.

     There has been in  recent
years a national awakening to
the complexity of life ami the
  fragility of the environment.
 and a growing willingness to
      respect and adapt to the
     natural scheme of things.
       This change  in attitude
   represents a new  reverence
   for basic natural values and
 the interrelatedness of living



 things, a change that reaches
  from sail marsh to corporate
       board room, from crab
     harvest to Congressional
      hearing. When we think
     about it, perhaps Tangier
     island and the re.sl of the
    country aren't so far away
   from each other after
18
                                                                                                           EPA JOURNAL

-------
1 As cll'tl/l Iddltdl'V Hops (Mil (J
lirn( on  ID'S hockvdi'd lint'.
Nonner  I'initl ivorks on  Ibr
cu.'islTiiriioii  nl  ii  flat-bottom
skiff. I /(• u'i/1 usr  (he snidll
hodl lo shuMfe Ijcu.k  t
William. On  Tdii^it.T Jsldini.
"You've (dsl  «dl ID hnvc |u
hodlj." ii iidli1.
"sk'l/f.s  tur I/K; lillli' o/ic.s.
         K for lhe  \"on(hs. t/nd
      crull  IDI (he
    iin'i iiiiris."
5 C.'rdl) Iru/is. liouls, mid
sli(/n(irs: (lie rssrn(id/s nt litf
on Tdii;;i('[' Islonii. f''ish hm'l
fifdced insidi1 (lie imps hu'es
111); cniljs. A siiisjJi! fishci'ltldll
nun scl oul rnoi'd ljuin d
hundred  In/ps cdc/i ilav.

Ii A  vDim.'isdT holds Ihr  pri/.o
he1 /HIS jnsl srooped up u i(h
his cm!) nut: d  preli'r. 'I'/iis  is ti
crdh ncdfh' fvdd\ In shed /(s
fiurd exoskeldlon (ind furn inlo
ihe Chesapeake lln\  delicd< y
        (is d soM-shell.
7 GeneratiorivS ol
have 'Odin/ d tinal
/i/iicr in Ihe  rdised graves
f/iis cemetery on Ton.nier's
Mldill sir-eel. 1/i.uh Idlid
nowhere  more ihim five ire!
dhci e srd It'Vt'l    is tit u
preiniuin hei B   is a resiill.
iii' islanders IKIIT Iheii
kin/oik in ITIised uid\cs  in
Iheir lionl yurds.

fi U'hife cJapboard houses of
Tiini'.ier Ishmd oi'erlook l/lis
dhimdoned uorkhodl.  rolliny
away in (he  ^niss of (in
adjacent  sail
OCTOBER 1986
                                                                                                                                          19

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ANNALS
A  Close  Call
on  the  Mississippi
 by Roy  Popkin
   Slow and squat, the river baige
   Wydiem  112 hardly looked like the
cause of a major emergency, and thanks
to good hick and creative improvisation,
sin; wasn't. Hut 25 years ago, she could
have been the world's  lirst synonym for
a disastrous  airborne chemical release.
  On the morning of March  23, Hlfil,
the IVycliem was being towed north in
the flood-swollen waters of the
Mississippi Kiver. Seven and a half
miles south of Natchi;/, MS, and
Vidalia, I.A, the barge  was swamped by
waves, snapping the Unvlines and
sinking the barge into  the muddy river
bottom. The Master of the tnwhoat
radioed the U.S. Army Corps of
Knginoers, reporting that the Wye-hem
had sunk with a load of caustic soda.
  He was right about the sinking, but
very wrong about  the cargo. The
Wyr.'/iem  was carrying lour large steel
tanks containing liquified chlorine
gns  enough to make more poison gas
than was used in all of World War 1.
  Sunken barges on the Mississippi are
not thai unusual, and  the lost vessel
posed no apparent threat to river
navigation. Hut the IVycJiem's cargo was
of considerable concern to the federal
government, which is responsible for
the safCty of the nation's navigable
waterways. II was not any threat  to
other tows that worried government
officials; it was the chlorine gas. Should
the tanks or their valves be  damaged, or
eventually rust  through, (lie chlorine
could bubble up to the river's surface,
becoming a  deadly, uncontrollable
cloud.
   Many people think of chlorine as a
water purifier, a household  cleaner,
something you pour into a swimming
 pool to kill bacteria. And it is those
things. Hut chlorine is also a poison,
causing acute, delayed, and chronic
 health hu/.ards.or even death, if inhaled.
 Its symptoms may include; burns lei the
                                       skin and eyes, severe irritation of the
                                       nose, throat, and eyes, severe coughing,
                                       difficulty in breathing, congestion, and
                                       other problems.
                                         One book describes the use of
                                       chlorine in World War I  this way:
                                       "spread as a gas by Ihe Oermans  then
                                       they called  it mustard gas—it waited
                                       over allied lines, almost uniioticeable at
                                       first, just a faint metallic  odor. Then
                                       then: was a stronger stench. A vile
                                       yellow  fog crept evilly along the muddy
                                       ground of battlefields like Ypres.
                                       Pushed by the  wind it climbed the
                                       bunkers and over walls. Heavier (ban
                                       air, it filled the trendies, tin: ditches,
                                       and ravines. First the .soldiers' eyes
                                       began to water, then  their throats
                                       tightened. The yellow gas flooded their


