United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600 8-81 002
February 1981
Research and Development
vvEPA
Handbook for
Oil Spill Protection
Cleanup Priorities
-------
EPA 600/8-81-002
February 1981
HANDBOOK FOR OIL SPILL
PROTECTION AND CLEANUP PRIORITIES
by
Jon D. Byroads
Ann M. Twedell
J. Peter LeBoff
Versar, Inc.
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Contract No. 68-03-2648
Project Officer
Leo T. McCarthy, Jr.
Oil & Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Solid & Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08837
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollu-
tion to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air,
foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration
of our natural environment. The complexity of that environment and
the interplay between its components requires a concentrated and inte-
grated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solving, and involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory develops new and improved technology and systems for the preven-
tion, treatment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous
waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources; for
the preservation and treatment of public drinking water supplies; and
to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects
of pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research
and is a vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
This report is a field manual for use by federally designated On-
Scene Coordinators (OSC) to guide them in assessing priorities during
all phases of an oil spill response by applying suitable decision-making
processes. The report will be of interest to all those involved in oil
spill prevention, control, and countermeasures.
Francis Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This manual was developed in an easily accessible yet extensive field
format for use by federally designated on-scene coordinators (OSC) to guide
them in assessing priorities during all phases of an oil spill response. The
guidelines presented will enable the OSC to (1) determine pertinent facts
about a particular oil discharge, (2) identify the resources and installations
that may be affected, and (3) establish priorities for protecting and cleaning
up these sensitive resources and installations.
Special attention is given to response activities such as (1) determining
spill contamination potential, (2) rating area sensitivity to oil contamina-
tion, (3) establishing priorities for containment, protection, and cleanup,
(4) deciding the best practical containment, protection, and cleanup methods,
(5) assessing response effectiveness, and (6) deciding when to terminate clean-
up efforts. Decision-making processes are outlined for all of the above re-
sponse phases.
This manual is submitted by Versar, Inc., in fulfillment of Subcontract
No. N8520034SP with Rockwell International under Contract No. 68-03-2648 with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work on the manual started on
August 30, 1978, and the draft manual was completed on July 9, 1979. The
Rockwell Project Officer was Walter Unterberg.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Field Manual 4
3. Spill Dynamics 9
4. Identification of Potentially Sensitive Areas (Step E) 19
5. Sensitivity Rating of Areas (Step F) 25
6. Priority Determinations 45
7. Best Practical Containment Methods (Step D) 58
8. Best Practical Protection Methods (Step K) 67
9. Best Practical Recovery and Removal Methods (Step S) 72
10. Implementation and Evaluation of Selected Actions 93
11. Termination of Effort (Step V) 98
Bibliography 104
Appendices
A. Example of Use of Manual 108
B. Computer Models for Oil Spills 120
C. Oil Spill Cleanup Costs (May 1979 Survey) 123
D. Common Crude Oil Properties 128
E. Maximum Oil and Water Pickup by Sorbents 132
F. Sources of Information 133
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Decision flow chart for oil spill priorities 5
2 Decision chart for identification of oil type 12
3 Prediction of slick movement with examples of vector addition. . 16
4 Important potentially sensitive areas 20
5 Boom types 60
6 Vee configuration for open water collection 64
7 Chevron-shaped deployment 64
8 Cascading boom deployment 65
9 Diagonal deployment 65
10 Decision guide for dispersant use 69
11 Decision guide for natural cleanup processes 90
12 Benefits and effort costs vs. percent of oil removed 103
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Oil Classifications 11
2 Behavior of Oil as Related to Environmental Conditions 18
3 Unused Natural Ecosystems Potentially Sensitive to
Oil Contamination 24
4 Effect of Spill Characteristics on Area Sensitivity Values ... 27
5 Environmental Values 29
6 Aesthetic Values 34
7 Economic Values 37
8 Social Water Use Values 39
9 Outside Considerations 42
10 Sensitivity Rating Worksheet (Step F) 49
11 Area Sensitivity Ranking 50
12 Area Vulnerability Index (Step I) 52
13 Protection Priority Determination (Step J) 53
14 Degree of Contamination (Step P) 55
15 Wave Energy Index (Step Q) 56
16 Cleanup Priorities Determination (Step R) 57
17 Summary of Containment Methods 59
18 U.S. Navy Boom Classification 61
19 Guidelines for Containment Devices and Methods 62
20 Decision Guide for Containment Methods (Step D) 66
21 General Compatibility of Oil Types With Dispersant Types .... 70
22 Decision Guide for Protection Methods (Step K) 71
23 Summary of Skimmers 74
24 Summary of Sorbent Materials 77
25 Decision Guide for Water Cleanup Methods (Step U) 78
26 Summary of Shoreline Cleanup Techniques 80
27 Decision Guide of Applicable Shoreline Cleanup
and Recovery Techniques 85
28 Impacts of Cleanup and Recovery Techniques 87
29 Criteria for Comparing Effectiveness of Cleanup Techniques ... 91
30 Effectiveness of Cleanup Techniques 92
31 Potential Effects of Spill Dynamic Changes on Response Phases . . 95
32 Spill Response Effectiveness Criteria 97
33 Effort/Benefit Analysis Worksheet 101
34 Determination of Removal Effort Activities- Continue or Terminate 102
Vll
-------
ACKNCWLEDQyEISlT
This manual was developed under contract with the Environmental Monitor-
ing & Services Center of Rockwell International for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory at Edison,
New Jersey. The work was conducted under the direction of Edwin F. Abrams,
Versar's program manager, and Dr. Robert G. Shaver, Vice President of Versar's
Engineering Technology Division.
Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Walter Unterberg, the project
officer, Rockwell International, and Leo T. McCarthy, Jr., Oil & Hazardous
Materials Spills Branch in Edison, New Jersey, for their direction and
assistance.
Finally, Versar, Inc. thanks the following individuals for their cooper-
ation and assistance:
Howard Lamp'l, EPA Region III,
Paul Elliot, EPA Region II,
John Gilbert, EPA Region II,
Royal Nadeau, EPA Region II,
Dr. Miles Hayes, Research Planning Institute, Inc.,
J. Stephen Dorrler, EPA Region II,
John S. Farlow, EPA-MERL,
Dr. John Fraser, Shell Oil Company,
Cdr. J. T. Leigh, USCG, and
Dr. June ULndstedt-Siva, Atlantic Richfield Corporation.
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Any oil discharged into marine or fresh water systems will inevitably
affect both natural and man-made resources. These resources may only be im-
portant to and used by a small number of individuals, or they may be used and
valued by a large portion of the local population. The rapidity and effec-
tiveness of the oil spill response is of prime importance in averting poten-
tially serious damage. Ideally, all potentially affected resources should be
protected from damage. Usually, however, some priorities must be set to ade-
quately use the available manpower and equipment for resource protection.
Responsibility for determining priorities for both protection and cleanup lies
with the designated on-scene coordinator (OSC) as mandated in the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Section 40 CRF 1510-36(a)
(2) that states, "The On-Scene Coordinator shall determine ... potential im-
pact on human health and welfare ... the resources and installations which may
be affected and the priorities for protecting them."
This manual provides information and guidelines to aid the OSC in deter-
mining priorities. It provides methods by which field priorities can be
determined under differing conditions. The general order in spill response is
(1) to protect life and limb, (2) to minimize ecological impact, (3) to mini-
mize socio-economic impacts, and (4) to minimize aesthetic impacts. This order
is rational, but not fixed. Evaluations must be made at many points in this
decision process and the overall response is the result of these evaluations.
The methods in this manual are systematic and qualitatively satisfying, but
they may not cover every possible situation. In view of this possibility, the
OSC must exercise good judgment in applying these methods for determining
field priorities.
The manual treats spill response actions chronologically, from arrival on
the scene to implementation of protective containment and countermeasures, and
cleanup and termination of effort. It does not directly address possible
waste disposal or restoration priorities. It does not address specific tech-
nical operations since it assumes the user has a basic knowledge of oil spill
mitigation methods and an understanding of coastal and inland environments.
It also assumes that many required input data into the decision-making process
can be found in existing oil spill contingency plans prepared by local or
regional agencies.
USE OF THE MANUAL
The manual is divided into two parts. Part One (Section 2) is a self-
sufficient field operations manual that delineates in a straightforward manner
-------
the process of determining priorities. Part Two (Sections 3 through 11) con-
sists of detailed technical references and relationships to be studied before
applying the principles of priority determination. The experienced manual
user will mainly utilize Part One, since he will already be cognizant of most
of the background and support information contained in Part Two.
Sections 3 through 11 are organized to follow as closely as possible the
normal sequence of events in an oil spill situation. The following paragraphs
discuss in detail information requirements and inplementation actions neces-
sary for determination of priorities and the best practical methods for irtple-
menting them.
Section 3 - Spill Dynamics
The interaction of the oil spill with the environment that it enters de-
termines the spill dynamics which influence contamination and damage potential.
Spill factors include oil classification, oil discharge rate, and oil volume;
methods are given for evaluating each factor. Environmental factors include
wind (speed and direction), waves (height and period), currents (speed and
direction), tides, and temperature.
Section 4 - Identification of Potentially Sensitive Areas
Areas particularly sensitive to oil contamination include natural eco-
systems as well as recreational, residential, and industrial areas. The types
and sources of application information are outlined in detail.
Section 5 - Sensitivity Rating of Areas
Once the affected or threatened areas have been identified, their rela-
tive sensitivity to oil contamination mut be established. A numerical rating
system is used based on four area values: (1) environmental, (2) economic,
(3) social water use, and (4) aesthetic. These values are further refined by
rating the importance of various outside considerations that usually arise in
an oil spill situation.
Section 6 - Priority Determination
The order of priority of protective and cleanup efforts is based on such
variables as: (1) total area sensitivity rating from the previous section,
(2) order and degree of contamination, (3) vulnerability of affected area, and
(4) wave energy of area. These are discussed and assigned numerical rankings
for use in priority determination.
Section 7 - Best Practical Containment Methods
The first overall priority should be to contain the spill at the source.
The best methods available for containment are discussed, and a decision guide
is included.
-------
Section 8 - Best Practical Protection Methods
Once the protection priorities have been established, the protection tech-
niques must be ascertained. A decision guide and detailed discussion of dis-
persant usage are enclosed.
Section 9 - Best Practical Recovery and Removal Methods
Once the cleanup priorities have been established, methods of mitigating
the spill must be ascertained. Involved in this decision are (1) best methods
available in each area, (2) effectiveness of such methods, (3) environmental
impacts of such methods, and (4) acceptability of natural cleanup. Each con-
sideration is discussed in detail.
Section 10 - Implementation and Evaluation of Selected Actions
Actions should be implemented immediately after priorities have been
established and available control methods are known. Since spill dynamics may
change, constant reassessment and re-evaluation of the total spill response
are necessary. If the response is not as effective as desired, some reorder-
ing of priorities or selected actions may be necessary. All these topics are
discussed, and decision-making processes are outlined.
Section 11 - Termination of Effort
The decision to terminate cleanup efforts must take into account the ben-
efits of continued cleanup from the aesthetic, environmental, and socio-
economic standpoints in relation to the cost (manpower, equipment, and time)
required for continued effort. All these factors are discussed in detail.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE MANUAL
Because it will be almost impossible to apply any one priority system to
all diverse oil spill situations, some basic assumptions must be made. These
are as follows:
• Many of the required inputs are found in existing oil spill contin-
gency plans
• The process is only as valid as the information inputs
• The OSC must always use his best judgment in making and applying
decisions when the system is inappropriate
• ISb system can replace the experience and knowledge of the OSC;
therefore, the manual is only a tool and not a substitute for the
OSC's judgment
• The OSC will be capable of deriving more benefit from the system each
time it is used since he will become more familiar with the sensitiv-
ity rating system and the priority determination method
-------
SECTION 2
FIELD MANUAL
This section is the self-contained Field Manual intended to aid the OSC
in determining priorities with a ininimum of reference material. It is a
step-by-step process in the order of a spill response, with references to the
support material in Part Two. Tables and figures are numbered consecutively
in order of occurrence in Part Two, and their page location may be found in
the Contents section. The decision process may be applied at one or more
points in time during an oil spill response to ascertain protection and clean-
up priorities as the action continues. Each step is fully outlined in Part
Two and the user should be familiar with each step before applying this pro-
cess. Appendix A is a complete example of the use of this manual in a hypo-
thetical spill situation. Figure 1 is a Decision Flow Chart which contains
all the steps, listed below:
Step A. Obtain spill factors (Section 3) from:
• Initial notification report
• On-site spiller's information
• Local public service personnel (i.e., police or fire
departments)
• Aerial surveillance of spill site
Step B. Obtain environmental factors (Section 3) from:
• Qn-site spiller's information
• Local public service personnel
• Local public service personnel
• Aerial surveillance of spill site
• Local weather service offices
• Local citizens
-------
OBTA1
N SPILL
FACTOAS
C <
OBTAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS
SICT10N f AMD f
MLSCT POSSIBLE
PflOTICTIVf SYSTEMS
i
OETIMMIIW IUT
1 K,S
^s^^
S^Mn THf RE^w
"* A
SCLICTTOSSIILE
Figure 1. Decision flov chart for oil spill priorities.
(letters are steps in decision process)
-------
Step C. Determine oil behavior (Section 3)
Use Table 2 to determine if environmental factors will aid or
hinder the containment efforts. Use vector addition to deter-
mine resultant slick movement.
Step D. Determine best practical containment methods (Section 5).
Use Table 20 to determine which containment methods are best
suited to spill situation.
Step E. El. Identify potentially sensitive areas affected (Section 4).
E2. Identify potentially sensitive areas threatened (Section 4).
Step F. Rate sensitivity of each threatened area on Table 10.
Fl. Rate environmental values using Table 5.
F2. Rate aesthetic values using Table 6.
F3. Rate economic values using Table 7.
F4. Rate social water use values using Table 8.
F5. Rate outside considerations on Table 11 using Table 9.
F6. Obtain modified total sensitivity rating for each area
using Table 11.
Step G. Rank the threatened areas according to their relative sensitiv-
ity (Section 5) using Table 11.
Step H. Determine predicted order of contamination of the threatened
areas based on spill dynamics. Number 1 would be the first to
be contaminated, number 2 would be the second, etc.
Step I. Assign a value for area vulnerability based on the physical
components of the area, by using the index in Table 12.
Step J. Sum values for:
• Area sensitivity rankings (Step G)
• Order of contamination (Step H)
• Area vulnerability index (Step I)
Use these values to determine protection priorities as shown in
Table 13.
-------
Step K. Determine best practical protection methods for each area (Sec-
tion 8). Use decision guide in Table 22.
Step L. Implement protective actions according to priorities using best
practical methods (Section 10).
Step M. Reassess spill dynamics (Section 10). Use TaJle 31 to deter-
mine if changes in spill dynamics will affect spill response
phases.
Step N. Reorder or change protection priorities and implement actions to
effectively reduce spill damage to sensitive areas.
Step 0. Determine potentially sensitive areas affected since the begin-
ning of the spill (Section 4).
Repeat Step G. Rate sensitivity of each affected area for all values
aesthetic, environmental, economic, social, and outside considerations).
Use Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and the worksheet in Table 10 (see Step F).
Rank areas according to sensitivity ratings using Table 11.
Step P. Determine degree of contamination for each affected area. Use
Table 14 to assign a rating to each area.
Repeat Step I. Determine vulnerability index values for each affected
area. Use Table 12 to assign a value to each area.
Step Q. Determine a wave energy index value for each affected area (Sec-
tion 6). Use Table 15 to assign a value.
Step R. Sun values for:
• Area sensitivity rankings (Step G)
• Degree of contamination (Step P)
• Area vulnerability index (Step I)
• Wave energy index (Step Q)
Use these values to determine cleanup priorities as shown in
Table 16.
Step S. Determine best practical cleanup and recovery methods for each
area (Section 9). Use the following reference tables:
• Table 25: Decision Guide for Water Cleanup Methods
• Table 27: Decision Guide of Applicable Shoreline Cleanup
and Recovery Techniques
• Table 28: Impacts of Cleanup and Recovery Techniques
-------
• Table 29: Criteria for Comparing Effectiveness of Cleanup
Techniques
• Table 30: Effectiveness of Cleanup Techniques
Step T. Implement cleanup and recovery actions according to priorities
using best practical methods (Section 10).
Step U. Evaluate overall spill response using the criteria in Table 32
(Section 10).
Step V. Decide if effort in each area should be continued or terminated
(Section 11) by using Tables 33 and 34.
-------
SECTION 3
SPIIJL DYNAMICS
INTRODUCTION
Oil spill dynamics refers to those factors that produce a change during
an oil spill incident. These are (1) spill factors — those directly related
to the spill, and (2) environmental factors — those directly related to the
spill location. Knowledge of one of these factors alone would be inadequate
in making a spill response.
Spill Factors
Spill factors related to the discharge (spill) itself. The input data
include:
• Type of oil
• Type of discharge (sudden or continuous)
• Time of spill occurrence
• Quantity of oil discharged and estimated rate of flow if discharge is
continuous
These inputs can be obtained from the initial report and field verifica-
tion.
Environmental Factors
Environmental (site) factors include the actual conditions at the spill
location. The input data for these factors include:
• Spill location
• Wind speed and direction
• Water current speed and direction
• Air and water temperatures
• Tide data
• Season (e.g., breeding season for mammals or birds, fishing season, etc.)
9
-------
These data are available from initial reports and field verification.
These two sets of factors make up the data required to determine the spill
dynamics. As changes occur in either set, the spill dynamics will change.
This change may require a reordering of response priorities.
However, before a spill response is initiated, priority should be given
to personnel safety. An evaluation of the potential hazards such as fire,
explosion, BLEVE (boiling liquid - expanding vapor explosion), and injurious
vapors should be considered before a response is made. This relies on the best
judgment of the OSC and the monitoring capabilities at his disposal. This is
particularly important during spills of free-flowing oils such as aviation gas,
jet fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and the lighter fuels and crude oils.
SPILL FACTORS (STEP A)
The spill factors include those aspects of an incident that directly re-
late to the oil. These are:
Type of Oil
Unless a spill has just occurred, information about the type of oil will
probably be inadequate. This is because weathering changes the oil. However,
field personnel can observe the oil's behavior and determine the oil type.
This behavior is related to the oil's chemical and physical properties. The
rate at which oil spreads is influenced by its viscosity, surface tension,
specific gravity (all temperature-dependent), and time.
The oil classifications presented in this manual have been developed from
several sources. Defining oils as light, medium, or heavy is not appropriate
for the field observer. Confusion may arise because these particular adjec-
tives apply to specific types of oil such as heavy fuel oil or light crude oil.
The manual's definitions apply bo the oil's observable characteristics on
water (Table 1). This approach has been taken for two reasons. First, by
concentrating on physical properties of the spilled oil, initial actions can
be taken even if the proper name of the oil is unknown. Second, response
always requires time to implement countermeasures, and during any time lapse,
a process known as weathering changes the oil. As an oil weathers, it changes
both internally and in appearance. Thus, if oil were to be classified only by
original chemical composition, or original oil properties, the classification
would be inadequate to describe the weathered oil. These oil classifications
are briefly described below and a decision chart for the identification of oil
types is found in Figure 2.
Free-Flowing—
These oils contain volatile components which evaporate readily when the
oil is released into the environment. Because of this, the ignition potential
is high, and a fire or explosion hazard exists in the spill area. In addition,
a personnel hazard may exist because of the vapors. These oils flow easily,
spread rapidly, and penetrate porous substrates deeply. They usually appear
transparent or slightly opaque and easily rinse off surfaces.
10
-------
TABLE 1. OIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Observable
Character
Specific
Gravity
[60°F (15°C)]*
API(ASTM D-88 D-445) Oil-Vfater
Gravityt Viscosity Tension§
(15°C) [CS/60°F (15°C)]* (dyne/on)
Examples
Free-flowing oil
Viscous oil
Serai-solid tar-
like oil
0.83-0.88 30->60 3-10
0.90-0.94 15-30 100-300
0.94-0.97 < 15 500-2000
20 Gasoline, kerosene, gas oil,
fuel oil II, #2, very light
crude oil or condensate
20 Fuel oil *4, ta-low oil, *2
mineral oil, medium gravity
crude oil
20 Fuel oil *5, *6, 110, tall
oil, asphalt, heavy crude oil
* ASTM Standard for Ttest Oils (these ranges are typical)
t Fingas, M.F., et al., 1979
§ Stewart, R.J., 1976. (These values are typical; actual spilled oil may have different values.)
Viscous—
These oils contain some volatile components but are less likely to create
a fire hazard. They are usually opaque, form emulsions readily, have variable
soil penetrability, and can be removed from surfaces by applying low-pressure
water spray. These oils may feel waxy.
