Biotechnology in a Global Economy (Part 11 of 23)

Chapter 8

Environmental Applications

“If it wasn’t for the high cost of the alternative, this (bioremediation) wouldn’t be worth consideringat all. ’

Perry L. McCartyStanford University, 1987

CONTENTSPage

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ENVIRONMENTAL USES OF BIOTECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . .Microbial

CASEThe

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Enhanced Oil Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STUDY: BIOREMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Biotreatment Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Biotreatment Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advantages of Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Barriers to Commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prospects for Genetically Engineered Microbes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARYCHAPTER 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REFERENCES ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129129129129131131131132135136137139140140

BoxesBox Page8-A. The Exxon Valdez Bioremediation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1348-B. International R&D, Improved Waste Treatment Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1358-C. Federal Statutes Relevant to Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

FigureFigure Page8-1. Laboratory Selection and Enhancement of Micro-organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

TablesTable Page8-1. Challenges for Pollution Control and Toxic Waste Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1298-2. Some Potential Environmental Applications of Genetically Engineered

Organisms in Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1308-3. Challenges for Microbiological Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1318-4. Challenges for Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Chapter 8

Environmental Applications

INTRODUCTIONMicro-organisms have several potential uses in

the environment, for purposes as diverse as agricul-ture, pollution control, mining, and oil recovery.With the arrival of biotechnology, the potential ofimproving micro-organisms for selected uses hasreceived increased attention and speculation. How-ever, research and product development in theenvironmental sectors are minuscule comparedto more commercially lucrative sectors influ-enced by biotechnology, and international activ-ity to date is limited. This chapter summarizes somepotential environmental uses of biotechnology anduses a case study approach to analyze bioremedia-tion efforts to commercialize biotechnology forhazardous waste management.

ENVIRONMENTAL USES OFBIOTECHNOLOGY

Biotechnology has several potential applications,including pollution control, agriculture, mining, andmicrobial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). For allfour areas, commercial hurdles exist: technical,research funding and priorities, scale-up, regulatoryapprovals, and economics.

Pollution ControlBiotechnology has several applications for pollu-

tion control, including solid and liquid waste treat-ment, hazardous waste management, slime control(e.g., manufacture of paper), and grease decomposi-tion (e.g., meats and certain foods, and waste watercollection) (13).

Current commercial applications of biotechnol-ogy rely on conventional techniques of geneticmanipulation and microbiology; the use of recombi-nant DNA (rDNA) to develop microbes with specialcapabilities for waste degradation has been limited.As of 1988, 65 companies were involved in someaspect of biotechnology for waste management (15).None is currently using or even testing geneticallyengineered micro-organisms in the environment,although research is going on in the lab (see table8-l).

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince WilliamSound in 1989 focused public attention on the use of

Table 8-l-Challenges for Pollution Controland Toxic Waste Treatment

. The isolation and characterization of enzymes to degrade lowmolecular weight organic compounds.

. Better characterization of metallothioneins (proteins that havea high affinity for heavy metals) from various species.

. The identification of polysaccharides to serve as bioflocculants(materials that thicken sludges for separation treatment).

● The development of enzymes for sludge dewatering.. The development of microbial strains or enzymes that degrade

toxic compounds.. The development of improved polysaccharide hydrolyses to

degrade slimes.. To decrease regulatory uncertainty.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

bioremediation for oil-spill cleanups. Of the vari-ous environmental applications possible throughbiotechnology, oil-spill cleanup and hazardouswaste treatment constitute the only major com-mercial activities to date.

Agriculture

Potential environmental applications of geneti-cally engineered organisms in agriculture are varied(see table 8-2). Genes have been introduced into

Photo credit: Environmental Protection Agency

Prince William Sound, Alaska site of the extensivebioremediation experiments carried out by the

Environmental Protection Agency, Exxon,and the State of Alaska.

–129-

130 ● Biotechnology in a Global Economy

Table 8-2—Some Potential Environmental Applications of Genetically EngineeredOrganisms in Agriculture

Micro-organismsBacteria as pesticides:

“Ice-minus” bacteria to reduce frost damage to agricultural crops.Bacteria carrying Bacillus thuringiensis toxin to reduce loss of crops to dozens of insects.Mycorrhizal fungi to increase plant growth rates by improving efficiency of root uptake of nutrients.Nitrogen-fixing bacteria to increase nitrogen available to plants and decrease the need for fertilizers.

Viruses as pesticides:Insect viruses with narrowed host specificity or increased virulence for use against specific

agricultural insect pests, including cabbage looper, pine beauty moth, cutworms, and otherpests.

Vaccines against animal diseases:Swine pseudorabiesSwine rotavirusVesicular stomatitis (cattle)Foot and mouth disease (cattle)Bovine rotavirusRabiesSheep foot rotInfectious bronchitis virus (chickens)Avian erythroblastosisSindbis virus (sheep, cattle, chickens)

PlantsHerbicide resistance or tolerance to:

GlyphostaeAtrazineImidazolinoneBromoxynilPhosphinotricin

Disease resistance to:Crown gall disease (tobacco)Tobacco mosaic virus

Pest resistance:BT-toxin protected crops, including tobacco (principally as research tool) and tomato.Seeds with enhanced antifeedant content to reduce losses to insects while in storage.

