Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Using Oil Spill
Dispersants on the Sea
Committee on Effectiveness of
Oil SpiB Dispersants
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1989
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington, D C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel
responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate
balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved
by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by
the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Manly Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy
of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of
the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies deter-
mined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and
vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The program described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agreement Nos. 1~12-0001-30301
and 14-12-0001-30360 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior and
the National Academy of Sciences.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants
Using oil spill dispersants on the sea / Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine
Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
ISBN ~309-03882-0 (paper); ISBN 0-309-03889-8 (cloth)
1. Oil pollution of the sea. 2. Dispersing agents. 3. Oil
spills—Environmental aspects. 4. Dispersing agents—Environmental
aspects. I. Title
TD427.P4N38 1989
626.1/6833—dc 19
8~38879
CIP
Cover: The slate-blue color common to the surface of the northern seas and windrows—or parallel
mases—of undispersed oil are reflected in the artist's rendition on the cover of this report.
Copyright (I) 1989 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process, or in
the form of a phonograhic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or otherwise
copied for public or private use without written permission from the publisher, except for the purposes
of ofl~lcial use by the U.S. government.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Acknowledgments
The extensive reference list on which this report is based could
not have been compiled without the assistance of many scientists
and engineers throughout the world. Members of the committee
obtained and provided unpublished reports and reports of work in
progress that were essential for our discussions.
~ particular, Mervin Fingas of Environment Canada, Ottawa,
provided the committee with a full shelf of reports and symposium
proceedings. The Environment Canada Library, Dartmouth, and the
Fisheries and Oceans Library at the Bedford Institute of Oceanogra-
phy, also in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, helped with literature searches.
Two members of the committee served as vice-chairman in charge
of a working group: Colin Jones chaired the group concerned with
effectiveness and participated in the Beaufort Sea dispersant tests
conducted in August 1986 by Environment Canada. Peter Wells,
as vice-chairman of the biological working group, acquired and as-
sessed an immense body of published and unpublished literature,
and summarized it for the committee. These activities represented
considerable extra commitment, and are especially appreciated.
James N. Butler
Chairman
· · ~
OCR for page R4
COMMITTEE ON EFFECTIVENESS OF
OIL SPILL DISPERSANTS
JAMES N. BUTLER, Chairman, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
LARRY P. ATKINSON, 01d Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
JOHN P. FRASER, Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas
MICHAEL J. HERZ, Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies,
San Francisco State University, Tiburon, California
COLIN M. JONES, Consultant, Colin M. Jones Associates,
Arlington, Virginia
JAMES P. MARUM, Mobil Oil Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey
CLAYTON D. MCAULIFFE, Consultant, Clayton McAuliffe and
Associates, Inc., Fullerton, California
ROBERT J. MEYERS, Consultant, Robert J. Meyers and
Associates, Houston, Texas
L. A. "SKIP" ONSTAD, Clean Seas, Carpenteria, California
JAMES R. PAYNE, Science Applications International
Corporation, I,a Jolia, California
JOHN M. TEAL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, Massachusetts
PETER G. WELLS, Conservation and Protection, Environment
Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Staff
DONALD W. PERKINS, Staff Officer
ANDREA CORELL, Editor
GLORIA B. GREEN, Senior Secretary
1V
OCR for page R5
MARINE BOARD
SIDNEY WALLACE, Chairman, U.S. Coast Guard (retired),
Reston, Virginia
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, Vice-Chairman, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, La Jolla, California
ROGER D. ANDERSON, Cox's Wholesale Seafood, Inc., Tampa,
Florida
KENNETH A. BLENKARN, Amoco Oil Company (retired), Tulsa
Oklahoma
DONALD F. BOESCH, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium,
Chauvin
C. RUSSEI,I, BRYAN, U.S. Navy (retired), St. Leonard, Maryland
F. PAT DUNN, Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas
JOHN HALKYARD, Arctec Offshore Corporation, Escondido,
California
EUGENE H. HARLOW, Soros Associates Consulting Engineers,
Houston, Texas
DANA R. KESTER, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
JUDITH T. KILDOW, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge
WARREN G. LEBACK, Consultant, Princeton, New Jersey
WlI,I`lAM R. MURDEN, Murden Marine I'td., Alexandria,
Virginia
EUGENE K. PENTIMONTI, American President I.ines, I.td.,
Oakland, California
JOSEPH D. PORRICEI,I`T, ECO, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland
ROBERT N. STEINER, Atiantic Container l.ine, South Plainfield,
New Jersey
BRIAN J. WATT, TECHSAVANT, Inc., Kingston, Texas
EDWARD WENK, JR., University of Washington (retired), Seattle
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director
DORIS C. HOLMES, Administrative Associate
DELPHINE GLAZE, Administrative Secretary
AURORE BLECK, Senior Secretary
GLORIA B. GREEN, Senior Secretary
CARLA M. MOORE, Senior Secretary
I,
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface
Exploring the potential of chemical dispersants to combat open-
sea of} spills has been attractive to both government and industry.
