United States Office of the Administrator EPA-SAB-EETFC-S9-023
Environmental Protection Science Advisory Board June 19S9
Agency - Washiigton, D. C. 20460
&EPA Report of the Environmental
Effects, Transport and Fate
Committee
Review of the Alaskan
Oil Spill Bioremediation
Project
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D C. 2Q4SQ
June 16, 1989
The Honorable William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr, Reilly:
The Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee of
the Science Advisory Board has completed its review of the Office of
Research and Development's (QRD's) "Research Plan for the Alaskan
Oil Spill Bioremediation Project". The Committee congratulates
ORD on its rapid response to this opportunity to field test
bioremediation approaches.
This project, designed to provide data to demonstrate the
potential use of biorenediation both as an emergency response
tool for Prince William Sound and for future environmental
remediation efforts, was evaluated for scientific and technical
accuracy by the Committee and invited experts. The Committee
supports ORD's effort to enhance biorenediation using addition of
nutrients, but recommends that parallel efforts to augment
bioremediation via inoculation with microorganisms undergo
further laboratory investigation prior to field release.
Additional recommendations included consultation with experts in
fifeid plot design to make ire that enhancement of biodegradation
rates will be detected by the experiment, and a simplification of
••he battery of environmental effects measurements through
Association with an underlying rationale* A detailed
presentation of these and other recommendations is provided in
the attached report.
The Committee hopes that ORD will proceed with the nutrient
enhancement experiment. They encourage EPA to go further
to develop an active demonstration and implementation program
based on bioremediation so that the research necessary for
addressing such questions, and the technology for remediation
will be defined before future spills occur.
-------
The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide advice on
this important issue and looks forward to receiving a response to
the advice. In addition, we would appreciate receiving (for
information) reports that result from the conduct of the research
project,
Sincerely,
c.
Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman
Science Advisory Board
Enclosure
cc; Dr. Donald Barnes
Dr. Erich Bretthauer
Dr. John Skinner
Dr. Hap Pritchard
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON, D.C 2G4SQ
May 16, 1989
Dr. Raymond Loehr •-*•*,CE o-
Chairman, Science Advisory Board TM£ A~CM,'."«?*AT;-»
c/o U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W,
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Loehr;
We are pleased to transmit via this letter the advice of the
science Advisory Board's Environmental Effects, Transport and
Fate Committee concerning the EPA's Alaskan Oil Spill
Bioremediation Project.
This project was reviewed by the Committee and invited
participants on May IS and 16, 1989. The Committee evaluated the
scientific adequacy -f the project in light of its goal:
determining if techniques for accelerating the hydrocarbon
biodegradation rates of natural microbial communities can be used
to help in the clean-up of the oil-contaminated Prince William
Sound. The study is designed to provide data to support the use
of bioremediation as part of the emergency response activities
currently taking place at Prince William Sound, and will also
allow for the effective use of biological treatment techniques
for future environmental remediation. A detailed presentation of
our views is contained in the attached report.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide advice on this important
issue. The Committee would appreciate being involved in and
informed of future SAB activities related to the long-term
bioremediation of Prince William Sound.
Sincerely,
Dr. Martin Alexander
Chairman, Alaskan Bioremediation Protocol Review
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Chairman, Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee
science Advisory Board
CC; Dr. Erich Brettauer
Dr» John Skinner
Dr. Hap Pritchard
-------
This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board
summarising a review of EPA'a "Laboratory Plan for the Alaskan
Oil Spill Bioremediation Project". This project was designed to
provide data to demonstrate the potential use of bioremediation
both as an emergency response tool for Prince William Sound, and
for future environmental remediation efforts. The Board supports
ORD's effort to enhance bioremediation using addition of
nutrients, but recommends that parallel efforts to augment
bioremediation via inoculation with microorganisms undergo
further laboratory investigation prior to field release,
Additional recommendations included consultation with experts in
field plot design to make sure that enhancement of biodegradation
rates will be detected by the experiment, and a simplification of
the battery of environmental effects measurements through
association with an underlying rationale.
Kev Words: Prince William Sound; bioremediation,* nutrient
enhancement»
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and
hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or
other agencies in Federal government. Mention of trade names -r
commercial produces does not constitute a recommendation for us«*.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, TRANSPORT AND FATE COMMITTEE
.ALASKAN BIOREMEDIATION REVIEW TASK
ROSTER
COMMIfTBE
Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University
P.O. BOX 13078
Denton, Texas 76202
TASK CHAIRMAN
Dr. Martin Alexander
Professor
Department of Agronomy
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York L4853
MEMBERS
Dr. Stanley Auerbach
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Dr. Yoram Cohen
Engineering Department
UCLA Rm. 5531
Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, California 90024
Dr. Rodney Fujita
Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010
Dr. Robert Huggett
Professor of Marine Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
Dr. Kenneth Jenkins
Director, Molecular Ecology Institute
California State University
Long Beach, California 90840
11
-------
Dr. Richard Kimerle
Monsanto corporation
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167-5842
Dr. John Neuhold
Department of Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Utah state University
Logan, Utah 84322
Dr. Herb Ward
Professor and Chairman
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Rice University
P.O. Box 1892
Houston, Texas 77251
8CIEHCEADVISORY BOARD STRF?