Enhanced tolerance to environmental factors, including:SaltDroughtTemperatureHeavy metals

Enhanced marine algae:Algae enhanced to increase production of such compounds as B-carotene and agar or to

enhance ability to sequester heavy metals (e.g., gold and cobalt) from seawater.Forestry;

Trees engineered to be resistant to disease or herbicides, to grow faster, or to be more tolerantto environmental stresses.

AnimalsLivestock and poultry:

Livestock species engineered to enhance weight gain or growth rates, reproductive performance,disease resistance, or coat characteristics.

Livestock animals engineered to function as producers for pharmaceutical drugs.Fish:

Triploid salmon produced by heat shock for use as game fish in lakes and streams.Fish with enhanced growth rates, cold tolerance, or disease resistance for use in aquiculture.Triploid grass carp for use as aquatic weed control agents.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Chapter 8-Environmental Applications . 131

several plant species to confer resistance or toleranceto certain herbicides. Plants have also been betterengineered to resist disease and to confer pestresistance. Most deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) workon animals focuses on altering livestock, poultry, orfish to improve reproductive performance, weightgain, or disease resistance. Many promising environ-mental applications of engineered micro-organismsare also being developed.

Planned introductions of genetically engineeredorganisms into the environment, often called delib-erate release, was the focus of an earlier Office ofTechnology Assessment (OTA) report (14). Com-mercialization in agriculture is discussed elsewherein this report (see ch. 6).

Mining

Natural micro-organisms have been used formineral leaching and metal concentration processes.No Federal funding directly supports microbiologi-cal mining, however, and commercial activity issparse (see table 8-3).

Limited international research in the field ofbiohydrometallurgy is proceeding. Canada, SouthAfrica, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and the UnitedStates have ongoing programs in biohydro-metallurgy. The Canadian Center for Mineral andEnergy Technology is the leading governmentalresearch agency in this area. One area of focus for theCanadians is uranium bioleaching; one mine is nowbioleaching 90,000 pounds of uranium per month.The biological mitigation of acid mine drainage isanother Canadian project (7). Research is slow,however, because of economic aspects in the min-eral market. As long as metals are plentiful andeasily mined, no economic advantage is realizedby microbiological mining.

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery

It has been estimated that more than 300 billionbarrels of U.S. oil cannot be recovered by conven-tional technology but may be accessible throughenhanced oil production. This volume is 2.5 times aslarge as the amount of oil produced by the UnitedStates since 1983. The actual enhanced oil recoveryproduction has been low, no greater than 5 percentof total U.S. production, even though a variety ofDepartment of Energy (DOE) incentives have beenavailable. Other countries, such as Canada, haveprojected that by the year 2010, one-third of its oil

Table 8-3-Challenges for Microbiological Mining

. The development of micro-organisms that could Ieach valuablemetals, such as thorium, silver, mercury, gold, platinum, andcadmium.

. A better understanding of the interactions between the micro-organisms and the mineral substances.

● The development of DNA transfer technologies for use at lowpH.


recovery will utilize enhanced techniques. In recentyears, advanced oil-drilling techniques have en-hanced overall yield, and it is expected that thesetechniques, not micro-organisms, may satisfy oilcompanies’ needs for greater yield in the short term.

Although most of the major oil companies havein-house staff investigating and perfecting MEOR,the methodology’s low cost may appeal more tosmall-field operators, who have already pumped andsold the easy-to-get component of their field (8).MEOR is not predictable; just like the use ofmicro-organisms for hazardous waste remediation,the use of micro-organisms for oil recovery issite-specific. Individual oil deposits have uniquecharacteristics that affect the ability of micro-organisms to mobilize and displace oil. An under-standing of the microbial ecology of petroleumreservoirs is a prerequisite to the development of anyMEOR process, whether microbial or not, since aninappropriate design may accelerate the detrimentalactivities of micro-organisms (e.g., corrosion, reser-voir souring, and microbial degradation of crude oil)(l). Basic environmental biotechnology researchunderway for contaminated soil and groundwaterwill provide much needed information to thoseworking on MEOR (see table 8-4).

CASE STUDY: BIOREMEDIATION

Cost estimates for the cleanup of contaminatedsoils and groundwater and the routine disposal ofindustrial and municipal wastes, range up to $23billion for the United States and $60 billion forWestern European countries (3,6). The price tag forconstruction and maintenance of treatment systemsused for continually produced waste is unknown. Inthe search for a cleaner environment, claims havebeen made that biotechnology holds great promisefor hazardous waste reduction and cleanup as well aspermanent restoration of air, water, and soil.


Table 8-4-Challenges for Microbial EnhancedOil Recovery

. Better biochemical and physiological understanding of micro-organisms already present in oil reservoirs.

