1887

Chapter 3 : Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Bioremediation

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $15.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Bioremediation, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817596/9781555812393_Chap03-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817596/9781555812393_Chap03-2.gif

Abstract:

This chapter highlights the regulatory frameworks of the United States and the United Kingdom, as they represent the sorts of regulatory considerations that drive remediation efforts. The regulatory framework for bioremediation in the United States is advanced and governed by several key laws that establish the oversight mechanisms and parameters within which bioremediation must operate. The United Kingdom regulatory framework is developing in concert with that of the European Union, which is placing increased emphasis on environmental quality and the need for remediation of contaminated sites. The purpose of this chapter is to look at bioremediation processes and technologies in the context of these regulatory programs. The chapter provides a general walkthrough of the steps that are taken during the course of a hazardous-site cleanup. An overview of key elements and their impact on the implementation of innovative treatment technologies such as bioremediation is given. The regulatory framework in the United States, United Kingdom, and elsewhere is complex and evolving with interactions between different regulations and regimes. When contaminated sites undergo remediation, there is a clear requirement to protect the environment while ensuring that risks to human health and the environment are minimized. Permitting, licensing, and regulation have a crucial role in controlling the remediation process. Overall, the redevelopment of brownfield sites may prove to be the biggest driver of remediation and therefore bioremediation activity.

Citation: Hartman B, Mustian M, Cunningham C. 2005. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Bioremediation, p 86-107. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch3
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of BOXED FIGURE BOXFIGURE 3.1.1
BOXED FIGURE BOXFIGURE 3.1.1

Some remedial technologies at the U.S. DOE SRS. It is noteworthy that the bioremediation options at this site are predominantly in situ. Although limited in number compared to the total remedial technologies being considered, the bioremediation options are to treat huge volumes.

Citation: Hartman B, Mustian M, Cunningham C. 2005. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Bioremediation, p 86-107. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch3
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817596.chap3
1. Bragg, J. R.,, R. C. Prince,, E. J. Harner,, and R. M. Atlas. 1994. Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368: 413418.
2.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2001. Genetically modified organisms: the regulatory process. http://www.defra. gov.uk/environment/gm/.
3.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2004. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control—A Practical Guide, 3rd ed. The Stationery Office Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
4.Department of Environment, Transport and Regions. 1999. Towards an Urban Renaissance. The Stationery Office Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
5.Department of Environment, Transport and Regions. 2000. Our Towns and Cities: The Future Delivering on Urban Renaissance. The Stationery Office Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
6.Environment Agency. 2000. The State of the Environment of England& Wales: The Land. The Stationery Office Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
7.Environment Agency. 2003. Interpretation of the Definition and Classification of Hazardous Waste Technical Guidance WM2. Environment Agency, London, United Kingdom. http://www.environ ment-agency.gov.uk/business.
8.European Council. 2001. Directive 90/220/ EEC, Directive 2001/18/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing. Off. J. Eur. Communities. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex.
9.Federal Register. 2004. Civil monetary penalty inflation adjustment rule. Federal regulation 7121. Fed. Regist. 69.
10. Federal Register. 1998. Hazardous remediation waste management requirements (HWIR-media). Fed. Regist. 63: 6587465947.
11. Federal Register. 1984. Proposed policy regarding certain microbial products. Fed. Regist. 49:50886.
12. Federal Register. 1997. Microbial products of biotechnology: final regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, final rule. Fed. Regist. 62:1710.
10.Interdepartmental Committeeon the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 1987. Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. ICRCL 59/83, 2nd ed. Department of the Environment, London, United Kingdom.
11.MSI. 2002. Data Report: Contaminated Land Treatment: UK. MSI Marketing Research for Industry Ltd., Chester, United Kingdom.
12.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2000. The Government’s Response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs: Seventeenth Report—Housing PPG3. Cm 4667. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, United Kingdom.
13.Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. 1986. Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org.
14.Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. 1992. Safety Considerations for Biotechnology. Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org.
15. Rivett, M. O.,, J. Petts,, B. Butler,, and I. Martin. 2002. Remediation of contaminated land and groundwater: experience in England and Wales. J. Environ. Manag. 65:251268.
16. Teso, B. 1992. International harmonization of safety principles for biotechnology. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on The Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms, 11 to 14 May, Goslar, Germany.
17. Timian, S. J.,, and M. Connolly. 1996. The regulation and development of bioremediation. Risk Health Safety Environ. 7:279290. http://www.piercelaw.edu.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error