However, an unanswered question is whether testing and technical
advances in the laboratory and in the field, and progress in deploy-
ment, justify the use of dispersants as a primary response technique.
Much of the dispersant research in the United States has been
conducted by private industry. In addition, research was conducted
by the Interagency Technical Committee for the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environment Test Tank (OHMSETT) facility.
The committee included the Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and Environment Canada.
Further, a major amount of dispersant research has been done in
Canada, sponsored by Environment Canada. Significant research
also has been conducted by industry and by others abroad, most
notably in France, Norway, and the United Kingdom. In view of the
extent of recent research, U.S. and Canadian cooperating agencies
requested that the National Research Council (NRC), "review the
state of knowledge in toxicity, effectiveness of application techniques,
and effectiveness of commercially available dispersants." In response,
the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems of the NRC
convened the Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants.
Members of the committee were selected for their experience in
..
V11
I
OCR for page R8
· · ~
V111
PREFA CE
and knowledge about the fates and effects of petroleum in the marine
environment, physical chemistry of pollutants, physical and chem-
ical oceanography, marine biology and zoology, of} and hazardous
materials cleanup techniques and management, of} spill contingency
planning and response, marine engineering and field deployment, and
public interest in environmental protection. A balance of technologi-
cal, scientific, and geographic perspectives was a major consideration
in the selection of the committee. Consideration of public concern
about environmental safety was another major consideration.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The committee was charged to assess the state of knowledge and
practice about the use of dispersants in responding to open-ocean
of! spins. This assessment wid guide federal and local governments
and industry in both the United States and Canada, in defining the
role of dispersants in oil spin response and implementing the use
of dispersants. Equally important is the charge to identify gaps in
knowledge where research is especially needed. The committee was
specifically asked to
· determine the effectiveness of dispersants and identify the
best techniques for their use;
· identify the possible impacts of dispersants and dispersed of}
on marine and coastal environments; and
· provide guidance about when and where dispersants should
or should not be used.
The committee interpreted these charges broadly, and addressed
two fundamental questions: Are dispersants effective that is, do the
chemicals remove oil from the surface of the sea and disperse it into
the water column? Is the biological impact of dispersed oil greater
or less than that of untreated oil? In answering these questions,
the committee also identified where knowledge is lacking and what
research is fundamental to improving effective and responsible use of
dispersants.
While the focus of the assessment was on the use of dispersants in
the open ocean, the committee examined the possibility of impacts
on important characteristics of the marine environment tropical,
temperate, and polar coasts, areas important to marine life cycles,
and ocean areas frequented by marine mammals and bird life.
Government policies were addressed only to the extent that they
OCR for page R9
PREFA CE
IX
affect optimum use and deployment of dispersants and international
cooperation in their assessment and application.
The committee determined that a detailed assessment of compar-
ative costs for using dispersants for treating a spin and for mechanical
cleanup and disposal would be beyond the charge given to the com-
mittee. However, since this topic could be a significant element in
the decision-making process about the choice of response techniques,
a summary giving a range of costs and important references has been
provided in the text for the interested reader.
METHOD OF STUDY
Data and information about dispersant use and its effects were
acquired from Canadian and U.S. sources through the auspices of the
sponsoring agencies, with extensive input by Environment Canada.
A significant contribution was the evaluation of literature on Com-
parative Field Effects of Dispersed and Undispersed Petroleum Oils in
Coastal Marine Environments, prepared at the request of the com-
m~ttee by P. Lane and Associates Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia. This
work was conducted under the guidance of Peter Wells, a member of
the committee.