Ms. Janis C. Kurtz
Environmental Scientist and Executive Secretary
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
401 M Street, S.W» - A101F
Washington, D.C, 20460
Mrs. Dorothy elart
Secretary to the Executive Secretary
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Staff Director
-------
Ill
THBL1 OF CQHT8NT8
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY „ 1
2,0 INTRODUCTION ............... 2
2.1 Request for Science Advisory Board Review 2
2.2 Charge 2
2.3 Committee Review Procedures 2
3.0 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
3.1 GRD's Rapid Response 3
3.2 Support for the Concept 3
3.3 Benefit Analysis 3
3.4 Consideration of Other Treatment Methods 4
3.5 Measurability of Treatment Effects 4
3.5.1 Nutrient Loading 5
3,5.2 Hydrodynamics 5
3,6 Adequacy of Ecological Assessment 6
3,7 Fertilizer Selection 7
3.8 Organism Selection 7
3*9 Potential for Scale-Up 8
3.10 Technical and Personnel Support 9
3.10*1 Redundancy in Analytical capability 9
3.10.2 Detailed Analytical chemistry to 9
Determine Microbial Degradation
Rates
3.10.3 Personnel 9
4.0 CAUTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS .........*. 11
APPENDICES
A Specific Comments
B "Research Plan for the Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation
.Project", [excerpts]
IV
-------
2*0
R«qu««t for Bei«ne» Advisory Board Review
President" Bush asked the EPA Administrator to initiate
research activities related to the recent Alaska oil spill. The
Office of Research and Development (ORO) asked for Science
Advisory Board (SAB) assistance with oversight of some of these
activities.
The specific activity described herein consists of a review
of a document developed by ORD entitled "Research plan for the
Alaskan oil Spill Bioremediation Project". The objective of this
project is to demonstrate the feasibility of accelerating the
rate of biodegradation of oil spill residues on the shorelines of
Prince William Sound, Alaska.
Due to the need to nove rapidly, it was not possible to
bring this request for review to the SAB's Executive Committee
for approval. Instead, Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman of the SAB's
Executive Committee met with other members of the Board,
representatives of ORD, and SAB staff to consider the request and
subsequently have the SAB accept the charge. The short-term
effort on experimental biore»ediation was discussed along with a
longer-term effort on ecological recovery of Prince William
Sound.
The SAB Staff Director and Dr. Loehr asked the Environmental
Effects, Transport and Fate Committee (EET&FC) , Chaired by Dr.
Kenneth Dickson, to perform the review. The Committee agreed to
review the bioremediation protocol with augmentation by experts
as needed.
2.2 Charge
The Committee was charged with evaluating the scientific and
technical adequacy of the protocol. Specifically, the Committee
was asked to consider four questions? a) will this plan allow EPA
to determine whether accelerating the rate of natural
biodegradation is feasible, b) are the proposed assessments of
ecological effects adequate , c) will information necessary to
make decisions about utility of scale-up be generated by the
plan, d) is the decision to exclude commercial, non-indigenous
organisms from the protocol appropriate.
2,3
The Committee met on May 15 and 16, 1989, in St. Louis,
Missouri. The document for review was provided to SAB members
prior to the review. The proposed plan is attached as Appendix
B. Briefings were provided to the Committee at the meeting by
ORD staff. General and conceptual comments are provided in this
report, while specific comments addressing the protocol are
addressed in Appendix A.
-------
Prior to the SAB Committee's review on Hay 15-16, 1989, ORD
convened a separate scientific steering committee independent of
the SAB to provide information and guidance to the development of
the bioreaediation protocol. A workshop was held on April 17 and
18, 1989, to"explore the feasibility of biorentediation, to
develop a strategy for a small-scale demonstration, to prepare
draft monitoring and assessment guidelines, to explore the
ecological consequences of such a project, and to discuss long-
term aspects that can be related to remediating future spills.
Several follow-up meetings were held, site visits tooJc place and
information was gathered. The Scientific Steering Committee
provided considerable guidance to the Agency in developing the
protocols. A representative from this steering Committee, -r.
Ronald Atlas, was present at the May meeting to provide
information to the SAB Committee.
-------
3*° MAJOft CONCL08I01IS MTO RECOMMEHP&glQJI8
3.1 ORD'a Rapid
The committee congratulates ORD on its rapid response In
generating a research plan to study the potential for enhancing
biodegradation of spilled oil. ORD's action in convening
appropriate EPA and non-EPA scientists via the Steering Committee
mechanism is considered to be a useful approach. OSD has been
presented with a unique opportunity to conduct important
research* Bioremediation is recognized to show promise for
emergency response and remediation, and a field test of the sort
described will further clarify the utility of this approach. By
developing the protocol under review, ORD has responded to the
opportunity to conduct research that may accelerate the recovery
of Prince William Sound and demonstrate the utility of
bioremediation as a tool for future emergency response. ORD is
also commended for seeking early input from the SAB, so that full
benefit from guidance and oversight can be incorporated into the
planning stages.
