National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: SUMMARY
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"1 INTRODUCTION." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25161.
×
Page 24

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Oil spills in the marine environment are each unique and challenge responders, who must balance decisions to account for immediate and potential long-term human health, socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Oil spills at sea may result from a variety of incidents including an oil well blowout, a vessel collision or grounding, or a leaking pipeline. Additionally, the location, time of year, duration of the spill, water depth, environmental conditions, affected biomes, potential community impact, and available resources may also vary significantly. The unique context of each spill requires that responders have access to a variety of response options that can be applied based on the specific conditions of the spill. Having a variety of response options available in the “tool kit” provides responders with alternatives in the face of operational limitations. Marine oil spill response methods include mechanical recovery of oil through skimmers and booms, in situ burning of oil, monitored natural attenuation of oil, and dispersion of oil by dispersants. Booms and berms may also be employed at the shoreline to minimize the impact of oil on shoreward resources, or to divert oil from a more sensitive area of shoreline to another. Natural attenuation and biodegradation processes can substantially contribute to a reduction in the volume of oil from a spill. Each response method has advantages and disadvantages. For example, the containment and mechanical recovery of oil has the advantage of removing the oil from the environment, but is a very slow process that is limited by weather. In situ burning has the potential to remove significant quantities of oil from the sea, but ignition generally requires that the oil slick be reasonably fresh and sufficiently thick. Dispersants have the advantage of being able to treat large areas/volumes of oil, but they rely on other processes, such as biodegradation by microbes, to remove the oil from the environment. Several other factors also play a role in determining which response techniques will be most effective on their own or in combination with other approaches. It is often a combination of tools and adaptability based on circumstances that affords the optimal response outcomes. This report focuses on the factors that contribute to the decision as to whether or not to use dispersants as a response tool at any given marine oil spill. In oil spill response decision-making, it is important to understand specific scenarios where a net benefit may be achieved by using a particular tool. With regards to dispersants, the primary objective is to prevent or reduce the formation or thickness of surface oil slicks. Dispersants accomplish this by reducing the oil/water interfacial tension, and with sufficient mixing energy, increasing the formation of small droplets that become or remain entrained in the water column with minimal recoalescence and slow resurfacing. Modern dispersant formulations (Box 1.1) contain one or more surface active agents (surfactants) that align at the oil/water interface allowing for wave action or other turbulence to cause the formation of droplets on the order of 70 microns or less. The dispersed droplets retain the initial buoyancy of the bulk oil itself (i.e., they remain less dense than the surrounding water in most cases) but rise more slowly through the water column by virtue of physical processes associated with their small size. Conceptually, a key potential advantage of these oil PREPUBLICATION COPY 15