Semi-Solid Tar-Like—
These oils are opaque and spread slowly or form "tar balls." They have
low substrate penetrating ability, feel sticky, and are difficult to remove
from contaminated surfaces. Emulsions formed by these oils are very stable.
Type of Discharge
A discharge may be a sudden occurrence at which time all oil is released
or it may be an occurrence during which the oil is released continuously over
a period of time.
Time of Spill Occurrence—
During the time between the spill occurrence and the spill response, the
oil slick location may move. If the time of the release is known, the loca-
tion and quantity of the slick may be predicted.
Quantity of Oil Discharged—
The quantity of oil released will influence the amount of protection and
cleanup equipment dispatched to the spill site. Volume definitions are those
in the proposed revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollu-
tion Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 1510).
Discharge
Minor discharge
Medium discharge
Major discharge
Inland Waters
<1,000 gal (24 bbl)
1,000-10,000 gal
>10,000 gal (240 bbl)
Coastal Waters
<10,000 gal (240 bbl)
10,000-100,000 gal
>100,000 gal (2,400 bbl)
11
-------
OBSERVE AND
FEEL OIL
HAVE A
STRONG
.ODORt
IS
THE OIL
RANSPARENT?
IS
THE
OIL
TICKY?
DO DROPS
OF OIL FLOW
OR CHANGE
SHAPE
READILY?
ARE
THERE SOLID
CHUNKS IN
THE OIL?
SEMI-SOLID
TAR-LIKE OIL
Figure 2. Decision chart for identification of oil type.
12
-------
The terms used to describe an oil film, which is a slick thinner than
0.0001 inch, are given below (Council on Environmental Quality, 1979).
Gallons of
Oil Per
Standard Term Square Mile Appearance
Barely visible 25 Barely visible under most favorable
light conditions
Silvery 50 Visible as a silvery sheen on sur-
face water
Slightly colored 100 First trace of color may be observed
Brightly colored 200 Bright bands of color are visible
Dull 700 Colors begin to turn dull brown
Dark 1300 Colors turn a much darker brown
NDte : Each 1-inch thickness of oil equals 5.6 gallons per
square yard, or 17,000,000 gallons per square mile.
ENVIJOMENTAL FACTORS (STEP B)
The environmental factors include the conditions at the spill location.
They are as follows:
Spill Location
Spill location is expressed in latitude and longitude and aids in locat-
ing the oil slick and oil source on a map.
Wind Speed and Direction
Wind contributes to oil slick motion. Wind speed is expressed in mph or
knots; direction is expressed as a compass reading such as N, NW, or SE from
which the wind is blowing.
Water Current Speed and Direction
The speed and direction of the current must be known to predict the loca-
tion of a moving slick. Current is expressed in knots, cm/sec, or m/sec.
Air and Water Temperature
Both air and water temperatures will affect the weathering process and
may alter the spill response efforts. Oil will behave differently in weather
extremes. In cold weather, oil will spread less and maintain its chemical and
physical properties; in hot weather, oil will spread quickly and volatilize
its low-boiling components readily. Additionally, during temperature extremes,
13
-------
allowances for equipment operation and personnel protection will need to be
considered in the response effort.
Tide Data
In tidal areas such as enibayments and large rivers, the tidal cycle can
greatly influence the water current speed and direction, but in a predictable
manner. Tides are extremely important in oil movement and countermeasure
employment.
Season
The season in which the oil spill occurs may result in added sensitivity
of a potentially threatened or affected area. For example, the oil spill may
threaten a fishing reserve during the fishing season or a bird or mammal rook-
ery during the breeding season.
OIL BEHAVIOR ON WATER
Three main processes occur when oil is released into the environment.
Oil-Spreading
Oil-spreading is the first process observed as oil is released into the
environment. The spreading rate is a function of the oil's viscosity and sur-
face tension. The volume of oil spilled affects the spreading rate during the
initial stages of a spill.
On waters uninfluenced by wind or currents, oil will rapidly spread into
a circular pattern. The maximum radius of this circle can be calculated using
Fay's formula expressed as:
r
r(max)
where
r(max) = f-"-na-'- radius of the circular spill in feet
n = volume of oil spilled expressed in barrels
(42 gallons)
However, if sufficient wave motion is present, water-in-oil emulsions occur
which rapidly increase viscosity, reducing the spreading rate.
Oil Movement
The second observable process is the oil movement, which is mainly influ-
enced by wind and current. If debris is present in excessive amounts, it will
also affect the movement of oil. In the absence of current and debris, the oil
will move in the direction of the wind at approximately 3.5 percent of the wind
velocity. In the presence of wind and current, it is generally acceptable to
add their effects vectorially. In addition, for spills moving long distances,
14
-------
the Coriolis effect of the earth's rotation may move the slick slightly right
of the wind direction in the Northern Hemisphere and slightly left of the wind
direction in the Southern Hemisphere. Examples of the vector addition modified
from those of Lissauer and Welsh are shown in Figure 3. This vector addition
provides only an estimate of slick movement, which should not be considered
absolute.
In coastal spills, the tidal currents will play a role in the oil behav-
ior. Oil will move with the current and may contaminate new areas or render
protective methods ineffective. Generally, oil does not readily adhere to wet
surfaces. A spill on a shoreline at the flood current (as the water moves
landward) will not penetrate the saturated surface as quickly or as deeply as
oil on the ebb current (as the water moves seaward). On the ebb current, oil
is carried onto drained or even dry surface and will tend to adhere and pene-
trate into the shoreline strata.
Weathering
The third process is weathering. Weathering is a natural process that
alters the chemical and physical properties of the spilled oil. It begins as
soon as the oil is released into the environment and proceeds at rates that
vary according to the type of oil and environmental conditions. In general,
these rates are highest during the first 4 to 12 hours after the release. The
major weathering processes are evaporation, dissolution, oxidation, emulsifi-
cation, and microbial degradation. Each is briefly described here. Addition-
al information is available in the following references: Boesch, D., et al.,
1974; Edison Water Quality Laboratory, 1971; and Fingas, M.F., et al., 1979.
Evaporation affects the release of the oil's low-boiling volatile compo-
nents into the atmosphere at rates dependent upon the vapor pressure and the
boiling points of each component.
Dissolution releases water-soluble oil components into the water below
the oil surface. It occurs first in aromatic components of the lower molecu-
lar weight hydrocarbons, then in alkane components of the same boiling point.
The emulsions produced can be either oil-in-water, which usually requires the
aid of a surface-active agent, or water-in-oil, which forms naturally. It is
the water-in-oil emulsion that forms the "chocolate mousse"; this is slow to
degrade and hard to disperse.
In biodegradation, microorganisms use the hydrocarbon as a food source.
During this process, the hydrocarbon is reduced to a simpler form by either
aerobic organisms, those requiring free oxygen for survival, or anaerobic
organisms, those requiring the absence of oxygen for survival. In either case,
the oil is degraded by the organisms preferentially and sequentially attacking
the normal alkanes, the branched alkanes, the cycloalkanes, and finally the
aromatic components.
Regardless of the particular mode of weathering, the resultant oil is
changed in appearance and behaves different from freshly spilled oil. As oil
gets heavier (that is, its specific gravity exceeds that of water) by one of
the processes mentioned above or by the adsorption of oil on particulate
15
-------
360°
0
v> 1',
N /
270°—
—90° /
180°
Vw = Wind Speed Vector x. 0.035 (Knots)
V- = Water Current Speed Vector x. 0.60
U (Knots)
Vs = Slick Speed Vector (Knots)
Procedure:
1. Plot location of spill incident at point 0.
2. layout 3.5 percent wind speed (Vy/) and 60 percent current vectors
(Vc) fron known headings. Use sane scale (on/knot or inches/knot)
for both vector lengths.
3. Draw line parallel to % at the tip of VQ (A-A) and line parallel
to Vc at the tip of Vw (B-B) .
4. Draw line connecting intersection of AA, BB, and 0. This is the
slick speed vector, V§.
5. Measure length of Vs and determine knots from scale.
6. With conpass heading and speed of slick known, estimate tine of
arrival at sensitive areas; deploy men and equipment as required.
Nate: 1 knot approximately = 5.2 on/sec (310 cnvrtnin)
= 1.7 ft/sec (100 ft/min)
= 1.9 Rn/hr
(low) wind velocity: 5 km/hr (2.7 knots)
2.7 knots x 3.5% = 0.09 knot
(low) current velocity: 0.5 m/sec (1 knot)
1 knot x 60% = 0.6 knot
(low) wind velocity: 5 km/hr
(2.7 knots)
(fast) current velocity:
13 km/hr (7 knots)
7 knots x 60% = 4.2 knots
(fast) wind velocity: 30 km/hr (20 knots)
20 knots x 3.5% = 0.7 knot
(low) current velocity: 0.5 m/sec (1 knot)
(fast) wind velocity: 30 km/hr
(20 knots)
(fast) cm. lent velocity: 13 km/
hr (7 knots)
2 knots
2 cm
Figure 3. Prediction of slick movement with examples of vector addition.
16
-------
material, it will sink. When oil sinks, it can contaminate the bottom of the
water body or be acted upon by microorganisms. If microbial oxidation re-
duces the density of the oil, it might resurface and float again. This pro-
cess can continue until the weathered oil residue disappears or reaches a
land mass.
Each oil classification behaves differently under different water condi-
tions. There are some conditions under which the spill will be aggravated.
Conditions such as extremely hot weather with wave action and fast currents
would result in a semi-solid, tar-like oil being emulsified or sunk. Table 2
indicates the behavior of oil under different conditions — cold, moderate,
and hot.
Cold Moderate Hot
Air temperature <4°C (<40°F) >4°-32°C . ^32°C (>90°F)
(>40-90°F)
Water temperature <0°C (<32°F) >0°-30°C >30°C (>850F)
(32-85°F)
In Table 2, those conditions that would tend to reduce oil spreading and
emulsion formulation and aid in spill response efforts are indicated by a +.
Those conditions that would tend to aggravate the response efforts by allowing
the oil to move rapidly, spread widely, and form emulsions are indicated by a
-. Those conditions that do not seem to affect oil behavior at all are indi-
cated by 0.
DETERMINING OIL BEHAVIOR (STEP C)
There are many conceptual bases for predicting the location of an oil
slick by use of a computer model that are beyond the scope of this manual.
These are especially valuable in determining both short- and long-term fore-
casts for both the horizontal and vertical dispersion of the oil. However, it
takes time to gather and enter input data required for an accurate computer
model. Until this is completed, the vector addition technique of Lissauer and
Welsh should be employed. For those interested in computer models, Appendix B
provides a list of pertinent references.
17
-------
TABLE 2. BEHAVIOR OF OIL AS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
General Category of Water
General Category of Water
A. Rivers and Protected Waters
1. Shallow Water 0-0.5 m
(0-1.5 ft)
a. low waves
low/moderate current
fast current
2. Moderately deep water
0.5-1.5 ra (1.5-5 ft)
a. low waves
low/noderate current
fast current
b. moderate waves
low/moderate current
fast current
3. Deep water XL. 5 m (5 ft)
a. low waves
low/moderate current
fast current
b. moderate waves
low/moderate current
fast current
B. Open Water - Inland or Ocean
1. Very deep water >6 m (20 ft;
a. high waves
low/moderate current
Free Flowing Oil
Moderate* Cold* Hot*
Clean
Water Debris
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ o
+ +
- -
+ + +
+
- - +
- - -
0
Viscous Oil
Moderate Cold Hot
Clean
Water Debris
0 + + -
+ +
O + + -
- + +
O O O -
0 -
0 O O -
- 0 +
O 0 +
- 0 + -
O O + -
Semi-Solid Tar-Like Oil
Moderate Cold Hot
Clean
Water Debris
0 + + -
O + o
O -I- + o
O + O -
- 4- +
- o o -
O O + 0
000-
- - + 0
- - 0 -
- o + -
00
Current: low/moderate <0.8 n/sec (<1.5 knots)
fast X).8 nv/sec (>1.5 knots)
Wave height: low 0-0.3 m (0-1 foot)
moderate 0.3-1 m (1-3 feet)
high 1-2.5 m (3-8 feet)
* air tenperature
moderate >4-32°C (>40-90°F)
cold <4°C (<40°F)
hot >32°C T>90°F)
water temperature
moderate >0-30°C (32-85°F)
cold 30°C T>85°F)
+ Environmental conditions will help hinder oil behavior (aid spill countermeasure)
O Neutral
- Environmental conditions will aggravate oil behavior (hinder spill oountermeasure)
Terms modified from ASTM proposed standard description of environmental conditions relevant to spill control systems for use on water (3/11/78).
-------
SECTION 4
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (STEP E)
INTRODUCTION
Before establishing priorities, accurate information about the locations
and characteristics of both affected and threatened areas must be obtained as
quickly as possible. Ideally, most general information will be available from
existing or interim local, state, or regional oil spill contingency plans. In
the event that contingency plans are either incomplete or unavailable, alter-
native .information sources exist, each of which can provide the OSC with use-
ful information. A list of these sources is presented in Appendix F along with
the type of data available. Another major source of information is the OSC's
familiarity with the geographical spill area. It is assumed that the OSC has
or can obtain detailed topographic maps of the entire area potentially vulner-
able to the spill. The terms below should be used to locate and identify these
sensitive areas. This section examines site characteristics, and Section 5
rates their sensitivity based on environmental (ecological), aesthetic, econ-
omic, or social values.
Important potentially sensitive areas are divided into six general cate-
gories and are illustrated in Figure 4. These are as follows:
• resource management areas
• consumptive water use areas
• recreational use areas
• coimercial use areas
• industrial use areas
• unused natural ecosystems
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS
These are essentially natural areas but are presently managed by man for
maximum biomass production, wildlife conservation or preservation, or other
important resource uses. Included are areas used for:
• fish nurseries
• shellfish aquaculture
19
-------
Area Uses
Descriptors
Examples
SENSITIVE-
AFEAS
Resource
Management-
Areas
Consumptive
- Water Use —
Intakes
Recreational_
Areas
Cortnercial
Areas
— finfish—
— shellfish
— waterfowl-
- matronal
— industry-
£
plant
Industrial Areas
I
I
I Unused Natural_
Ecosystems
— domestic -
— irrigation-
I— public welfare
direct water contact-
indirect water
contact
— resort location -
I— vessel storage •
I— transportation
- pcwer/cornwnications
resource extraction
estuarine
mar me-
lacustrine -
river me-
aquaculture site
nursery site
breeding grounds
refuges
harvesting beds
water
1— palustrine -
supply
process
supply
farm crop or
forestery intake
fire fighting source
swijtming beach
boating waters
dredging bed
harvesting site
hotel or
properties
marinas or docks
- shipping lanes
. electrical lines
and towers
• well platforms
- sandy beaches
worm and clam
mudflats
shallow emergent
reed marshes
fast flowing
reaches
• bogs
Figure 4. Important potentially sensitive areas.
20
-------
• wildlife refuge
• wildlife breeding grounds
• nesting or roosting sites
• migration stopovers
• mammal protection
• endangered species habitat
• algae culture
• beach stabilization
• archaeological study
• tribal fishing areas
• historical monuments
CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE AREAS
These areas supply man with water on a consumptive basis (that is, there
is a net withdrawal of water). They contain structures such as water intake
pipes, dams, or channels for water transport or storage. Included are the
following:
• domestic water supply
• industrial process water supply
• industrial cooling water supply
• farm crop irrigation
• forestry irrigation
• landscape irrigation
• fire-fighting
RECREATIONAL USE AREAS
These areas provide recreational opportunities either through direct or
indirect contact with water. Structures such as boat ramps, docks, piers,
house supports, water skis, surfboards, navigational markers, fishing equip-
ment and boats are found within them. Included in this category are the
following:
• direct contact areas
- swimming
- scuba diving
- snorkeling
- water skiing
- surfing
21
-------
• indirect contact areas
- motor boating
- sailing
- sport fishing
- canoeing or rafting
- waterfowl hunting
- capping
COMMERCIAL USE AREAS
These areas consist of commercial finfish and shellfish harvest areas that
are not managed by man. Also included are areas that attract tourists because
of the proximity of a body of water. Included are the following:
• sessile and mobile shellfish harvesting
• trawling
• long-lining
• netting or seining
• beach-front hotel or restaurant properties
• marinas and boat harbors
• beaches adjacent to roads or highways
INDUSTRIAL USE AREAS
Industrial use areas are usually for nonconsurnptive water users, and many
are extremely large and cannot be classified as a single entity. Included in
these areas are such structures as well platforms, electrical towers, sub-
merged cables and pipelines, bridge foundations, vessels, locks, buoys, sea-
walls, channel bulkheads, jetties, storm sewer systems, flow monitoring equip-
ment, surface runoff systems, and various underwater structures. Some area
uses include the following:
• resource extraction
• communications
• navigational lanes/transportation
• logging
• waste disposal
• power generation
• flood control impoundment
UNUSED NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS
These areas are not directly used by man, but have important scenic or
ecological significance. They are distinct areas because of their size, geo-
morphology, or location, and each must be rated separately as to its particular
22
-------
sensitivity to oil contamination. Included are areas located in marine, estu-
arine, lacustrine (lake), riverine (river), and palustrine (marsh) aquatic en-
vironments. They are listed in Table 3.
DETERMINATION OF AFFECTED AREAS (STEP El)
The first problem to be addressed by the OSC after the spill has been
stopped or contained is to determine what areas have been affected and what
areas are threatened and need protection. Once the facts are established, the
OSC can begin the sensitivity rating (Section 5). Contaminated areas are
identified primarily by direct observation of one or more of the following:
(1) black discoloration of the waterline; (2) so-called "chocolate mousse" and
tar balls; (3) a shiny, oily sheen on the water surface; or (4) pockets of oil
accumulation.
Several methods of observation (for example, land surveillance, local
reports) of an area are available, but aerial surveillance is the most effec-
tive. Surveillance is generally made from small planes, and police, Coast
Guard, .or television station helicopters. The local population also furnishes
reports of site contaminations. Reports of fouled drinking water, oiled boats
and ships, and dead wildlife all indicate that an area has been affected. In
some cases local officials, such as park and wildlife rangers, may be dis-
patched to a reported area to gather a more detailed account of the spill dam-
age. The location of areas already affected can aid in the determination of
potential spill damage, spill movement, and the location of potentially threat-
ened areas.
DETERMINATION OF THREATENED AREAS (STEP E2)
After contaminated areas have been located, efforts must be directed to
identifying all possible threatened areas. Four factors are involved:
1. Proximity of spill site
2. Alignment with predicted spill trajectory (as determined in Section
3)
3. Continued spillage moving toward area (for example, leaking barge
adrift)
4. Movement of sensitive area component into spill site (for example,
fisheries stock or waterfowl migration)
Threatened areas must be rated as to their sensitivity and, in turn, pri-
oritized for spill control efforts by the OSC. Generally, highest priority
should be given to protection of threatened sensitive areas. Cleanup of con-
taminated areas may have to wait until protection methods have been deployed,
unless all sensitive areas are already contaminated and no others are
threatened.
23
-------
TABLE 3. UNUSED NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS POTENTIALLY
SENSITIVE TO OIL CONTAMINATION
Marine
(salinity >3%)
Estuarine (semi-enclosed,
land influence, fresh water
diluted, salinity <3%)
Lacustrine (inland standing
fresh water, large)
Riverine (inland flowing
fresh water)
open waters
rocky shorelines
sandy beaches or bars
coral reefs
vascular/algal submergent beds
mud flats
tidal pools
succulent (shrub) salt marshes
reed salt marshes
red mangrove swamps
black mangrove swamps
open waters
rocky shorelines
sandy shorelines
channels
oyster reefs
mud flats
vascular/algal sutmergent beds
open waters
seasonally flooded basins or flats
shallow emergent reed marshes
deep wooded swamps
sandy shorelines
rocky shorelines
intermittent drainage tributary
fast flow reaches (high gradient)
- riffles
- pools
- rocky shorelines
- sandy shorelines
slow moving reaches (low gradient)
- shallow reed marshes
- deep wooded swamps
- rocky shorelines
- sandy shorelines
- mud flats,
- open waters
tidal reaches
- shurb swamps
- deep wooded swamps
- shallow reed marshes
- rocky shorelines
- sandy shorelines
- mud flats
- open waters
Palustrine (isolated fresh
water, small and shallow,
non-tidal and standing)
• bogs
• ponds
• reed marshes
• deep wooded swamps
• spring seeps
24
-------
SECTION 5
SENSITIVITY RATING OF AREAS (STEP F)
INTRODUCTION
The overall sensitivity of an area to oil contamination is based on four
complex interrelated factors: (1) environmental (or ecological) values, (2)
aesthetic values, (3) economic values, and (4) social water use values. All
areas will exhibit these values to varying degrees, and this sensitivity rat-
ing is based on the variation. When different relative degrees of each value
are determined, the areas in question can be rated from most sensitive (least
tolerant) to least sensitive (most tolerant). This rating system serves as the
basis for priority determination and is therefore extremely important.