3.2 Support for the jSoneept
The Committee supports the conduct of the proposed
bioremediation program. This support is, however, tempered by
the qualifications presented herein. The program should be
implemented not only for its potential value per se but also
because it can serve as a case history, whether successful or
not, for future actions. The program will provide a basis for
considering bioremediation as a means for emergency response, as
part of planning for clean-up efforts and for remediating
inadvertent discharges.
3-3 Benefit Analysis
The Agency should conduct a preliminary analysis to document
the possible benefit of the proposed research under best or worst
case scenarios to establish a realistic idea of what can be
accomplished. Nutrient or microorganism addition may have some
impact on destroying petroleum fractions in the affected areas,
but it is important to anticipate the potential rate enhancement
that can be expected and to anticipate the effects of these
enhanced rates of degradation on the ecosystem where damage has
already been done. Preliminary calculations should be made based
on information describing the site and known hydrocarbon
degradation rates to establish the feasibility of this project.
The minimal concentrations of added nitrogen and phosphorus that
are known to enhance microbial degradation should toe considered
to set realistic bounds on what can be expected in such a
bioremediation activity.
-------
of Oth«r 3?raatati^Bt MAthoda
The Committee suggested that other forms of treatment, such
as addition of- surfactants or emulsifying agents to enhance the
availability of oil to microbes, be considered, in addition, the
variety of means for fertilizer applications and for slow release
of nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers should be further
considered.
3*5 Heasur ability of Tr«afrm»nt jf facts
The research protocol for bioremediation contains little
information on plot design and experimental layout to
statistically determine if fertilization or inoculation enhances
biodegradation of oil on the beaches in Prince William sound,
The Committee is concerned that an adequate number of replicates
of envir -mental samples will not be taken to allow for detection
of differences between experimental treatment sites and
references sites.
The research protocol is based on the premise of detecting a
5% enhancement of biodegradation on fertilized beaches as
compared to unfertilized beaches. In light of the variability
that probably exists in the distribution of oil on the beaches,
the heterogeneity in the beach composition, and the analytical
variability, detection of this small degree of enhancement by
fertilization will require a large number of replicate samples.
The Committee most strongly recommends that the project team
immediately consult with a statistician who is fully versed in
experimental layout and design for field testing. An estimate
must immediately be made of the replication needed to detect a
realistic difference between treated beaches and reference
beaches. If the natural variability is as high as the committee
suspects, then a large number of replicate samples will be
required. If this proves to be the case, it is recommended that
the number of parameters to be measured be decreased and that
sufficient replicates of the .uost important parameters be made to
allow detection of reasonable differences between treatments.
Reference sites, as well as treatment sites, need to be
adequately replicated. ORD may want to consider collecting
samples from an additional test site that is, not oil-contaminated
but received nutrient addition. Inclusion of such a site will
allow ORD to distinguish the effects of treatment alone and may
better characterize the impacts that may result from nutrient
addition itself.
3-5.1 Nutrient Loading
Natural nutrient loadings must be assessed, to ensure that
the effects of added nutrients are not confused or masked by
natural conditions, in addition upwelling during the summer may
create high natural levels of nitrogen and phosphorus,
confounding the effects of fertilizer addition.
-------
3.5.2
The research plan lacks a consideration of expected mixing
rates, likely dilution rates, etc., during the experimental
period. The Committee strongly recommends that this readily
correctable flaw be addressed by evaluating the importance of the
hydrodynamics of the region. Considerations of hydrodynamics are
important for several reasons;
a) These principles govern the potential for contact of
the nutrients with the contaminated zone.
b) Hydrodynamics in and along the shore region may
affect the concentration of the microorganisms in the oil-
contaminated zone.
c) Repeated flooding of the shore region with water
(e.g., via tides, waves, and run-off) may result in the
mobilization of some of the entrapped oil and its release to the
bay area.
3.e Adequacy of Ecological Assessment
The proposed variety of measurements of ecological effects
is too ambitious. The relationship between the questions being
asked and the ecological endpoints to be measured was difficult
to ascertain. A succinctly stated rationale for the ecological
assessments would allow the development of a more focused
approach. The following comments are provided to assist with
simplifying the proposed measurements and building such a
rationale.
The proposed protocol to measure the effect of fertilizer
and inoculation will be severely confounded by biological
responses known to occur as a result of oil spills, such as
suppression of grazers, algal blooms, etc. Calculations of
hydrodynamic dilution should be done, preferably by local aquatic
scientists familiar with the area, to help predict the
possibility of eutrophication. While the proposed experiment
focuses primarily on beach effects, offshore effects should be
considered in an ecological assessment of the onshore study,
Moreover, water column assessments may be less variable and
easier to analyze than benthic assessments,, and will be just as
relevant. The focus of the reviewed study seems to be on visible
portions of the beaches, yet areas just below the low water tides
are also likely to be affected,
The studies of mutagenicity and higher organisms are
considered to be of less importance that those that reflect the
activities of the mierobial community, such as heterotrophic
activity, and primary productivity. The importance of making
measurements on the mierobial community, a community that can
respond to treatment in the short time that will characterize the
experiment, was stressed along with the need for simplicity in
design. studies of the C (Carbon) :N (Nitrogen) ratio are
-------
considered to be more important than isotope studies which are
difficult to perform, analyze, and interpret.
