Christos Dimoulis

Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 1 of 6
Bioremediation: Neg

1. OPENER:
1.1. It has benefits but.......

2. INHERENCY:
2.1. Bioremediation one of the fastest growing markets

3. SOLVENCY:
3.1. What works in lab might not work on sight
3.2. Lab Experiments may misrepresent success in the field
3.3 Difficult to predict success in real life
3.4. Many failures do to lack of understanding of requirements
3.5. Bioremediation involves many complex factors
3.6. Bioremediation is limited to certain compounds
3.7. Biological processes highly specific
3.8. More research is needed
3.9. Bioremediation takes a long time compared to other methods
3.10. Difficult to evaluate performance
3.11. EPA inhibits bio-clean-ups under the TSCA

4. DISADVANTAGE 1: ENVIRONMENT HURT

4.1. Concern that products of biodegradation toxic
4.2. Introduction of foreign microorganisms = hurt ecosystems

5. DISADVANTAGE 2: HUGE REGULATORY MESS

5.1. Huge Governmental regulatory roadblocks

1. OPENER:

1.1. (Opener) It has benefits but.........

 Christos Dimoulis
Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 2 of 6
M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

Bioremediation is an option that offers the possibility to destroy or render harmless various con-
taminants using natural biological activity. As such, it uses relatively low-cost, low-technology
tech- niques, which generally have a high public acceptance and can often be carried out on site.
It will not always be suitable, however, as the range of contaminants on which it is effective is
limited, the time scales involved are relatively long, and the residual contaminant levels
achievable may not always be appropriate. Although the methodologies employed are not
technically complex, considerable experience and expertise may be required to design and
implement a successful bioremediation program, due to the need to thoroughly assess a site for
suitability and to optimize conditions to achieve a satisfactory result.

2. INHERENCY:

2.1. Bioremediation one of the fastest growing markets

Molecular plant biotechnology, (Molecular-Plant-Biotechnology.info is an web site
designed to provide useful and interesting Biotechnology informational resources to you. Our
vision was to create a site with an international reach that was free, informative and a place
where people could easily find Biotechnology related reference resource) “Bioremediation
Market”, http://www.molecular-plant-biotechnology.info/biotechnology-
environments/bioremediation-phytoremediation/bioremediation-market.html

Bioremediation currently comprises only a small fraction of the very large hazardous-waste
treatment market. However, it is one of the fastest growing sectors in the environment
management. The commercialization of bioremediation industry in USA far exceeds that in other
countries. US bioremediation market was about US $ 60 million in 1990, and was US $ 100
million in 1993, which reached US $ 175 to $300 million by 1995.

3. SOLVENCY:

3.1. What works in lab might not work on sight

Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”,
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm

Each new site represents a different set of conditions, and what works in the lab may not translate
to the field.

3.2. Lab Experiments may misrepresent success in the field

 Christos Dimoulis
Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 3 of 6
Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”,
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm

Laboratory experiments can be carefully controlled, but these optimal conditions may not be
possible at the site and may misrepresent possibility for success in the field.

3.3. Difficult to predict success in real life

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

It is difficult to extrapolate from bench and pilot-scale studies to full-scale field operations.

3.4. Many failures do to lack of understanding of requirements

T. C. Hazen, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, “In
Situ: Groundwater Bioremediation”, 2010, http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=EAB&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US
%3Aofficial&q=Bioremediation+failures&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
(this is the google address, since the article had no URL)

A patent for in situ bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with gasoline by stimulating

indigenous bacteria via nutrient injection into the terrestrial subsurface was issued to Dick
Raymond in 1974 (US Patent 3,846,290). He successfully demonstrated this technology and
began commercial applications in 1972 (Raymond et al., 1977). Clearly in situ groundwater
bioremediation has been used successfully for more than 50 years and much is understood about
where it is applicable, especially for petroleum contaminants. The really new bioremediation
applications that have been done in the last 20 years are in the area of solvent, PAH, PCB,
dioxin, MTBE, and metals. Bioremediation has been around for a long time, only its application
breadth in terms of types of contaminants and environments has increased in the last 20 years.
This explosive proliferation of new applications and environments in the last 20 years, especially
by companies trying to establish themselves with a proprietary edge, has lead to a large number
of terms, many of which are highly redundant, in what they try to uniquely describe. Also, the
bioremediation field applications that have been reported, frequently lack comprehensive field
data, especially in the terrestrial subsurface. Though bioremediation has been used at a large
number of sites these applications were nearly all done by companies trying to do the study for
(1) clients, who usually wanted to remain confidential, (2) the least possible cost to the client and
the vendor, and (3) protecting the vendors proprietary edge for their product. This has lead to a
paucity of peer-reviewed data, miss application of terminology, and confusion as to what some
terms mean. More importantly it has also lead to many ‘‘failures’’ of in situ groundwater
bioremediation due to a lack of fundamental understanding of requirements, and limitations, in
terms of hydrology, geology, and biogeochemistry at various scales.
 Christos Dimoulis
Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 4 of 6
3.5. Bioremediation involves many complex factors
M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

