1、 American Petroleum NOAA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE 1 Institute HOWEVER, THE INSTITUTE MAKES NO REPRESENTATION, Copyright Q 1995 American Petroleum Institute i API PUBL*4558 95 E 0732290 0544968 517 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE D
2、URING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT API STAFF CONTACT Alexis E. Steen, Health and Environmental Cciences Department MEMBERS OF THE INLAND SPILLS WORKGROUP David E. Fritz, Chairman, Amoco oil Company Kenneth Barton, Lt., National Oceanic however, during spill response more than one
3、 technique may be used at the same time on one or more habitats. The discussions in this guide reflect primarily the assessment of the environmental impact of the response methods. This guide also recognized that the selected techniques should be effective. They must remove a significant amount of o
4、il from the environment or prevent or reduce oil impact, and they must have acceptable impact on the habitat as compared to leaving the oil alone (natural recovery). Prolonged use of an ineffiaent technique may be more ecologically detrimental than short-term use of a potentially more intrusive appr
5、oach (e.g., frequent miry into a marsh to replace sorbents rather than vacuuming pooled oil). Reducing the overall ecological impact of a spill event is the primary concern of this guide, and it is applicable for inland, freshwater environments and habitats only. This guide does not address land-onl
6、y, chemical, or marine spills. It also does not discuss legal or regulatory issues; safety considerations; or guidance on planning, organizing, and conducting a spill response effort. The manual may be customized for specific geographic areas to address special priorities and concerns. Specific spil
7、l conditions will often dictate the response techniques used, and selection always involves tradeoffs. For example, a potentially ecologically damaging, but efficient, cleanup technique could be used to meet site-specific response goals. Also, techniques may be used early in response simply because
8、they can be implemented immediately, rather than 1 API PUBL*4558 95 = 0732290 0544997 52T waiting until ones with lower impact can be mobilized. A method that has a significant short-term ecological impact, such as in situ burning, may actually produce the lowest long- term ecological impact because
9、 it removes the oil quickly. 1.2 BACKGROUND Oil spiils into inland waters differ from coastal or marine spills from several perspectives. For instance, inland spills are usually in freshwater habitats. inland spills are also more frequent than marine spills, and they often involve smaller volumes of
10、 oil. Refined product spiils are more common in freshwater, while aude oil spills comprise the majority of marine spills. inland spills have a much higher potential to contaminate water supplies (surface as well as groundwater), to affect areas of concentrated populations, and to impact manmade stru
11、ctures and human activities. in coastal and marine environments, wave and tidal action are important mechanisms for dispersion and transport of oil and in removing oil from shorelines. These mechanisms are less important in freshwater habitats, where currents and floods are more important factors. T
12、he knowledge base for response to oil spills reflects the disparity of information available between marine spill response and freshwater response. The lack of literature and guidelines for iniand spill response prompted several efforts to improve this shortcoming. Preparation of this guide began wi
13、th a workshop sponsored by MI on Inland Oil Spills, conducted in Dearbom, Michigan, November 19-21,1991. The objective of the workshop was to bring together the oil spill response community experienced and/or responsible for responding to freshwater aude oil or petroleum product spis, and to develop
14、 strategies through consensus for dealing with spills in different freshwater environments and shoreline habitats. The information from that workshop was the basis for development of this guide. However, the final guidelines presented here are based on the educated and experienced opinions of oil sp
15、ill experts in industry and government. 2 API PUBL+4558 95 0732290 0544998 4bb = 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF GUIDELINES The guide identifies response methods for twelve primary freshwater habitats (Table l), which represent various waterways and shoreline types. Each habitat is treated separately in the gui
16、de, although the spill responder will be confronted with a variety of habitats. Table 1. Primary freshwater environments and habitats included in this guide. Weter Environments Open Water Large Rivers Small Lakes and Ponds Small Rivers and Streams Shoreline Habitats Bedrock Manmade Structures Sand M
17、ixed Sand and Gravel Gravel Vegetated Shorelines Mud Wetlands Section 2 of the guide includes: Response method summary matrices for the four primary water environments and eight shoreline habitats for four general oil types. Section 3, arranged by water environment and shoreline habitat, contains: A