. Development of micro-organisms that degrade only the lessuseful components of oil.

● Screening of micro-organisms for production of surfactants andviscosity enhancers and decreases.


Bioremediation is a term that refers to efforts touse biotechnology to cleanup waste. These effortsinvolve the engineering of systems that use biologi-cal processes to degrade, detoxify, or accumulatecontaminants. These systems can use naturallyoccurring or laboratory-altered microbes or both.Current applications rely on conventional tech-niques of genetic manipulation and microbiology;the use of rDNA to develop microbes with specificcapabilities for waste degradation has been limited(see figure 8-l).

Bioremediation can be used at a variety of sitesand in a variety of applications, including waste-stream cleanup, wood treatment-site cleanup, deg-radation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),groundwater treatment, and cleanup of chemicalmanufacturing wastes. The rationale for usingmicro-organisms to degrade pollutants comes fromexperience with nature. Micro-organisms have avariety of capabilities that can be exploited for wastemanagement and disposal. Many organic com-pounds of biological origin are readily degraded.Industrial chemicals similar in structure to naturalcompounds are also frequently biodegraded (15).

The recent use of naturally occurring microbes inoil-spill cleanup--off the coasts of Alaska andTexas--has focused public attention on commercialuses of bioremediation. This attention is enhancedby frequent claims that biotechnology can be used tomitigate environmental pollution (see box 8-A).

This section describes the U.S. and internationalbiotreatment industries, the advantages and barriersfacing the commercialization of bioremediation, andthe prospects for using genetically engineered orga-nisms for hazardous waste cleanup.

The U.S. Biotreatment Industry

The frost U.S. company to produce microbes forwaste treatment opened in the early 1950s. Over thenext 20 years, the U.S. biotreatment market ex-

panded to a handful of companies specializing in theproduction of microbial “cocktails” for municipalsewage treatment plants and odor control. In 1970,the establishment of the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and the creation of Federal and Stateenvironmental statutes governing the treatment ofwastes guaranteed a market for the environmentalservices industry, to which bioremediation firmsbelong. Today, the U.S. biotreatment industryincludes 134 firms and has evolved into foursegments: bioremediation services, multidiscipli-nary environmental services, products, and wastegenerators.

Bioremediation Services

Firms specializing in biotreatment services makeup the majority of the U.S. market in this area. Thesefirms are small and are generally founded by ascientist or engineer convinced that biology-basedwaste management can be commercially viable.Some firms began in university laboratories, whileothers spun-off from larger companies. Most ofthese specialized companies have relied on labora-tory analytical services or equipment sales to main-tain income as they develop their bioremediationservices component. Only a few have had venturecapital support. These small companies serve as apool of expertise for larger, full-service engineeringand consulting firms. Contract and subcontractingactivities between companies are common.

Diagnosis and treatment services are provided bybioremediation firms. Diagnosis of a waste problemcan include analyzing the site or waste treatmentfacility for indigenous microbial activity, adequatenutrients, suitable moisture, and appropriate oxygen.Treatment may involve enhancement of indigenousmicro-organisms by nutrient addition, batching pre-conditioned organisms found at the site, or usingselected off-the-shelf microbes.

Multidisciplinary Environmental Services

In 1988, few multidisciplinary environmentalcompanies offered bioremediation expertise. Biore-mediation was typically used by firms competing inthe wastewater treatment sector but not by firmsfocusing on hazardous waste markets. Growingoptimism that bioremediation can be used to tacklehazardous waste problems has led to increasedinvolvement by multidisciplinary firms incorpo-rating bioremediation expertise. Growth in thissector has generally occurred in one of three ways:

Chapter 8--Environmental Applications ● 133

Figure 8-l—Laboratory Selection and Enhancement of Micro-organisms

h I I

Collectionfrom nature

*(Mixedculture)

Purecultures Drying process

Ulll-Long-term

Reconstitution

storagevacuum

vials

o utrients

Isolation

*

Growth andselection

Isolation

(Pure cultures)

s“&./Nu’rients

(Pure cultures) Growth andIsolated adapted mutants selection

*Scale up

Shake flasks

l==?Dry

blendstore

Micro-organisms indigenous to various environmental sites can be isolated and screened for degradative capabilities. This figure showshow naturally occurring organisms can be selected in the laboratory and, if desired, subjected to mutagenizing agents such as radiation.This imprecise method can sometimes produce new strains of organisms with enhanced capabilities.SOURCE: F’Ol@XAC ckxp.

1.

2.