Some values are interrelated in such a way that a high sensitivity rating
in one may be a factor in determining the rating in another. For example, an
area that ranks high in ecological value may also rank high in economic value
if the rating is based on biomass harvesting (for example, fisheries). Values,
however, must be rated independently to obtain the accuracy needed for prior-
ity determination. This is because the economic value, in the example above,
may not be realized if the fisheries' resource is not being harvested at the
time of the spill.
This sensitivity rating system should be applied to all of the areas iden-
tified in Section 4. If the OSC is familiar with the rating system and has
read the supporting reference material, he should be able to rate the areas in
question relatively quickly and without use of this support document. However,
if the OSC has not been exposed to the rating system or if time is extremely
limited, he may elect to proceed to the preliminary screening technique in
Section 6 — Priority Determination. The user is discouraged from this course
in all but the most extreme situations because it bypasses most of the OSC's
judgment and is applied in a generalized manner based upon many assumptions.
This sensitivity rating system is applied to both threatened areas and
affected areas because (1) their vulnerability to oil contamination is the
same, and (2) the rating is based on area characteristics before the spill.
The area values are divided into 16 categories as follows:
• environmental values
- water quality degradation
- biological productivity
- ecological significance
- unique habitat uses
- ecological vulnerability
25
-------
• aesthetic values
- scenic quality
- visual impact
- local appreciation
• economic values
- income or use reduction
- natural resource damage
- replacement and restoration costs
• social water use values
- purpose of use
- effect of oil on use
- degree of direct contact
- amount of use
- treatment present before use of water
Even though the ratings for these area values are based on before-the-
spill conditions, most of the ratings are dependent upon the amount and type
of oil spilled. This relationship is found in the matrix in Table 4.
SENSITIVITY RATING OF AREAS (STEP F)
Environmental Values (Step Fl)
Environmental values are based on the importance of natural ecosystems.
An oil spill can produce drastic short-term effects and/or subtle long-term
effects upon the ecology of an area. Because water systems exposed to chronic
or frequent petroleum pollution will not exhibit the same sensitivities as an
unspoiled area, environmental sensitivities are based upon the conditions of
the potentially affected area before the spill.
Environmental values are extremely complex because of the interactions of
an ecosystem's physical, chemical, and biological components as well as the
highly variable interrelationships among populations within the area. Inputs
to the sensitivity rating can be determined relatively quickly through visual
reconnaissance and private and governmental sources. Some inputs are as
follows:
• baseline water quality data
• baseline biological data
• topographic and hydrographic shoreline data
• season of the year
• sediment structure and composition data
• productivity of area for fisheries or shellfish harvest
• presence of endangered species and rare or threatened species
26
-------
TABLE 4. EFFECT OF SPILL CHARACTERISTICS ON AREA SENSITIVITY VALUES
AESTHFTriC
VALUES
ENVIBCNMEKEAL
EOCNCMC
SOCIAL WATER USE
to
-j
OIL TVTPE
AND MOUNT
Minor
Median
Major
Minor
Median
Major
Minor
Median
Major
0+
0+
Soy
ri
.d
+++ +-H-
o = No effect
+ = Slight increased adverse effect
++ = Moderate increased adverse effect
-H-+ = Great increased adverse effect
* Independent of oil spill characteristics
'o1
-------
• use of area for scientific research
• diversity of habitats (for example, amount of mud flats, salt marshes,
etc., within an area)
• presence of large mammals (for example, whales or sea lions)
• public and political concern for wildlife
• presence of legally mandated protection areas (for example, waterfowl
sanctuaries and refuges)
• presence of aquaculture sites
• presence of area used for harvesting seaweed (for example, kelp beds)
• presence of stabilizing vegetation
The OSC should collect as much data as possible within time constraints
and apply it to the following environmental values:
• water quality degradation
• biological productivity
• ecological significance
• unique habitat uses
• ecological vulnerability
Table 5 presents a matrix of environmental values.
Water Quality Degradation Guidelines—
This value rates the reduction of water quality from oil contamination,
both chemical and physical, and the resulting stress upon organisms in the
aqueous environment. The rating depends upon the water quality of an area
before the spill since it is assumed that the most sensitive organisms would
inhabit the area with the highest water quality.
• Low (1): An area that has poor water quality, rendering it unfit for
any use because of siltation, organic wastes, or toxic pollution.
Example: grossly polluted lake.
• Moderate (2): An area that has fair or average water quality.
Example: urban river.
• High (3): An area that has good water quality or meets ambient water
standards. Example: man-made reservoir.
• Extreme (4): An area that has excellent water quality or meets drink-
ing water standards. Examples: mountainous trout stream.
Biological Productivity Guidelines—
The number and types of organisms that inhabit an area relate to the pro-
ductivity and determine the severity of the biological toxicity by oil pollu-
tion. Both the density (number of organisms, all species, per area) and the
diversity (number of species per area) are important in assigning a rating to
28
-------
TABLE 5. ENVIK3SIMENTAL VALUES
Tn/*n-e»ei rvr Cor«=-i 4-i xri f-*r
WATER QUALITY
CEGRADATICN
BIOLOGICAL
PRODUCTIVITY
ECOLOGICAL
SIGNIFICANCE
UNIQUE HABITAT
USES
ECOLOGICAL
VULNERABILITY
low
1
Poor water quality
before the spill so
that it is unfit
for any use.
Few species with
low productivity.
No food chain
importance; used
only for resting.
No unique uses
or endangered
species.
No physical
habitat modification
moderate high
2
Fair or average water
quality before the
spill.
Small populations of
significant organisms
but with low
productivity .
Little food chain
importance; used
for intermittent
feeding.
Unknown unique
uses and rare
endangered species
sightings.
Slight but reversible
habitat modification
3
Good water quality
before the spill
on the level of
ambient water
quality standards.
Large populations of
significant organisms
with moderate
seasonal productivity.
Moderate food
chain importance;
used for breeding
purposes.
Some unique uses
and frequent
endangered species
use.
Severe but
reversible habitat
extreme
4
Excellent water quality
before the spill on
the l
-------
an area. The assumption is made that the denser or more diverse the organisms
are, the more sensitive the area is. A highly productive habitat is also usu-
ally the source for repopulation of the surrounding areas. If such an area is
disrupted by oil contamination, a disproportionate part of the region's popu-
lations could be affected.
Significant biota to consider are (1) water fowl (including shorebirds,
diving birds, and swimming and surface feeding birds); (2) shellfish (clams,
oysters, scallops, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp); (3) finfish (marine, fresh-
water, and anadromous); (4) marine mammals (sea otters, whales, seals, and sea
lions); (5) terrestrial mammals (land otters, beavers, bears, muskrats, etc.);
and (6) aquatic plants (emergent, floating-leaved, submersed, free-floating).
Guidelines for sensitivity Ratings:
• Low (1): An area containing only a few species that may be abundant
but exhibiting low productivity. Example: rocky barren shorelines.
• Moderate (2): An area containing small populations of significant
organisms but exhibiting low productivity. Example: sand beach.
• High (3): An area containing large populations of significant organ-
isms but only moderate productive on a seasonal basis. Example:
seal rookeries.
• Extreme (4): An area exhibiting high productivity with high densi-
ties and diversity of significant organisms. Example: coral reefs.
Ecological Significance Guidelines—
The reason significant organisms use a particular habitat is extremely
important since it indicates the degree of potential contact with the oil. It
also directly relates to the duration of use by the organisms. If an area has
particular food chain importance, either ecological or human, its disruption
will affect not only area inhabitants but outside food chain consumers as well.
Any area where the destruction or disruption of juvenile forms or reproduction
cycles occurs is considered highly sensitive. This criterion is extremely de-
pendent upon seasonal variation, i.e., a tidal mud flat in winter will not be
as sensitive as in spring or summer since birds will not be feeding on it.
Guidelines for Sensitivity Ratings:
• Low (1): Organisms use the area only for resting or other intermit-
tent reasons and it has no direct food chain importance. Example:
tidal sand bar.
• Moderate (2): Organisms use the area for intermittent feeding or sea-
sonal habitation and it has little direct food chain importance.
Example: tidal mud flats.
• High (3): Organisms use the area for breeding purposes or inhabit it
on an annual basis and it has moderate food chain importance. Example:
waterfowl rookeries.
30
-------
• Extreme (4): Organisms use the area to complete their life cycles
because it has great food chain importance. Example: coral reefs.
Unique Habitat Uses Guidelines—
An area where endangered or threatened species inhabit, feed, or breed is
more sensitive than an area where the populations of significant organisms are
found over a wide range and in great abundance with good repopulation poten-
tial. Also, an area may be used for a unique purpose by certain significant
organisms such as haul-out locations for pinnepeds (seals, sea lions, and wal-
ruse) or waterfowl roosts.
Guidelines for Sensitivity Ratings:
• Low (1): An area that supports populations that exhibit an extremely
wide range (i.e., ubiquitous), with no endangered or threatened spe-
cies or unique uses present. Example: open ocean.
• ^federate (2): An area that supports populations that exhibit a wide
range but in a clumped distribution, with rare sightings of endangered
or threatened species and unknown unique uses present. Example: tidal
river.
• High (3): An area that supports populations that exhibit narrow ranges
with clumped distribution or with endangered or threatened species re-
ported frequently and some unique use occurs. Example: seal rookeries.
• Extreme (4): An area that supports populations that exhibit an ex-
tremely narrow range, i.e., contains endangered or threatened species
habitats. Example: endangered species habitat.
Ecological Vulnerability Guidelines—
Ihis value reflects the adverse physical modification to habitats that
may occur to an area from oil pollution. Habitat modification can happen
through (1) incorporation of oil into sediments, (2) coating of rock or sand
substrates, and (3) damage to protective shelter components (i.e., marsh grass).
This value depends greatly upon the spill factors (e.g., volume and oil type)
and significant organisms present.
All organisms do not exhibit the same response to oil pollution. There
are varying degrees of susceptibility that generally can be classified into
different sensitivities. This classification assumes all organisms within a
significant group exhibit the same responses regardless of species or fitness
of the individuals. This classification is only provided as a guideline and
is not absolute.
Guidelines for Sensitivity Ratings:
• Low (1): An area that contains no physical components that would be
adversely impacted so as to modify the habitats and contains:
- gastropods (snails)
- shorebirds (sandpipers, plovers, terns)
- phytoplankton (algae, diatoms)
31
-------
• Moderate (2): An area that would undergo slight and reversible habi-
tat modification or contains:
- finfish (marine, freshwater, anadromous)
- bilvalves (oysters, clams, scallops, mussels)
- cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises)
- zooplankton (copepods)
- perennial plants with tap roots such as cordgrass (Spartina), reeds
(Phragmites), spatter-docks (Nuphar), arrowheads (Sagittaria),
cattails (Typha), and rushes (Juncas)
- terrestrial mammals (land otters, beavers, bears, muskrats, foxes)
• High (3): An area that would undergo severe but reversible habitat
modification or contains:
- crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, shrimp, crayfish, barnacles)
- invertebrates (worms, sponges, insects, starfish)
- swimming and surface-feeding waterfowl (loons, grebes, ducks, geese)
- seals, sea lions, and manatees
- perennial plants without tap roots, such as buttonbush (Cephalan-
thus) and pickerelweeds (Ponterdevia)
• Extreme (4): An area that would undergo long-term severe habitat mod-
ification or contains:
- juvenile and larval forms of all animal species
- seedlings of all plant species
- diving ducks (scoters, eiders, long-tailed ducks)
- sea otters
- auks (murres, guillemots, puffins, razorbills)
- shallow-rooted plants (annuals)
Aesthetic Values (Step F2)
Aesthetically pleasing waters add to the quality of life by enhancing the
visual scene wherever they appear. Aesthetic values are highly site-specific
and often subjective, thus making the development of general guidelines
difficult.
Through visual reconnaissance and/or local citizen interviews, inputs into
the sensitivity rating can be obtained and will include:
• general topographic and hydrographic patterns of the surrounding area
• abundance and uses of water system present
• abundance and uses of surrounding land areas
• degree of urbanization present
• wilderness and unique features present
• season of the year and degree of area use
• local citizen opinions and desire to preserve the area
32
-------
Ihe OSC must weigh all these considerations and apply them to the three
aesthetic values:
• scenic quality of the area
• visual impact of oil in the area
• local appreciation of the area
In determining these criteria the OSC must depend heavily upon his prior
experience and professional judgment to accurately assess an area's aesthetic
sensitivity. Table 6 presents a matrix of aesthetic values.
Scenic Quality Guidelines—
This value is extremely subjective except in the most obvious situations.
It relates the visual quality of an area and perceived worth by the general
public.
• Low (1): An area with extremely low visual appeal or visual degrada-
tion, such as visibly polluted waters or disturbed landforms.
Example: industrialized urban river.
• Moderate (2): An area with low visual appeal or where only man-made
structures prevail (that is, no natural features). Example: channel-
ized stream.
• High (3): An area with typical or average visual appeal such as plain
or typical natural features. Example: rural man-made lake.
• Extreme (4): An area with unique natural features, beautiful vistas,
or wilderness qualities. Example: wildlife preserve pond.
Visual Impact Guidelines—
This value refers to the potential reduction of aesthetic quality and its
impact upon personal visual experiences by oil contamination. The visual im-
pact of an oil slick directly relates the relative use of the area and the
observer's ability to notice oil in the area.
• Low (1): An area where oil would be isolated and not seen by the gen-
eral public. Example: isolated dense wetland.
• Moderate (2) : An area where oil would be rarely noticed by the general
public either because of its relative isolation or because of low visi-
bility of the oil. Example: open harbor waters.
• High (3): An area where oil would be noticed by the general public.
Example: recreational lake.
• Extreme (4): An area where oil would be extremely obvious to the gen-
eral public. Example: resort beach.
Local Appreciation Guidelines—
This value is extremely site-specific and may be difficult to assess,
since it includes local appreciation and aspiration for the area. It also
33
-------
TABLE 6. AESTHETIC VALUES
co
SONIC QUALITY
VISUAL IMPACT
LOCftL
APPRECIATION
low moderate high extreme
123 4
Visual degradation
such as polluted
waters or disturbed
landfoims.
Oil isolated and
not usually seen.
No local appreciation
or concern for scenic
quality.
Low visual appeal
associated with
marinade features.
Oil rarely visible
because of limited
access.
Individual
appreciation or
concern only.
Moderate appeal
quality associated
with plain or
typical natural
features.
Oil frequently
visible because
of moderate area
use.
Some local group
appreciation or
concern.
High visual appeal
associated with unique
or outstanding natural
features.
Oil highly visible
because of extensive
area use.
Strong local appreciation
or concern with pressure
to protect areas.
-------
considers any historic sites, amount of site use, site access to water, and
surrounding land uses of the area.
• Low (1): An area that generates no local appreciation or concern for
its scenic qualities. Example: local land disposal site.
• Moderate (2): An area that generates only individual concern or appre-
ciation for its scenic qualities. Example: private isolated water-
front property.
• High (3): An area that generates local group appreciation or concern
for its scenic qualities. Example: residential developed ocean
property.
• Extreme (4): An area that generates strong local group and/or indi-
vidual appreciation or concern for its scenic qualities. Example:
nature area with historic sites present.
Economic Values (Step F3)
Damage to an area that disrupts the economic balance is highly localized,
and the primary victims are typically residents, tourists, and those who de-
pend upon water for their income. Evaluating potentially damaged resources
can be time-consuming, but if the OSC understands them he will be able to ap-
ply some of the techniques. Some methods, which are usually used for after-
the-spill damage assessments, are as follows:
• Public perception of resource value — TMs is usually accomplished by
direct interviews with local residents to determine the perceived im-
portance of the resources within an area. Ihis is similar to the av-
erage market value of a resource.
• Non-market value of resource — This is determined by the value of non-
market goods and services that can be inferred from an analysis of
market transactions. For example, the value of a public beach may be
inferred from the rental rates for private beaches in the same geo-
graphical area.
• Replacement costs — These are costs of replacing a structure or re-
storing an area, even though an area may not be restored because of
more important priorities.
Possible inputs are:
• type and number of persons dependent upon the area for their livelihood
• daily income of these persons
• degree of support services for these persons
• length of time resource would be unusable
• type and amount of area use that would be decreased
35
-------
• planned future uses for the area
• total economic impact on overall area
The OSC must weigh all these considerations and apply them to the three
economic values: (1) income or use reduction, (2) natural resource damage,
and (3) replacement or restoration costs. Table 7 presents a matrix of econ-
omic values.
Income or Use Reduction Guidelines—
This value considers the total loss or reduction of either direct income
or area use by oil contamination.
• Low (1): An area that would exhibit no loss or reduction of income or
use resulting from oil contamination. Example: open ocean.
• Moderate (2): An area that would exhibit a slight loss or reduction
of income or use because of oil contamination. Example: private fish-
ing pond.
• High (3): An area that would exhibit a moderate total loss or reduc-
tion of income or use because of oil contamination. Example: recre-
ational lake.
• Extreme (4): An area that would exhibit high total loss or reduction
of income or use as a result of oil contamination. Example: resort
beach.
Natural Resource Damage Guidelines—
This value is closely related to income or use reduction, but considers
the long-term damage to renewable and non-renewable resources by oil contam-
ination. Any resource or reserve that is currently being used or may be used
in the future should be considered. Both the importance of the resource and
the magnitude of the possible damage must be considered to rate the sensitive
area taking into account both short-term depletion and long-term degradation
(for example, tainting of seafood).
• Low (1): An area that exhibits no resource damage resulting from oil
contamination. Example: arctic shoreline.
• Moderate (2) : An area that exhibits slight resource damage with com-
plete recovery potential. Example: tuna fishery.
• High (3): An area that exhibits moderate resource damage with only
partial recovery potential. Example: clam beds.
• Extreme (4): An area that exhibits high resource damage with little
recovery potential. Example: valuable crab dredging area.
Replacement or Restoration Costs Guidelines—
This value considers both the replacement cost for physical structures
damaged by oil contamination and complete or partial restoration costs for a
36
-------
TABLE 7. ECONOMIC VALUES
CO
low moderate high extreme
123 4
INOOC OR USE
REDUCTION
NKTURAL RESOURCE
DAMACE
FEPLflCEMENT AND
FESTORATICN
COSTS
No income or use
reduction
potential.
No resource damage.
Only natural
restoration
necessary.
Slight income or
use loss or
reduction.
Slight resource
damage or
degradation.
Minimal replace-
ment or restora-
tion required
with natural
actions.
Moderate income or
use reduction or
loss.
Moderate resource
damage or
degradation.
Moderate replace-
ment or restora-
tion required
with natural
actions.
Total income or use
loss.
Severe resource
damage or
degradation.
Extreme replacement
or restoration
required without
natural actions.
-------
natural or developed area. If an area or structure can be naturally restored
by wind and water actions, the costs are essentially nonexistent. Only costs
for manpower and equipment are to be considered.
• Low (1): An area that would not require restoration or replacement of
structures by man after oil contamination. Example: open ocean.
• Itoderate (2): An area that would require minimal replacement of
structures or restoration. Example: sailboat marina.
• High (3): An area that would require moderate replacement of struc-
tures or restoration. Example: wildlife reserve.
• Extreme (4): An area that would require extensive replacement of
structures or restoration or an area that cannot be restored by man.
Example: waterfowl rookeries.
Social Water Use Values (Step F4)
Other values that determine the relative importance of sensitive water
use are composed of two general categories: consumptive uses and nonconsump-
tive uses. Consumptive use is defined as the portion of the withdrawal from
a water source not directly returned to the water source. Nonconsumptive use
is defined as the use of a water source for a purpose that does not consume
water (that is, withdrawal equals return).
This type of information can be obtained through visual reconnaissance
and individual interviews, and only general guidelines are presented here.
Ihe guidelines below will aid the OSC in assessing the social water use
values:
• purpose of use
• effect of oil on use
• degree of direct contact
• amount of use
• treatment present before use of water
Table 8 presents a matrix of social water use values.
Purpose of Water Use Guidelines—
This value considers the purpose of water use when withdrawn for consump-
tive use. It assumes that water for direct human consumption is more sensitive
than water for non-human consumption.
• Low (1) : The water is used for non-drinking purposes without direct
contact. Example: ground water recharge.
• I-fcderate (2): The water is used for non-drinking purposes but with
some direct contact. Example: washing clothes or automobiles.
