Dispersant Application in Alaska
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proceedings of Conference: Dispersant Application in Alaska: A Technical Update Anchorage Hilton Hotel Anchorage, Alaska March 18 and 19, 1998 Sponsored by: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alyeska Pipeline Service Company - SERVS Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Valdez Program and Proceedings Coordinated by: Ken Trudel S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. i REPORT AVAILABILITY Copies of this report can be obtained from Nancy Bird at the following address: Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) P.O. Box 705 Cordova, Alaska 99574 U. S. A. Phone: 907-424-5800 Fax: 907-424-5820 e-mail: [email protected] CITATION Suggested citation for individual technical papers is, for example: Lewis, A., A. Crosbie, L. Davies, and T. Lunel. 1998. The AEA ‘97 North Sea Field Trials on Oil Weathering and Aerial Application of Dispersants. In Trudel, B.K.(ed.). Proceedings of the Conference, “Dispersant Use in Alaska: A Technical Update”, Anchorage, Alaska, March 18 & 19, 1998, Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TITLE PAGE ............................................................. i 2. MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE.................................v 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................. v 4. FOREWORD ............................................................ vi 5. TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS Dispersant Policies in Alaska Regulatory Controls: Nature, Purpose and Implications Ronald Morris .............................................................1 Dispersant Application Plans: Rationale, Execution and Implications of Regulatory Controls Sharon O. Hillman ........................................................13 Dispersant Effectiveness Issues Summary of Major Issues Related to the Effectiveness of Dispersants on Alaska North Slope Crude Oil in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska Sy Ross .................................................................35 Sea Empress Spill: Dispersant Operations, Effectiveness and Effectiveness Monitoring Tim Lunel ...............................................................59 The AEA ‘97 North Sea Field Trials on Oil Weathering and Aerial Application of Dispersants Alun Lewis, Angela Crosbie, Louise Davies and Tim Lunel ........................80 Dispersant Experience in Norway: Dispersant Effectiveness, Monitoring and Fate of Dispersed Oil Per Daling, Per Johan Brandvik and Mark Reed ................................111 Oil Fate and Effects Issues Oil Fate and Effects: An Overview of Issues in Prince William Sound Peter J. Armato ..........................................................149 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Risks and Tradeoffs in Prince William Sound Ken Trudel .............................................................159 The Effects of a Chemically-Dispersed Oil Spill on Fish and Shellfish: Experience from the Sea Empress Spill in Wales in 1996 Robin J. Law, Carole A. Kelly and Juan Brown ................................189 The Braer Oil Spill in Shetland, 1993 to 1997 John Goodlad ...........................................................203 Observations on the Integration of Laboratory, Mesocosm and Field Research on the Ecological Consequences of Dispersant Use for Marine Oil Spills Into Response Planning Don Aurand ............................................................215 Deriving Fate and Effects Information to Assess Petroleum Risk R. S. Tjeerdema, M. M. Singer, M. F. Wolfe, G. J. Blondina and M. L. Sowby .........249 Alaska’s Dispersant Effectiveness and Toxicity Testing Program Leslie A. Pearson ........................................................259 Monitoring the Effectiveness and Effects of Dispersant Operations Ken Trudel .............................................................263 PANEL DISCUSSIONS Panel #1: Effectiveness of Dispersant Use in Prince William Sound Chaired by Dennis Maguire ................................................281 Panel #2: Fate of Dispersed Oil in Prince William Sound Chaired by Ron Morris ....................................................289 Panel #3: Environmental Risks from Dispersed Oil in Prince William Sound Chaired by Peter Armato ................................................. 297 Panel #4: Environmental Effects Monitoring in Prince William Sound Chaired by Leslie Pearson .................................................305 Panel #5: Where Do We Go from Here? The Stakeholder Panel Chaired by Buzz Rome ....................................................313 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.................................................319 iv MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Brad Hahn and Leslie Pearson, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Dennis Maguire and Sharon Hillman, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company - SERVS Lisa Ka’aihue and John Devens, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council Gary Thomas and Nancy Bird, Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute CDR Ron Morris and LT Agneta Dahl,United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Valdez Michael Bronson, Emcon Alaska Inc. Ken Trudel, S.L. Ross Environmental Research ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Steering Committee wishes to thank Karen Sathoff and Troy Olivadoti of Emcon Alaska Inc. and Andrea Archer of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council for their efforts in preparing for the Conference. We also wish to thank Nancy Cearnes of S.L. Ross Environmental Research for her work in assembling the proceedings. v FOREWORD Dispersant knowledge, experience and planning have advanced far more quickly in the past five years than in the previous decade. These developments have prompted planners and policy-makers to re-evaluate existing positions on dispersants. Advances and developments include: • experience with large-scale use and monitoring of dispersant use during the Sea Empress spill (Wales, February 1996); • U.S. programs to study effects of dispersed oil (e.g., Chemical Response to Oil spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum); • extensive series of field experiments in North Sea in recent years; • wide-spread planning for expedited dispersant decision-making and monitoring in U.S. The purpose of this conference was to describe and explain these developments for the benefit of stakeholders, regulators and responders in Alaska and discuss the application of these developments to the issue of dispersant use in the Prince William Sound area of Alaska. vi TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS Dispersant Policies in Alaska Regulatory Controls: Nature, Purpose and Implications Ronald Morris, CDR United States Coast Guard Valdez, Alaska Morris, R. 1998. Regulatory Controls: Nature, Purpose and Implications In Trudel, B.K. (ed.). Proceedings of the Conference, “Dispersant Use in Alaska: A Technical Update”, Anchorage, Alaska, March 18 & 19, 1998, Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska. Abstract This presentation will look into dispersants from a perspective of the National Contingency Plan down to the Area Contingency Plans, highlighting the regulatory language within them that authorizes the use of dispersants as a response tool. The authorities vested within the plans to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator will be reviewed, along with Regional Response Team coordination when a request to use dispersants is made. Criteria for dispersant use within Alaska’s Unified Plan will be presented, with the specific details for Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. The Dispersant Decision Matrix and zone descriptions for pre-approval of dispersant use in both Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound will be shown. Alaska decision makers have agreed through pre-approvals that dispersants are a viable response tool. The dispersant guidelines for Alaska aid the FOSC during a response, allowing for use or don’t use choices in a timely fashion. Introduction While preparing for this presentation one of the references I used was a report to Congress that studied the Nation’s oil spill clean-up capabilities and assessed the technologies for responding to catastrophic spills. Their assessment was that cleaning up a discharge of millions of gallons of oil at sea under even moderate environmental conditions is an extraordinary problem. One comment from the forward of the report struck home to me. We need to understand, that even the best national response system will have inherent practical limitations that will hinder spill response efforts for catastrophic events, sometimes to a major extent. For that reason it is important to pay at least equal attention to preventive measures as to response systems. In this area, the proverbial ounce of prevention is worth many, many pounds of cure. Dispersants are one of several alternative response technologies that a Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) may consider for use on an oil spill. Historically in the U.S. we have emphasized the use of mechanical equipment to mitigate spilled oil. Mechanical means, however are not overly effective or efficient in many cases, typically experiencing a 20% rate of recovery, and therefore may not provide the best response strategy. Around the country, Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and Area Committees (ACs) have gotten together and developed Memorandums Of Understandings (MOUs) that describe areas pre-approved for use of dispersants. Some of these agreements are for a case-by-case basis only, some are for