16 The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response Box 1.1. Dispersant Components Modern dispersants consist of a mixture of surface active agents (surfactants) dissolved in a solvent or mixture of solvents. Dispersants listed on the US EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (US EPA, 2018) have generally been classified as being slightly toxic to practically nontoxic in standardized tests. Dispersants can be applied through various methods depending on the type of delivery platforms available (See NRC, 2005 for a more complete discussion). Ingredients often include: • Non-ionic surfactant—typically sorbitan oleate and polyethoxylated derivatives • Anionic surfactant—primarily dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate • Hydrocarbon solvents—typically hydrotreated light distillates • Other solvent—typically a glycol ether derivative NOTE: Nonylphenol ethoxylates are present in some commercial formulations, but these are generally less acceptable to regulatory authorities because of concern that they may break down to a nonylphenol, which may pose reproductive health and chronic aquatic toxicity concerns. microdroplets8 is that the increased surface area-to-volume ratio provides more substrate with which microorganisms may interact, thus enhancing oil biodegradation, assuming no other limitations imposed by the environment (see Chapter 2). These smaller droplets are susceptible to colonization by naturally-occurring oil-degrading microorganisms and may potentially biodegrade more quickly compared to oil in a floating slick, emulsified oil, or oil stranded on the shoreline. Similarly, the increase in surface area may promote greater dissolution. Dispersant use also offers the opportunity to respond rapidly to large scale, offshore marine surface or subsurface spills, especially with the recent advent of subsea dispersant injection (SSDI) capabilities and the use of jet aircraft delivery platforms. These advances in technology expand the operational window of opportunity, which was formerly more limited by hours of daylight, weather conditions, distance, and remoteness of a spill site. (Chopra, 2016) These advances in dispersant application technology provide the opportunity to respond to a spill before oil weathers to the point where most other response options become less effective. Further, subsurface application of dispersant may reduce responder exposure to volatile organic compounds known to be hazardous to human health. When reading this report, it is important to consider the circumstances for which dispersants would be considered as a potential response option. For example, for small spills or in particular sea state conditions, it may not be logistically feasible to mount a dispersant operation. Similarly, in the United States, preauthorization zones for dispersant use are generally limited to areas greater than 3 nautical miles from shore and in depths greater than 10 m. In other parts of the world, these zones may differ. Also, while there are a few freshwater dispersant products available on the market, they are not currently approved for use in freshwater in the United States. Therefore, the Committee interpreted the statement of task as limited to marine oil spill scenarios in which dispersants would be considered a potential response option. 8 The Committee recognizes that the term “microdroplets” is loosely defined, but most typically, this report considers the term to mean droplets that are approximately 70 microns or less. A notable exception is in Chapter 3. PREPUBLICATION COPY

Chapter 1: Introduction 17 HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR DISPERSANT USE One of the first major incidents where chemicals were used to disperse oil in the marine environment was on March 18, 1967 when the SS Torrey Canyon ran aground off the southwest coast of the United Kingdom. In that case, however, the chemicals used to respond to the Torrey Canyon were not specifically formulated for oil spill response and were not designed to minimize environmental damage. In fact, the products used during that response consisted of chemical degreasers with high levels of aromatic compounds that could be harmful to aquatic organisms, but were very effective at transferring floating slicks into the water column. Since that time, a number of products have been developed that are much less toxic and are more effective on a wide range of oils. Just over two decades later, in 1989, the T/V Exxon Valdez struck a reef in in Prince William Sound, Alaska. One result of the ensuing oil spill was passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (101st Congress H.R. 1465, 1990), which had a tremendous impact on positioning the maritime community to better prepare for marine oil spill response. The Act mandated vessel and facility response plans with specific minimum equipment and personnel capabilities for oil containment and recovery. The Act also called for national and regional response teams to develop guidelines for spill preparedness and response strategies. This resulted in some regions in the United States identifying zones where dispersants and in-situ burning are “pre-authorized” for use. The USCG published a Final Rule on September 30, 2009 (74 FR 45003) entitled, Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements and Alternative Technology Revisions. The Final Rule updated the requirements for spill response equipment associated with vessel response plans and marine transportation-related facility response plans. It provided additional requirements for new response technologies and modified response methods and procedures for marine and aquatic spills within the jurisdiction of the United States. This Final Rule clarified requirements for response capabilities, including effective daily application capacity for dispersants, using a NOAA dispersant planning calculator known as Dispersant Mission Planner 2. Since the Torrey Canyon, dispersants have been applied in the United States approximately 20 times (Bejarano, 2018) and are routinely used internationally, including during the Montara spill and the 1979 IXTOC I spill. In Western Australia, seven different dispersants (totaling 48,000 gallons) were applied at the surface during the Montara wellhead blowout in 2009. This spill involved the continuous release of approximately 30,000 bbls of a waxy crude oil into the Timor Sea over ten weeks. Although this spill was a subsea blowout, the platform remained intact and the oil from this spill was released at the surface. The extent of dispersant effectiveness and overall potential impacts from this spill are still being litigated within the Australian Federal Courts. The Ixtoc-1 spill off Campeche, Mexico was a shallow water (54 m water depth) marine blowout that persisted for over 9 months (Soto et al., 2014). The spill released about 3.3 million barrels of crude oil and was the first spill in which large quantities (approximately 9,000 mt) of Corexit® dispersants were used via surface application (Jernelöv and Lindén, 1981; Linton and Koons, 1983). A recent use of an unprecedented amount of dispersants in a major marine incident came as a result of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill (also referred to as the Macondo oil spill), PREPUBLICATION COPY