The possibility of stimulating algal growth should be
considered via nutrient modeling, assays of algal response to
various treatments in the laboratory, and insitu growth studies.
PC :ible effects on infaunal communities and higher organisms
(f-r example, mussels and macrophytic algae) should accompany
the experiment under review via long-term monitoring programs.
Such monitoring programs should address macroalgal abundance,
gross species composition changes and residue uptake in
mussels, along with other parameters.
In conclusion, the Committee stresses the need for selection
of endpoints that will allow detection of possible responses to
the experimental treatments. These responses must be
distinguishable from the direct responses of the ecosystem to
petroleum contamination,
3-7 Fertilizer Selection
The committee agrees that there is clear evidence to support
the view that nutrient addition nay enhance bioremediation,
However, inadequate attention has been given in the protocol to
information available on fertilizer technology. More information
should be sought on available slow release fertilizers which
would probably enhance microbial growth most effectively and on
application rates that are appropriate and feasible,
The methodology presently proposed using both oleophilic and
commercial "slow-release" nutrient formulations is supported by
the Committee. However, it is clear (and perhaps understandable
given the rapid ORD response) that all options have not been
considered, The Tennessee Valley Authority at Mussel Shoals,
Alabama, has considerable information and expertise on slow
release fertilizer formulations with different physical and
chemical properties. This body of information should be
considered in protocol development. Other delivery options need
to be considered to the full extent possible, including the use
of fertilizer spikes, coring equipment to implant fertilizers,
and high pressure applications such as those used in asphaltic
matrices to prevent rapid nutrient erosion from newly constructed
roadways.
3.8 Qrqranifii 8«l«ctioa
The addition of microorganisms for bioremediation was
considered by the Committee to be less feasible than the addition
of nutrients. There is little convincing evidence to support
this approach. In addition, limited attention was given to where
the organisms would be obtained and how they would be cultured or
applied. The Committee was not convinced that the added
organisms would survive on the beach long enough to affect
bioremediation.
-------
The research plan does not address the characteristics of
the organises to be used for inoculation. The bacteria to be
used should not be selected because of the ease of their
cultivation in nitrogen- and phosphorus-rich liquid medium
because these are not likely to be the organisms that will
function in the area designated for inoculation. Enrichments
should be established for oil degrading microorganisms which will
be able to withstand the stresses at the test site and be able to
grow under the conditions that prevail there. For intertidal,
cobbled sites with nitrogen and phosphQrus-*poor water and oil
adhering to the solids, the bacteria to be enriched probably
should be those that are uniquely able to multiply at ambient
temperatures, at very low nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations,
and have adherence properties to allow them to attach to solids.
They should also be able to withstand such possible intertidal
stresses as varying salinity, high "light intensity and possibly
drying. Such microorganisms will not grow as readily in
fermentors as do the species more commonly used for laboratory
research purposes, but they are more likely to be beneficial in
the target field situation.
The committee recommends that laboratory studies be
conducted to further investigate the possibility for
bioremediating with added organisms, and suggests that the daca
so obtained be analyzed by ORD and reviewed by the Scientific
Steering Committee, the SAB or other expert groups with no vested
interest to provide guidance on the utility of possible scale-up
for future activities. Since limited data are available to
support the feasibility of bioremediating with added organisms,
laboratory studies are a necessary precursor to field
application.
3.9
The research plan provides minimal scientific details to
assess the potential of successful scale-up. The success or
failure of bioremediation, assuming that laboratory studies will
demonstrate enhances biodegradation, will depend on the
feasibility of scale-up. Therefore, it is strongly recommended
that biodegradation rates be estimated and that simple
hydrodynamics analyses be performed in order to assess the
feasibility of scaling up the proposed approach. Such an
analysis may reveal key factors for evaluation in preliminary
experiments or in the proposed field studies. An effort should
be made to design both laboratory and field-scale studies for
maximizing information pertinent for process scale-up.
Site selection criteria should also be considered with
potential for scale-up in mind. The criteria should ensure
generalization of the results. The criteria given ensure a good
experimental site but do not necessarily ensure a representative
site. Snug Harbor's ability to represent other beaches with
respect to hydrodynamics, sediment size, distribution of
contamination, biota, etc. should be assessed.
8
-------
3-10 ?!feBnical and
3-10*1 gadtandanev ia analytical
Decisions en whether the proposed treatments accelerate the
degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons will be based on chemical
analyses. These chemical determinations must be completed before
a decision to "scale-up" is made. Any interruption in
information flow from the analytical laboratories to the project
officers will seriously jeopardize the successful completion of
the experiment and the usefulness of the data. Therefore,
sufficient redundancy should be built into the chemical
analytical systems to compensate for inevitable equipment
malfunctions. Not only should there be back-up gas
chromatographs, but arrangements should be made with other
laboratories to participate should major difficulties arise.