                                       In the National Guard armory,
                                       a large jug of chlorine was
                                       marked, "Take a sniff. Know
                                       your  enemy."
                                       lungs, searing them,  leaving the soldiers
                                       gasping for oxygen. They vomited,
                                       writhed into unconsciousness, and  died.
                                       Kven small closes left thousands
                                       crippled with respiratory diseases for
                                       life. It doesn't take much. As little as 50
                                       parts per  million in the air  is enough to
                                       cause quick, horrible death."
                                         The U.S. Public Health Service,
                                       responsible for air quality problems at
                                       that time,  had this history in mind
                                       when it estimated there could be as
                                       many as 50,000 casualties-  hall of  them
                                       fatalities—if the chlorine in the harges's
                                       tanks leaked and a gas cloud
                                       subsequently spread  over nearby cities
                                       and the surrounding countryside.
                                         Despite  these worries, more than  a
                                       year later, the Wychem and its lethal
                                       cargo were still  at the bottom of the
                                       river. The cargo owners, their insurers,
                                       and the Corps of Kngineers had ail  tried
                                       with no success to locate the sunken
                                       barge. In September  of I!)(i2, President
                                       John Kennedy asked the Office of
Emergency Planning to look into the
matter. The Corps of Engineers was
assigned to  find and salvage the barge,
while the Public Health Service was
given responsibility for public safety.
  The decision taken in September set
up a unique barge recovery task force.
In today's lexicon, what the task force
did  would be called an "emergency
removal."
  The task force had three big jobs
ahead of it:  finding the hulk; raising it
and its cargo safely; and devising an
evacuation plan that could  move some
80,000 people out of range  of any toxic
cloud that might be released,
  Using a U.S. Navy hurricane hunter
plane and an electronic probe used by
oil companies to locate sunken
pipelines, the Corps found  the IVycliem
in a few days. It was largely buried in
the  mud, its "back" broken and  tilted in
two directions. Divers immediately
began investigating the condition of the
barge and the cargo, but all operations
were halted when the Mississippi
director of civil defense said his state
was not adequately prepared for an
emergency evacuation. Not until
October 1-1  were tin: evacuation
problems resolved and salvage work
resumed.
  The plan was to raise each of the four
tanks  individually. This was considered
less risky than raising the entire barge at
once,  transferring the chlorine to other
containers while they remained
underwater, or gradually bleeding the
chlorine out of the tanks to the surface.
  Under the leadership of the Public
Health Service, the Red Cross and
various state agencies had put together
an evacuation and shelter plan keyed to
a special warning system and ready  to
go around the clock until the tanks had
been safely  raised and removed from the
area. The fcderali/ed Mississippi
National Cuard on one side of the river
and the Louisiana State Police on the
other were responsible for carrying out
any evacuation. The Public Health
                                                                                                        EPA JOURNAL