3.

consolidation of large environmental firms ects and to handle subcontracts with bioreme-with smaller biotreatment firms (e.g., the- diation specialty firms.merger of Theme Environmental with Biota); Productscreation of biotreatment groups in larger envi-ronmental service firms; or

hiring of a limited number of bioremediationprofessionals to recommend appropriate proj-

Approximately one dozen companies manufac-ture organisms that are sold as biological treatmentproducts. Most of these products consist of pre-selected mixtures of naturally occurring micro-

134 . Biotechnology in a Global Economy

Box 8-A—The Exxon Valdez Bioremediation Project

On March 23,1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker, freshly loaded with 1.2 million barrels of crude oil, left Alaska’ssouth coast headed for California Twenty-five miles out, the ship ran into a reef at. Bligh Island in Prince WilliamSound. The accident resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. history and the first major spill to foul the waters offAlaska’s coast. Patches of oil and water-in-oil emulsion spread over 3,000 square miles and onto unestimated 1,000miles of shoreline.

Environmental factors have been substantial obstacles in the Alaska cleanup. Alaskan waters are extremelycold and there had been little experience with oil spills in subarctic conditions. Only a half-dozen or so tanker spillshad been studied, and most occurred in temperate waters, The surface water temperature in Prince William Sound

ximately 3 degree Celsius in mid-April. At that temperature, degradation by micro-organisms, whichis approultimately removes much spilled oil, takes twice as long as it does at 10 degree Celsius.

The Valdez spill prompted a monumental cleanup effort and launched significant scientific research efforts.In addition the traditional methods (i.e., containment, skimming, and burning) of oil cleanup, the EPA Office ofResearch and Development initiated a bioremediation study to determine the feasibility of using nutrients toenhance micro-organisms’ degradation of oil on the shorelines of Prince William Sound A major portion of thisventure was funded by the Exxon Corp. In 1989, Exxon contributed approximately $3 million, and EPA contributedapproximately $1.6 million.

The major portion of the Alaskan oil spill bioremediation project involved a field test to determine if addingfertilizer to contaminated beaches would effectively stimulate native bacteria to breakdown the oil. The EPAselected two sites—Passage Cove and Snug Harbor-based on type of shoreline, area, size, and uniformity of oilconlamination. It was determined that two types of fertilizer would be needed to release nitrogen and phosphorousnutrients over an extended period of time. One type was a solid, slow-releasing briquette fertilizer that releasednutrients slowly from point sources distributed over the beach through tidal action. The second type, a liquidoleophilic fertilizer, dissolved into the oil covering rock and gravel surfaces.

Before the fertilizer was applied, each beach was hosed down to disperse the oil across the beach. Researcherspacked the fertilizer briquettes into biodegradable sacks and tied the sacks to pipes anchored in the test site beach,Over the course of a month, wave and tidal action flushed the slowly dissolving fertilizer back-and-forth across theshoreline.

Both EPA and Exxon officials acknowledged that the use of fertilizers could pose a risk to some sea life. Todetermine the potential toxicity of the fertilizers to native organisms, a wide range of species were tested. The resultsdemonstrated that certain components of the oleophilic fertilizer were mildly toxic when first applied to the mostsensitive marine species. Tidal action, however, quickly diluted these toxic components to nontoxic levels.

Approximately two weeks after the fertilizer was applied to the test plots in Snug Harbor, scientists observedreductions in the amount of oil on rock surfaces. All other plots, however, appeared as oiled as they had been at thebeginning of the field study. Toward the end of the summer season, the entire test area became steadily cleaner. Incontrast, an untreated area of Snug Harbor remained considerably contaminated.

By the end of September 1989, Exxon and EPA had treated 70 million miles of shoreline in the largestbioremediation project ever conducted. The initial findings from the study indicate that using nutrients to enhancemicrobial degradation are effective and environmentally safe.

Somm: mm of ‘Mchnology Assessmell~ 1991.

organisms advertised as additives to improve per- reliable data exist regarding the volume of sales offormance. Product uses include: decreasing pipes,degrading food processing facility wastes, odorcontrol, and remediating oil spills.

Microbial cocktails, the commercial name forcombinations of microbes packaged for sale forspecific uses, are available from companies in theUnited States, Japan, and Europe. Because informa-tion about sales of such products is proprietary, no

these products.

Waste Generators

Significant fourth players are generators of haz-ardous wastes. In addition to employing biologicaltreatment staffs, some chemical and energy compa-nies are supporting in-house research to perfectbiodegradation of their specific production facili-ties’ wastes. Such research may result in biology-

Chapter 8---Environmental Applications ● 135

based treatment methods and products that can bemarketed directly or licensed to bioremediationvendors.

International Biotreatment Industry

Despite the limited size of the bioremediationindustry in the United States, U.S. commercialactivity far exceeds that of other nations. Fourfactors account for the United States’ lead in thisarea:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The size and scope of U.S. environmental lawexceeds that of other nations.The majority of research has been conducted inthe United States.The size of the biotreatment industrial sector inthe United States, albeit small, exceeds that ofother nations.Public acceptance of bioremediation in theUnited States has been spurred by recent,well-publicized uses of bioremediation for oilspill cleanup.

Research and Industrial Development

The existence of environmental laws and regula-tions are prerequisites to the formation of a wastetreatment market. Although several nations haveenacted environmental regulatory programs, en-forcement of regulations and funding of hazardouswaste infrastructures are often not sufficient. Abarrier to the international use of bioremediation isthe view, held by many, that pollution control costsindustry money and makes industry, in its own view,less competitive in world markets. To some, invest-ment in and operation of effluent treatment facilitiesis money down the drain (5).