3.10.2 Detailed Analytical Chemistry to Determine
Microbial Degradation Rates
The extent to which microbial communities are degrading the
oil will be revealed by the disappearance of certain aromatic and
aliphatic hydrocarbons relative to the control or reference
sites. The critical and most sensitive step will be the accurate
and precise determination of these substances in extracts of
intertidal sediments (pebbles and cobbles) . The proposed
analytical protocol states that glass capillary gas
chromatography with flame ionization detectors will be the major
quantification tool. This appears appropriate since the
composition of the oil mixture is known and analytical standards
are available for many of the compounds in the aromatic and
saturated fractions. The chromatography must, however, be as
comprehensive as possible in order to maximize the potential of
detecting compositional changes. The use of standard or
"accepted" methods, developed for other purposes, may or may not
be sufficient for this task. Consideration should be givr to
using analog to digital converters and data systems or compeers
to store complete instrument signals so that more detailed
analyses can be performed if needed.
Portions of the final extracts should be stored in freezers
for future chromatographic analyses should the necessity arise.
EPA may want to consider providing samples to the National
Institute for Standards and Technology for storage, analysis and
comparison, A plan should also be developed for storing
unanalyzed samples in appropriate freezers to maximize the amount
of information that can be gained from this experiment.
3-10*3
The Committee was not sure why local scientists and
engineers are not being consulted by QRD, or being used more
extensively to support the proposed projects. The reasons for
involving local scientists and engir. iers are numerous and
obvious.
-------
Many areas of expertise have been represented in ORD's
protocol development, and many relevant experts have been
consulted, However, the omission of microbiologists with field
experience, fertilizer technologists, engineers (e.g, from the
Corps of Engineers), personnel from the University of Alaska,
and, especially, statisticians, should be corrected.
10
-------
AM? FPTtmg DlRlCTlQjlg
Many proprietary microbial preparations are being marketed,
or attempts to market them are being made, with statements about
their effectiveness and utility for the biodegradation of oils,
•greases, degreasing materials, PCBs, pesticides, and industrial
chemicals. The effectiveness of most of these preparations has
not been verified under conditions for which they are proposed
for use. Validation and verification of the claims made by the
inoculant manufacturers are not generally required. In the
absence of demonstrated utility of these microbial preparations
for biodegradation of target pollutants under conditions closely
simulating the polluted area, the Agency should not use or
encourage the use of any such inocula.
Instead, ORD should use the Exxon Valdez oil Spill project
and related research programs to initiate, together with
appropriate program offices, a research demonstration and
implementation program for the use of bioremediation as part of
the Agency's emergency response plan for spills and inadvertent
discharges of chemicals and mixtures. The long use of
microbiological methods for the treatment of industrial and
municipal wastes attests to the efficacy of biodegradation as a
practical, low-cost, non-hazardous means for destroying
chemicals. However, the ways that this technology can be applied
in a timely manner to destroy chemicals that are inadvertently
released have not been significantly addressed. The research
necessary for addressing these aspects should be conducted and
the technology for remediation should be well defined before
future spills occur. The bioremediation program reviewed herein,
whether successful or not, can serve as a case history for future
research planning and technology development.
11
-------
Asaendi* &:
The design of the continuous flow experiments (page 15) should
consider the appropriate residence tine of the water that
contacts the beach material. For example, one of the key scaling
parameters is Q/V (in which Q is the water flow rate and V is the
volume of the beach material to be treated) . However, since the
beach material is essentially a granular porous medium, the
thickness of this layer should also be considered. One can, for
example, rely on simple models of flow past a porous layer in
order to ensure that the pertinent hydrodynamics are being
considered. The hydrodynamic considerations involved in the
design of the experiments where water movement is being
considered do not appear to be well connected with the pertinent
in-situ hydrodynamic factors,
Page 18 The statement "Distinction between dispersion and
biodegradation will be assessed visually" is a gross
oversimplification of the complex physical and biochemical
processes that are taking place* A visual inspection cannot be
used to distinguish between dispersion and biodegradation.
It is not clear what visual parameters will be used in this
assessment or whether they will be adequate for this purpose.
Page 19 Insufficient information is given to assess the proposed
"additional tests" to determine the impact of tidal and weather
extremes, freshwater inputs, and lateral mixing
Ammonium (page 19) is not a good tracer for hydrodynamics
Page 21 -
once current pattern is known, place control up-current from
fertilized plots
page 23 continue experiment past 3-4 weeks to whenever the
deadline for scale-up decisions to increase utility for future
emergency response.
Nutrient release rates estimated in continuous flow systems
\(page 156) need better in situ velocity estimates or
measurements with electromagnetic current meters (not
film or wire) .
Review EXXon data on oleophilic fertilizer stickiness, and
penetration, (page 16) and toxicity.
Page 17 oleophilic toxieity interaction in oil, synergistic
effects
add infaunal species to be monitored to page 17
extrapolate uptake from fertilized plots
-------
Appendix B; Excerpts frpa ORD's "Laboratory Planfor the Alaskan
Oil Spill BioremediatLJon Prenect"
-------
BACKGROUND
The site "of the Alaskan oil spill is a harsh and Diverse
environment with poor access. The shoreline, which is geologically
young, ranges from vertical cliffs to boulders and pebbly ceacnes"
High energy beaches are common with tides that vary from -4 to -1
m. In some areas, glacial and snow melt creates a strong
freshwater signal.
The spilled oil has distributed over an estimated 1000 miles
of shoreline. The distribution was primarily controlled by the
prevailing winds and ocean currents which are typically from the
northeast. Large Variations in the wind patterns and wave action
has caused contamination of previously uncontarainated shoreline.