-------
Servie:e recommended total  evacuation
within a thirty-mile radius of the
salvage .situ. Tin; area, which included
Natchez, Vidalia, and a number of
smaller communities, as well as isolated
fishing camps and farms, had a
population of HO,000. All those; people
would have lo be: warned and moved
beyond the thirty-mile limit as  soon as a
leak occurred. Why thirty miles? A Red
Gross disaster administrator who
participated in the planning meetings
recalls thai "we had to go by what was
known about chlorine gas at the time
. . .  and a lot  oi thai came from
battlefield experience."
  Using supplies from its own and
government sources, (lie Red dross
established llllt temporary shelters and
supporting logistical facilities in
communities outside  the proscribed
danger area. These were manned by  key
personnel 24 hours a  day; until the last
tank was raised, many of these  people
had to be close to a designated
telephone at all limes. Hospitals, clinics,
and oilier facilities were given special
training and supplies  for use in treating
chlorine exposure victims.
  Natchez, a  rivorport city and  tourist
attraction because of its many fine
antebellum homos, was the largest city
involved. National Guardsmen were
posted al every street corner, day and
night, to sound an alarm and assure the
evacuation of everyone; in adjacent
homes.  In the National Guard armory, a
large jug of chlorine was marked, "Take
a snill. Know your enemy." livucuation
drills were held in all schools, bringing
the average time it took to empty a
school,  lag thi:  kids, and get them on an
outbound bus  lown to under two
minutes. In fact, because it was easier to
manage the cily's children while they
were in school, all the tanks were raised
during school hours. When raising the
third lank took longer than expected,
school hours were extended.
  Those buildings that couldn't or
shouldn't be  evacuated on short notice,
such as the telephone company central
office and the local hospitals,  were
lilted  with collective protectors,
compressed air units that looked like
giant tarantulas hanging outside the
buildings. These units  kept a higher
than normal air pressure in designated
inside areas  to  prevent the entrance of
chlorine-laden air. Individual gas masks
wen: issued  to everyone.
  During the  salvage period, no sirens
were used by emergency vehicles or
local fin: alarm systems.  The populace
                                                                                  A r/i/'on'fii  <:nik • I
                                                                                  Wychi
 knew that a siren meant just one
 thing—chlorine gas was loose;.
 Whenever a tank was bring lifted from
 the bottom, activity in N'atche/ seemed
 to come to a halt. Everyone listened !o
 live radio broadcasts from the riverbank.
 And each time the "play-by-play"
 reporter on the Natchez radio station
 announced that a tank had been  secured
 on a special bargo and was under way,
 the city seemeel to conic back to  life
 with a collective .sigh of relief.
   Tense as the situation was. it was not
 without  humor. On Halloween, kids
 painted their gas masks weird colors and
 wore them when they  went out to trick
 or treat. The Coast Guard,  which was
 responsible for controlling river Irailic
 during the: operation, tried to prevent a
 riverboat from bringing a group of
 eilnhwomen into  Niitohe/ for a lour of
 the mansions. When ihe women
 persisted in touring, they were ordereul
 to wear gas masks at all times.
   At the site of the salvage operation
 shortwave ratiio operator was on  duly
 constantly to relay word of any leak.
 The; National Weather  Service released
 balloons regularly to monitor wind
 direction, and a helicopter sat on the
 le:ve:e, reaely to follow a gas cloud and to
 warn hunters, fishermen, and isolated
 farmsteads. Scientists in small hoals
 circled the salvage- area, ready to  spray
 ammonium hydroxide on any !ell-tale
 bulihles and to signal even the; smallest
 sign ol a chlorine leak. This, too. went
 on  night and day. All salvage workers
 wore proleolivo ge:ar, and special  wind
 machines were imported from
 Hollywood lilm studios lo  blow anv
 escaping gas awav li'om the salvage
 crews and emergency operations.
  [ludor the water, alter practicing in
pitch black darkness, divers bail to first
clear away the accumulated mini  ami
silt  in some places 14  fuel deep   from
the barge, than carefully remove the
deck structure so thev could gel at llie
individual tanks.  Then, ever so
delie:alely. they had to  remove; the
fastenings holding Ihe tanks in place;
OCTOBER 1986
                                                                                                                      21