Several Organization of Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) countries have beenpursuing biotechnology research and develop-ment (R&D) in improved waste treatment, nota-bly The Netherlands, France, Japan, and Ger-many (see box 8-B). Still, research efforts aregenerally minimal in many countries, and thediffusion of research results into commercialapplications is negligible when compared to othersectors affected by biotechnology. This is due tolax regulations that encourage the payment of finesby industry for waste emission rather than the use ofsystems to reduce or cleanup pollution (1 1). In theUnited States, by comparison, several Federal agen-cies support biological research related to waste

Box 84?—international R&D, ImprovedWaste Treatment Processes

The Netherlands. Companies, such as Gist-Briocades use and are attempting to market ad-vanced anaerobic waste water cleanup processes.The Dutch Government supports research in soilbiodegradation and the development of systems toconvert farm waste in small fermenters into market-able fertilizers for export to developing countries.

United Kingdom. Research and Developmentefforts are being undertaken by several smallcompanies and regional water authorities. The useof waste treatment processes by industry is min-imal, due to a less stringent regulatory climate andweak incentives for efficient industrial cleanup.

Japan. A 5-year, V5 billion project on wastewater treatment through biotechnological processeswas launched in the 1980s by the Ministry ofConstruction.

Germany. The Ministry for Research and Tech-nology plans to introduce a program supporting riskassessment research.

SOURCE: organization for Economic Co-operation and Dovol-opment, Biotechnology and the Changing Role ofGovernment, 1988.

management. In 1987, eight Federal agencies spent$11 million on such research (15).

In order to provide equal access to waste treatmentfor all industrial sectors, The Netherlands, Belgium,Denmark, and Germany have centralized wastetreatment facilities. Those handling recurrent, solidhazardous waste do not appear to utilize biologicaltreatment at this time; however, these countries havewell-maintained wastewater treatment systems thatrely on micro-organisms. The primary bioremedia-tion focus in these countries is the use of biostimula-tion to encourage indigenous organisms to degradewastes in contaminated soils and groundwater. Incontrast to publicly run treatment and disposalfacilities found in northern Europe, Italy prefersprivate-sector waste management and cleanup serv-ices. The Italian tourist industry has created a marketfor environmental restoration. Work is underway ata popular beach to biologically disperse algae.France has diversified privately run waste manage-ment and remediation services, and French firmsdominate the private-sector market.

Although stronger enforcement could generatemore demand for waste treatment, public expecta-

136 . Biotechnology in a Global Economy

credit: Kevin O’Connor

This park in Torrance, California, was once the site of an oil refinery. After several years of bioremediation,a community center, several ballfields, and a playground were constructed.

tions in both Pacific Rim countries and the EuropeanCommunity (EC) are forcing some governments toinventory contamination problems, actively partici-pate in cleaning up existing pollution, and monitor-the effectiveness of waste treatment for newlycreated wastes.

The United States, in contrast, has an elaborateenvironmental protection program already in place.Unlike many other countries, the enforcement of thatprogram is generating a market for environmentalcleanup. Cleanup goals and the size of the prob-lem-the universe of waste management facilities,leaking underground storage tanks, and abandonedsites with contaminated soils and groundwater--arebetter defined for the United States than for othercountries surveyed.

Advantages of Bioremediation

Depending on the situation and type of site,bioremediation offers several advantages over moreconventional waste treatment technologies, such asincineration or chemical fixation, these include:

. Minimal disruption. Bioremediation gener-ally involves only minimal, if any, physicaldisruption of a site. This can be very importanton beaches where other available cleanup

technologies (e.g., high- and low-pressurespraying, steam cleaning, manual scrubbing,and raking of congealed oil) may cause addi-tional damage to beach-dwelling biota (2).Permanency. Micro-organisms can convert aselected number of wastes into carbon dioxide,water, and cell mass. For these completelybiodegradable wastes, no toxic residues remainto manage. For other wastes that are notcompletely mineralized by biological actions,biodegradation can transform hazardous chem-icals into stable, more benign, and less-toxiccompounds.Lower costs. The capital costs of biology-based systems are relatively low, compared toother treatment technologies. The microbesused are generally inexpensive, and once ap-plied, they self-replicate. In some cases, in situbioremediation may be utilized without exca-vation or demolition of buildings. For thesereasons, the costs of bioremediation should belower than those systems with more expensiveinput requirements.Public acceptability. Bioremediation offersthe public a treatment process that relies onnatural degradation, transformingg hazardouswastes into familiar compounds, such as carbon

Chapter 8--Environmental Applications . 137

dioxide and water. The biotreatment systemdesign, itself, is nonthreatening. For example,some bioremediation systems may only requirethe removal of contaminated soils and ground-water to a tank, which looks like the usualsewage treatment plant, or a vat as used to makebeer or wine. In situ bioremediation does noteven require moving toxic wastes or siting atreatment unit. Such in-place treatment mini-mizes the public and environmental risks cre-ated by the handling of waste.