Major areas that have been contaminated include Knight island,
Eleanor Island, Smith Island, Green Island, and Naked Island.
Knight Island, the most heavily impacted, has minimal flushing
action in some bays and coves. it also has a considerable
population of sea otters. Naked Island has extensive herring
spawning areas and significant numbers of seabirds, and shorebirds.
Presently, there is a substantial migration of birds which will be
feeling on the beaches and intertidal areas.
Most of the floating oil in Prince William sound has
disappeared leaving the beaches as the main point of contamination.
The oil has settled into the f tie beach gravel and covered rock
surfaces and faces of vertical cliffs. Contamination occurs in and
below the intertidal zone. An estimated 300 miles of contaminated
shoreline are scheduled for cleaned up.
The oil itself has weathered and will continue to weather.
An estimated 15-20% loss of the oil has been lost due to
volatility. The residue is approximately 40 - 50% high molecular
weight waxes and asphaltenes. On many beaches, the general
condition i= not that of a mousse but instead a black oily layer.
Presently, some beaches are being cleaned by a combination of
flooding and the application of water under high and low pressure
and /or high temperature. Vacuum extraction is being used to
remove the released oil from the water surface. The cleaning
process partially removes oil from the surface of rocks and beaches
but does not effectively remove oil down in the fine grained gravel
or the cobble. The extent of physical treatment is dependent upon
the degree of contamination.
-------
SAMPLE N-C17 Pristane N-C1S phytane N-C17/Fristane N-els/?hy*;a-
Calibration
Fresh PB Crude 3,000 1,730 2,560 1,260 1.7
CH2 CI2 Blank
Surface Control
6" Depth Control
NW Bay Surface
Elenore Is
NW Bay 6"
Depth
NW Bay 18"
Depth
Seal Island
Smith Island
Disk Island
<. 0025
«.0025
12.9
1.63
.0435
29-0
- 605
12,5
,0053a
.0056"*
8.75
1.18
. 108
l~ .9
,403
15.6
<.0025
<,0025
12-9
1.44
.0331
25,8
.545
13.0
<.0025
<.QQ25
6.55
.870
,0765
12.4
.281
12.6
<0.47
<0.4S
1/5
1.4
.40
1.6
1.5
.80
l.o
Fresh Oiled
Rock 1,840 1,290 1,840 1,070 1-4 ;.T
Weathered Oiled
Rock 1,980 1,110 2,280 1,150 X.8 2.C
a _
possible biogenic input
-------
PROJECT PLAN
I. Preliminary Studies
The overall project is composed of two parallel studies.
The first will consist of a .field study to evaluate the use of
different -.utrient additions to enhance the biodegradation of the
contaminating oil. The second involves a smaller scale field
study to evaluate the use of adding microbial cultures to enhance
the degradation rate. Preliminary data will be gathered to
assess initial field and application conditions. This will
include:
* Survey of the geomorphology, oceanographyt and oil
contamination to determine if appropriate sites for the
demonstration projects were available.
* Chemical characterization of the weathered oil taken from
selected sites in ?n-ce William Sound.
* Collection of information on the characteristics and
availability of slow release and oleophilic fertilizers. '•
Results from initial studies are summarized below.
A. Beach Survey
During the first trip to Prince William Sound (PWS) on
04/26/39 - 05/02/89, the EPA Bioremediation task force members
surveyed most of the impacted beaches using small boats, float
planes and helicopters. Descriptive assessments of
geomorphology, tidal action and extent of contamination were
made. Protected beaches that had moderate oil contamination over
a long stretch of either coarse gravel, Debbie and/or cobble were
examined. Homogeneity of the beach, areas in terms of
geomorphology and oil contamination was also considered.
Oil contamination can be described in two ways:
1.) Primary contamination. The color of the oil is black.
The oil slick was present near the beach for an extended period
of time and oil covers all or most of the intertidal zone.
Visual penetration of the oil into the gravel was 4 - 18 cm in
moderately impacted areas, oil was also blown on the beach
during a storm. These beaches are characterized by a relatively
thin layer of oil, -mostly above the high tide mark.
Additional beaches of fine gravel had little or no signs of
contamination on the surface. However, several millimeters below
the surface oil was visible. Such beaches usually contained
larger rocks with visible oil coverage.
-------
2.) Secondary contamination. The color of the oil is mostly
brown. Coloration is doe to mousse formation on the sea before
beaches were impacted. A relatively small number of beaches at
p.w.s. show mousse contamination* It, is more pronounced along
the Kenai Peninsula South West of Seward.
For the nutrient addition demonstration project the
gravel/cobble stone beaches impacted by oil covering the tidal
zone where oil is on and or below the surface seemed most
appropriate. These beaches are both extremely important in terms
of biological habitats to shorebirds, crustaceans and fish larvae
and fry, and are also the most difficult to physically clean.
physical treatment of pressurized water will change the natural
stratification of such beaches, and may result in extensive
erosion. Chemical treatment could cause further damage to marine
organisms living along the shoreline, below the tide zone, which
survived the initial toxicity of the oil.