-------
ami just as delicately attach new straps
to hooks lowered from giant derricks on
the salvage barge above Ihem. Tin; cram;
operators, directed  from beneath the
river, had to inch each tank into a level
position trom its canted  posture on the
broken barge. Once this was done, the
derricks raised the  tanks  slowly—until
they broke through the river surface up
to 50  feet above the U'v'cliem's resting
pi,ice. From there, they were hoisted
onto a 1 iar;.;e ami closely examined to
make .sure the valves  were intact. Then,
a! last, each tank was Unved to a depot
in ( leismar,  I.A, where the liquid
chlorine  was transferred to safe .storage
tanks.
  The last tank was raised on November
5. All that remained of the operation
were  the after-action reports, and they
have  long since disappeared into files
and libraries.
  The story  of the sinking of Wydiem
1  12 will never be the  subject  of country
ballads, for no one died and the salvage
operation  plan went ol'l without a hitch.
But the potential for such incidents has
increased. A report  for the Federal
Emergency Management  Agency
published early  this year cited  nearly
:!()() evacuations because of chemical
accidents  —more than one a week—in
the United States from 1'JllO to 108-1.
The average involved  one thousand
people. The largest, in which 30,000
were  evacuated, took  place in
downtown San Francisco alter a
piepline carrying PCIis was broken.
  The largest chemical-caused
evacuation on record  occurred in
Canada in 107!), when a  freight train
derailed outside the city of Mississauga
in the province ol (Jntario.
  The force  of exploding chemicals tore
a large hole  in a tank  car containing
liquid chlorine,  letting the chemical
leak out in the form of a dangerous gas
cloud. And  the continuing fires not only
created a danger of further explosions,
but delayed efforts  to seal the leak.
What's more, the problem of sealing the
leak turned  out  to be  much more
dilficult than expected; the personnel
involved had to work not only on the
exterior of the tank car but had to get
inside it, an extremely risky business at
best.  It took six  days to close the holes
and extinguish the  fires.
   Initially,  only the industrial area
immediately .surrounding the  wreck was
evacuated. Then, as the escaping
chlorine formed into  yellow clouds, the
evacuation was  expanded to include
everyone  living within five miles oi  the
accident site; ultimately, almost 25
residents, four hospitals, and all
         t
commercial establishments in the area
were evacuated. It was not until five
days later that the authorities permitted
people to return on a sector-by-sector
basis.
  Again, good luck and effective fiction
by public authorities prevented another
candidate for the "first" Hhopal.
Fortunately, the wreck had occurred
between  Iwo heavily  populated areas
under wind conditions that blew the gas
clouds away irom the population long
enough to gel people out of barm's  way.
  Invents like the 10(>2 chlorine barge
sinking or the Mississauga trainwreck
would  be handled much differently in
the United States today. For ihe one
thing, much more is known about the
behavior of  leaking chlorine and
chlorine  gas clouds. Federal criteria for
emergency actions recommend a much
smaller evacuation area than  the ,'10-mile
radius  specified in 10()2. It probably
would  be in keeping  with the live-mile
radius  used by  the Canadians, or
possibly  a smaller area, although Joseph
Lafornara of FPA's Fmergency Response
Training Center in Fdison, NJ, says  "if I
thought that the amount of chlorine
they had under the Mississippi was
going ttj be released ail at  once, 1 might
urge a much larger area be cleared  om."
  Hut the major difference today is
FI'A's automatic presence on  the scene
in any  situation that presents an
imminent threat to human health or the
environment. Chemical releases today
are generally reported o the National
Response Center (NKC). The N'RC then
contacts Fl'A to respond to the
emergency. Although the state and local
officials are responsible for carrying out
evacuations, FPA's experts provide  the
technical leadership on  decisions about
the extent of danger and the area to be
      rs iii (lie Mississippi X'
Ciuml instructed Jncul residents in hou
(o use the gris musks llui! ivi
(li.slrihuted in ruse one ol (lie U'yi i;
chlorine kinks Jeukril