Barriers to Commercialization

Despite the advantages of bioremediation—research, technical, and regulatory barriers hinderthe use of biotechnology for hazardous wastecleanup.

Research Barriers

Much needs to be learned regarding the scientificunderpinning s of bioremediation. Waste takes onmany forms, occurs in many sites, and is subject tovarying environmental conditions. To date, promis-ing targets for use of bioremediation include oilspills, point sources of industrial effluents with highconcentrations of specific chemicals, spills of partic-ular chemicals in contained areas, and dump sitesbeing prepared for encapsulation or excavation(9,10).

To assess the feasibility of biotreatment, severalareas of science and engineering must be under-stood.

●

●

●

Microbial physiology, biochemistry, and ge-netics, to understand the metabolic processesleading to detoxification and the geneticscontrolling the enzyme functions involved.Microbial ecology, to appreciate the structureand fiction of indigenous or inoculated micro-bial communities and the microenvironmentin which treatment must be effective.Field-site engineering, to implement the de-sired biodegradation scheme, to maintain opti-mal growth conditions, and to combine physi-cal and chemical methods (10).

The application of biotechnology to wastedisposal is still largely experimental, and invest-ment is small compared with efforts in pharma-ceuticals and agriculture. Two significant percep-tual problems have been voiced repeatedly to OTA:1) because pharmaceuticals and agriculture are seen

as being areas of greater promise (e.g., ability toproduce high-value-added products), those areasattract more dollars and more highly trained person-nel than programs involved in research targetedtoward the cleanup of waste; and 2) fears ofregulatory barriers, especially for the developmentof genetically engineered organisms for use in theenvironment, discourage researchers from investi-gating genetic engineering as a way to discoverpotentially beneficial organisms.

The EPA is the lead agency in conducting R&Din waste disposal. However, EPA’s current invest-ment in R&D for biotechnology--$8.3 million infiscal year 1990-is small compared to other Federalagencies. Additionally, there has existed a wide-spread feeling that EPA is biased against biologicalapproaches to waste disposal and is unwilling tosupport approaches involving biotechnology (15).Some researchers, however, say this bias is chang-ing, pointing to EPA involvement in the Valdez oilspill cleanup and strong statements by EPA officialstouting the use of bioremediation.

Another significant research problem is the pau-city of published scientific literature on the results ofbioremediation. Much of the activity in this area isconducted by private businesses engaged in contrac-tor-client relationships. As such, the results of manysmall-scale uses of bioremediation constitute pri-vately held business information or trade secretsand, thus, remain hidden from competitors andresearchers alike. As one company executive noted,some clients want to have hazardous waste removedfrom their property, but they do not want theirneighbors to know about the scope of the problem orthe nature of treatment undertaken (4).

Technical Barriers

Several technical problems hinder the broaderapplication of biology to waste treatment andcleanup:

●

●

Although bioremediation works faster thannatural biodegradation, it is generally slower toimplement than “burn or bury” technologiesthat are the most likely alternatives to biotreat-ment.Bioremediation must be specifically tailored toeach polluted site. Each waste site presentsunique facts, requiring individualized atten-tion. Not enough is known about bioremedia-


Box 8-C—Federal Statutes Relevant to Bioremediation

Several Federal environmental laws are relevant to biology-based waste treatment, including:Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 1986

amendments to CERCLA (Public Law 99-499) state" [t]he President shall select a remedial action that is protectiveof human health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies. . . to the maximum extent practicable.’

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA was enacted by Congress in 1976 (Public Law 94-469).In contrast to other environmental statutes specifically regulating the quality of air, water, or other natural resources,TSCA gave EPA broad authority to regulate “chemical substances and mixtures.” Under TSCA, the manufacturerof a new chemical must submit a premanufacture notice to EPA that describes test data referring to identity, use,amount, disposal, and so forth. EPA then has 90 days to consider the notice and decide whether to approveproduction. Under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, EPA notified the public thatbiotechnology processes and products not covered or regulated by other Federal agencies would be included underthe jurisdiction of TSCA.

Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA’S pretreatment program’s July 24, 1990, final rule states”. . . the IndustrialUser shall certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes generatedto the degree it has determined to be economically practical.”

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments toRCRA, enacted by Congress in 1984 (Public Law 98-616), emphasize permanent treatment technologies. Congressdeclared “it to be the national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous wasteis to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated,stored or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment.”

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA directs that “[remedial actions inwhich treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, pollutants, and contaminantsis a principal element, are to be preferred over remedial actions not involving such treatment. ”

SOURCE: Office of lkcbnology Assessmen4 1991.

tion to be able to predict results in specific based approaches offer destruction of selected haz-situations with a high degree of accuracy. ardous wastes without toxic residues—a result

. Successful mineralization of pollutants has certainly in accordance with the intent of these laws.been limited to relatively easy-to-degrade com-pounds (12). However, several regulatory barriers hinder the

● There are no official scientific measures for commercialization of bioremediation:

evaluating the success or failure of bioremedia- ●

tion. The only well-known successful use ofbioremediation has been for the cleanup of oilspills.