Based on these surveys the location of Snug Harbor was
chosen as the area for further consideration of the demonstration.
projects. This area had ample protected beaches of the proper
geomorphology and relative uniform oil contamination to a
moderate extent. It was also readily accessible with plane or
helicopter and was probably an area that would be cleaned by
Exxon later in the summer.
B. Chemical ...Composition o..f.;Weathered oil
Beach material from several contaminated areas was sampled
and the material extracted with methylene chloride. Extracts
were evaporated and the residue was weighed and brought up in a
specified volume of pentane. The solutions were the analyzed by
capillary gas chromatography directly or fractionated into
aliphatic and aromatic fractions and chromatographed. Details of
the analytical methods are given in Appendix II.
Samples analyzed:
* Eleanor Island, Northwest Bay, surface (0 - 4") »• oil
impacted and control beach material."
* Eleanor Island, Northwest Bay, depth at 6"? oil impacted
and control beach material.
* Eleanor Island, Northwest Bay, depth at 18", oil impacted
beach material only. '
* Seal Island, surface (o - 2"), post initial physical
cleaning.
* Smith Island, surface (0 --2"); oil impacted beach
material,
-------
* Disk Island, surface (0 -2") ; oil impacted beach
material .
* Disk Island, fresh^looking oiled rock.
* Disk Island, weathered-looking oiled rock.
All control samples were taken several meters above the
impacted area. Gas ehroraatographs for some of the analyses are
shown in Appendix II.
Analysis of the results showed a typical envelop of
weathered oil with hydrocarbons below Cll-12 missing. A large
quantity of biodegradable hydrocarbons, C13-C28, were present in
these chromatograras . The presence of these compounds in the oil
suggests that it can be biodegraded by the na.urally occurring
bacterial population. The fractionated samples showed relative
small quantities of aromatic hydrocarbons and loss of
hydrocarbons up to the methyl naphthalenes*.
Both controls shoved some peaks with low retention times.
it is assumed that these peaks are not crude oil related
compounds, and are probably of biogenic source. Beach material
from impacted surface and 6" depth looked similar. A sample from
the 18" depth showed much lower concentrations of hydrocarbons.
However, many peaks were present and a distinct pattern1 of the
oil is seen, visually, at that specific location, the oil was
seen at 4-6" depth only.
The collected from Seal Island showed a low degree of
weathering with a significant amount of C-10 n-alkane present,
A much wore weathered sample was apparent froa the Disc Island
rock that visually appeared weathered.
Table 1 gives the calculated ratios of C-17/pristane and c-
18/phytane for each of the samples taken. Except for the Disk
Island surface sample, little biodegradation of the oil is
evident.
c. Fertilizer In£o.rma.t.io.n
Information on the characteristics of selected slow release
water soluble and oleophilic fertilizers are listed as follows:
^ FERTILIZER/NUTRIENT FORMULATION - A 24/4/12 (N-P-K)
fertilizer that is formulated to give both an immediate and
sustained response* 100% of the nitrogen is derived from
ammonium phosphates, urea, and isobutyldiene diurea, with a
minimum of 45% from water insoluble isobutyldiene diurea.
Available phosphoric acid is derived from potassium sulfate and
potassium magnesium phosphate. Iron is derived from ferrous
sulfate. When used on turf, water _ soluble nitrogen response will
become evident in approximately one week, while isobutyldiene
-------
diurea will begin release in 3-4 weeks and continue for a minimum
of 12 weeks. Information on cost is pending.
SPIKES - Nutrients can also be supplied using off-the-shelf
tree food spikes. The spikes can be obtained in various
formulations, such as 14-5-5 (N-P-K) or 16-10-9. Phosphorus is
present as phosphoric acid (P2Q5) and potassium is present as
potash (K20) . The spikes can be implanted underneath the exposed
cobblestone at various locations in and above the tidal zone or
attached to stakes or placed in mesh bags, which can then be
secured to the beach either in holes, trenches, or weighted down
by rocks. It's cost is approximately $1.45 per pound (case
price, 16-10-9 formulation).
OLEOPHILIC FERTILIZER FORMULATIONS/INIPOL EAP 22 - A
proprietary mixture of nutrients encapsulated by oleic acid (the
external phase) designed and originally produced by Elf Aquitaine
(France) for tertiary oil recovery. This fertilizer (nutrient)
formulation belongs to a category of oleophilic nutrients, in
that the vehicle (oleic acid - surfactant) renders the nutrients
to become suitably attached to the oil phase and thus prevents
them from becoming solubilized in aqueous phase and subsequently
washed out. Its appearance is a clear liquid with a specific
gravity of 0.996, a viscosity of 250 cSt, a pour point of 11 c,
and a flash point of >100 c. Its cost is approximately 51-50 per
pound.
INORGANIC SOURCES - Several inorganic sources of fertilizer
are available, such as ammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate, end
the slightly soluble magnesium ammonium phosphate. Reasons for
using these materials are simplicity, no known toxicity at the
intended concentrations, and no additional carbon source.
Combination with urea is possible. These inorganic compounds,
which are relatively fast release, can be combined with the
oleophilic fertilizer to supplement the amount of N and P in the
formulation.