38
-------
TABLE 8. SOCIAL WATER USE VALUES
Increasing Sensitivity -
CO
10
PURPOSE OF
USE
EFFECT ON
USE
CEGREE OF
DIRECT CONTACT
AMXJNT OF
USE
TPEA3MMT PRESENT
BEFORE USE
low
1
Non-drinking/
no direct contact.
No effect.
None.
<100 gallons per
day or <100m2
surface area.
Physiochanical.
moderate
2
high
3
Non-drinking/
direct contact.
Some effect but
no change.
Minimal.
<5,000 gallons per
day or <1,000m2
surface area.
Chemical.
extreme
4
Non-drinking/
irrigation or
industrial use.
Great effect but
use still possible.
Some.
<100,000 gallons
per day or <10,000m2
surface area.
Physical.
Drinking water supply.
Unfit for any use.
Total (i.e. , submersion).
>100,000 gallons per day
or >10,000m2 surface
area.
No treatment.
-------
• High (3): The water is used for non-drinking purposes such as indus-
trial or irrigation uses. Example: crop irrigation.
• Extreme (4): The water is used for human or animal drinking water
supply. Example: municipal water supply.
Effect of Oil on Use Guidelines—
This value relates the contamination of the water resource to the ability
of the user to use the oil/water mixture without harm or adverse impacts. It
assumes that some water uses will be affected by the presence of oil, while
some water uses will not.
• Low (1): The presence of oil does not affect area uses of water.
Example: motor boating.
• Moderate (2): The presence of oil will affect the area uses to some
degree, but not enough to cause concern. Example: fishing.
• High (3): The presence of oil will affect the area use to a great
degree, but use is still possible. Example: industrial cooling water.
• Extreme (4): The presence of oil would make an area unfit for use of
any kind. Example: drinking water.
Degree of Direct Contact Involved in Water Use Guidelines—
This value relates the degree of direct contact (human or animal) that
occurs when the area is used for any purpose. It assumes that the more direct
contact of oil with biological organisms, the more potential for adverse
impact.
• Low (1): The users do not have direct contact with the oil/water mix-
ture. Example: power generation intake.
• Moderate (2): The users have minimal direct contact with the oil/water
mixture. Example: motor boating.
• High (3): The users have some direct contact with the oil/water mix-
ture. Example: fishing or sailing.
• Extreme (4): The users have total direct contact (that is, submersion)
in the oil/water mixture. Example: swinming or water skiing.
Amount of Water Use Guidelines—
This value assumes that the more water used, the greater the potential
for damage. This is either total surface area used for nonconsumptive pur-
poses (for example, swimming) or total volume used from an area.
• Low (1): The area is used to supply a minimal volume (less than 100
gallons or 380 liters per day) of water or a small surface area is
present (less than 100 m2). Example: private water supply.
• Moderate (2): The area is used to supply a small volume (less than
40
-------
5,000 gallons or 19,000 liters per day) of water or a moderate surface
area is present (less than 1,000 m2). Example: small irrigation
intake.
• High (3): The area is used to supply a large volume (less than 100,000
gallons or 380,000 liters per day) of water or a large surface area is
present (less than 10,000 m2). Example: small domestic water supply.
• Extreme (4): The area is used to supply a great volume (more than
100,000 gallons or 380,000 liters per day) of water or an extremely
large surface area is present (more than 10,000 m.2). Example: indus-
trial process water.
Treatment Present Before Use of Water Guidelines—
This value assumes that if treatment is present before use, no adverse
impacts will occur to the user.
• Low (1) : The water treatment before use is equivalent to tertiary
treatment. Example: physiochemical treatment (that is, carbon filtra-
tion) .
• Moderate (2): The water treatment before use is equivalent to secon-
dary treatment. Example: chemical treatment (that is, precipitation).
• High (3): The water treatment before use is equivalent to primary
treatment. Example: physical treatment (that is, sedimentation).
• Extreme (4): No water treatment is present before use. Example: raw
water use.
OUTSIDE CONSIDERATIONS (STEP F5)
During a spill incident, factors external to actual spill dynamics and
area values may affect the spill response and the order of priorities. These
are (1) political pressures, (2) public pressures, and (3) time restrictions.
The rating format is identical to that for sensitivity values, as shown in
the matrix in Table 9. Rating the outside considerations should be performed
after the area sensitivities are known. The OSC must be aware of their exis-
tence because while sometimes difficult to detect, they may heavily influence
spill response patterns. Ideally, outside considerations should all rate low
(1), but situations can arise where this will not be true.
Political Pressure Guidelines
Pressure resulting from non-cooperation or influential requests may alter
the OSC's plan for handling a spill incident. This external pressure may be
exerted by local, regional, county, state, or Federal enforcement officials or
other influential parties. While cooperation is the norm, and enforcement per-
sonnel will concur most of the time, this value allows for those incidents
where cooperation is not available or where political pressure dictates a dif-
ferent response than originally planned.
41
-------
TABLE 9. OUTSIDE CONSIDERATIONS
INCREASING MAGNITUDE
low moderate high extreme
123 4
POLITICAL PRESSURE Either high level
of cooperation,
or low level of
objection. No
pressure for
selected area.
PUBLIC PRESSURE No public inter-
est.
TIME RESTRICTIONS Can take as long
as is necessary.
Some cooperation,
or some objection.
Sane pressure for
selected area.
Some public pres-
sure; strong
individual pres-
sure.
Some time restric-
tions but not
requiring 24 hour
effort.
Little cooperation
or high objection.
Moderate pressure
for selected area.
Moderate public
pressure; high
public awareness.
Some time restric-
tions requiring
24 hour effort.
No cooperation - strong
objection. Strong pressure
for selected area.
Strong public pressure and
private interest group
concern.
Severe time restrictions.
-------
• Low (1): An area where either there is good cooperation or no objec-
tion to response activities. Also, there is no outside pressure for
action from interested parties.
• Moderate (2): An area where there is reluctant cooperation or some
objection but insufficient pressure to interfere with spill response
efforts. However, there is some pressure to perform actions from
interested parties.
• High (3): An area that generates little cooperation in other areas,
some objection, and moderate external pressure for action, which might
interfere with spill response efforts.
• Extreme (4): An area that generates negative cooperation (that is,
obstruction of duties) in other areas, organized objections, and
strong external pressure for actions that interfere with the spill
response efforts.
Public Pressure Guidelines
Public awareness of oil pollution and public interests may be of impor-
tance during an oil spill response. The public may include affected parties
such as land owners or boat owners, groups of concerned citizens, organized
environmental groups, and industrial companies.
An area may be rated high based upon the public reaction and demand for
imrnsdiate and complete cleanup. Alternatively, an area may be of special sig-
nificance to an individual or group. This value is extremely spill- and site-
specific. It may be difficult to determine at the onset of a spill response,
and only become obvious after adequate public or private interest has been
generated by the spill.
• Low (1): An area that does not generate public interest (that is,
indifference) or no special interests are involved.
• Moderate (2): An area that generates some public awareness but mini-
mal pressure for action and only individual interests are strong.
• High (3): An area that generates moderate public pressure and private
interest group concern.
• Extreme (4): An area that generates strong public pressure and pri-
vate interest group concern.
Time Restrictions Guidelines
Time is a possible constraint and may play an influential role in the
spill response. Although an OSC always tries to handle a spill response in a
timsly manner, some circumstances dictate extraordinary actions or methods.
• Low (1): Time plays no role in the spill response efforts.
43
-------
• Moderate (2): There are some time restrictions, such as opening a
harbor to traffic, but none that require additional manpower or extra
shifts seven days a week.
• High (3): There are some time and manpower restrictions that have an
effect on the spill response efforts. For example, when there are two
spill incidents and insufficient personnel, when there is a spill af-
fecting a resort beach during peak season, or when a highly sensitive
area is threatened.
• Extreme (4): There is a severe shortage of time that dictates using
more manpower and/or equipment than would normally be used. Examples
are an oil spill occurring just prior to a long holiday weekend in a
resort area that depends on the weekend for financial stability, or a
spill occurring when a drastic weather change is projected, or a spill
that endangers an extremely sensitive area.
Other Outside Considerations
The two other outside considerations that may be of concern to the OSC
are (1) legal pressure and constraints, and (2) the news media. Neither of
these can be defined well enough to adequately rate them numerically for all
situations. Therefore, they are discussed so that the OSC is aware of them
and he may alter his priorities because of them if he deems them important
enough.
• Legal pressure and constraints can be introduced into a spill situa-
tion when certain laws or local regulations hamper response efforts.
These include: (1) trespassing, (2) injunctive actions, (3) non-
response from spiller, and (4) conflicting regulatory jurisdictions.
Even though the OSC duties are legally mandated, legal pressures may
arise, and the OSC must be able to deal with them.
• The news media may enter any spill situation. In gathering informa-
tion about the spill, the press may either cooperate with the OSC or
may be overly persistent and even interfere with the spill response.
Reporters even potentially endanger themselves, members of the spill
response team, or the response itself. Therefore, the OSC must con-
trol press activities and provide updated truthful press releases and
interviews when necessary.
44
-------
SECTION 6
PRIORITY DETERMINATIONS
INTRODUCTION
In determining protection and cleanup priorities, problems and conflicts
will frequently arise. Equipment, manpower, time, and other needed resources
are usually limited, especially in the early phases of an oil spill, making it
impossible to devote equal effort to all areas simultaneously. Hopefully, in
a minor spill (less than 1000 U.S. gallons or 24 bbl) situation, the majority
of the areas can be protected and cleaned up concurrently. However, the larg-
er the spill, either in volume or area covered, the larger the potentially
affected areas. This results in decreased ability of the OSC to gather and
allocate resources to address adequately all necessary control and counter-
measures.
The OSC has the primary responsibility to decice which threatened areas
should be protected and in what order they should receive attention. This is
the first priority. Cleaning up already contaminated areas is a secondary
consideration.
Decisions made by the OSC must be based on information that is accurate,
detailed, complete, updated, and unbiased. In addition, it must be gathered
and assessed quickly and efficiently.
This section provides a systematic approach to the establishment of pri-
ority actions. It includes:
• a preliminary, quick-screening mechanism to be used when time is
extremely limited
• a numerical rating system to be used to determine the relative sensi-
tivities (including the outside considerations) of all areas under
investigation
• the establishment of protection priorities for threatened areas
• the establishment of cleanup priorities for affected areas.
PRIORITY SCREENING
In certain spill situations, a need arises for a quick preliminary over-
view of the entire potentially affected region. This may be because of (1)
severely limited time resulting from late arrival on scene, (2) the large
45
-------
number of areas in the region involved, or (3) inadequate information on areas
for the decision-making process. This screening system is based solely on the
known sensitive components of the environment that are likely to be encountered
in an oil spill response. It assumes constants such as (1) all areas will be
damaged equally if affected, (2) a non-relative classification of extreme sen-
sitivity or no sensitivity, and (3) all values (that is, economic and ecologi-
cal) are of equal importance to the affected communities. For these reasons
and others, this screening system should not replace the more flexible and
accurate numerical rating process.
The OSC should realize that if this screening system is used to estab-
lish priorities, a complete reassessment using the numerical rating system
should be performed when conditions permit. This will ensure that correct
priorities were established and that the effects of the oil spill were mini-
mized as much as possible.
The following values make an area extremely sensitive to oil contamin-
ation. Any area under investigation that exhibits one or more of these values
is considered a priority area. The more values it has, the more sensitive it
is. The OSC must rely on his experience and judgment in deciding which values
are more important on a spill-specific basis.
Environmental Values
• any area with excellent water quality that would experience habitat
modification for up to one year
- trout streams
- coral reefs
- sand beaches
- tidal mud flats
- salt marshes
- maitmal rookeries
- areas of beach stabilizing vegetation
Ecological Values
• any area that exhibits a high diversity of permanent residents, such
as juvenile or larval forms, seedlings, diving ducks, auks or sea
otters
• any area that is highly productive with a complex food web having
man as the top consumer
• any area that supports endangered species
- rare, threatened, endangered, or protected species habitat
- waterfowl rookeries
- mangrove swamp
- eelgrass beds
- fisheries
- shellfish harvesting area
46
-------
- coral reef
- mammal calving ground
- kelp beds
Aesthetic Value
any extensively used area with unique natural features, beautiful vis-
tas, or wilderness qualities where oil would be highly visible and
would generate strong local concern
- archaeological study area
- tribal fishing area
- historical site
- observation site in parklands
- views from major highways
- reserves, preserves, and other legally protected areas
- state parks and beaches
- Federal parks and wilderness lands
- resort beaches
Economic Values
any area that would undergo extensive resource damage that would re-
sult in great or total loss of income or use
any area that would require extensive structural replacements or land
restoration
- heavily harvested fisheries or shellfish bed
- marinas and boat harbors
- recreational beaches
- resort beaches
- endangered species habitat
- recreational lake
- industrial process water intake
- aquaculture areas
Social Values
• any area that is used for large non-consumptive water use where direct
contact (for example, submersion) occurs and oil would render it
unusable
• any area that is used as a human or animal drinking water supply with
no prior treatment
- cooling water intakes
- process water intakes
- domestic and irrigation water supply
- swimming, skiing, or surfing beaches
If no extremely sensitive areas are ascertained from the screening process,
47
-------
the user should proceed to the numerical rating system to find the relative
sensitivities of the areas investigated.
NUMERICAL RATING SYSTEM
The values in Section 3 have been developed to simplify the decision-
making process used by the OSC during an oil spill emergency response. These
values allow for variability in the subjective judgments of individual OSCs
during an oil spill incident. The two aspects of a spill incident to which
these values apply are as follows:
• environmental (Step Fl), aesthetic (Step F2), economic (Step F3), and
social (Step F4) entities of an area
• outside considerations (Step F5)
The relative sensitivity range of these values is from one (1) (least
sensitive: most tolerant) to four (4) (most sensitive: least tolerant). The
four levels of sensitivity are described below. A zero (0) can also be as-
signed when the value in question does not apply to the area being rated; for
example, an area may not have any water uses or any significant population.
0 low (1) moderate (2) high (3) extreme (4)
If the user does not have enough knowledge of a particular value to make
a sound judgment, he may arbitrarily assign a one (1) assuming a low level of
sensitivity. This will tend to lower the overall sensitivity of the area,
thus indicating the lack of obvious sensitive components in that area.
The "Sensitivity Rating Worksheet" (Table 10) can be used to rate areas
for all values. The mathematics are fairly straightforward, but the use of a
calculator will simplify and speed up the process. The following steps are
to be used:
Rating of Sensitivity Values (Steps F1-F4)
• Rate each value from zero (0) to four (4) depending upon the area's
sensitivity. It is advisable to rate more than one area at a time
since it is easier to make comparative judgments than single esti-
mates of sensitivity.
• Add the numbers for each section toget her to get a section subtotal.
• Add all these subtotals for all sections to derive the total sensitiv-
ity rating for an area. The possible range of values is from 0 to 64.
The higher this total sensitivity rating, the more sensitive the area
is to oil contamination.
Rating of Outside Considerations (Step F5)
• Rate each value from zero (0) to four (4) depending upon the degree of
48
-------
TABLE 10. SENSITIVITY RATING WORKSHEET (STEP F)
VALUES
STEP Fl ENVIRONMENTAL
• Water Quality
Degradation
• Biological
Productivity
• Unique Habitat
Uses
• EoologicaL
Vulnerability
Fl Subtotal
STEP F2 AESTHETIC
• Scenic Quality
• Visual Inpact
• Local
Appreciation
F2 Subtotal
STEP F3 ECONOMIC
• Income or
Use Reduction
• Natural Resource
Damage
• Replacement/
Restoration Costs
F3 Subtotal
STEP F4 SOCIAL
• Purpose of
Use
• Effect of Oil
• Degree of
Direct Contact
• Amount of Use
• Treatment Before
Use
F4 Subtotal
TOTAL SENSITIVITY
RATING
Rating
Range
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-20
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-20
0-64
SENSITIVE AREAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
-------
outside pressure present for each area using Table 11.
Modified Total Area Sensitivity Eating (Step F6)
• Outside considerations are rated to modify or reorder the previously
established sensitivities by adding the outside consideration rating
to the area sensitivity rating from Steps F1-F4 in Table 11.
Modified Total Area Sensitivity Ranking (Step G)
• The modified total sensitivity rating for each area is ranked 1 through
8 (variable) in order of decreasing sensitivity on Table 11.
• Use modified total sensitivity rankings to establish priorities for
both protection and cleanup actions.
PROTECTION PRIORITIES
After the relative sensitivities have been determined by use of the rank-
ing system in Step G, the establishment of protection priorities should be
performed. The protection of uncontaminated areas should be performed before
any cleanup effort is applied to previously affected areas. This strategy
will ensure that the adverse impacts from the oil spill will be minimized as
much as possible.
Decision-making involves four basic components:
TABLE 11. AREA. SENSITIVITY RANKING
VALUES
STEP F5 OUTSIDE
CONSIDERATIONS
• Political
Pressure
• Public
Pressure
• Time
Restrictions
F5 Subtotal
TOTAL SENSITIVITY
[F1-F4]
STEP F6 TOTAL MODIFIED
SENSITIVITY
STEP G SENSITIVITY
RANKING
Rating
Range
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-64
0-76
(1-8)
SENSITIVE AREAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
-------
• area sensitivity rating (Steps F1-F4)
• outside considerations (Step F5)
• predicted order of contamination (Step H)
• ability of the area to cleanse itself (vulnerability index) (Step I)
Ihe first two components have previously been discussed in detail. The
combined rating for components [modified total sensitivity rating (Step G)] is
used together with the predicted order of contamination (Step H) and the area
vulnerability index (Step I) to determine protection priorities.
Predicted Order of Contamination (Step H)
The predicted order of contamination of the sensitive areas is determined
by the use of the spill dynamics discussed in Section 3. By applying this in-
formation and plotting the spill areas (Section 4) on a topographic map of
sufficient detail, an estimation of the temporal order of contamination can be
determined. The areas should be ranked as to which will be affected first (1),
second (2), third (3), etc., if no protective countermeasures are employed. If
two or more areas will be affected at approximately the same time, because of
proximity or a fast-moving slick, the same rating can be given to all. These
ratings are applied to the protection priority determination method under
Step H in Table 13.
Area Vulnerability Index (Step I)
This index is based primarily on the relative persistence of spilled oil
within each of 12 physical environments assuming only natural cleaning actions.
The persistence of the oil is based on these factors: (1) the nature of the
sediments (that is, relative grain size), (2) the energy of the nearshore
processes, and (3) the general local climate. A rating of 0.5 indicates the
oil will persist for many years, whereas a ranking of 6.0 means natural clean-
up will occur rapidly.
Table 12 (modified from Gundlach and Hayes, 1978) shows the vulnerability
index for the most common area types based on the shoreline components encoun-
tered in a spill response. The OSC should determine which component is the
most dominant within the area and assign ratings accordingly. The area vulner-
ability index for each area is rated and recorded in Step I of the priority
determination chart in Table 13.
Priority Determination (Step J)
The final determination of protection priorities involves the summing of
all the previously obtained ratings for (1) Step G - modified total sensitiv-
ity (including outside consideration), (2) Step H - predicted order of contam-
ination, and (3) Step I - the area vulnerability index. This is a straight-
forward process and should be performed using Table 13.
This system should be used by the OSC to allocate resources to areas with
51
-------
TABLE 12. AREA VULNERABILITY INDEX (STEP I)
ui
Vulnerability
Index
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Components
Open waters.
Exposed rocky head-
lands of man-made
structures.
Eroding wave-cut
platforms.
Flat, fine-grained
sand beaches.
Steeper, coarse-
grained sand
beaches.
Exposed, compacted
tidal flats.
Mixed sand and
gravel beaches.
Gravel beaches.
Coral reef.
Sheltered rocky
coasts.
Sheltered tidal
flats.
Salt marshes and
mangroves.
Persistence
Few days.
Few days to
a few weeks.
Few days to
a few weeks.
1-6 months.
1-6 months.
Less than
1 year.
Less than
1 year.
1-8 years.
Variable.
1-8 years.
Mare than 10
years.
More than 10
years.
Comments
Waves and currents will dissipate oil sufficiently.
Wave reflection keeps most of the oil off-shore.
Wave-swept. Mast oil removed by natural processes
within weeks.
If oil penetrates into the sediment it may persist
several months.
Oil may sink and/or be buried rapidly, making clean-
up difficult. Under moderate to high energy condi-
tions, oil will be removed naturally within months
from most of the beachface.
Mast oil will not adhere to, nor penetrate into, the
compacted tidal flat.
Oil may undergo rapid penetration and burial, tipper
moderate to low energy conditions, oil nay persist
a year.
Same as above. A solid asphalt pavement may form
under heavy oil accumulations.
Corals either exposed or near the surface would suf-
fer greatest damage.
