1、Designation: F 2532 06Standard Guide forDetermining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use1This standard is issued under the fixed designation F 2532; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision.
2、A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers considerations in determining netenvironmental benefit of dispersant use on oil spills. Thepurpose of this guide i
3、s to minimize environmental andsocioeconomic impacts of oil spills.1.2 Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) should beconducted as part of oil spill contingency planning.1.3 There are many methods to control or cleanup oil spills.Dispersants should be given equal consideration with otherspill re
4、sponse options.1.4 Only general guidance is provided here. It is assumedthat the crude or fuel oil is dispersible. The dispersant isassumed to be effective, applied correctly, and in compliancewith relevant government regulations. Differences betweencommercial dispersants or between different oils a
5、re notconsidered in this guide.1.5 This guide applies to marine and estuarine environmentsonly.1.6 When making dispersant use decisions, appropriategovernment authorities should be consulted as required by law.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associate
6、d with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2F 1788 Guide for In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills on Water:Enviro
7、nmental and Operational ConsiderationsF 2205 Guide for Ecological Considerations for the Use ofChemical Dispersants in Oil Spill Response: TropicalEnvironments3. Significance and Use3.1 Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) applied tooil spill response is the process of considering advantages an
8、ddisadvantages of different spill response options (including noresponse) to arrive at a spill response decision resulting in thelowest overall environmental and socioeconomic impacts.3.2 Spill response will likely involve some combination ofresponse options. There are no response methods that areco
9、mpletely effective or risk-free. NEBA should be conductedwith appropriate regulatory agencies and other organizations aspart of spill contingency planning. NEBA is important forpre-spill planning since some response options have a limitedwindow of opportunity.4. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis fo
10、r Oil SpillResponse4.1 The objective of NEBA is to choose the oil spillresponse option that will result in the lowest overall negativeimpact on the environment. The NEBA should focus on localand regional areas of concern and should result in decisionsbased on what is best for a specific location. Wi
11、th NEBAcomes the recognition that, regardless of the response optionchosen, some impact will occur. Tables 1 and 2 and AppendixX1 and Appendix X4 provide considerations for use in theNEBA process. Appendix X2 and Appendix X3 present anecological risk assessment method for determining the netenvironm
12、ental benefit of dispersant use.4.2 The NEBA process involves several tasks (1, 2).34.2.1 Gather information on habitats and species of concern,physical and chemical characteristics of the spilled oil, shore-line geomorphology, potential socioeconomic impacts, andspill response options. Resource tru
13、stees, area contingencyplans, and environmental sensitivity maps are good sources ofinformation.4.2.2 Consider relative importance of natural resources.4.2.3 Review oil spill case histories and experimental datarelevant to the spill location and response options beingassessed.1This guide is under th
14、e jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F20 on HazardousSubstances and Oil Spill Response and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeF20.13 on Treatment.Current edition approved April 1, 2006. Published April 2006.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Cus
15、tomer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
16、 PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.4.2.4 Compare advantages and disadvantages of responseoptions including no response (see Table 1).4.2.5 Predict potential environmental impacts for chosenresponse method.4.2.6 Weigh advantages and disadvantages of response op-tions in rel
17、ation to ecological value and human use of impactedarea.4.2.7 Choose the optimum response method.4.3 Conflicts during the NEBA process are inevitable (1, 2).Conflicts may arise regarding protection of one species orecological habitat over another. Conflicts may occur betweenenvironmental and socioec
18、onomic interests. It is desirable thatagreements are reached before a spill occurs. Some examplesof potential conflicts are presented here.TABLE 1 Pros and Cons of Spill Response OptionsResponse Method Advantages DisadvantagesNo response(monitor only)appropriate for spills that do not threaten shore
