-------
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
-
------- |