18、 detailed description of the environment or habitat; and Matrices of response methods in terms of recommended use for each of the four general oil types. Section 4 of the guide contains detailed descriptions of the response methods listed in the matrices. The following headings are used Objective; D
19、escription; Applicable habitats; Whentouse; Biological constraints; and Environmental impact. Section 5 discusses the following speciai issues of concern in reshwater settings: . Public health concerns; Firefighting foam. Conditions under which oil might sink; Oil behavior under ice conditions; Oil
20、behavior and response in permafrost habitats; and 3 API PUBLa4558 95 0732290 O544999 3T2 1.4 SENSITIVITY OF ENVIRONMENTS AND HABITATS Habitat sensitivity is a function of several factors, including degree of exposure to natural removal processes, biological productivity and abiiity to mover followin
21、g oil exposure, human use of the habitat, and ease of oil removal. These factors are used to rank the overall sensitivity of shoreline habitats to spilled oil as part of the Environmental Sensitivity index (ESI). This guide focuses on one element of environmental sensitivity, namely the sensitivity
22、of habitats to impacts resulting from oil removal. ES1 shorelines are grouped according to the oil removal considerations used in this guide. The correlation between the shoreline habitat groupings in this guide and the shoreline rankings in the ES atlases published for the U.S. Great Lakes is shown
23、 in Table 2, the summary tables, and Chapter 3. It should be noted that some groupings include both low and high sensitivity habitats, particUiarly where both sheltered and exposed habitats are grouped, such as bedrock and manmade structures. Table 2. Correlation of the shoreline habitats discussed
24、in this guide with the Environmental Sensitivity Index (SI) shoreline rankings for the Great Lakes. Shoreline Habitats Bedrock Manmade Structures Sand Mixed Sand and Gravel Gravel Vegetated Shorelines Mud Wetlands ES1 Ranking and Description ES1 = 1A ES1 = 2 ES1 = 8A ES1 = 1B ES1 = 6B ES1 = 88 ES1 =
25、 4 ES1 = 3 ES1 = 5 ES1 = 6A ES1 = 9A ES1 9B ES1 = 1OA ES1 = 106 Evosed Rocky Cliffs Shelving Bedrock Shores Sheltered Rocky Shores Exposed Solid Seawalls Riprap Structures Sheltered Solid Manmade Structures Sand Beaches Eroding Scarps in Unconsolidated Sediment Mixed Sand and Gravel Beaches Gravel B
26、eaches Sheltered Low Vegetated Banks/Blufls Sheltered Sand/Mud Flats Fringing Marshes Extensive Marshes 4 API PUBLa4558 95 M 0732270 0545000 7L2 M The differences in oil behavior, persistence, and need for cleanup between sheltered and exposed sites are addressed in the discussion of these habitats.
27、 Sensitivity issues of special concern to inland areas include strong seasonal variations in biological productivity and exposure to physical processes, urban areas with extensive manmade structures along the shoreline, and populated areas that are very near shorelines and bodies of water when human
28、-health concerns can dominate cleanup issues. Important seasonal considerations include presence of ice in winter; variations in water level, which greatly influence habitats likely to be exposed to oil, flooding of stranded oil, and natural removal rates; sensitivity of vegetation to direct oiling
29、impact; and use of habitats by migratory birds. 1.5 IMPACT OF RESPONSE METHODS IN THE ABSENCE OF OIL The following criteria were used to evaluate the relutiz impact of each technique in the absence of oil, primarily due to physical disturbances of mechanical methods and toxic impacts from chemical a
30、nd biological methods. The results are shown in Table 3. Impacts from use of individual products and equipment types vary. The information provided to evaluate impacts in the absence of oil addresses generic characteristics of the response techniques and does not consider those variations. Additiona
31、l information on environmental impacts is provided in the discussions of each technique in Section 4. Low Physical damage to the substrate and vegetation is minimal. Toxic impact is likely to be of limited areal extent and short duration. Restabilization or repopulation of the habitat is likely with
32、in six months. Moderate Physical damage to the substrate and vegetation may occur, with increased erosion potential in sedimentary habitats. Toxic impact is such that restabilization or repopulation of the habitat may take six to twelve months. High Physical damage to the substrate and vegetation is
33、 expected. Erosion potential may be high for the technique. The ecosystem may be adversely affected. Restabilization or repopulation of the habitat may take more than twelve months. Those techniques that are clearly ineffective or inapplicable for a habitat are indicated with a dash (-). For cases w