18 The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response which occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The DWH spill started as a well blow-out and explosion from a mobile offshore drilling unit, followed by the collapse and sinking of the platform to the sea floor resulting in a continuous release of oil and gas from the subsea well for 87 days (National Commission, 2011). During the DWH spill, the use of dispersants on the surface was preauthorized under the Gulf Coast Area Contingency Plan, and with the oil release taking place over 40 miles offshore, responders quickly commenced the application of dispersants on the surface. This was followed by an unprecedented subsea injection at the well head, requiring a difficult decision as there was an “absence of information on the effects of dispersants in the deep-water environment.” (National Commission, 2011) In weighing the trade-off decision, responders reasoned that subsea injection might reduce the overall volume of dispersants needed, worker safety would be improved on the surface due to less volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the vicinity of the ongoing well control work, and less oil would reach the sensitive and fragile gulf coast shoreline. (National Commission, 2011). The Commission Report noted the decision for subsea injection was appropriate at the time based on all the factors considered. Since the 2010 DWH spill response, the petroleum industry has invested significantly in the purchase of the most studied, modern products (Dasic Slickgone NS, Finasol® OSR 52, Corexit® EC9500A) and their placement in strategic global locations to facilitate rapid response in an event where dispersants represent a viable response option (Figure 1.1). While there are a variety of dispersant products available globally, regulatory considerations are key to their potential use. Figure 1.2 lists the countries where dispersants were considered as either a primary or secondary response option as of 2013. The list of countries is likely to change over time. Figure 1.1 Example of Global Dispersant Stockpile. SOURCE: Oil Spill Response Limited. PREPUBLICATION COPY

Chapter 1: Introduction 19 Figure 1.2 Countries that allowed dispersants to be considered as a response tool during an oil spill as of 2013. SOURCE: Figure based on ITOPF information and used with permission from The Clearing, Washington, D.C. TOOLS TO EVALUATE RESPONSE TRADEOFFS AND STRATEGIES There are many perspectives and perceptions surrounding the impact dispersants and dispersed oil have on the environment and on human health. The decision to use dispersants to prevent oil from reaching the surface or to transfer surface oil into the water column is often seen as a difficult decision which involves consideration and evaluation of tradeoffs with other response options. Since the 1970s, approaches to environmental tradeoff analysis for spill response planning have evolved. These approaches, collectively known as Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), help decision-makers select the most appropriate response option(s) to minimize the net impacts of oil spills on the environment. The US EPA describes NEBA as a method for identifying and comparing the environmental benefits associated with alternative management options in spill response. As described by IPIECA-IOGP (2015), NEBA does not include human health, but its scope varies among different countries. In other countries, NEBA may include an analysis of net benefits to people, such as the consideration of socio-economic sensitivities and costs (Fingas, 2011; ASTM, 2014). For planning purposes, a NEBA needs to consider a broad range of geographic areas, ecological habitats, environmental, oceanographic, and climatological information since it is unclear exactly when or where an actual oil spill might occur. Similarly, an effective NEBA accounts for the fact that an ongoing spill event is highly unpredictable, and the range of ecological receptors potentially affected can be enormous. This requires that NEBA processes be highly flexible and use a comparative risk process that can be adapted “real-time” to align with changing field conditions. PREPUBLICATION COPY