Regulatory Barriers

Regulations both drive and constrain the use ofbioremediation. Regulation creates the bioremedia- ●

tion market by dictating what must be cleaned up,how clean it must be, and which cleanup methodsmay be used. A number of Federal statutes andrelevant regulations control waste disposal activities(see box 8-C). The passage of Federal statutes has .increased pressure on waste generators to reducewaste and to find permanent solutions to waste thatis generated. Although these laws can apply to allpermanent waste treatment methodologies, biology-

Cleanup standards. How clean is clean? Theachievable endpoint for biodegradation may belimited for specific pollutants. Biology-basedremediations maybe able to reach health-basedstandards but not lower residue levels resultingfrom thermal treatment technologies, such asincineration.Standards are still under development. Treat-ability studies used by regulatory agencies todetermine the efficacy of a waste treatmentregime have not been standardized for biologi-cal treatment.Little biotreatment permit experience. Thepermitting of biotreatment activities todayrelies on individuals’ best professional judg-ment. Based on the small number of permitsissued to date, experience in the approval of

Chapter Environmental Applications . 139

%oto credit: Kevin O’Connor

Through bioremediation, former industrial sites such as this

●

may be used for other purposes.

treatment protocols using naturally occurring

and recombinant micro-organisms is limited.Land disposal regulations limit reactor de-sign. Recent land disposal regulations promul-gated by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste prohibitthe recirculation of contaminated groundwaterthrough an in situ bioreactor arrangement, acommon design for bioremediation of contami-nated soils and groundwater.

Economic Barriers

Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, bioreme-diation does not result in the production ofhigh-value-added products. Thus, venture capi-tal has been slow to invest in the technology, andcommercial activity in research and productdevelopment has lagged far behind other indus-trial sectors.

The majority of the bioremediation firms aresmall and lack sufficient capital to finance sophisti-cated research and product development programs.In addition, bioremediation lacks a strong, publiclyfunded research base. Federal research dollars havebeen scarce to support discovery or improvements ofbiology-based waste treatment.

Because basic research is limited and mostproducts and processes are developed by smallentrepreneurs or companies, bioremediation relieson trade secrets, not patents, for intellectual propertyprotection. Biological treatment currently relies onnaturally occurring organisms that cannot be pat-ented and can be reproduced by one’s competitors.

This lack of intellectual property protection subjectsthe industry to constant competitor stress. Further,many clients of bioremediation companies do notwant public attention focused on hazardous wastecleanups. This results in proprietary business rela-tionships that do not foster the sharing of scientificand business practices.

Experienced personnel are in short supply.University programs are now being establishing forbioremediation specialists, but continuing educationprograms are not common. Marketing of productsand services has, historically, been done by individ-ual companies. Few firms exist that act as brokers forthe technology. Such an arrangement is personnel-intensive.

The key marketing promise of the biotreatmentindustry is less cost through remediation. No aca-demic or regulatory agency has published a studyanalyzing the costs of biological treatment com-pared with other technologies, such as incineration.The only information currently available is found inindividual companies’ marketing materials.

Prospects for Genetically EngineeredMicrobes

Some basic research is underway on the use ofgenetically engineered microbes for waste cleanup.The first out-of-laboratory applications of geneti-cally engineered microbes for waste cleanup will bedone in bioreactors, because conditions for micro-bial survival and monitoring are easier to control ina closed system then in an open field. Today’sbioremediation sector continues to rely on naturallyoccurring micro-organisms. Due to scientific, eco-nomic, regulatory, and public perception reasons,the imminent use of bioengineered micro-organismsfor environmental cleanup is not likely to happen inthe near future. More needs to be learned aboutnaturally occurring microbes-much less those thatare genetically engineered. The lack of a strongresearch infrastructure, the predominance of smallcompanies, the lack of data sharing, and the exis-tence of regulatory hurdles all serve as dominantbarriers to commercial use of genetically engineeredorganisms.

The potential savings from the use of biology-based treatments, compared to conventional inciner-ation, and the interest of generators to limit theirlong-term liability for wastes are positive reasons forthe development and use of genetically engineered


microbes. In the United States and the EuropeanCommunity, government, private, and academicinstitutions are increasingly confident that environ-mental biotechnology offers a more ecologicallysound approach to waste remediation. This may playthe most important role in moving geneticallyengineered microbes into the field.

The majority of current bioremediation firms aresmall and lack sufficient capital to finance sophisti-cated research and product development programs.This is a problem when using naturally occurringorganisms, but a crisis for the development ofbioengineered products and related services. Untilbarriers to development are reduced, widespreadcommercial use of genetically engineered organismsfor environmental waste reduction is unlikely.