Areas of reduced wave action. Oil may persist for
many years.
Areas of great biologic activity and low wave
energy. Oil may persist for years. These areas
should receive priority protection by using booms
or oil sorbent materials.
Mast productive of aquatic environments. Oil may
persist for years. Protection of these environments
by booms or sorbent material should receive first
priority.
U.S. Analogs
California, Oregon, southeast
Alaska.
Maine, Washington.
South Carolina barrier
islands
Outer Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras.
Georgia estuaries, New
estuaries .
Most Alaskan beaches.
Maine, New Hampshire.
England
Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands.
Maine, southeast Alaska
.
South Carolina estuaries.
East Coast estuaries.
(Modified from Gundlach and Hayes, 1978, and Michel, Hayes, and Brown, 1978.)
-------
TABLE 13. PROTECTION PRIORITY DETERMINATION (STEP J)
Step G Step H Step I Step J
Protection
Identified Total Area Predicted Area Priority
Threatened Sensitivity + Order of + Vulnerability = Ranking
Areas Ranking Contamination Index (F, H, + I)
Area A
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Area F
Area G
Area H
the lowest numerical ranking first. As soon as these high-priority areas are
adequately protected, the effort should proceed to lower priority areas. If
an area is ranked at the higher end of the scale it is (1) least sensitive,
(2) least difficult to clean up, and (3) last to be contaminated (if at all).
The OSC must decide if he should protect such areas at all or should allocate
resources to cleanup operations in contaminated areas.
Priorities assigned to protection actions are based on the following
logical decisions:
• An area may be more sensitive but still can be ranked lower than a
less sensitive area. For example, if oil will not contaminate the
area for a while, efforts should first be directed to less sensitive
areas that can be protected relatively quickly, then applied to the
more sensitive area.
• An area that is first to be contaminated may receive a lower ranking
because of its low sensitivity. The main effort should, therefore,
be directed to more sensitive areas since the effort involved to pro-
tect the first affected area may not be worth the benefit received or
timely enough to protect it fully.
• If two or more areas receive the same priority ranking, the OSC should
place a higher priority on the more sensitive areas.
53
-------
• Since this is a relative scale, if one area shows a drastic difference
in sensitivity or time of impact, or area vulnerability over all other
areas, these priority rankings should be adjusted.
CLEANUP PRIORITIES
After all threatened areas have been adequately protected, the spill
dynamics must be reassessed to confirm that no additional areas will be con-
taminated because (1) the total spill volume is inadequate to spread further,
(2) the wind and current have ceased spreading oil, (3) no more areas are
within the spill trajectory, or (4) oil is sufficiently dissipated to render
damage potential negligible. The main effort must now focus on cleaning up
the already affected zones. The general order of priorities should be as
follows:
1. Clean the heavily oiled waters surrounding protected sensitive areas
to ensure continued protection.
2. Clean all sensitive areas that have been contaminated.
3. Clean heavily oiled open waters (if possible).
4. Clean nonsensitive contaminated areas, if present.
This sequence of actions will apply to most spill situations, but the OSC
may have to reorder cleanup priorities because of such factors as:
• the presence of an extremely sensitive area that has undergone heavy
contamination prior to implementation of protective measures
• abrupt and drastic changes in spill dynamics because of weather
conditions
• lack of proper equipment to perform specific area cleanup
• inadequate protection countermeasures
• infeasibility of open water cleanup
• recurrence or continuation of spill
• outside influences that alter in-field priorities
Cleanup activities should take place only when it will help to minimize
the ecological impacts of a spill on a sensitive area. Some biologically sen-
sitive areas such as salt marshes and mangroves swamps will be impacted more
by cleanup activities than the presence of oil. The natural cleanup (that is,
no man-induced activities) should always be considered. More guidance on
natural restoration is given in Section 9.
54
-------
Factors Affecting the Cleanup Process
Factors affecting the cleanup process include (1) the modified total area
sensitivity, (2) the degree of contamination, (3) the vulnerability or self-
cleaning ability of the area, and (4) the wave energy of the surrounding
waters. Ihe area sensitivity and the vulnerability are rated exactly the same
as the protection priority determinations. Obviously, the same areas will not
be rated for both protection and cleanup if the protection methods are effec-
tive. The degree of contamination and the wave energy index are unique to the
establishment of cleanup priorities since both determine the level of manpower
effort required.
Degree of Contamination (Step P)
The degree of oil contamination of an area depends upon (1) the total
surface oiled, (2) the thickness of the oil coating or slick, and (3) the
depth of penetration on land surface or in the water column. Since cleanup
actions may be necessary on land surfaces as well as water bodies, both are
rated in Table 14. More than one area should be rated simultaneously since it
is a relative rating scale.
TABLE 14. DEGREE OF CONTAMINATION (STEP P)
Rating For Land Area For Water Area
1 very heavily oiled; deep thick oil slick (>2 ym); dark
penetration (>25 cm). brown in color.
2 heavily oiled; some pene- continuous slick (>1 ym); dull
tration (>10 cm). colors.
3 moderately oiled; slight pockets of oil (>0.2 ym); bright
penetration (>0.3on). colors.
4 slightly oiled; only minor thin film of oil (<0.2 ym) ;
surface penetration (<0.3 cm). slight traces of color.
5 very minor oiling; only on barely visible as sheen on water
surface. surface.
Wave Energy Index (Step Q)
The wave energy index is based on (1) the height of the waves (dependent
on current and wind speed), (2) angle of wave fronts, and (3) the relative
degree of shelter present. This index is mainly developed for land surfaces
adjacent to water bodies but can also be used for open water situations for
conditions present at the time of cleanup. There are three general levels of
classification, and these are described in Table 15.
55
-------
TABLE 15. WAVE ENERGY INDEX (STEP Q)
Rating Wave Energy Area Description
1 low few or no waves, <0.3 m (0-1 ft); sheltered
from direct waves; waves at angles.
2 medium moderate waves, 0.3-1 m (1-3 ft); partially
sheltered; waves either direct or at an
angle.
3 high high waves, >1 m (>3 ft); unsheltered;
direct waves.
Priority Determination
The final determination of cleanup priorities involves summing all pre-
viously obtained ratings for (1) modified total area sensitivity (Step G),
(2) the degree of contamination (Step P), (3) the area vulnerability index
(Step I), and (4) the wave energy index (Step Q). This is a straightforward
process and should be performed using Table 16.
This priority ranking should be used as a guide for the OSC in allocating
resources to top-priority areas. After these areas have been adequately
cleaned up (see Section 10 for guidelines), the lower priority areas should be
assessed to see if cleanup is necessary. These low-priority areas are (1)
least sensitive, (2) least contaminated, (3) least vulnerable, and (4) possess
high wave energy. The OSC should determine (with the guidelines in Section 9)
if these areas require attention. In some cases the best action is no action.
Assigning priorities for cleanup action should rely on the following
logical decisions:
• An area may be more sensitive but can rank lower than a less sensitive
area because of less contamination or higher natural cleansing action.
• An area may be the more contaminated but rank lower than a less con-
taminated area because it is less sensitive or has higher natural
cleansing action.
• An area that has the highest natural cleansing potential may be ranked
higher than a low energy system because of greater sensitivity or
higher contamination.
• If two or more areas receive the same priority ranking, the OSC should
place a higher priority on the more sensitive areas.
• Since this is a relative scale, if one area shows a drastic difference
in sensitivity, degree of contamination, vulnerability, or wave energy,
56
-------
TABLE 16. CLEANUP PRIORITIES DETERMINATION (STEP R)
(Step G) (Step P) (Step I) (Step Q)
Identified Total Area Degree of Area Vul- Wave
Affected Sensitivity + Contam- + nerability + Energy =
Areas Ranking ination Index Index
Area A
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Area F
Area G
Area H
(Step R)
Priority
Ranking
(Steps G +
P + I + Q)
over all others, priority rankings should reflect this and be
adjusted so that differences are taken into account.
After the cleanup priorities have been established, the OSC must deter-
mine the best practical cleanup systems available. Guidelines for this are
found in Section 9.
57
-------
SECTION 7
BEST PRACTICAL CONTAINMENT METHODS (STEP D)
INTRODUCTION
Containment measures are the first actions taken during an oil pollution
incident. They include actions to eliminate the flow and limit the release
and spread of oil. This manual deals with oil released into any waters of the
United States. Typical containment actions might include:
• isolating and/or evacuating the spill area to reduce the exposure
limits and protect personnel
• eliminating the flow of oil, which may involve shutting off a valve
or extensive salvage operations
• placing barriers to prevent oil from contacting sensitive areas
Speed and effectiveness in using containment measures will reduce the
impact of the spill incident. However, there is no "perfect" oil containment
plan; each has its advantages and disadvantages. This manual aids the user in
recognizing the most effective containment method for each spill incident.
Table 17 summarizes the most commonly used containment methods.
This manual refers to equipment by type rather than by manufacturer's
trade name and only differentiates between the different types of products.
No distinction between similar products by different manufacturers is made.
BOOMS
The most common containment device is the boom. It can either be commer-
cially purchased or improvised from available materials. In general, the
structure of a boom has four basic components: (1) a means of flotation, (2)
a freeboard to prevent waves from washing oil over the top, (3) a skirt to
prevent waves from sweeping oil under, and (4) a longitudinal support member
to withstand the force of waves, winds, and currents. A fifth component may
also be present. This is a ballast that adds weight to the boom and helps
keep it perpendicular to the water surface. There are several common config-
urations for commercially available booms as shown in Figure 5.
Forces caused by the action of wind, waves, and current either singly or
in combination can cause any boom to fail in its intended function. Some types
of boom failure are:
58
-------
TABLE 17. SIM1AEY OF CONTAINMENT METHODS
of
System
Principle of Operation
Advantages
Disadvantages
Application
Sorbent
Barrier
Air or water
hose spray
Surface
VD
Air Barriers
Booms
Both a physical barrier
and an adsorbent surface.
Easily deployed.
Used for both containment
and cleanup.
Forms turbulent barrier. Can be rapidly applied.
Surface tension phenome-
non; the spreading force
of the chemical is suf-
ficient to overcome the
spreading force of the
oil.
Subsurface release of air
to create an upwelling on
the water surface so that
oil will not cross the
two-way current produced
where the bubble curtain
meets the surface.
A physical barrier serv-
ing as a solid, continu-
ous obstruction to the
spread or migration of
an oil slick.
Easily applied. Small
dose required.
Does not impede movement
of vessels.
Deployed quickly. Are
physical barriers.
Works best in calm water such
as harbors.
Oil not effectively contained.
Requires support to avoid break-
age under flow of water.
Requires means of flotation to
prevent sinking when saturated
with oil and water.
Requires care in removing from
water to protect oil loss and
area reoontanination.
Effective in calm waters
(current <0.5 knots).
Provides limited containment.
Requires government approval
before using.
Effective in calm waters.
Calm waters where the oil slick is thin.
To keep oil out of an area, to flush oil
from under a dock.
As a tsqporary containment measure.
Oil may be moved ahead of the spreading
film toward a containment device. The
oil spreading rate may be slowed by en-
circling the slick with the piston film.
These are useful to help to concentrate
and direct the "rainbow" sheen into a
skinnier.
Costly to install and maintain. Suited to calm waters such as harbors.
Limited by environmental fac-
tors (wind, current). High
power requirements to produce
sufficient air currents.
May cause redistribution of
bottom silt.
Do not work well in fast cur-
rents or rough seas.
Can impede vessel movement.
Can be used to contain oil (calm waters)
or divert the oil (low current) to an oil
recovery point.
(Class I - calm water)
(Class II - harbors)
(Class III - open water)
Tb enclose the oil and reduce the spread-
ing rate. To protect areas from oil con-
tamination. To divert oil to areas for
recovery.
-------
ALLAST WEIGHT j
"—•-a.
- BATTEN* INF AMIC
f FLOTATION
TENSION MEMBERS
--STIFF FABRIC
- FLOAT SUPPORTS/BATTENS
NO BALLAST WEIGHT
NO CHAINS OR CAOLES
FABRIC CARRIES LOAD
Fence type - Centerline Flotation
BATTENS IN FABRIC
AIR FLOTATION BAG
-^ BALLAST WEIGHT
EXltHNAL TENSION MEMBER
Fence type - One Sided Outboard Flotation
Fence type - Outboard Flotation
FLOTATION (FOAM OR AIR)
J> TENSION MEMBERS
\^^ — UALLASTWEIGHT
w*
Flexible Curtain Type
Figure 5. Boom types.
Sheet breakaway or drainage failure: oil flowing under the boom
because the oil slick is deeper than the boom skirt.
CURRENT
Splash-over: oil splashing over the boom because of wind or wave
action.
SPLASH OVER
Headwave failure or droplet breakaway: sufficient oil is stopped
upstream of a boom and thickens to form a headwave at the upstream
edge of the slick. The action of the water velocity at the oil-
water interface causes sufficient turbulence to allow oil globules
to break away and be carried under the boom by the current.
60
-------
Generally, booms are the first equipment to be deployed and the last to
be retrieved. Therefore, for effective oil containment they must be properly
selected and correctly deployed. Boom selection and placement are briefly
covered here. The user is directed to the references for more in-depth
discussions.
Boom Selection
For effective containment, the boom selected for a particular spill ap-
plication should be compatible with the water conditions in which it will be
used. Booms are available in several different sizes. For simplicity, the
U.S. Navy has divided booms into three classes based upon the size of the
skirt and freeboard (Table 18). Each class is suitable for different wave and
current conditions.
Boom Placement
Rsgardless of the boom class, all booms begin to lose oil when placed
perpendicular to currents exceeding 0.7 knots (36 cm/sec). General guidelines
are given for boom deployment below and sumnarized in Table 19. It must be
emphasized that field observations are the best guide to the effectiveness of
a boom configuration.
In offshore use, one of the most effective deployment strategies is the
V- or U-shape. In this deployment strategy, the apex is downwind and each
free boom end is restrained by an anchor, a boat, or similar device. This
allows the oil to move into the apex where it is concentrated for removal as
shown in Figure 6.
TABLE 18. U.S. NAVY BOOM CLASSIFICATION
Class
I
II
Skirt
Depth
(inches)
8
16
Freeboard
(inches)
4
8
•total
Height
(inches)
13
24
Use
Calm waters
Harbor
(moderate
waves and
current)
Current Velocity
Perpendicular
to Boom (knots)
1.0
1.5
Wind Velocity
Perpendicular
to Boom (mph)
15
20
Wave Ratio
height/length
0.08
0.08
III 24 12 36 Open water 2.0 25 0.08
Source: Naval Facilities Engineering Ccnmand, 1977.
61
-------
TABLE 19. GUIDELINES FOR CONTAINMENT DEVICES AND METHODS
location
Water Condition
Objectives
Possible Methods
Open Water
Water Depth <6 m
(20 ft.)
Inland or Ocean
Wave Height: <2.5 ra (8 ft.)
Wave Height: 1-2.5 m (3-8 ft.)
Current: 50.8 m/sec
(1.5 knots)
(80 cm/sec)
• Bough water: too rough for
effective spill response.
• Protect areas from contamin-
ation.
• Estimate oil slick area.
• Reduce oil spreading.
• Contain oil.
• Prevent shoreline contamin-
ation.
• Stand by for calmer sea conditions.
• Activate shoreline protection response.
• Dispatch observation vessel, boat or air, to:
- estimate extent of oil slick
- retard and reduce oil slick by use of sur-
face collecting agents
• Use large vessel-type skimmer to contain and
collect oil — deploy Class III Boom in V-shape.
CTi
Coastal Haters
Protected Waters
Harbor
Wave Height: 1-2.5 m (3-8 ft.)
Wave Height: 0-1 m (0-3 ft.)
Current: (low) <0.8 m/sec.
(1.5 knots)
• Protect shoreline.
• Contain oil spill and pre-
vent oil contamination of
difficult (and costly) areas
to clean such as dock pilings.
• locate skinners, preferably in
stationary positions down-
drift of contained oil.
Use medium skinner with Class III Boom in U-
shape (catenary) between two tow boats. Skim-
mer should be down at apex.
Deploy booms beyond surf area.
Activate shoreline protection response.
• Use bubble barrier if installed.
• Deploy booms between vessel and dock.
• Apply water streams or air jet in zig-zag man-
ner to concentrate the slick (applying these
directly on oil would cause emulsification).
Use of sorbant pads on upwind slick edge will
increase efficiency due to increased sail area.
• Use boat propwash to push oil toward the skinner.
• Move booms to reduce boom area and increase oil
thickness.
• Use surface collection agent and sorbent to
remove sheen.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
Location Water Condition
Protected Waters
River Wave Height: 0-0.3 m (0-1 ft.)
Tidal-influenced Wave Height: 0-1 m (0-3 ft. )
waters
Objectives
• Divert oil from high cur-
rent into low current areas.
• Protect shoreline.
• Contain oil during ebb and
flood tides.
Possible Methods
• Angle boom to current; position portion of
boom along shore to reduce contamination.
Recover oil by using skimners.
• Boom upstream and downstream of spill with
skimrers located in both areas.
Stream
Wave Height: 0-0.3 m (0-1 ft.)
Contain oil.
Construct wire boom out of chicken wire and
a sorbent material, vrood, or pipe.
U)
-------
BOAT
BOAT
SKIMMING DEVICE & WORK CRAFT
Figure 6. Vee configuration for open water collection.
In sheltered areas, the deployment configuration depends upon current,
wave conditions, and tidal influences. Current velocities are not equal in
flowing water bodies, usually having higher velocities in the deeper portions
of a channel and along the outside of curves. Boom placement should be at an
angle to these currents so as to divert oil to calmer waters for recovery.
There are several boom deployment configurations for these conditions such as
the chevron-shape deployment (Figure 7), or the cascading boom deployment
(Figure 8), or in calmer waters, the diagonal deployment (Figure 9). When
booms are deployed in waters with tidal influences, they should be checked
frequently to ensure effective oil containment.
In areas where no commercial boom is available, improvised booms made of
straw, logs, or overinflated fire hose can be effective. Very often impro-
vised booms are used ahead of commercial booms to divert debris from damaging
the coinrercial booms. These configurations are particularly valuable in small
streams where conventional booms might be ineffective.
DECISION GUIDELINES FOR CONTAINMENT METHODS
Using the information in the preceding section, a guide for applicable
containment methods is shown in Table 20.
Figure 7. Chevron-shaped deployment.
64
-------
Figure 8. Cascading boon deployment.
CURRENT
SKIMMING DEVICE
DEBRIS SCREEN
ANCHOR
BOOM
Figure 9. Diagonal deployment.
65
-------
TABLE 20. DECISION GUIDE FOR CDNTAINMENT METHODS (STEP D)
TXPE OF
WATER BODlf
HAVE
CONDITIONS
CURRENT
CONTAINMENT METHOD
Open Water
• Inland
(Lake,
Pcnd)
• Ocean
' Lew waves
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft.)
-Moderate waves
(0.3-1 m; 1-3 ft.)
High waves
" (1-2.5 m; 3-8 ft.)
p— low/moderate current.
l— fast current.
•"• low/taoderate current.
— fast current.
"—low/moderate current.
__ fast current.
.Class II or III boon
Pistm film
Sorbent barrier
lass III boon (V or U shape)
Class III boom
Piston film
Class III boom
Class III boom
Class III boom
Protected Waters -
• Rivers
• Bay
• Harbor
• Stream
• etc.
•Low waves
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft.)
low/moderate current •
{< 0.8 m/aj < 1.5 JO
—- fast current ,
(<0.8 m/s; < 1.5 k)
—Moderate waves
(0.3-1 m; 1-3 ft.)
low/moderate current_
(< 0.8 m/s; < 1.5 k)
fast current _____
(< 0.8 m/s; < 1.5 k)
Airbarrier
Exclusion boom
Sorbent barrier
Piston Film Chemicals
Air or water spray
Class II boom
Class II boom
. Class II boom
66
-------
SECTION 8
BEST PRACTICAL PROTECTION METHODS (STEP K)
Area protection from oil contamination is essential for an effective
spill response. Once an area is contaminated, it suffers damage not only
from the oil, but also from the cleanup methods. Three methods are commonly
used to protect sensitive areas: (1) physical devices such as booms, (2) sor-
bent barriers, and (3) dispersants.
Physical devices are used to protect shorelines from oil contamination.
There are two methods for deploying protective barriers: exclusion and
diversion.
Exclusion deployment is used to prevent oil from entering an area. An
example of this kind of deployment is booming off the entrance to a bay, har-
bor, or estuary. Diversion deployment is used to move oil from a fast-moving
current into calmer waters where it can be contained and cleaned up. With
this method some selected areas will be contaminated in order to protect
others. Booms are usually deployed at some angle to the current as in the
chevron, cascading, or diagonal patterns shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9.