20 The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response Three tools which support the NEBA conceptual approach include: • Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment • Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment • Comparative Risk Assessment Each process involves a structured approach used by the response community and stakeholders to compare the impact mitigation potential of candidate response options. Additionally, these three NEBA tools all consider realistic response measures and identify the best overall set of actions that will promote the most rapid recovery. The three tools can each be adapted to fit various regulatory and environmental contexts. Distinct differences in these approaches exist in terms of the degree and timing of stakeholder engagement, as well as the type and complexity of environmental analysis, such as the extent to which numerical models support the process. A more comprehensive discussion of the NEBA methodology is provided in Chapter 6. RATIONALE FOR CURRENT STUDY As mentioned previously, the use of dispersants is not a novel approach to oil spill response. To that point, the National Research Council (NRC) has released two previous reports, in 1989 and 2005 respectively, which focused on the use of dispersants at sea in response to a spill. The NRC report titled Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (1989) was commissioned to “review the state of knowledge in toxicity, effectiveness of application techniques, and effectiveness of commercially available dispersants” (NRC, 1989). At that time, much research on dispersant use had been conducted by industry in the United States and abroad, and the report assessed the state of knowledge and practice about the use of dispersants. That report concluded the use of dispersants can be an effective spill response and control method, especially to minimize environmental damage caused by the presence of surface slicks, but the method for applying dispersants is a critical factor. Shortly after the 1989 NRC report was completed, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was adopted. In the late 1990s, a series of workshops conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard further examined the trade-offs associated with multiple response options, including dispersants. In 2003, a multi-year rulemaking process commenced to enhance the oil spill contingency planning regulations. This prompted the former Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Coast Guard, and the American Petroleum Institute to request that the National Academies form a committee to examine the state of science on dispersants. The Committee was tasked with considering the adequacy of existing information and ongoing research regarding the efficacy and effects of dispersants as an oil spill response technique in the United States (NRC, 2005). That request resulted in the NRC 2005 report titled Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. This current report builds upon the two previous reports by incorporating the tremendous amount of subsequent research on dispersants. The DWH spill and the resulting funds from litigation and penalties (Figure 1.3) have led to a rapid increase in the volume of science and literature surrounding oil spill response, and dispersant use in particular. PREPUBLICATION COPY

Chapter 1: Introduction 21 Figure 1.3 The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resulted in both criminal and civil penalties as well as other fines and expenditures. This figure depicts how those fines were distributed and represents a significant influx of resources for research in the field of oil spill response1. SOURCE: NRC, 2017. According to NRC, 2017: “a Unknown NRDA damage includes $232 million plus interest on the $8.1b payment. b The Comprehensive Plan Component is supplemented by 50% of the interest on RESTORE funds, and the remaining interest is split between the NOAA Science Program and the Centers of Excellence grants.” The use of SSDI in the DWH spill raised new questions and challenges focused on the fate and effects of dispersant and dispersed oil, especially in the deep ocean. As the studies prompted by this spill are in various stages of completion, an understanding of the impacts of dispersant use as well as the potential limitations and benefits, particularly in scenarios similar to the DWH, is continuing to develop. In light of this expanded body of knowledge since the previous National Academies publications on dispersants, this report highlights and synthesizes new information on the topic. The Committee recognizes that this is an area of ongoing research, and strives to provide as much complete and current information as possible to inform decision makers and other stakeholders. While most literature cited in this report has been released since the 2005 report, this was not a requisite criterion, and where appropriate the Committee does cite earlier literature as well. Similarly, the Committee acknowledges that much of the recent literature focuses on the DWH oil spill; however, this report is not intended to be a retrospective evaluation of that event. Instead, the Committee intends for this report to be forward looking and applicable to future offshore marine spill scenarios. Where possible, the Committee relied on peer-reviewed publications; however, the Committee also recognized the value of other sources of information, including and not limited to industry reports, conference proceedings, and guidance documents. PREPUBLICATION COPY