-------
The biodegradation of oil has been extensively studied over
the last 20 years. AS a result, the microbiological fate of oil
in the aquatic environments is well understood, studies have also
shown that oil degradation can occur in cold water environments (
Atlas et al., 1977). Because of this data base, The EPA Office
of Research and Development convened a workshop of national and
international scientists involved in oil biodegradation research
and asked them about the possibility of some type of oil
bioremediation in connection with the Prince William Sound oil
spill. The objectives of that workshop and the list of the
attendees is given in Appendix I. Several bioremediation options
become apparent as a result of the workshop discussions. This
included the following options for accelerating oil degradation:
* The addition of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients.
* Inoculation with commercial or enriched indigenous
microorganisms.
* Alteration of site characteristics by mechanical mixing.
* Increasing availability of the oil by the use emulsifying
agents.
* One or more of the above in combination.
It was the consensus opinion of the workshop participants that
it was worth performing demonstration projects on the first two
options, nutrient addition and inoculation. Decisions for scale
up would be based on the success of the demonstration projects.
Nutrient addition appeared to give the greatest chances for success
for this season. It was the general conclusion that bioremediaticn
would be most effective if it was coupled with ongoing cleanup
operations in Prince William Sound. Specifically, bioremediation
could possibly be quite effective in removing o:' from the beaches
that is not be removed by the current physical Cashing procedure;
that is, a process whereby oil under the rocks and down in the
gravel beach pore water could be removed.
Pursuant to these conclusions, the EPA Biosystems Technology
Development Scientific Steering committee has developed the
following implementation plan.
-------
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This project will be managed by the EPA office of Research and
Development. (A team of scientists will carry out, under EPA's
direction, this on-site project in Prince William Sound. A
research plan will be developed and peered reviewed prior to
initiation of the project. Figure 1 is a summary of the project
management structure.
The project will be implemented over a four month period frcr.
May 1, 198§ to September 30, 1989. A time line for this
implementation is given in Figure 2. For the nutrient addition
study, the schedule will be to obtain information on success as
soon as possible; we expect this to occur early in the summer. If
success is apparent within this time period, it will allow scale
up operations to be implemented in time to affect oil cleanup
during the summer season of 1989 when temperatures are reasonable
for biodegradation activities on the beaches.
The bioenhancejBent study will also be implemented in early
May starting with a series of laboratory studies. Information and
microbial cultures are planned to be available for testing in the"
field in early June. If scale up becomes a possibility, immediate
action will be undertaken to mobilize reactors for culturing of,
large quantities of the bacteria. Inoculations on a larger scale
could possibly commence in July.
A scientific meeting to report and discuss the results of the
project will be held in late September, A full documentation of
the project will be prepared and released in the Fall, 1989.
-------
FIGURE I
Proposed Coordination for EPA Oil Spill BJoremediation
Assistant Admlnltlralor
Office of Research and Development
in lor mat ton Tr antler
T»am
Jay Bentoraoo. Coordinator
1
M
Nulrf*nt Addition T«ini
John Glase*, T*am Co- Managar
Al Vsoosa, Taajn Co-Manager
Ami Horowitz, Onsju Coortinalw
Support S*art
Oitslt*
Command
Center
Chark-Costa,
Coordinator
Loglitlc* Coord(n*1)on
• tavel/accomodaion*
• samotiOAQC
Dick ValantMattk, Team Manager
Hal Wbby.Onsi* Coordinator
Support SlaJt
Pit Spill Btor«nn*dUlkm Ta»fc
Hap Prtchard, Coonttnador
Sclanc* Advisor*
Chairperson?
Bfo*i)hane»m*nt T*am
John Roger*. T«am llanagar
DM UahJfc% Onste Cooidinaaaf
Support Stafl
• Idat tnopterrwrtation
• sampftig (OA/QC)
Fran Kremef, Team Co-Managa-
John WJaoo, Taam Co MaAofl^f
Tom Garland, bosflo CooftHnator (B.
Jbhn w Jllhorwi, OnsiSa Coofeftnalot?
Suppon Si at I
Ecological *»»••*««nt
Lorry Ctuxton. To*un Uanagot
Jim dark, Orsita Ckmdnatot
Hod Pajriih, Omi» Coordwatar
Support Start
-------
FIGURE
Proposed
Plan of Action Flow Diagram
Site Coordination
Action Hems Planning
i
1
V
X^-Loptotic* Coordination
^*"*^ FmcMMJirmtntiil Dasian
Development
Evaluation
Aetavrties
y
AetponsiUe
Pcrtocnvancc
Task
Force
^ - - .Research ._„. , „
Teams
* ^ Task ku
Force
Planning
t
Tune Line
Nutofenl
4/17
4/17
Time Line
For
4/24
Outside Peer Review
ogistics
Site CoordinaKon
B/
lest P«epare*on
6f7
6/16
Tesl Imptementattort
-I
fi/19
7/14 Hal-over Deaewn
7/t4
fl/7
Ptanning
I
5/1
—I Experimental
5/5 Dee^Oewtofxner* Owlside Peer Review
1
5/12
tDfltsacs
Site Coordinaiton
5/3
,
Tesl Preparattoo
5/8
6/23
fosl Imptefminlrttifjn
(", I T 'i
'J/ I1,
------- |