evacuated. EPA's computer models, for
example,  can test hundreds of different
scenarios  from an  incident, thus giving
emergency response agencies a quick fix
on what needs to be done and how
soon.
   In addition, EPA has access to a
multitude of quick response information
systems on topics  such as  toxic effects
of chemicals, medical treatment,
identities  of chemical manufacturers
and  transporters, and an  inventory  for
locating response equipment.
   Finally, one other important
difference is the; availability of guidance
to help communities prepare for such
incidents. EPA's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program, activated in the
aftermath  of the Hhopal incident,
provides information on  preparing
contingency plans; criteria for
identifying chemicals that can be
acutely toxic under certain conditions
and  a list  ot chemicals that  meet these
criteria; and technical training for
emergency response officials. If state
and  local  governments use EPA's
assistance, future emergency operations
won't be stymied by the  lack of an
adequate evacuation plan. If the EPA
goals are achieved, every river-front
community will not only know what
cargoes are moving by, but also what  to
do if something goes wrong. It would be
a wonderful legacy for Wycliem  112 to
leave; behind.  O
22
                                                                                                            EPA JOURNAL

-------
Update
A review of recent  major EPA
activities and developments
in the pollution control
program areas
AIR
Chrysler Recall
EPA ordered Chrysler
Corporation to recall about
93.000 cars that are
exceeding the federal oxides
of nitrogen emission
standards.
  The affected models are the
1981 Dodge Omni and 024
and the Plymouth Horizon
and TC3 equipped witli a 1.7
liter engine and manual
transmission.
  Once a remedial plan has
been approved by EPA,
Chrysler will notify owners
of the affected vehicles by
mail.
  The average oxides of
nitrogen emissions from
vehicles tested at EPA's lab
was 1.4 grams per mile
(gpm). The current standard
is 1.0 gpm.
                              1987 Gas Mileage Estimates
                              The Chevrolet Sprint ER tops
                              the list of vehicles tested in
                              EPA's  gas mileage figures for
                              the 1987 model year vehicles.
                               The  Sprint, rated at 54
                              miles per gallon (mpg) for
                              city driving and 58  on the
                              highway, was followed bv the
                              Honda Civic Coupe HE-' with
                              a 52 city and 57 highway
                              mpg ranking. The Sprint.
                              which has a three cylinder
                              engine, is made for  Chevrolet
                              by Suzuki  in Japan.
                               The  top domestic models
                              are the Ford  Escort  and
                              Lincoln-Mercury  Lynx
                              diesels rated at 37 city and
                              45 mpg highway.
HEALTH
Guidelines for Risk
Assessment
EPA announced that it will
publish risk assessment
guidelines setting out the
approach EPA will use to
evaluate the public health
risk of environmental
pollutants.
  The guidelines will be
used by agency scientists to
assess the risk of given
pollutants in five areas:
carcinogenicity
(cancer-causing effects).
mutagenicity (genetic
damage),  developmental
toxicities (birth defects).
chemical  mixtures, and
exposure.
  EPA expects that data and
methodological uncertainties
identified in the guidelines
will spur future research in
this area.
                              PESTICIDES
                              Dinoseb Pesticide
                              EPA has warned that
                              pregnant women exposed to
                              the  pesticide dinoseb during
                              its application in the field
                              may pose a risk of birth
                              defects to their unborn
                              children. Women of
                              child-bearing age are
                              cautioned to avoid exposure
                              to dinoseb during
                              application. The Agency
                              believes that dietary exposure
                              to dinoseb is not of concern.
                                EPA Deputy Administrator
                              A. James Barnes, said,
                              "the warning is primarily
                              aimed at making sure
                              that the  agricultural
                              community in particular
                              understands the health risks
                              associated  with the exposure
                              of women to dinoseb."
                                Dinoseb  is primarily a
                              contact herbicide used to
                              control broudleaf weeds. It  is
                              highly toxic to humans by
                              exposure through the skin as
                              well as inhalation, and label
                              directions require protective
                              clothing for applicators.
TOXICS
Lead in Plumbing
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas has formally notified
the governors of the 50 states
of significant  new limits on
use of lead in the installation
and repair of  public drinking
water supply  systems.
  Thomas stated in the
letters to the governors that
"I recognize that you may
already have instituted or be
considering similar
prohibitions and
requirements. You are to be
commended for your action."
  Extensive; studies have
shown that lead in  drinking
water can cause damage to
the central  nervous system in
humans,  and that children
are especially vulnerable to
the toxic effects of this
metal. ~
OCTOBER 1986
                                                                                                                  23