22 The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response Box 1.2 Statement of Task This study will assess the effects and efficacy of dispersants as an oil spill response tool through review and evaluation of domestic and international research reports and results, including both field and laboratory studies. The study will evaluate trade-offs associated with dispersant use, in part through use or review of net environmental benefit analyses conducted for past oil spills. This evaluation will include comparison of chemically dispersed oil with the fate and effects of untreated oil. As part of this study, the committee will review research on the use of dispersants during actual spills, both for surface and subsurface applications (e.g., the 2009 Montara oil spill off the Australian coast and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) to assess the net benefit of dispersant use in these cases. Specifically, the study will: 1. Assess the state of our knowledge about dispersant effectiveness (including comparisons across a range of dispersant formulations) and the fate, including short- and long-term fate, of untreated oil (no chemical dispersant applied), chemical dispersants, and chemically dispersed oil and the influence of dispersants on deposition (including marine snow), biodegradation, and/or transport of oil; 2. Evaluate and summarize research on the acute and chronic (sub lethal) toxicity of chemical dispersant formulations of comparable efficacy, chemically dispersed oil, and untreated oil at realistic environmental exposure levels. This will include characterization of the relative risks to wildlife health of untreated oil and chemically dispersed oil, taking into consideration exposure to volatile compounds, ingestion, and absorption of naturally versus chemically dispersed droplets; 3. Compare the benefits and limitations of dispersant application to the use of other clean-up methods (e.g. no-action, mechanical recovery, burning, and chemical herders in combination with burning); 4. Compare the relative human health risks for the use of dispersants with the use of other clean-up methods (exposure of response personnel and residents in Gulf coastal communities to oil and dispersants, and contamination of seafood); 5. Identify the research protocols and standards that would: i) increase the applicability of lab- based measurements to the field and ii) improve the comparability of research findings from different laboratories; 6. Assess the adequacy of the existing information to support risk-based decision-making or net environmental benefit analysis of response options under a variety of spill scenarios and recommend a “roadmap” of research and modelling to address identified information gaps. STATEMENT OF TASK AND REPORT ORGANIZATION Addressing the statement of task (Box 1.2.) requires consideration of the objectives of an oil spill response, the factors that contribute to response decision-making, the trade-offs associated with the use of dispersants, and the processes available for assessing these trade-offs. Chapter 2 focuses on the first task, by considering processes associated with the fate and transport of oil, dispersed oil, and dispersant in the marine environment. Chapter 3 addresses the second task and discusses aquatic toxicity and ecological consequences of exposure to oil, dispersed oil, and dispersants. Next, Chapter 4 answers the fourth task by exploring the potential human health concerns associated with oil spill response and the use of dispersants, with a PREPUBLICATION COPY

Chapter 1: Introduction 23 particular focus on occupational health, community psychosocial impact, and seafood safety. In Chapter 5, the Committee partially responds to the sixth task and reviews the tools available and the information necessary for evaluating risk and making decisions regarding the use of dispersant and other response options. Drawing from the previous chapters, Chapter 6 compares the benefits and limitations of using dispersants to other response methods, as called for in the third task. Finally, and in accordance with the fifth task, the Committee also considers the research protocols and standards that would increase the applicability and comparability of field and laboratory research in Chapter 7. Throughout the report, the Committee further responds to the sixth task by identifying information necessary for decision-making and additional research and modeling needs. PREPUBLICATION COPY

Next: 2 FATE AND TRANSPORT »
The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Whether the result of an oil well blowout, vessel collision or grounding, leaking pipeline, or other incident at sea, each marine oil spill will present unique circumstances and challenges. The oil type and properties, location, time of year, duration of spill, water depth, environmental conditions, affected biomes, potential human community impact, and available resources may vary significantly. Also, each spill may be governed by policy guidelines, such as those set forth in the National Response Plan, Regional Response Plans, or Area Contingency Plans. To respond effectively to the specific conditions presented during an oil spill, spill responders have used a variety of response options—including mechanical recovery of oil using skimmers and booms, in situ burning of oil, monitored natural attenuation of oil, and dispersion of oil by chemical dispersants. Because each response method has advantages and disadvantages, it is important to understand specific scenarios where a net benefit may be achieved by using a particular tool or combination of tools.

This report builds on two previous National Research Council reports on dispersant use to provide a current understanding of the state of science and to inform future marine oil spill response operations. The response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill included an unprecedented use of dispersants via both surface application and subsea injection. The magnitude of the spill stimulated interest and funding for research on oil spill response, and dispersant use in particular. This study assesses the effects and efficacy of dispersants as an oil spill response tool and evaluates trade-offs associated with dispersant use.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!