19、linesused when other response options may cause more damage thannatural removalused when environmental conditions do not allow use of otherresponse methodscan be politically unacceptablepotential wildlife exposurewind direction could shift resulting in oil stranding onshoreMechanicalon-waterrecovery
20、removes oil from environmentallows recycling and proper disposal of recovered oilwind, waves, and currents can limit containment and recoverydebris and viscous oil problematiclimited recovery of spilled oil due to encounter rates in large spillsstorage and disposal of recovered oil may be limitedequ
21、ipment and labor intensiveDispersants prevents or reduces oiling of wildlifeprevents or reduces oil stranding onshorereduced or no storage and disposal of oilreduces or prevents formation of mousseenhances natural degradation processesrapid treatment of large areasreduces adherence of oil to suspend
22、ed particulates and inhibitssedimentation of oiltime frame for effective use may be limited due to slick thickness,weathering, emulsificationless effective on high viscosity oils or in highly emulsified oiloil concentrations in water column typically greater when dispersantused than when oil is natu
23、rally dispersed resulting in increasedimpacts on organisms in upper 10 m of water columnexclusion zones may be created based on water depth, distancefrom shore, limited water circulation, presence of marine sanctuaryor water intakes, etc.can be politically unacceptableIn-situ Burning reduced or no s
24、torage and disposal of oilmay prevent or reduce oil stranding onshoreprevents or reduces oiling of wildlifetime frame for effective use may be limited due to slick thicknessand emulsificationwind, waves, and currents may make ignition difficultweathered oil difficult to ignite2 to 3 mm minimum slick
25、 thickness for ignitionair pollution issues (smoke)can have burn residues that sinkcan be politically unacceptableTABLE 2 Risk Considerations for Dispersant UseOil Location Risk Drivers PrioritiesWater surface oil typepersistencesize of oil slicktime/distance before oil comes ashorebirds, marine mam
26、mals, sea turtles, endangered/protected speciesWater column oil typeoil concentrationsadvectiondepthdilution potentialexposure durationfood web contaminationproximity to water intakesseasonlife stages of species of concernbiological recovery timecommercial or subsistence fisheriescoral reefsseagrass
27、 bedsendangered/protected speciestourist/recreational areasShoreline oil typepersistenceseasonextent of oiled shorelineoil thicknessnatural cleansing (wave and tidal action)shoreline accessibilitybiological recovery timeintertidal communitiesmarshesmangrovesbird concentration areasmarine mammalsenda
28、ngered/protected speciestourist/recreational areasF25320624.3.1 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for birdsbecoming oiled from surface slicks. Dispersant use can in-crease the exposure of aquatic organisms to oil in the watercolumn.4.3.2 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adversee
29、ffects to marshes threatened by stranding oil. Dispersants canincrease the potential for adverse affects to seagrass bedsexposed to chemically dispersed oil.4.3.3 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adverseeffects to mangroves threatened by stranding oil. Oil chemi-cally dispersed in the w
30、ater column can cause adverse effects tocoral reef organisms.5. Keywords5.1 benefit analysis; dispersant; ecological risk assessment;NEBAAPPENDIXES(Nonmandatory Information)X1. FACTORS TO CONSIDER WITH DISPERSANT USEAccessibility to the oil spillAmount of oil spilledAquatic toxicity of chemically di
31、spersed oilAreas of socioeconomic importanceCommercial fisheries or subsistence fishing in spill areaCritical ecological habitats (feeding, migratory, nesting, spawning etc.) inspill areaDesignated exclusion zones for certain response methodsEffectiveness of other response methodsEquipment and train
32、ed personnel readily availableExpected environmental recovery time for each response optionExpected time of oil stranding onshore or entering an environmentallysensitive areaHow quickly can equipment be deployed?Meteorological conditions (wind speed and direction, inclement weather)Oceanographic con
33、ditions (salinity, wave height, current velocity/direction,tides, water depth)Oil type, viscosity, weathered statePresence of sensitive archaeological or historical sitesRegulatory approvals in placeSafety issuesShoreline type and vulnerabilityShoreline accessibilitySlick thicknessThreatened/endange
34、red speciesVulnerability of valued habitat or species to oilingWindow of opportunity for each response methodNOTE X1.1The above factors are not weighted equally and will varydepending on regional priorities.X2. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR DISPERSANT USE PLANNING(3, 4, 2, 5, 6)X2.1 Phase 1