Canadian, European, and U.S. experiences and data were also
acquired through background papers written by committee members
and reviewed during the Workshop on Oil Spill Dispersant Effec-
tiveness held March 24-26, 1986, at Reston, Virginia. Participants
included guests from British, Canadian, French, and U.S. research
institutions and industry. They were Gerard Canevari, Exxon Re-
search and Engineering Company, Houston, Texas; Jean Croquette,
Centre de Documentations sur le Pollutions Accidentelles de Eaux
(CEDRE), Brest, France; Merv Fingas, Conservation and Protection,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario; Richard Golob, World Infor-
mation Systems, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts; David Kennedy,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Wash-
ington; Gordon Lindblom, Exxon Chemical Company, Houston,
Texas; Donald MacKay, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and
Joseph Nichols, The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federa-
tion Ltd., London, England. Information was also received from D.
Cormack, Warren Spring Laboratory, Stevenage, England.
The assessment process of the report development was under-
taken in two subsequent meetings and was based on test data as weD
as on observations of field experience, including field trials conducted
OCR for page R10
PREFA CE
by Environment Canada, August 1986, in the Beaulort Sea, North-
west Territories. These field trials were witnessed by Colin Jones, a
committee member, at the invitation of the Canadian government.
The committee report and its conclusions and recommendations re-
flect a broad data base and assessment in the marine toxicological
and biological area. A more limited data base supports the field ap-
plications and experience area; however, field observation enhances
the experience basis for the committee's conclusions and recommen-
dations in that area.
OCR for page R11
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................
Do They Do Any Good?, 1
Do They Do Any Harm?, 3
Recommendations for Using Dispersants, 4
Suggested Research, 5
1 USE OF OIL DISPERSANTS: HISTORY
AND ISSUES ............................................
Reasons for Treating Oil Spills, 6
Aesthetic and Ecological Damage, 6; Economic
Damage, 7; Safety Hazards, 9
Potential Sources of Spilled Oil, 9
Treatment Methods, 13
Mechanical Containment, Recovery, or
Removal, 14; Shoreline Cleanup, 16; Natural
Removal, 17; Other Countermeasures, 17
Role of Dispersants, IS
Rationale for Dispersant Use, IS; Sea and
Weather Conditions, 18; Logistics, 19;
Protection of Ecologically Sensitive Areas and
Organisms, 19; Protection of Fisheries
Resources, 19; Protection of Shoreline
X1
OCR for page R12
·—
X11
Amenities, 20; Dispersants as an Aid to
Natural Cleanup, 20
History of Dispersant Use, 21
The Torrey Canyon Spill, 21; Development of
New Formulations, 22; Development of
Equipment, 23; Case Studies, 24
Issues and Questions, 24
Using Chemical Dispersants to Remove Oil
From the Surface of the Water, 24; Factors
Affecting Toxicity of Chemical Dispersants and
Dispersed Oil, 26
2 CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS OF DISPERSANTS
AND DISPERSED OIL.......................
Composition of Dispersants, 29
Chemistry of Surfactants, 29; Current
Dispersant Formulations, 31; Matching
Dispersant Formulations With Oil Type for
Increased Effectiveness, 34; Fate of Surfactants
and Solvents in the Aqueous Environment, 35
Fate of Oil Spilled on Open Water, 36
Slick Thickness, 36; Slick Spreading, 38;
Physical Processes of Dispersion Related to
Water Motion, 41; Evaporative Loss of Volatile
Hydrocarbons, 47; Photochemical Processes
49; Mousse Formation, 49
Behavior of Oil-Dispersant Mixtures, 50
Criteria for Effective Dispersal, 50; Relation of
Oil Composition to Dispersibility, 51; Effect of
Oil Viscosity, Time, and Other Parameters on
Dispersion, 54; Effect of Dispersant on Slick
Dynamics, 57; Behavior of Droplets and
Resurfacing, 58; Interaction of Dispersed Oil
With Suspended Particulate Matter and
Sediment, 62
Oil Fate and Dispersion Models, 63
Mode! Types, 63; Nonuniform Slick Thickness,
65; Advection and Diffusion, 65; Resurfacing,
65; Breaking Waves, 65; Integrated
Approaches, 66; Mode} Validation, 69;
Summary, 69
CONTENTS
.28
OCR for page R13
CONTENTS
Laboratory Studies of EEectiveness, 70
Purpose of Laboratory Testing, 70; Critical
Factors, 71; Need for Standard Testing Oils,
73; Advantages aunt Disadvantages of Testing
Methods, 74; Summary, 78
Need for Research, 79
3 TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF DISPERSANTS
AND DISPERSED OIL...............................