34、here there is insufficient information to evaluate impact in the absence of oil, an “i“ is used. 5 API PUBL*4558 95 i l I c I I I I z : i en Law .nalJ small PHYSICAL RESPONSE METHODS Natural Recoveiy AA B B Booming AA A A Skimming AA A A - - - BarriersBerrns A Physical Herding BB B B Manual Oil Remo
35、vaCleaning C C Mechanical Oil Removal C G Sorbents BB A A Vacuum AA A A Debris Removal -B B B Sediment Reworking - - - - Vegetation Removal BB B B In Situ Burning AB B B - - - - Flooding - - - - Low-Pressure, Cold-Water Flushing - - - - High-pressure, Cold-Water Flushing - - - - Low-Pressure, Hot-Wa
36、ter Flushing - - - - High-pressure, Hot-Water Flushing - - - - Steam Cleaning - - - - Sand Blasting - - - - Dispersants BC D D Emulsion Treating Agents BE I I Visco-Elasc Agents BE E B Herding Agents BD E D CHEMICAL RESPONSE METHODS Solidifiers BB B B Chemical Shoreline Pretreatment - - - - Shorelin
37、e Cleaning Agents - - - - Nutrient Enrichment I I Natural Microbe Seeding I I BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE METHODS - - - - The following categories are used to mpare the relatnie environmental impact of each response method for the speafic environment or habitat for each oil type, using the following definit
38、ums: A = May cause the least adverse habitat impact. B = May cause some adverse hablat impact. C = May cause signilicant adverse habitat mpact. D = May cause the most adverse hablat impact. I = Insufficient Infomath - impact or effectiveness of the method could not be evaluated at this time. - = Not
39、 applicable for this oil lype. 17 API PUBLV4558 95 w 0732290 0545032 434 Table 9. MESEL-LIKE OILS Summary of relalve environmental Impact tom reaponse methods for spills in shoreline haW. SliEuNE HABITAT Man- Veptaled Sandand Bedmd Made Sand Shores Grad Gavel Mud Waands PHYSICAL RESPONSE METHODS 1,2
40、,8 1,8 3,4 9 5 6 7,9 10 Natural Recovery AAA A A AAA - - - - - Booming Skimming Barriederms Physical Herding Manual Oil RemovaUCleaning BAB B B BDD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mechanical Oil Removal - -6 c C DDD Sorbents AAA A A AAA Vacuum B BB B B BCB Debris Removal AAA B A ABB Sediment Reworking
41、 - -6 D B BDD - - - - C B h Situ Burning BB- B - -CB Flooding AAA A A AAA Low-Pressure, Cold-Water Flushing A A B A A ACA Vegetaon Removal High-pressure, Cold-Water Flushing B A D C C BDD Low-Pressure, Hot-Water Flushing C BC D C CDD High-pressure, Hot-Water Flushing DBD D D DDD Steam Cleaning DC- -
42、 D D- Sand Blasting DC- - - - CHEMICAL RESPONSE METHODS - - - - - Dispersants - - - - - Emulsion Treang Agents - - - - - Visco-Elastic Agents Herding Agents Solifiers Chemical Shoreline Pretreatment BIOLOGICAL RESPOFISE METHODS - - - - - B BB D - -DD l II I I III Shoreline Cleaning Agents -6- I - -D
43、I Natural Microbe Seeding 1 II l I III Nutrient Enrichment CCB B B BI1 Key to ES1 codes in Table 5 on page 12. The following categories are used to compare the relative envirwirnental impact of each response method for the spaclic environment or habitai for each oil ype, using the fallowing deffonS:
44、 A = May cause the least adverse habitat impact B = May cause come adverse habitat impact. C = May cause signfhxnl adverse habrtat act. D = May cause the most adverse habitai impact. I = Insufficient Infomation. impact or effectiveness d the method could not be evaluated at th time. - = Not applicab
45、le i01 WS oil type. 18 API PUBL+4558 i5 = 0732290 0545013 370 Table IO. MEDIUM OILS: Summary of relative environmental impact from response methods for spills in water environments. The following catwries are used to compare the relatrve environmental impact of each response method lor the speclic e
46、nvironment or habitat for each oil type, using the following deRnLons: A = May cause the leasi adverse habitat impact. B = May cause some adverse habitat impact C = May cause significant adverse habitat impact. D = May cause the most adverse habitat impact I = Insuflicient Information . impact or ei
47、iectiveness of the method could not be evaluated ai this* - = Not applicable lor this oil type. 19 API PUBLX4558 95 m 0732290 0545014 207 m . Table 11. MEDIUM OILS: Summary of relative environmental impad from response methods for Spills in ShOielfW habita$. SHMIEUNE HABITAT Resporw, uin Vegerated S
48、andand Mew Bedrodc Mde Sand shores Gmd Gravel Mud We- PHYSICAL RESPONSE METHODS 1,2,8 1,s 3,4 9 5 6 7,9 10 Natural Recovery A BB B B BAA Booming Skimming Baniers/Benns Physical Herding Manual Oil RemovaVCleaning B BA B A BCC Mechanical Oil Removal - -B C B CDD Sorbents AAA B A AAA BBB B B BBB Vacuum
49、 Debris Removal A AA B AABB - - C h Situ Burning BBB B B BCB Flooding B BA A A AAA Low-Pressure, Cold-Water Flushing AAB A A ACA Huh-Pressure, ColbWater Flushing B A D C C BDD Low-Pressure, Hot-Water Flushing B BC D C CCD High-pressure, Hot-Water Flushing C BD D D DDD Sand Blasting DC- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_- - - - - - - Sedimant Reworking - -B D B BDD Vegetation Removal - - B Steam Cleaning DC- - DD- - - - CHEMICAL RESPONSE MITHODS Dispersants Emulsion Treating Agents VisceElastic Agents Herding Agents Chemical