35、Problem Formulation (Refer to AppendixX1)X2.1.1 Identify stakeholders.X2.1.2 Identify ecological resources of concern.X2.1.3 Identify endpoints for ecosystem protection andrecovery.X2.1.4 Identify response options and scenarios to be evalu-ated.X2.1.5 Identify potential effects of response options a
36、lone,response options in combination with oil, and oil alone.X2.1.6 Develop conceptual model of the ecosystem af-fected.X2.2 Phase 2 Analysis (Refer to X3.1)X2.2.1 Characterize ecological effects (toxicity, physicaleffects) and environmental data for various response optionsalone, response options i
37、n combination with oil, and oil alone.X2.2.2 Estimate exposures for various response optionsalone, response options in combination with oil, and oil alone.X2.3 Phase 3 Risk Characterization (Refer to X3.2)X2.3.1 Estimate potential ecological effects of responseoptions alone, response options in comb
38、ination with oil, and oilalone.X2.3.2 Optimize response based on endpoints for ecosys-tem protection.X2.3.3 Integrate ecological risk results into contingencyplans.X2.3.4 Periodic revision and review.X2.3.5 Data collection on endpoints during response.F2532063X3. ECOLOGICAL RISK MATRIX AND CHARACTER
39、IZATIONX3.1 Ecological Risk Matrix (Modified from Ref (5)X3.1.1 The risk matrix below can be used for the Phase 2analysis of the ecological risk assessment. In Phase 2 analysis,ecological effects are characterized. Letters A through Edescribe impact and numbers 1 through 4 describe recovery ofthe re
40、source. This is an example only. What is considered high,moderate, low, slow, or rapid will vary with location and arenot fixed values. Consult with stakeholders.Impact =% of totalresourcesaffected1=SlowRecovery(7 years)2=Moderate/SlowRecovery($3 to 7 years)3=Moderate/RapidRecovery($1 to 2 years)4=R
41、apidRecovery60%)A1 A2 A3 A4B=Moderate/HighImpact($40 to 60%)B1 B2 B3 B4C=ModerateImpact($20 to 39%)C1 C2 C3 C4Impact =% of totalresourcesaffected1=SlowRecovery(7 years)2=Moderate/SlowRecovery($3 to 7 years)3=Moderate/RapidRecovery($1 to 2 years)4=RapidRecovery1 yearD=Moderate/LowImpact(5 to 19 %)D1
42、D2 D3 D4E=Low Impact(5 %)E1 E2 E3 E4X3.2 Ecological Risk Characterization (Example Only)X3.2.1 Below is an example of a possible matrix that couldbe used for Phase 3 (risk characterization) of the ecological riskassessment method. The potential ecological effects of theresponse options are character
43、ized. The example is for an oilspill occurring in a salt marsh.X3.2.2 Risk values in this example matrix are hypothetical.Potential effects will depend on water depth and circulation, oiltype and volume, weather, season, and other factors.Resource Mud Flats Oyster BedsWater ColumnPlanktonMarsh Plant
44、sWaterfowl(Non-endangered)RecreationalFisheriesResponse:No Response C4 D4 D3 B2 A3 A3Mechanical Recovery C3 C3 B4 B2 B3 B4Dispersant E4 D3 A3 E4 E4 C4In-situ Burning E4 E4 E4 A3 E4 E4A3: High impact and moderate to rapid recoveryB2: Moderate to high impact and moderate to slow recoveryB3: Moderate t
45、o high impact and moderate to rapid recoveryB4: Moderate to high impact and rapid recoveryC3: Moderate impact and moderate to rapid recoveryC4: Moderate impact and rapid recoveryD3: Moderate to low impact and moderate to rapid recoveryD4: Moderate to low impact and rapid recoveryE4: Low impact and r
46、apid recoveryX4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTNOTE X4.1The example below is not an ecological risk assessmentbut provides considerations.X4.1 Phase 1 Problem Formulation: Marsh Threatenedby Oil SpillX4.1.1 Potential StakeholdersGovernment agencies,landowners, community, fishermen.
47、X4.1.2 Ecological Resources of ConcernMarsh vegeta-tion, wildlife, juvenile fish, oyster beds.X4.1.3 Endpoints for Ecosystem Protection and RecoveryPlant survival, propagation, and growth; oyster survival, propa-gation, and growth; tainting of fish and oysters.X4.1.4 Response OptionsDispersants, in-
48、situ burning, noresponse (natural recovery), mechanical recovery.X4.1.5 Potential Effects from Oil and Response OptionsOyster mortality, marsh plant mortality, erosion, oiled wildlife.X4.2 Phase 2 AnalysisX4.2.1 Potential Ecological Effects from Oil and ResponseOptionsEarly life stage (fish, inverte
49、brate) mortality, oiledbirds, reduced growth in oysters, marsh plant mortality.X4.2.2 ExposuresWater column organisms, sediment,marsh plants, wildlife.X4.3 Phase 3 Risk CharacterizationX4.3.1 Optimize Response Based on Endpoints for Ecosys-tem ProtectionDisperse oil offshore to prevent oil fromentering marsh, protective booming.X4.3.2 Discuss Ecological Risk Results with Stakeholdersand Incorporate into Contingency Plans.F2532064REFERENCES(1) Baker, J. M., “Differences in Risk Perception: How Clean Is Clean?”American Petroleum Institute Technical Report IOSC-006, 1997, p. 5