Overview of Toxicological Testing, 81
Toxicological Testing Methods, 83; Dispersant
Screening Procedures for Toxicity
Considerations, 84; Dispersant Screening
Procedures in Canada, the United States, and
Other Countries, 85
Toxicity of Dispersants, 96
Acute Toxicity of Components, 97; Acute
Toxicity of Formulations, 100; Factors
Influencing Acute Toxicity, 110; Sites and
Physiology of Toxic Action, 117; Sublethal
Ejects, 118; Hazard Assessment of Dispersant
Alone, 122
Toxicity of Dispersed Oil, 123
Exposure Assessment, 124; Factors Affecting
Comparative Toxicity, 124; Joint Toxicity, 125
Laboratory Studies With Dispersed Oil, 126
Phytoplankton, 130; Macroscopic Algae and
Vascular Plants, 130; Zooplankton, 131;
Crustaceans, 135; Mollusks, 146; Comparison
of Laboratory Studies and Field Studies With
Measured Hydrocarbons, 147; Summary, 154
Microbial Degradation, 155
Laboratory Studies, 156; Mesoscale Studies,
157; Microbial Field Studies, 158; Summary,
159
Seabirds and Marine Mammals, 160
Seabirds, 160; Marine Mammals, 163
4 INTERMEDIATE-SCALE EXPERIMENTS AND
FIELD STUDIES OF DISPERSANTS APPLIED TO
OIL SPILLS........................................
· .—
X111
..... 81
.165
OCR for page R14
XIV
Physical and Chemical Studies, 165
Intermediate-Scale (Mesoscale) Studies, 166;
American Petroleum Institute Research Spills,
168; Protecmar, 173; North Temperate and
Arctic Tests, 175; Summary of Physical and
Chemical Field Test Results, 179
Biologically Oriented Mesocosm and Field Studies, 183
Algal, Zooplankton, and Microbial
Populations, 183; BIOS Arctic Studies, 188;
Temperate Shallow Subtidal and Intertidal
Habitats, 193; Temperate Shallow Subtidal
Studies: Long Cove and Sequlm Bay, 198;
Fish, 200; Tropical Shallow Intertidal and
Subtidal Habitats, 201
Summary, 208
5 HOW DISPERSANTS ARE USED: TECHNIQUES,
LOGISTICS, MONITORING, AND APPLICATION
STRATEGIES . e · e · e · e e · ~ ~ e · - e e e e e e e e e e e e · - - - ~ e e e e e · ~ - -
Design of Dispersant Application Systems, 215
Spray Systems, 215; Spray Droplet Size, 216;
Dispersant Type, 220; Dosage Control, 221;
Boats, 222; Aircraft, 224; Helicopters, 226;
Hydrofoils and Hovercraft, 226; Boats Versus
Aircraft, 228; Calibration, 228
Monitoring Effectiveness of Dispersants, 229
Remote Sensing, 230; Visual and Near-Visible
Observation, 231; Infrared Sensing, 232;
Microwave Sensors, 233; Summary of
Monitoring Techniques, 233; Regulatory
Requirement, 234
Strategy of Dispersant Applications, 234
Dispersability of Oil, 235; Spill Size and
Configuration, 235; Aerial Spraying Strategy,
236; Other Strategies, 236; Command and
Control, 237; Weather, 238
6 TECHNICAL BASIS OF DECISION MAKING.
Findings From Previous Chapters, 239
Technical Questions, 240
Response Options, 241; Environmental
CONTENTS
....... 215
.239
OCR for page R15
CONTENTS
Considerations, 241; Other Factors That
Affect Decision Making, 241
Advance Planning, 243
Decision Schemes, 244
U.S. EPA Oil Spill Response Decision Tree,
245; API Decision Diagram, 245; SLR
Dispersant Decision-Making Workbook, 247;
State of Alaska Dispersant-Use Guidelines,
249; Comparison of Decision-Making
Diagrams, 250
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
General Conclusions, 254
Physics and Chemistry, 256
Biological Effects, 257
Toxicity of Dispersants, 257; Toxicity of
Dispersed Oils, 259; Biodegradation, 260
Ecological Effects, 260
Birds and Mammals, 262
Techniques, Logistics, and Contingency Planning, 263
REFERENCES . .
APPENDIXES
A. Dispersant Products Information
B. Case Studies . .
C. Conversion Factors.
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS.
INDEX
xv
....254
..... 265
.. .309
317
322
. .324
.327
OCR for page R16