The control and optimization of bioremediation processes is a complex system of many factors.
These factors include: the existence of a microbial population capable of degrading the
pollutants; the avail- ability of contaminants to the microbial population; the environment factors
(type of soil, temperature, pH, the presence of oxygen or other electron acceptors, and nutrients).

3.6. Bioremediation is limited to certain compounds

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

Bioremediation is limited to those compounds that are biodegradable. Not all compounds are
susceptible to rapid and complete degradation.

3.7. Biological processes highly specific

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

Biological processes are often highly specific. Important site factors required for success include
the presence of metabolically capable microbial populations, suitable environmental growth
conditions, and appropriate levels of nutrients and contaminants.

3.8. More research is needed

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

Research is needed to develop and engineer bioremediation technologies that are appropriate for
sites with complex mixtures of contaminants that are not evenly dispersed in the environment.
Contaminants may be present as solids, liquids, and gases.

3.9. Bioremediation takes a long time compared to other methods

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf
 Christos Dimoulis
Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 5 of 6
Bioremediation often takes longer than other treatment options, such as excavation and removal
of soil or incineration.

3.10. Difficult to evaluate performance

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

There is no accepted definition of “clean”, evaluating performance of bioremediation is difficult,

and there are no acceptable endpoints for bioremediation treatments.

3.11. EPA inhibits bio-clean-ups under the TSCA

Henry I. Miller, The Heartland Institute, “EPA Regulation Impedes Oil-spill Cleanups”,
05/01/2003, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment
%20climate/article/12092/EPA_Regulation_Impedes_Oilspill_Cleanups.html

The answer was simple, and in Reilly’s own backyard: Biotechnology research and development
were discouraged by a decade-old preliminary regulation from EPA under the Toxic Substances
Control Act. That policy has proved a potent disincentive to the testing and use of the most
sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. In April 1997, EPA issued the regulation in
final form, ensuring that for the foreseeable future biotech researchers in several industrial
sectors, including bio-cleanup, would be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers.

4. DISADVANTAGE 1: ENVIRONMENTAL HURT

4.1. Concern that products of biodegradation toxic

M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via
Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001,
www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

There are some concerns that the products of biodegradation may be more persistent or toxic
than the parent compound.

4.2. Introduction of foreign microorganisms = hurt ecosystems

Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”,
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm

Introducing “foreign” microorganisms to field sites could have unforeseen consequences on the
ecosystem. Concerns about genetically modified organisms used for bioremediation are basically
the same as concerns about using GMO’s in general. There is worry about Horizontal gene
 Christos Dimoulis
Eveready
BioremediationNegCD
4/13/2010 page 6 of 6
transfer, Creation of new pathogens, Possibility of mutations that allow the organism to become
invasive.

5. DISADVANTAGE 2: HUGE REGULATORY MESS

5.1. Huge Governmental regulatory roadblocks

Henry I. Miller, The Heartland Institute, “EPA Regulation Impedes Oil-spill Cleanups”,
05/01/2003, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment
%20climate/article/12092/EPA_Regulation_Impedes_Oilspill_Cleanups.html

Government policymakers seem oblivious to the power of regulatory roadblocks. The expense
and uncertainty of R&D with gene-spliced organisms have virtually eliminated the new
biotechnology from application to bioremediation. Companies know that experiments using the
new biotechnology will meet a wall of red tape, politics, and vast expense. Unscientific and
regressive regulatory policies have already left a legacy of environmental damage and reliance
on inferior methods for the cleanup of wastes. Too bad for the Spanish fishing industry ... and for
the victims of future spills.