Woodward and Clyde, 1979, provides an excellent discussion of protective
booming.
Dispersants may be used to protect shorelines, reefs, or natural aquatic
resources (such as fishing banks or oyster beds). This is accomplished by ap-
plying a dispersant when the slick is sufficiently distant to avoid an effect
from either the dispersant or the dispersed emulsified oil. Dispersants may
also be applied when a fire or explosion threat exists. Authorization for use
of these agents are given in the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollu-
tion Contingency Plan as follows:
2003 Dispersing Agent Program for Spills of Oil and Applicable
Hazardous Substances
2003.1 Authorization for Use of Dispersing Agents
2003.1-1 Major and medium discharges. Dispersing agents may
be used in any place, at any time, and in quantities designated
by the OSC when their use will:
2003.1-1 1 In the judgment of the OSC, prevent or substan-
tially reduce hazard to human life.
2003.1-1 2 In the judgment of the EPA RRT member on a case-
by-case basis, in consultation with appropriate State or Federal
agencies, prevent or reduce substantial hazard to a major segment
of the population(s) of vulnerable species of waterfowl; or,
67
-------
2003.1-1.3 In the judgment of the EPA RRT member on a case-
by-case basis, in consultation with appropriate State and Fed-
eral agencies, result in the least overall environmental damage,
or interference with designated water uses.
2003.1-2 Minor discharge. The provisions of section 2003.1-1
shall apply.
2003.2 Special Restrictions on Dispersing Agent Use:
2003.2-1 Chemical agents shall not be considered for use as
dispersing agents unless technical product data have been pro-
vided and accepted in accordance with 2003.3 except when in the
judgment of the OSC the hazards discussed in 2003.1-1.1 are so
imminent that the time delay for obtaining a dispersant agent
that is in compliance with 2003.3 would be excessive.
2003.2-2 Federal officials responsible for oil and hazardous
substance spill response activities at all levels shall develop
effective programs to insure that dispersants that are available
for use in appropriate spill response actions are dispersants
with adequate technical data on file with EPA. This effort will
help preclude the avoidance of the EPA technical data program by
manufacturers or suppliers who might wish to take advantage of
the emergency conditions provision of 2003.2-1.
2003.2-3 For all situations where dispersants are used, accu-
rate records shall be kept on dispersant types, brands, application
rates and methods,effectiveness, environmental impacts, plus any
other pertinent observations.
The steps involved in making a decision to use dispersants are shown in
Figure 10. The information about dispersants should be thoroughly studied
prior to a spill incident, and appropriate equipment for application should
be available.
Two points are stressed in the decision to use dispersants: (1) their
use should result in lower overall environmental damage, and (2) the dispers-
ant should be applied to a dispersible oil. Those oils that can be dispersed
are shown in Table 21.
Protection of shorelines and aquatic resources from potential oil contam-
ination is an important step in reducing both environmental impact and cleanup
costs. Using the information in this section, a decision guide for protection
methods is given in Table 22.
68
-------
Oil threatening shore-
line or aquatic resources?
t
Is physical control and
recovery feasible?
/
Are control/recovery
actions adequate?
Can oil type and
condition be
chemically dispersed?
Is a dispersion
operation possible?
Kes
Will impacts associated with
chemical dispersion be less
than those resulting without
chemical dispersion?
Chemical di,
acceptable.
Figure 10. Decision guide for dispersant use.
(Castle and Schrier, 1979)
69
-------
TABLE 21. GENERAL COMPATIBILITY OF OIL TYPES WITH DISPERSANT TYPES
Oil Category
Dispersant Type
Free-flowing oils
Viscous oils
Semisolid, tar-like
Well-developed water-in-oil
emulsions (mousse)
Water-Soluble
1
3
2
Solvent-Soluble
2
4
5
Usually NOT effective, not well
documented.
1. NOT RECOMMENDED BECAUSE OF HIGH EVAPORATIVE LOSS AND TOXICITY.
2. Effective under optimal conditions.
3. Effective on oils with lower viscosities (high spreading rates).
4. Effective on oils with high viscosities (lower spreading rates).
5. Effectiveness may be marginal.
70
-------
TABLE 22. DECISION GUIDE FOR PROTECTION METHODS (STEP K)
TXPE OF WATER BODiT WAVE OCNDITICNS CURRENT
• Rivers
• Bay
• Harbor
• Stream
• Etc.
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft)
(0.3-1 m; 1-3 ft)
( < 0.8 m/s; < 1.5k)
( > 0.8 m/sec; > 1.5k)
(<0.8 m/s; < 1.5k)
PROTECTION METHOD
i • v.
sorbent boom or barriers
air barriers
surface collecting agents
exclusion boon
Open Water
• Inland (Lake, Pond)
• Ocean
low waves
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft)
moderate waves —
(0.3-1 m; 1-3 ft)
high waves
(1-2.5 m; 3-8 ft)
low/moderate current
fast current
low/hoderate current
fast current
low/moderate current
fast current
exclusion boom
sorbent boom
diversion boon
surface collecting agents
diversion boom
diversion boom
dispersar's (ocean only)
diversion boom
diversion boom
dispersants (ocean only)
diversion boom
-------
SECTION 9
BEST PRACTICAL RECOVERY AND REMOVAL METHODS (STEP S)
METHODS FOR OIL RECOVERY AND REMOVAL ON WATER
Once an oil spill is contained and sensitive areas are protected, the
recovery process begins. Usually the containment methods can also be applied
to recovery efforts. This takes advantage of the increased thickness of the
oil and containment barrier integrity. The basic methods for recovery and re-
moval of oil on water are as follows:
• natural processes — evaporation, emulsification, biodegradation
• burning
• fostered biodegradation
• chemical agents for dispersion
• physical methods — manual or mechanical collection
Natural Processes
Very often, bad weather and rough sea conditions cause natural processes
such as evaporation, emulsification, sinking, and biodegradation to occur be-
fore containment and recovery operations can begin. In cases where no threat
occurs to land or natural aquatic resources, an OSC may decide not to clean
up an oil slick on water.
Burning
Burning can be accomplished successfully if the oil is sufficiently thick.
This may not be an acceptable method unless there is a direct threat to human
life and property, because burning may degrade air quality and produce poten-
tially toxic airborne and water-soluble residues.
Fostered Biodegradation
Biodegradation of oil spills occurs naturally, since many microorganisms
have a large capacity to utilize petroleum hydrocarbons as an energy source.
Man-induced acceleration of such processes have been studied for use as a
cleanup technique. There are four limiting factors for successful fostered
biodegradation: (1) the chemical composition of the oil itself, (2) the water
72
-------
temperature, (3) the addition of the optimum mineral nutrients (N, P, Fe), and
(4) the proper contact time between the microorganisms, mineral nutrients, and
oil slick.
For these reasons, most large-scale fostered biodegradation methods are
too slow to be used as a means to completely remove oil slicks from open
waters, or from areas in imminent danger from an oil slick. Therefore, it is
generally not a recommended practice, but can be used as a small-scale final
polishing action in enclosed waters. It is also expensive, and there is a
question as to whether it is an environmentally beneficial action, since it
can cause localized eutrophic conditions.
Chemical Agents for Dispersion
Dispersion agents do not really remove oil. They spread the spill and
reduce the oil's visibility. While the use of these agents is discouraged,
EPA may authorize them to reduce a fire or explosion hazard. An example of
such an emergency is a fresh spill of free-flowing oil endangering personnel
safety and property which could be dispersed by a less toxic, water-based
agent. However, caution is advised in spills of volatile oils where both the
application and subsequent agitation may actually increase fire hazards.
Furthermore, it should be realized that in spills of volatile oils (e.g., No.
1 to No. 4 fuel oils), natural agitation by winds, waves and currents may
rapidly disperse the oil. The more toxic, petroleum-based dispersants are
effective in removing weathered oil from equipment.
Physical Methods
Physical methods such as manual and mechanical collection procedures
include:
• skimmers
• sorbents
• manual removal
During an oil spill incident, it is possible to use all of these.
Skimmers—
Skimmers are divided into three sizes by the U.S. Navy:
• small — unmanned, deployable by two men
• medium — unmanned, trailer-mounted, deployable using an air-driven
winch and jib boom
• large — manned, self-propelled
Independent of size, the operational principles of common commercial
skimmers are outlined in Table 23.
73
-------
TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF SKIMMERS
TYPE OF
SYSTEM
PRINCIPI£ OF OPERATION
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
APPLICATION
Centrifugal
Suction
Rotating
Nonporous
Belt
Hydro-
Adjustable
Overflow
Weir
Suction:
This unit operates by creating a water vortex,
or whirlpool, which draws the oil into the
collection area.
Suction:
This skimmer floats at oil-water interface and
generally uses an external vacuum pump system.
Oleophilic movement along inclined plane:
The skinnier forward motion or the water current
brings the oil slick in contact with the rotat-
ing, smooth-surfaced conveyor belt. The com-
bined action of the rotating belt and the rela-
tive water velocity causes oil to be dragged
below the surface of the water. At the bottom
roller, the oil leaves the belt and rises to
the surface of the calm water region inside the
collection well.
Suction:
The weir depth (d) of this skimmer can be con-
trolled by varying the pupping rate out of the
skimmer. In thick slicks the pumping rate is
increased, and the fluid inside the device
does not have a chance to fill the rear buoy-
ancy chamber. This results in a buoyancy force
which lowers the front weir deeper into the
water. Conversely, in thin slicks a slower
pumping rate allows the rear buoyancy chamber
to fill, weighting the rear of the device to
lift the front weir closer to the water sur-
face. A debris screen is placed over the
frontal weir opening.
The device is not very effective when skimming
viscous oils, which tend to clog the front
debris screen or the narrow sloping passage
leading bo the rear buoyancy chamber.
Not as susceptible to clogging
with debris.
High capacity.
Compact.
Shallow draft.
Simple to operate.
Covers a wide range of oil
viscosity.
Skimming principle not affected
by oil viscosity.
Most efficient of all the seven
types here.
Can be used in most water
conditions.
Not hampered by debris.
High capacity.
Ineffective in currents
exceeding 30 cm/sec (0.6
knots) and waves higher
than 60 cm (2 ft).
Easily clogged by debris.
Susceptible to wave action.
loss of suction in currents
exceeding 30 cm/sec (0.6
knots) because of a ten-
dency to plane over water
surface.
Calm waters.
Calm waters.
Shallow water or con-
fined areas.
Requires slow movement
over water surface to pre-
vent oil from missing col-
lection well.
Generally large; cannot be
used in confined areas.
Not very effective in
skimming viscous oils.
Susceptible to wave
action.
Easily clogged by debris.
Useful in all types of
oil, especially low-
specific-gravity oils.
Can be used in both
rough and calm waters.
Works best in calm,
debris-free waters
with thick oil slick.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 23 (CONTINUED)
TfPE OF
SYSTEM
PKENCIPI£ OF OPERATION
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
APPLICATIOJ
Simple
Overflow
Weir
Gravity:
A simple overflow weir is floated on the
surface and its weir depth adjusted to just
skim the (usually) thin oil slick. The shal-
low weir depth must be manually changed by
adding or removing weights, or moving attached
floats up and down.
Sinple device.
Shallow draft.
Good mobility.
This device is ineffi-
cient in waves. As the
weir opening becomes
flooded with water, oil
is carried above the weir
opening.
Easily clogged by debris.
Harks best in calm
debris-free water
with thick oil
slicks.
Advancing
Weir
Ui
Gravity:
The velocity of the oil and water flawing into
the unit over the front weir is reduced during
its flow over the sloping floor to the device,
allowing oil to separate, by gravity, to the
top. A hinged door in the floor of the device
allows water to pass out, while a mechanically
operated weir is used to skim settled oil into
the collection box.
Sinple device.
Easy mobility.
The rear overflow weir is
difficult to adjust.
large quantities of water
are taken into the col-
lection box.
Haves flood the overflow
weir, causing oil droplets
to form and be carried out
the bottom door.
Calm, debris-free
water.
Double
Advancing
Heir
Oleophilic
Rope-Type
Gravity:
This unit operates similarly to the advancing
weir principle except that a leading float
serves to absorb a large portion of the incom-
ing wave energy, thereby providing a relatively
calm water region for gravity separation of the
oil. The outlet of a pump is placed near the
waterline to skim the separated oil. Water
flowing into the device exits through a fixed
opening in the bottom of the device.
Adhesion.
Sinple device.
Easy nubility.
Most efficient with medium-
viscosity oil.
Less vulnerable to wave action.
Draws too much water.
Debris reduces effi-
ciency.
Susceptible to wave action.
Rotating action can cause
turbulence (pressure
waves) which may drive
oil from skimner.
Calm, debris-free
water.
Thick slick of vis-
cous oil.
-------
Sorbents—
Sorbents act through the process of adsorption or absorption and renove
small quantities of oil. Sorbents are either (1) natural materials, such as
peat moss and straw, (2) mineral-based materials, such as vermiculite and vol-
canic ash, or (3) synthetic materials, such as polyester foam, polyurethane,
and polystyrene. The advantages and disadvantages of sorbents are summarized
in Table 24.
Manual Removal—
Manual removal of oil is used for small spills involving viscous or semi-
solid oil. This procedure involves a labor-intensive effort using equipment
such as buckets, rakes, and shovels. Manual removal of free-flowing oil is
usually not very successful. Better results are obtained when sorbents are
used on this type of oil.
Decision Guide for Water Cleanup Methods
The decision guide (Table 25) indicates the applicability of each method
according to type of waterbody and environmental conditions. Very often the
choice of method will depend upon the availability of appropriate equipment.
When there is a choice between using two appropriate methods, the effectiveness
of each cleanup rating system should be evaluated.
METHODS FOR OIL RECOVERY AND REMOVAL ON SHORELINES
Cleanup of oil stranded on shorelines is not subject to the same time
constraints as those governing offshore oil spill cleanup. It is possible,
therefore, to give more attention to specifics including environmental factors,
cleanup techniques, equipment, and manpower. However, this does not imply that
work should proceed with undue caution; rather, cleanup procedures should be
efficiently organized and implemented in a rapid but orderly manner to minimize
oil migration and additional environmental damage.
Each cleanup activity must be adapted to individual shoreline characteris-
tics and these are listed below in order from least to most sensitive:
• exposed rocky headlands
• unresistant, unconsolidated cliffs or banks
• flat, fine-grained sand beaches
• steeper, coarse-grained sand beaches
• exposed, fine-grained mud or sand compacted tidal flats
• mixed sand and gravel beaches
• gravel beaches
• coral reef
• sheltered rocky coasts
• sheltered tidal flats
• marshes and mangroves
76
-------
TABLE 24. SUMMARY OF SORBENT MATERIALS
TYPE
ADVANT7M2S
DISADVANTAGES
EXAMPIE
OIL CAPACITY*
Natural
Sorbents
Inorganic or
Mineral-Based
Sorbents
Synthetic
Sorbents
Synthetic
Foam
Sorbents
Non-toxic materials.
Will biodegrade.
Exceptionally high recov-
ery efficiencies.
Some materials can be re-
used after oil removal.
Easily spread.
Easily recovered.
Available in many forms
(rolls, sheets, boons).
Most efficient sorbents
available.
Efficiency independent of
oil viscosity.
Can produce material at site
by mixing tvro liquids.
Soak both oil and water and will
sink when saturated.
Recovery of large amounts of sorbent
is a labor-intensive operation.
Trapped oil may drain off material.
Very light materials and are dif-
ficult to distribute when windy.
Will not degrade (non-biodegradable).
Dust nay cause respiratory
irritations.
Can be abrasive bo recovery
equipment.
Expensive.
Non-biodegradable.
Oil-saturated slabs may tear during
recovery.
Peat moss.
Straw.
Milled corn cobs.
Wood cellulose fiber.
Milled cottonseed
fiber.
Perlite.
Vermiculite.
Volcanic ash.
Polyurethane.
Urea formaldehyde.
Polyethylene.
Polypropylene.
Polyurethane foam.
In general, absorb 3-6 times
their weight in oil.
In general, absorb 4 to 8 times
their weight in oil.
Variable, but higher than non-
synthetic solvents.
* More specific capacities may be found on table in Appendix E.
-------
TABLE 25. DECISION GUIDE FOR WATER CLEANUP METHODS (STEP U)
TYPE OF
WVTER BODY
WAVE CONDITIONS
CURRENT
CTEftNUP METHOD
00
Protected Waters
• Rivers
• Bay
• Harbor
• Stream
• Etc.
Open Water
• Inland (Lake, Band)
• Ocean
low waves
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft)
Moderate waves —
(0.3-1 m; 1-3 ft)
low waves
(0-0.3 m; 0-1 ft)
Moderate waves —
(0.3-1 ra; 1-3 ft)
High waves
(1-2.5 m; 3-8 ft)
low/moderate current
(<0.8 m/s; <1.5 k)
Fast current
(>0.8 m/s; >1.5 k)
low/moderate current
(<0.8 m/s; <1.5 k)
Fast current
(>0.8 m/s; >1.5 k)
low/moderate current
• Fast current
Low/moderate current
• Fast current
• low/inoderate current
Fast current
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Fostered biodegradation
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Natural processes
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Physical methods
Natural processes
Burning
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Dispersants (ocean only)
Physical methods - manual or mechanical
Natural processes
Dispersants (ocean only)
Natural processes
Dispersants (ocean only)
Natural processes
Dispersants (ocean only)
-------
In addition to the natural components, man-made structures must be con-
sidered. Ihese include piers, boat ramps, seawalls, oil-handling facilities,
recreational areas, and homes. Structures are not confined to any single
shoreline, but may be located anywhere. There are three basic types of
structures: (1) concrete structures for which rock surface cleanup methods
are used, (2) rock or broken concrete structures for which gravel cleanup
methods are used, and (3) wood piling structures for which there are no analo-
gous natural characteristics. These structures must be handled as special
cases.
There are several methods applicable for shoreline cleanup. These tech-
niques are summarized in Table 26.
• natural processes
• burning
• physical removal
- manual
- light mechanical
- heavy mechanical
• chemical removal
• biological agents
Several factors must be considered prior to selection of the most appro-
priate technique for cleaning the shoreline. First, the cleanup technique
must conform to the shoreline geomorphology and the characteristics of the
oil. Included are such variables as access to the site, types of substrates,
and degree of contamination. The techniques applicable to each shoreline type
are found in Table 27. Second, the disadvantages of possible techniques must
be assessed. Included are such variables as effects on shoreline erosion
rates, disruption of organism habitats, and time required for organism rejuv-
enation after cleanup is completed. These impacts can be found in Table 28.
All cleanup and recovery techniques affect the substrate. The effects
may result from forcing oil into the substrate by walking or moving equipment
over an area or from removing organisms or substrate surface. These actions
can cause more damage to the environment and the biota than the oil. The OSC
must use judgment in determining if physical cleanup actions for an oiled area
are necessary. Several guidelines are given here and on the decision guide in
Figure 11.
• In high energy environments, natural cleaning will be most effective.
• In marshes, natural cleaning eliminates the possible damage caused by
tramping oil into the substrate which can destroy the root integrity
of the marsh. If marshes are to be cleaned, several viable options
are advocated: (1) burning during the late fall - early spring, or
(2) cutting and removing contaminated foliage by boat.
79
-------
1AELE 26. SUMMARY OF SHORELINE CLEANUP TECHNIQUES
Source: Woodward and Clyde, 1978.
Method
No.
Technique
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Application
Pate of
Removal
Natural
Process
Burning
Natural recovery.
Controlled burning.
CO
O
Chemical
Removal
Biological
Agents
Gelling or
coagulation.
Fostered bio-
degradation.
Physical
Removal:
A. Manual
Manual scraping.
No action taken - oil
left to degrade
naturally.
Upwind end of contam-
inated area is ig-
nited and allowed to
bum downwind.
Addition of agent
would remove the oil
from the land surface.
Agents applied to the
oil forming a semi-
rigid ness which aids
oil removal.
Addition of microbial
organisms to the oil-
contaminated area to
facilitate biological
removal of the oil.
Addition of nutri-
ents to hasten bio-
logical activity.
Oil is scraped from
substrate using hand
tools.
No additional effects on
the environment because
of cleanup activity. Will
remove all oil. No man-
power or equipment
requirements.
Rapid removal of a ma-
jority of contaminant.
Not very labor-
intensive.
Easy to apply to in-
accessible areas. Mill
remove most of the oil.
Easy to apply and does
not harm the aquatic
envirorment.
Selective removal of
material. Most oil can
be removed if effort is
sufficient.
Sane oil may be left on
the beach to contamin-
ate other areas. Poten-
tial incorporation of
oil into the food web.
Elimination of habitat
for organisms.