SUMMARYBiotechnology has several potential environ-

mental applications, these include: pollution con-trol, agriculture, mining, and microbial enhanced oilrecovery. Bioremediation--efforts to use biotech-nology for waste cleanup-has received publicattention recently because of the use of naturallyoccurring micro-organisms in oil-spill cleanups.Bioremediation can be used at a variety of sites andin a variety of applications, among these are waste-stream cleanup, wood treatment-site cleanup, PCBdegradation, groundwater treatment, and chemicalcleanup of manufacturing wastes. The rationale forusing micro-organisms to degrade pollutants stemsfrom experience with nature. Micro-organisms havea variety of capabilities that can be exploited forwaste management and disposal.

The use of bioremediation in the United States isincreasing. Today, the U.S. biotreatment industryincludes more than 130 firms and has evolved intofour segments: bioremediation services, multidisci-plinary environmental services, products, and wastegenerators. The commercial bioremediation sectorin the United States, though small, far exceedsactivity in other nations. Four factors account for theUnited States’ lead: the size and scope of U.S.environmental law, more advanced research, thenumber of companies, and public acceptance,spurred by recent uses of bioremediation for oil-spillcleanup.

Although bioremediation offers several advan-tages over conventional waste treatment technolo-gies, several factors hinder widespread use of

biotechnology for waste cleanup. Relatively little isknown about the scientific effects of micro-organisms in various ecosystems. Research data arenot disseminated as well as with research affectingother industrial sectors. This is caused by limitedFederal funding of basic research and the proprietarynature of the business relationships under whichbioremediation is usually used. Regulations providea market for bioremediation by dictating what mustbe cleaned up, how clean it must be, and whichcleanup methods may be used; but regulations alsohinder commercial development due to their sheervolume and the lack of standards for biologicalwaste treatment.

Bioremediation, unlike the pharmaceutical andagricultural industries, does not result in the produc-tion of high-value-added products. Thus, venturecapital has been slow to invest in the technology, andlittle incentive exists for product development. Themajority of bioremediation firms are small and lacksufficient capital to finance sophisticated researchand product development programs. Bioremediationprimarily depends on trade secrets, not patents, forintellectual property protection.

Although some research is being conducted on theuse of genetically engineered organisms for use inbioremediation, today’s bioremediation sector relieson naturally occurring micro-organisms. Scientific,economic, regulatory, and public perception limita-tions that were viewed as barriers to the develop-ment of bioremediation a decade ago still exist.Thus, the commercial use of bioengineered micro-organisms for environmental cleanup is not likely inthe near future

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ehrlich, H.L., and Brierly, C. (eds.), EnvironmentalBiotechnology: Microbial Mineral Recovery (NewYork NY: McGraw Hill, 1990).Foster, M. S., et al., “To Clean or Not To Clean: TheRationale, Methods, and Consequences of RemovingOil From Temperate Shores,” The Northwest Envi-ronmental Journal, vol. 6, 1990, pp. 105-120.Granger, T., EBASCO Environmental, personalcommunication, August 1990.Grubbs, J., president, Solmar Corp., personal com-munication, October 1990.Harrier, G., “The Impact of Government hgislationon Industrial Effluent Treatment,’ Conservation andRecycling, vol 8, Nos. 1/2, 1985, p. 27.

Chapter 8--Environmental Applications . 141

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Henley, M., “Europe Poses Multi-billion Environ-mental Market,” WasteTech News, vol. 2, No. 24,Aug. 13, 1990.McCready, D., director, Canadian Center for MineralEnergy Technology, personal communication, Sep-tember 1990.McInerney, M. J., University of Oklahoma, personalcommunication, September 1990.Omenn, G.S. (cd.), Environmental Biotechnology:Reducing Risks from Environmental ChemicalsThrough Biotechnology (New York NY: PlenumPress, 1988).Omenn, G. S., professor and dean, School of PublicHealth & Community Medicine, University of Wash-ington, “Environmental Biotechnology: Biotechnol-ogy Solutions for Hazardous chemical Wastes andOil Spill Clean-up,” presentation at BiotechnologyForum on Oil Spills in Marine Environments, Cincin-nati, OH, September 1990.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment, Biotechnology and the Changing Role of

12.

13.

14.

15.

Government (Paris, France: OECD PublicationsOffice, 1988).Rochkind, M.L., et al., Microbial Decomposition ofChlorinutedAromatic Compounds, EPA-600 (Wash-ington, DC: EEA Publications Office, February1986) p. 90.U.S. Congress, Office of Twhnology Assessment,Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analy-sis (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc., January1984).U.S. Congress, Office of T~hnology Assessment,New Developments in Biotechnology: Field-TestingEngineered Organisms: Genetic and EcologicalIssues, OTA-BA-350 (Springfield, VA: NationalT~hnical Information Service, May 1988).U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,New Developments in Biotechnology: U.S. Invest-ment<pecial Report OTA-BA-360 (Spring fiel~VA: National Technical Information Service, July1988).

Biotechnology in a Global Economy (Part 11 of 23)

Documents