-------
 Appointments
Dr. Vaun A. Newill has been nominated
by President Reagan to become the new
Assistant Administrator tor Research
5-(if>. Hi1 was on the faculty in the
Departments of Preventive Medicine
and Medicine. School of Medicine.
Western  Reserve University, from
1 95f>-19(>7.  Dr. Newill  has worked with
the Exxon Corp. since  1074. 1 le
currently is regional medical director
and head of the Occupatonal and
Environmental Health  Department.
Exxon Europe, London, a post he has
held since June 1985.
  ili: received a bachelor ot science
degree in chemistry from Juniata College
in I')-};).  an M.D. from the University of
Pittsburgh in l!)47. and a master's
degree in hygiene epidemiology  from
Harvard  I 'niversitv in  1900.
 Frank M. Covington. Director of the
 Water Management Division in Region 9,
 has been selected to become  the new
 Deputy Regional Administrator for
 Region 5, EPA.
  Covington brings to this position  a
 wide range of environmental
 experience. He  has 1, sen with Region 9
 since 1971 in various capacities.
 including Director of the Air and
 Hazardous Materials  Division,  Director
 of the Enforcement Division.and Director
 of the Air and Water Division. In 1977.
 he was Acting Deputy Regional
 Administrator in Region 7. Prior to
 joining Region 9. he occupied the
 position of Director of Planning and
 Interagency Programs at KPA
 Headquarters. He also worked at one of
 EPA's predecessor agencies as Executive
 Assistant to the Commissioner ol the
 Federal Water Quality Administration,
  Covington received his bachelor's
degree from San Francisco State
University and his master's degree in
business administration from Colden
Cate University.
Sheldon Meyers, formerly the Deputy
Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Air and Radiation, will become the new
Director of the Office of Radiation
Programs in the Office of Air and
Radiation at EPA.
  Meyers, who has been with the
agency off and on since its existence,
has held many positions in the Agency.
From 1969-77, he directed the Federal
Solid Waste Program and  the Federal
Activities Program at KPA. From
1978-82 he was Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the National Nuclear Waste
Management Program at the Department
of Energy, and from 1982-83, he  served
as Director of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and  Standards at EPA.
  Meyers received his bachelor's degree
in Marine Engineering from the State
University of New York, an M.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Michigan, and a  masters
degree in Business Administration from
New York University. He received the
Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious
Executive; in 1981.  LJ
.M
                                                                                                       EPA JOURNAL

-------
         An experiment in cultun'n»
  anthers, (lie male parts  of /lowers.
       The experiment bypasses the
  genetics of sexual reproduction  to
   generate neiv plants in test tubes
        from bits  of anthers. In this
   photograph, ivhite clumps in the
       test tube on the left  are cells
   forming fro/n live wheat anthers.
       In the confer tube;,  masses of
        undifjerentiated tissue1 groiv
           from the cells; and. in ci
special growing medium in the tube
on (he right, a small plant develops
           from the cultured tissue.
                                                                                   Hack cover: Fall in X'civ Hampshire,
                                                                                   Photo bv (,'vnthiu Foster. Folio, Inc.

-------
  ,v
PreCTc-,-6-
                                                                                              .Third-das
                                                                                               Postage a
                                                                                               EPA
                                                                                               Permit t»s

                                                                                           -

-------