Can cause damage to
vegetation and air pol-
lution; can lead to
erosion if root system
of vegetation is harmed.
Extensive heat kills
shallow burrowing organ-
isms. Heavy metal resid-
ual matter may be toxic.
Expensive to apply. Pos-
sible toxic effects to
soil organisms. Use
must be carefully con-
trolled.
Hard to regulate and
produce desired results
under field conditions.
Variable success. Expen-
sive. Optimum growth
condition required.
Removes or crushes or-
ganisms and oil not re-
moved can be toxic to
organisms repopulating
the areas. Labor-
intensive.
High energy beaches Slow
of cobble, gravel,
boulder, or rock
where wave action
will clean contami-
nant rapidly.
Coastal and inland Fast
vegetation and sub-
strate with suffi-
cient oil of light
volatiles to sustain
combustion.
Coastal and inland Moderate
beaches, gravel
shorelines, and man-
made structures.
Low energy shore- Slow
lines with sub-
strate suitable for
microbial growth
such as coarse sand.
foot access. Used
on lightly contam-
inated boulders,
rocks, or man-made
structures.
Moderate
(continued)
-------
26 (CONTINUED)
Method
No. Technique
Description
.Advantages
Disadvantages
Application
Rate of
Removal
Physical
Removal:
A. Manual
Manual rencval of
oiled materials.
Manual cutting.
CO
8 Manual sorbent.
B. light
Mechanical
low-pressure
flushing.
10
High-pressure
flushing.
Oil sediments and
debris are removed by:
hand, shovel, rake,
wheelbarrows.
Oiled vegetation is
cut by hand, and col-
lected for disposal.
Sorbents applied man-
ually to soak up oil
in contaminated areas.
Application of low-
pressure water spray
flushes oil and
directs it to col-
lection area.
Application of high-
pressure water stream
to remove oil.
Rapid recovery because
only selected areas are
disturbed.
Rapid recovery in most
environments.
Selective areas for re-
moval of contaminant.
Does not disturb sedi-
ments or organisms to
any great extent.
Most efficient method
for cleaning boulders,
rocks, and man-made
structures.
Removes some shallow
burrowing animals. Small
amount of sediment dis-
turbance and erosion.
labor-intensive.
Disturbs sediments be-
cause of foot traffic
and causes erosion. Foot
traffic can also crush
organisms and disturb
nesting of birds. Labor-
intensive.
Foot traffic may crush
organisms. Ingestion
of sorbents by birds or
small mammals. labor-
intensive.
Potential for recontam-
ination or contamination
of areas downslope. Mod-
erate labor requirements.
Can disturb surface of
substrate. Oil not re-
covered may be toxic bo
organisms downslope.
Removes some organisms
and shells from surface.
Moderate labor require-
ments.
Foot or light ve- Moderate
hicle access. Used
on beaches of sand,
gravel, and cobble
when oil contamina-
tion and penetration
is light or where
heavy equipment ac-
cess is impossible.
Foot access. Used Moderate
to remove oil from
marsh lands (wet-
lands) vegetation.
Foot access. Used Moderate
to remove light,
non-sticky oil from
mud, boulders,
rocks, and man-made
structures.
Light vehicles ac- Fast
cess. Used on
lightly contamin-
ated mud, cobbles,
boulders, roads, man-
made structures, or
in contaminated
marsh lands (wet-
lands) .
Light vehicular ac- Fast
cess and a supply of
fresh or salt water.
Cleans boulders,
rocks, and man-made
structures. Is used
for light to exten-
sive contamination.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 26 (CONTINUED)
Mathod
No. Technique
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Application
Rate of
Removal
Hiysical
Removal:
B. Light 11 Steam cleaning.
Mechanical
12 Sand blasting.
00
NJ
13 Oil skinners.
C. Heavy 14 Vacuun pimping.
Mechanical
15 Backhoe.
16 Dragline.
Application of steam
to remove oil con-
tamination.
Renewal of oil fron
contaminated surface
by high-velocity sand.
Use of skinming de-
vices to remove oil
from small water
pockets.
Removal of oil pools
by use of vacuum
equipment.
Renewal of contam-
inated sediments and
loads them into truck
for disposal.
Removal of contamin-
ated ground by drag-
ging a bucket across
the contaminated sur-
face while the equip-
ment is on stable
ground.
Bipty shells remain and
enhance repopulation.
Fast and efficient re-
moval. Moderate labor
requirements.
Refer to Table 24.
Does not disturb organ-
isms outside the trench
line or sump area. Low
labor requirements.
Can reach areas inacces-
sible by other heavy
equipment. Low labor
requirements.
Can reach areas inacces-
sible by other heavy
equipment. Greater reach
than backhoe. Low labor
requirements.
Adds heat to the surface
and removes or kills
organisms on surface.
Oil not recovered may be
toxic too organisms down—
slope. Moderate labor
requirements.
Removes all organisms
and sediments to envi-
ronment. Oil residues
not collected may be
toxic bo organisms
downslope.
Effective only for
thick pockets of oil;
does not remove oil
completely.
Removes all organisms;
nestabilization of the
area is slow; creates
severe reduction of bank
or beach stability. Slow
cleaning rate.
Removes all organisms
and restabilization of
the area is slow. Cre-
ates severe reduction of
bank or beach stability.
Light vehicular Fast
access and a supply
of fresh water.
Cleans boulders,
rocks, and man-made
structures. Is used
for light to exten-
sive contamination.
Not reaatmended for
surfaces supporting
life.
Light vehicular Fast
access. Cleans res-
idues from man-made
structures. Used
only when oil is a
thin coating and no
alternative method.
Heavy equipment Fast
access and a long-
shore current pres-
ent. Firm sand
beaches or mud and
on river or streams
with a boom diversion.
Heavy equipment Moderate
access to stable
working area.
Banks and narrow
beaches. Primarily mud
and silt removal.
Heavy equipment
access to stable
working area. Con-
tamination of river
banks and narrow
beaches. Sand, grav-
el, mud and cobble
removal.
Moderate
(continued)
-------
TABLE 26 (CONTINUED)
Method
Mo. Technique
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Application
Rate of
Removal
Hiysical
Removal:
C. Heavy 17 Beach cleaner.
Mechanical
00
18 Elevating scraper.
19 Elevating scraper
and motor grader.
20 Front-end loader
with rubber tires
or tracks.
21 Front-end loader
and notor grader.
22 Front-end loader
and bulldozer.
Picks up tar balls or
oil patties; either
self-propelled or
pulled by tractor.
Scraper picks up con-
taminated material
directly.
Motor grader forms
windrows for picking
up elevating scraper.
Front-end loader picks
up material directly
off beach and hauls to
unload area for
disposal.
Motor grader forms
windrows of contamin-
ated matter for pick-
up by front-end
loader.
Bulldozer pushes con-
taminated ground into
piles for pickup by
front-end loader.
Good trafficability and
rapid cleanup. Low labor
requirements.
Rapid removal of contam-
inant. Works on beaches
with low bearing capacity.
All contaminant removed.
Low labor requirement.
Removes only upper 3 cm
of beach. Recolonization
of animals rapid. Good
trafficability and effec-
tive removal of oil. Low
labor requirements.
Excellent for removal of
contaminated cobble. Low
labor requirements.
Removes only upper 3 cm
of beach. Recolonization
of animals rapid. Effec-
tive removal of oil. Low
labor requirements.
Works well in area of
poor trafficability. Low
labor requirements.
Disturbs shallow burrow-
ing organisms.
Removes both shallow and
deep burrowing organisms.
Creates very unstable
substrate. Recolonization
slow. Erosion and beach
retreat.
Removes shallow burrow-
ing animals (organisms). •
Removes 10 to 20 cm of
beach. Causes severe
reduction in beach sta-
bility. Removes all
shallow and deep bur-
rowing organisms.
Removes shallow burrow-
ing organisms. Cleanup
rates are not extremely
fast.
Removes all organisms.
Removes 15-50 on of
sediment. Severe ero-
sion and cliff or beach
retreat.
Moderate to heavy Moderate
vehicular access.
Used on sand and
gravel beaches.
Lightly contaminated
with oil in the form
of hard patties or
tar balls.
Heavy equipment ac- Fast
cess. Sand and
gravel beaches and
some mud flats.
0-3 cm of oil pene-
tration.
Heavy equipment Moderate
access. Sand and
gravel beaches and
some mud flats.
0-3 cm of oil pene-
tration.
Heavy equipment Moderate
access. Mud, sand,
or gravel beaches.
Oil penetration mod-
erate to light. Use-
ful in removal of
contaminated beach
vegetation.
Heavy equipment Moderate
access. Sand and
gravel beaches.
2-3 cm of oil pene-
tration.
Heavy equipment Moderate
access. Used on
coarse sand, gravel,
or cobble beaches.
Oil penetration is
deep. Removal of
heavily oil-contam-
inated vegetation.
(continued!
-------
TABLE 26 (CONTINUED)
Method No. Technique
Riysical
Removal:
C. Heavy 23 Tractor breaking
Mechanical up pavement.
Description
Tractor fitted with
ripper for use on heavy
contamination.
Advantages
Reduces beach erosion
by not relieving sedi-
ment. Low labor require-
ments.
Disadvantages
Disturbs shallow
sand deep burrowing
organisms and the
beach sediments .
Leaves oil on the
beach.
Application
Heavy equipment access.
Thick oil layer has
formed a pavement. Used
on high energy beaches
Rate of
Removal
Moderate
of cobble, gravel, or sand
where removal of sediment
would cause severe beach
erosion. Used on low pri-
ority beaches.
CO
24 Push contaminated
substrate into
surf zone.
25 Disc contaminant
into substrate.
Bulldozer pushes con-
taminated substrate
into surf zone to
accelerate cleaning,
Tractor discing equip-
ment along contamin-
ated substrate (light
contamination).
Recovery more rapid than
total removal of sub-
strate. Low labor
requirements.
Reduces beach erosion by
not renewing sediment.
Low labor requirements.
Causes erosion of
the back shore area.
Kills most organisms
of the contaminated
zone.
Leaves oil on the
beach and disturbs
burrowing organisms.
Heavy equipment access. Fast
High energy shoreline
of sand, gravel, or
cobble.
Heavy equipment access. Fast
Used on non-recreational
high energy beaches,
sand and gravel beaches
that are lightly contam-
inated.
-------
TABLE 27. DECISION GUIDE OF APPLICABLE SHORELINE CLEANUP AND RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
00
Ul
Sand Beach
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
i
I
Natural
Process
Burning
Chemical
Agents
Biological
Agents
Manual
Scraping
Manual
Removal
Manual
Cutting
Manual
Sorbent
Low Pressure
Flushing
High Pressure
Flushing
Steam
Cleaning
Sandblasting
Oil Skinners
Vacuum
Pumping
Backhoe
1
/
0
4-
0
4-
/
O
4-
/
4-
4-
4-
0
0
o
rrj w
4J m
/
0
0
0
NR
4-
o
4-
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1
EM rrl
4^ -r?
id to
" Jd
4-
NR
4-
4-
4-
/
O
/
NR
NR
NR
NR
4-
NR
4-
Steeper, Coarse
Grained
/
NR
4-
4-
4-
/
O
/
f
NR
NR
NR
4-
NR
4-
$ a! ^ 3
/ / J J 4-
NR NR NR O 0
+ + + NR 4-
O 4- O O 0
+ / / 4- /
+ / / 4- /
O 0 0 0 O
+• / 4- 4- 4-
+ + 4- 4- /
NR NR 4- O 4-
NR NR NR O 4-
NR NR NR O 4-
+ + 4- 4- +
NR NR 4- 4- 4-
NR 4- 4- O O
Wetlands Man Made Structures
iiu
j i /
TV y 4-
O 4- 4- O
+ 4- 4. 4.
O 4- 4- O
+ 4- 4-4-
+ 4- 4- /
04- NR O
+ 4-4-4-
+ 4- 4- /
NR NR NR 4-
NR NR NR 4-
NR NR NR 4-
MR 4- 4- O
+ NR NR 0
NR NR NR 0
CJ §
4-
O
4-
O
o
/
0
4-
4-
4-
NR
NR
O
O
0
4-
O
4-
O
4-
/
O
4-
/
/
4-
4-
O
o
0
/ = Peccmnended
+ = Useful in some instances
NR = Not reccmnended
0 = Not applicable
-------
98
O 73 + -V
II II II II
hh 8
Hi
I
8
to NJ to to toio I-* H H H
(Jl ^ tJ N) HO V£ 00 -~J CT\
o M *Q OB ^ ^ f 3 ^ 3? C 3 P 3 S? 3? w M cow ojs D
5 w o 0 o o *"i H N n H ffir^fif^S t*
nt— 'ft ffi81?? ^ n 3 nto
OO OO O OO OOO
yo yo £o£3 ^ ys ^ S S S
+ + + + + + + ...
..... . . ...
Mill II III
.. +. . ++ ...
B+ . . . . . ...
OO OO O OO OOO
OO OO O OO OOO
73 73 73 73 50 73 73 73 73 73
9 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
73 73 73 73 73 73 71 73 73 73
OO OO O OO OOO
OO OO O OO OOO
OO OO O OO OOO
Exposed Rocky
Headlands
Unresistant
Unconsolidated
Cliffs or Bank
Flat, Fine
Grained
Steeper, Coarse
Grained
!
!
Exposed Tidal
Flat
Sand/Gravel
Beaches
Gravel Beaches
Coral Reef
Sheltered
Rocky Coasts
Sheltered
Tidal Flats
Marsh
Mangrove
Swamp
Concrete
Rock or Broken
Concrete
Wood
f
ft
1
i
en
I
1
NJ
-0
8
\
-------
TABLE 28. IMPACTS OF CLEANUP AND RECOVERY • TECHNIQUES
00
Method No.
Natural
Process 1
Burning 2
Chemical
Removal 3
Biological
Agents 4
Physical
Removal
A. Manual 5
6
7
8
Technique
Natural recovery
(no action)
Controlled
burning
Dispersion, sinking,
gelling, or
coagulation
Addition of microbial
populations
Manual scraping
Manual removal of
oiled materials
Manual cutting
Manual sorbent
Physical
Removal of
Substrate
• none = <0.5 cm
• slight = 0.5-3 cm
• moderate = 3-10 cm
• great = 10-25 on
• severe = >25 cm
None
None
None
None
Slight
Slight
None
None
Erosion
Potential
• none
• slight
• moderate
• severe
Slight
Moderate
None
None
Slight
Moderate
Severe
Slight
Organisms
Removal
• surface
• shallow = <5 cm
• deep = >5 cm
• toxic
None
Shallow, <5cm
Possibly toxic
to organisms
None
Surface
Shallow
Surface
Surface
Expected
Recovery
Rate of Area
• fast = <6 mos.
• slow = 6-24 mos.
• very slow = >24 mos.
Very slow
Slow
Fast
Slow
Slow
Fast
Fast
Slow
(continued)
-------
TABLE 28 (CONTINUED)
Method No. Technique
Physical
Removal
B. Light
Mechanical 9 law pressure
flushing
10 High pressure
00 flushing
00
11 Steam cleaning
12 Sandblasting
13 Oil skinners
Physical
Removal
C. Heavy
Mechanical 14 Vacuum pumping
15 Backhoe
16 Dragline
17 Beach cleaner
Physical
Removal of
Substrate
• none = <0.5cm
• slight = 0.5-3 cm
• moderate = 3-10 cm
• great = 10-25 cm
• severe = >25 cm
Slight
Moderate
None
Slight
None
None
Severe
Severe
Great
Erosion
Potential
• none
• slight
• moderate
• severe
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
None
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Organisms
Removal
• surface
• shallow = <5 cm
• deep = >5 cm
• toxic
Surface
Shallow
Surface
Surface
None
Surface
Deep
Deep
Shallow
Expected
Recovery
Rate of Area
• fast = <6 mos.
• slow = 6-24 mos.
• very slow = >24 mos.
Fast
Fast
Slow
Slow
Fast
Slow
Slow
Very slew
Slow
(continued)
-------
TABLE 28 (CONTINUED)
oo
vo
Method No.
Physical
Removal
C. Heavy
Mechanical
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Technique
Elevating scraper
Elevating scraper
and motor grader
Front-end loader
with rubber tires
Front-end loader
and motor grader
Front-end loader
and bulldozer
Tractor breaking
up pavement
Push contaminated
substrate into water
Disc contaminant
into substrate
Physical
Removal of
Substrate
• none = <0.5 cm
• slight = 0.5-3 cm
• moderate = 3-10 cm
• great = 10-25 cm
• severe = >25 cm
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Severe
Moderate
Slight
None
Erosion
Potential
• none
• slight
• moderate
• severe
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Organisms
Removal
• surface
• shallow = <5 cm
* deep = >5 cm
• toxic
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Surface
Shallow
Expected
Recovery
Rate of Area
• fast = 6 mos.
• slow = 6-24 mos.
• very slow = >24 mos.
Slow
Slow
Very slow
Slow
Very slow
Slow
Fast
Slow
-------
Will the rate
of natural oil
removal be
adequate with-
in the time
constraints
available?
ND
(low energy)
Will the clean-
up or recovery
method increase
environmental
damage?
No\
Can the selected
cleaning or
recovery methods
be successful
under current
environmental
conditions?
Use
cleanup
or
recovery
method.
Yes
(high energy)
Allow natural
cleaning
process.
Figure 11. Decision guide for natural cleanup processes.
• In areas with active coastal processes, natural cleaning allows sand
to be deposited on top of the oil. In these areas, removal of oiled
substrate can result in severe coastal erosion problems.
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BEST METBDD FOR CLEANUP AND REMOVAL
The rating system described in Table 29 can be used as an aid in select-
ing the most effective available cleanup technique(s) for a particular sensi-
tive area. Each cleanup technique can be rated in relation to eight specific
criteria. For each technique the ratings can be summed to derive an effec-
tiveness index (ranging from 0 to 18). The technique can then be ranked by
effectiveness index (where the higher the index, the more effective the clean-
up technique). The tables that supply information are referenced and these
ratings can be applied to Table 30 for computation. A method that fails to
meet needs should be excluded from consideration.
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEANUP METHODS
In situations where the cost of cleanup is particularly important and can
be estimated fairly accurately, the procedure described below can be used to
determine the most cost-effective cleanup method. A cost effectiveness ratio
can be derived for each method. The methods can then be ranked according to
this ratio (where the lower the ratio, the more cost effective the cleanup
90
-------
TABLE 29. CRITERIA FOR COMPARING EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEANUP TECHNIQUES
Criteria
Bating
Reference
1. Completeness of removal:
- Oil removal capability under given spill
and environmental factors.
Rate of removal:
- Rate of removal sufficient to minimize
effect on sensitive areas and permit
effective cleanup before spreading occurs.
3. logistics:
- Deployment tims lag minimal; ease of man-
euverability in small areas at spill site.
4. Effect on damage potential:
- Will not increase pollution or hazard
potential of spill situation.
5. Sensitivity to environmental factors:
- Must be operable under given wind, tem-
perature, and wave conditions; must not
be greatly hampered by floating debris.
+4 Capable of removing >80% of oil. Table 26
+2 Capable of removing 30-80% of oil.
0 Capable of removing <30% of oil.
+4 Method exceeds needs. Table 26
+2 Method meets needs.
0 Method fails to meet needs.
+2 Method exceeds needs. Table 26
+1 Method meets needs.
0 Method fails to meet needs.
+2 Reduces pollution or hazard. Table 28
+1 No effect on pollution or hazard.
0 Increases pollution or hazard.
+2 Not affected by given environ- Table 27
mental factors.
+1 Slightly affected by given envi-
ronmental factors.
0 Greatly affected by given envi-
ronmental factors.
6. Ibxicity to aquatic life:
- Method will not adversely affect aquatic
life that has commercial or recreational
value.
7. Operational requirements:
- Operational efficiency will not be con-
strained by quantity or type of manpower
and power requirements.
8. Cost ($) vs. % of spill removed/dayi
- Cost must be acceptable in relation to the
completeness and rate of removal.
+1 Does not adversely affect aquatic
life.
0 Adversely affects aquatic life.
-t-1 No problems satisfying operational
requirements.
0 Problems in satisfying operational
requirements.
+2 Relatively low cost.
+1 Moderate cost.
0 Relatively high cost.
Table 28
Table 26
Note (5) and
Appendix C.
i Note: The cost of cleanup can be roughly estimated using the following steps:
1.
(The
Estimate and sum the expected daily costs for labor, equipment, materials, and supplies.
cleanup cost [Appendix C] can be used as an aid in estimating these costs.)
2. Estimate the expected quantity of oil that can be removed per day. (Quantity can be expressed
in either gallons of oil or percent of oil removed.)
