Bioremedation of Diesel Range
Organics in the Suisun Marsh
Harry L. Allen, U.S. EPA
Region 9 FOSC
Background
• Pipeline spill occurred on April 27, 2004
• Greater than 100,000 gallons of diesel fuel
released to a wetland
– Area is approximately 242 acres in size and is
managed as a duck hunting clubs
– Water levels controlled by levees and gates
– Responders designated 2 divisions: A (a
brood pond) and B (a shooting area)
A B
Incident Command
Unified Command
FOSC – USCG/U.S..EPA
SOSC – CA DFG
RP – Kinder Morgan EP
JIC – KMEP, Safety –
CA DFG OSPR,
KMEP, USCG PST
EPA
Liaison
KMEP, EPA, OSPR
Finance Logistics Planning Operations
KMEP, Contractors KMEP, Contractors KMEP, Contractors
Environmental Unit Area A Crew
CA DFG
Area B Crew
Response Strategies
• Mechanical
– Booming, absorbent materials, skimming, and
excavation
– Water level management
• Tide gate adjustments were utilized to drain
Division B
Response Strategies
• An evaluation of cleanup alternatives
determined that bioremediation was highly
feasible and cost effective
– Add polyphosphate (Div A) & di-ammonium
phosphate (Div B) to affected soils to facilitate
biodegradation of diesel in soil
– Tilling for aeration
Response Coordination
• State:
– Department of Fish & Game and Regional Water
Quality Control Board
• Federal:
– NOAA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
• Endangered Species Issues
– DOI
• Cultural and Historic Properties Issues
– Regional Response Team
• Approval of nutrient addition
Will bioremediation work….
before winter arrives?
• Heterotrophic plate count and respirometry
study (KMEP – lead)
– High populations of TPH degraders present
– Populations increase in presence of oxygen
• Bench-scale tests (EPA – lead)
– Up to 40% degradation observed in bench flasks
after 14 days
• Preparations!
– Construction
– Mouse catching
Monitoring
• Water and soil samples collected regularly by
EPA and KMEP
– Effectiveness of response measures will be
determined by decreases in Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (TPH analysis) and by “sheen tests”
– Bioremediation will be measured specifically by
Modified GC/MS “fingerprint” analysis
• Biomarker ratios will be derived
– C17:Pristane
– C18:Phytane
– Pristane:Phytane
Soil Sampling Results (Division A)
Mean
Concentration 8653 1907 1380 606 352
Time (days) T0 T27 T32 T62 T99
Percent
Removal NA 77.96 84.04 92.99 95.93
Maximum
Concentration 160000 13000 8700 1600 860
Biomarker Ratio Trends –
Division A
Untransformed Biomarker Data - Samples TS-A-10
3
2.5 C17:Pristane TS-A-10
R2 = 0.8424
2
C18:Phytane TS-A-10
2
R = 0.985
Ratio
1.5
Linear ( C17:Pristane TS-
A-10)
1
Linear ( C18:Phytane TS-
0.5 A-10)
0
7/1/2004 7/8/2004 7/14/2004 7/21/2004 7/28/2004 8/2/2004
Sampling Date
Biomarker Ratio Trends –
Division A
LN-Transformed Biomarker Data
1.2000
C17:Pr istane TS-A-10
1.0000
C18:Phytane TS-A-10
R2 = 0.8669
0.8000 C17:Pr istane TS-A-15
2
R = 0.961 C18:Phytane TS-A-15
LN Ratio
0.6000
C17:Pr istane TS-A-20
C18:Phytane TS-A-20
0.4000
Linear (C17:Pr istane
TS-A-10)
0.2000 Linear (C18:Phytane
TS-A-10)
0.0000
4
04
4
4
4
00
00
00
00
00
20
2
2
/2
/2
/2
1/
8/
2/
-0.2000
14
21
28
7/
7/
8/
7/
7/
7/
Sampling Date
Biomarker Ratio Trends –
Division B
Transformed Biomarker Ratios - Samples ES-1 & ES-4
0.80
R2 = 0.5893
0.60
R2 = 0.7251
0.40 ln C17/Pristane (ES-4)
0.20 ln C18/Phytane (ES-4)
LN Ratio
ln C17/Pristane (ES-1)
0.00
ln C18/Phytane (ES-1)
4
4
04
04
04
00
00
00
-0.20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
Linear (ln C18/Phytane (ES-4))
1/
8/
4/
14
22
28
7/
7/
8/
7/
7/
7/
-0.40 Linear (ln C17/Pristane (ES-4))
-0.60
-0.80
Sampling Dates
Bioremediation Lessons Learned
• Start early!
– A more timely application of nutrients in future spills
will allow for improved evaluation.
• Response measures achieved interim
remediation goals but raise questions
– Was nutrient addition necessary?
• Consider other lines of evidence prior to
crediting the specific approach as clearly
successful.
– TPH data should be normalized to reduce potential
errors.
Keep in Touch
Harry Allen, OSC
Phone: 415-972-3063
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Website: [Link]