3. Divide the estimated daily cost by the expected daily quantity of oil removed. Use this cost
ratio to make relative comparisons between methods and assign the cost rating.
91
-------
TABLE 30. EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEANUP TECHNIQUES*
Criteria 1
1. Completeness of removal
2. Rate of removal
3 . Logistics
4. Effect on damage
potential
5. Sensitivity to environ-
mental factors
6. Toxicity to marine life
7. Operational requirements
8. Cost
Effectiveness index
(sum of 1-8)
2
3
4
* Range 0-18; the higher the index, the more effective the cleanup technique.
These methods should be used unless they are not available. Alternative
methods should then be employed according to their effectiveness. Unaccept-
able methods should not be used.
method) . For each method, the cost effectiveness ratio can be determined as
follows:
• Derive the ratio of cost/quantity of oil removed (as outlined in the
preceding section).
• Determine the effectiveness index on the basis of criteria 1 through
7 only. (Do not include criteria 8, cost.)
• Divide the ratio from step 1 by the effectiveness index from step 2.
This yields the cost effectiveness ratio, where:
Cost effectiveness ratio = Cost per quantity of oil removed
Effectiveness index
92
-------
SECTION 10
TMPT,MENTATION AND EVALUATION OF SELECTED ACTIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROTECTION AND CLEANUP ACTIONS (STEPS L AND T)
After the OSC has (1) established protection priorities, (2) determined
the best practical countermeasures available, and (3) overcome the external
constraints, the selected protective actions (Step L) should be implemented
as quickly as possible in uncontaminated sensitive areas before any cleanup or
recovery measures are undertaken.
After all threatened sensitive areas have been adequately protected and
the spill dynamics indicate that no additional areas will undergo contamina-
tion, the main effort should be the cleaning up of the oil-contaminated areas.
This action (Step V) occurs after the OSC has (1) established cleanup priori-
ties, (2) determined best practical methods available, and (3) overcome the
external constraints.
Protection and recovery actions, as mandated by the National Oil and Haz-
ardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 1510.53), require the
use of any countermeasure that will restrain the spread of the oil (from the
source) and that will mitigate the oil spill's effects. The OSC has the duty
and sole responsibility to ensure that all countermeasure actions are selected
and are used properly and expeditiously.
REASSESSMENT OF SPILL DYNAMICS (STEP M)
The dynamics of a spill may change at any time during the spill response
because of factors such as:
• recurrence of oil spill or increased rate of spillage
• shift in wind speed or direction
• shift in current speed or direction (that is, tidal changes)
• changes in weather (that is, start of precipitation or temperature
changes)
• artificial causes of oil dispersion (that is, large ship wakes or dam
overflow)
These changes can either occur quickly or be very gradual and subtle. In
either case, the OSC must be able to predict their impact upon the total spill
93
-------
response. Changes could affect the following phases of the spill response:
• change in damage potential of the spill
• order and degree of contamination for protection or cleanup priorities
• addition of more threatened sensitive areas
• modification of protective countermeasures and cleanup methods
• increased or decreased importance of external constraints upon
selected actions
• increased or decreased amount of time necessary to mitigate spill
If the OSC decides, using his best judgment, that the spill dynamics are
basically unchanged since the onset of the spill, he should proceed to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of the total spill response (Step V). However, if spill
dynamics have changed significantly, they should be reassessed and actions
modified following the guidelines in Section 3. The effect upon the spill re-
sponse should then be measured. The effects of changed spill dynamics upon
the response phases are outlined in Table 31. These effects are highly site-
specific and difficult to generalize; this table shows only the possible
effects.
To be effective, changes in the spill dynamics should be monitored and
assessed continuously. Changes can occur quickly and the response to these
changes must be immediate and sufficient to minimize any possible adverse im-
pacts of the spill.
OVERALL SPILL RESPONSE EVALUATION (STEP u)
After the response has been adjusted to address any changes in the spill
dynamics, or after the initial cleanup actions are well under way, the effec-
tiveness of overall mitigation actions must be evaluated. Effectiveness can
be measured by applying the questions below to the total spill response.
• How long did it take after the initial report until arrival on scene?
• Is the source of the oil stopped?
• Is there a potential for spillage from the source because of the oil
containment method?
• Have all potentially sensitive areas been identified and protected to
the maximum extent possible?
• Have all sensitive areas affected been assessed, and have the best
practical recovery and cleanup measures been applied to them?
• Has available manpower and equipment been used effectively and with no
waste of time or duplication of effort?
94
-------
TABLE 31. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF SPILL DYNAMIC CHANGES ON RESPONSE PHASES
vo
Ul
Spill Dynamics Sensitive
Changes Areas
Additional
Oil Spilled 0
Increased
Movement +
Directional
Changes +
Weathering
Changes 0
Meteorological
Changes +
Relative
Sensitivity Protection
Rating Priorities
0 0
0 +
0 +
+ 0
+ +
Cleanup Protective Cleanup
Priorities Actions Actions
+ + +
0 + 0
0 + 0
+ 0 +
+ + +
+ = some possible significant effect
0 = no significant effect
-------
• Has the public been kept informed, and have the actions selected con-
sidered their concerns?
These criteria can be numerically rated, if desired, by using the follow-
ing determinations of very effective (+3), minimally effective (0), and not
effective (-3). Any values between (+3) and (-3) can be assigned to a cri-
terion when the response is between these extremes. To find the total effec-
tiveness values, simply add all eight criteria and compare the relative value
(range -24 to +24). The higher the number (+ or -), the more extreme the re-
sponse. Table 32 illustrates these criteria and their ratings.
If any criterion rates extremely low (-3), the OSC should ascertain why
the response was inadequate within this phase and determine the reason (his
fault or an uncontrollable outside factor). He should attempt to correct the
situation by one or more of the following:
• increased manpower
• additional equipment
• different type of equipment
• consideration of public concerns
• different methods of protection or cleanup activities
• more direct observation and instruction to contractor or spiller
• shifting of protection or cleanup priorities
If all areas are rated as effective, he should continue monitoring and
evaluating the overall spill response. If conditions do not change, he should
consider termination of response effort. Procedures for determining this are
given in the next section.
96
-------
TABLE 32. SPILL RESPONSE EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA
VD
Source
Value Response abatement
sry
ffective
t-3)
inimally
Efective
u)
3t
Efective
-3)
Within Stopped
3 hours immediately
after
arrival
Within Stopped
12 hours but after
large
volume of
oil lost
More Still
than spilling
24 hours
Containment
at source
Contained
within a
small area
Contained
but over
a large
area
Not
contained
at source
Sensitive
areas
protected
Amount
of oil
recovered
All sensitive Most -
areas
completely
protected
Most
sensitive
areas
minimally
protected
None or few
areas
protected
at all
(>90%)
of the oil
recovered
Less than
half (40%)
of the oil
recovered
Little or
no (0-10%)
oil
recovered
Areas
cleaned
vs. areas
requiring
cleaning
All areas
cleaned up
About half
of the
areas
cleaned up
No areas
cleaned
up
Manpower/
equipment
use
Perfectly
suited
resources :
quick
implementa-
tion
Adequate
resources
some time
lag
Ill-suited
resources:
very slow
response
Public
concerns
Considered
and responded
to all valid
public
concerns
Considered
but no
response to
public
concerns
No consider-
ation of
public
concerns
-------
SECTION 11
TERMINATION OF EFFORT (STEP V)
It is the responsibility of the OSC to determine when recovery and clean-
up efforts should be terminated. Generally, this occurs when it is apparent
that additional costs (manpower, equipment, time, etc.) of continuing the
cleanup effort outweigh additional benefits (aesthetic, environmental, econ-
omic, public concerns) and when certain actions have occurred, including:
• a majority of the oil has been removed from the aquatic environment
• recontamination is no longer a threat to adjacent sensitive areas
• the remaining oil is more difficult to recover because of sediment
penetration or debris accumulation
• the remaining oil is either sufficieintly weathered or dissipated to
reduce its damage potential to a minimal level
• public pressure for cleanup has been adequately addressed, and cleanup
activities are drastically intefering with the area's normal
activities
If additional costs and benefits are quantified on the same scale, then
deducting the costs from the benefits will determine if cleanup activities
should be continued. The rating system below can be used as an input into the
OSC's decision-making process.
CONTINUED EFFORT COSTS (EFFORT INDEX)
Costs of continuing the effort can be divided into five elements that, in
turn, can be assigned a relative magnitude, as listed below.
Criteria Rating Description
1. Manpower requirements +3 Increased manpower needed
- number and type of personnel +1 Same manpower adequate
needed for removal effort
in area 0 Reduced manpower sufficient
98
-------
Criteria
2. Equipment requirements
- amount and types or removal
equipment needed to clean
area
3. Time requirements
- continued effort will re-
quire more or less time to
recover same amount of oil
per unit time
4. Environmental damage
- Further damage to ecosystem
from continued intensive
effort compared to no effort
Area use interference
- further effects will hamper
or cease the normal use of
the area
Rating Description
+3 Different type needed
+2 More of the same type
+1 Same equipment adequate
0 Reduced equipment sufficient
+3 Relative longer time required
+1 Same pace adequate
0 Relative shorter time required
+3 Increased damage
+1 No change
0 Decreased damage
0 Decreased damage
+3 Greater interference
+1 No change
0 Less interference
By adding the ratings above (range 0 to +15) a relative magnitude of addi-
tional costs for continuing the effort can be obtained and used as the effort
index.
BENEFITS FROM CONTINUED EFFORTS (BENEFIT INDEX)
The realized benefits from continued removal efforts are difficult to
quantify in all situations; however, some generalized predictions can be de-
termined if the relative value of an area's sensitivity is known. If the rea-
son that renders an area valuable has been left intact, then removal benefits
have been realized. Conversely, if the reason that makes an area valuable has
not been protected or restored, no benefits have been realized. The five cri-
teria that make up possible benefits from continued removal efforts are as
follows.
Criteria
1. Aesthetic benefits
- preservation of visual quality and
reduction of impact on scenic views
Rating Description
+3 Great benefits
+1 Low benefits
0 No benefits
99
-------
Criteria
2. Environmental benefits
- protection of ecosystems and organism
habitats
3. Economic benefits
- continuation of normal level of income
from area and economic use of area
4. Social water use benefits
- preservation of usability of water
for all purposes
5. Address public pressure
- consideration and response to public
concerns and interests
Rating Description
+3 Great benefits
+1 Low benefits
0 No benefits
+3 Great benefits
+1 Low benefits
0 No benefits
+3 Great benefits
+1 Low benefits
0 No benefits
+3 Great benefits
+1 Low benefits
0 No benefits
By adding the ratings above (range 0 to +15), a relative magnitude of the
possible additional benefits from continuing removal efforts can be obtained.
This can be defined as the benefit index.
EFFORT/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
By subtracting the effort index from the benefit index (on Table 33) a
final value of -15 to +15 is obtained and is then compared to the scale pre-
sented in Table 34. The OSC can then determine if efforts should be continued
or terminated or whether more information is necessary before a decision is
reached.
The graph shown in Figure 12 is an aid to the OSC in this decision-making
process. Additional benefits rise from initiation of the effort, reach a peak,
and then decline. Additional costs increase over time commensurate with the
amount of oil removed but rise sharply (beyond some point) because of the dif-
ficulty of removing the last vestiges of the spill. The ideal termination
point is reached when additional benefits equal additional costs or the bene-
fit index equals the effort index. Beyond this point, the effort is generally
not effective and may damage rather than preserve the environment. Unless
site-specific circumstances dictate otherwise, the OSC should terminate opera-
tions at this equality point.
100
-------
TABLE 33. EFFORT/BENEFIT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
EFFORT INDEX
Criteria
Manpower requirements
Equipment requirements
Time requirements
Environmental damage
Area use interference
Total
Value Areas
12345
(0 to +3)
(0 to +3)
(0 to +3)
(0 to +3)
(0 to +3)
Effort Index
B. BENEFIT INDEX
Criteria Value
1. Aesthetic benefits (0 to +3)
2. Environmental benefits (0 to +3)
3. Economic benefits (0 to +3)
4. Social water use benefits (0 to +3)
5. Address public pressure (0 to +3)
Total Benefit Index
C. CALCULATION
Total Benefit Index
minus Total Effort Index
X =
Compare X with values in Table 34 to determine if effort should be continued
or terminated.
101
-------
TABLE 34. DETERMINATION OF REMOVAL EFFORT ACTIVITIES - CONTINUE OR TERMINATE
Value Range (x)
Action Necessary
Comments
(+3) to (+15)
Continue effort
(+3) to (-3)
(-3) to (-15)
Input additional*
data for decision
Terminate effort
Effort should be maintained until
benefit index decreases further
and/or effort index increases.
Effort should be continued because
additional benefits warrant addi-
tional costs.
At this point, additional data is
needed to decide between continua-
tion and termination.
Effort should be terminated be-
cause additional benefits do not
warrant additional costs.
x = benefit index - effort index
* Additional information is needed. Benefits appear marginal and may or may
not warrant extra costs. These cases are completely site-specific and can-
not be generalized. Data such as (1) type and duration of weather condi-
tions, (2) possible financial restrictions, (3) area location, and (4) exis-
tence of lower priority areas all input into the OSC's decision.
102
-------
BENEFITS FROM REMOVAL EFFORT %
(BENEFIT INDEX) '•
Figure 12. Benefits and effort costs vs. percent of oil removed.
103
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Guide to Water Cleanup: Materials and Methods. Learn-
ing Systems, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974. 335 pp.
ASTM Committee F-20 proposed Standard Method of Test for Full Scale Advancing
Removal Devices and Proposed Standards for Test Oils.
Blaikley, D.R., et al. Slicktrak. A computer simulation of offshore oil
spills, cleanup, effects of associated costs. In: Oil Spill Conference
Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1977. pp. 45-52.
Boesch, D., C. Hershner and J. Milgram. Oil Spills and the Marine Environment.
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974.
Canevari, G.P. The Restoration of Oiled Shorelines by the Proper Use of Chem-
ical Dispersants. In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles,
California, 1979. pp. 443-446.
Castle, R.W., and E. Schrier. Decision Criteria for the Chemical Dispersion
of Oil Spills. In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles,
California, 1979. pp. 459-463.
Clark, R.B. Impact of Chronic and Acute Oil Pollution on Seabirds. In:
National Academy of Sciences Background Papers for a Workshop on Inputs,
Fates, and Effects of Petroleum in the Marine Environment, Volume II,
1973. pp. 619-634.
Council on Environmental Quality, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollu-
tion Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 1510, May 14, 1979.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and F.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wet-
lands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (an operational draft).
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 1977.
100 pp.
Cowell, E.G., G.V. Cox, and G.M. Dunnet. Applications of Ecosystem Analysis to
Oil Spill Impact. In: Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles, California,
1979. pp. 517-519.
Der, J.J., and D.J. Graham. Quantitative Evaluation of Mechanical Oil Spill
Cleanup Devices. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention
and Control of Oil Spills, Washington, D.C., 1973. pp. 627-633.
104
-------
Edison Water Quality Laboratory, New Jersey. Oil Pollution Control Technol-
ogy. National Technical Information Service (PB-258-600), 1971. 166 pp.
Environmental Emergency Branch. Guidelines on the Use and Acceptability of
Oil Spill Dispersants. Environmental Protection Service, l-EE-73-1.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1973. pp. 54.
Environmental Emergency Branch. The Impact and Cleanup of Oil Spills on Can-
adian Shorelines: A Summary. Environmental Protection Service, 6-EC-78-1,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1978. 25 pp.
Fingas, M.F., W.S. Duval, and G.B. Stevenson. The Basics of Oil Spill Clean-
up. Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1979.
153 pp.
Gundlach, E.R., and M.O. Hayes. Vulnerability of Coastal Environments to Oil
Spill Impacts. Marine Technology Society Journal, 12(4): 18-27, 1978.
Henager, C.H., P.C. Walkup, J.R. Blacklau and J.P. Smith. Study of Equipment
and Methods for Removing or Dispersing Oil from Open Waters. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills,
Washington, D.C., 1971. pp. 405-414.
Hess, K.W., and C.L. Kerr. A Model to Forecast the Motion of Oil on the Sea.
In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, California, 1979.
pp. 653-663.
Hum, S. The Development and Use of Resource Sensitivity Maps for Oil Spill
Countermeasures. In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 1977. pp. 105-110.
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Ifenual on Oil Pollu-
tion: Practical Information on Means of Dealing with Oil Spillages (pre-
liminary draft). U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1978. 226 pp.
Lindblom, G.P. Logistic Planning for Oil Spill Chemical Use. In: Oil Spill
Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, California, 1979. pp. 453-458.
Lindstedt-Siva, J. Oil Spill Response Planning for Biologically Sensitive
Areas. In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana,
1977. pp. 111-114.
Lindstedt-Siva, J. Ecological Impacts of Oil Spill Cleanup: Are They Signifi-
cant? In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, California,
1979. pp. 521-524.
Lissauer, I.M., and J.P. Welsh. Can Oil Spill Movement Be Predicted? Sympo-
sium in the Wake of Argo Merchant. University of Rhode Island, Center
for Ocean Management Studies, Kingston, Rhoe Island, 1978.
Lissauer, I.M., and D.L. Murphy. Oil Spill Forecasting - Where is it Going?
In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, California, 1979.
pp. 649-651.
105
-------
Lutz, R.E., and J.P. Mech. Recovering for Marine Life Damage: Legal Aspects
of Allocating Social Costs and Protecting Public Interests. In: Oil
Spill Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1977. pp. 11-14.
Mackay, D., A. Watson, N. Cecelia, and S. Nadeau. Behavior and Effectiveness
of Dispersants at Sea and at Shorelines. In: Oil Spill Conference Pro-
ceedings, Los Angeles, California, 1979. pp. 447-452.
Maiero, D.J., R.W. Castle, and O.L. Grain. Protection, Cleanup and Restora-
tion of Salt Marshes Endangered by Oil Spills: A Procedural Manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 149 pp.
Meade, N.F., and R.C. Anderson. Problems and Perspectives in Measuring the
Social Costs of Oil Pollution. In: Oil Spill Conference Proceedings,
Los Angeles, California, 1979. pp. 59-62.
Michel, J., M.O. Hayes, and P.J. Brown. Application of an Oil Spill Vulner-
ability Index to the Shoreline of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. Environmental
Geology, 2(2):107-117. 1978.
Moore, S.F. 'towards a Model of the Effects of Oil on Marine Organisms. In:
National Academy of Sciences, Background Papers for a Workshop on Inputs,
Fates, and Effects of Petroleum on the Marine Environment, Volume II,
1973. pp. 635-653.
McCarthy, Jr, L.T., G.P. Lindblom, and H.F. Walter (eds). Chemical Dispers-
ants for the Control of Oil Spills. ASM STP 659, Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, 1978. 318 pp.
Nadeau, J.S., and D. MacKay. Evaporation Rates of Complex Hydrocarbon Mix-
tures under Environmental Conditions. 1978 Spill Technology Newsletter,
Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Vol. 3, No. 2.
pp. 41-55.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC P-908). Oil Spill Control for
Inland Waters and Harbors. Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia,
1977. 197 pp.
Robertson, A.L. Selection Criteria and Laboratory Evaluation of Oil Spill
Sorbents: An Update. Environmental Emergency Branch, Environmental Pro-
tection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1978. 78 pp.
Schrier, E. Cleanup Efficiency and Biological Effects of a Fuel Oil Spill in
Cold Weater: The 1977 Bouchard No. 65 Oil Spill in Buzzards Bay, Massa-
chusetts. EPA-600/7-78-133, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 187 pp.
Sittig, M. Petroleum Transportation and Production: Oil Spill and Pollution
Control. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1978. 360 pp.
Stewart, R.J. The Interaction of Waves and Oil Spills. MIT Sea Grant.
Report No. MITSG 75-22, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976. 191 pp.
106
-------
URS Research Company. Environmental Assessment and Recommendations - Barge
NEPOO 140 Oil Spill - St. Lawrence River, New York. Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratories, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Edison, New Jersey, 1976. 24 pp.
U.S. Coast Guard. Qn-Scene Command. Report of Major Oil Spill - NEPCO 140 -
23 June 1976. Marine Safety Office, Buffalo, New York, 1976. 172 pp.
U.S. Coast Guard. Merchant Marine Safety Manual, Vol. VI: Ports and Waterways
Activities. Chapter 86: Emergency Response Operations. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials.
Field Detection and Damage Assessment Manual for Oil and Hazardous Mate-
rial Spills, Washington, D.C., 1972.
Walkup, P.C., L.M. Polenti, J.D. Smith, and P.L. Peterson. Study of Equipment
and Methods for Removing Oil from Harbor Waters. In: Proceedings of the
Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, New York, New
York, 1969. pp. 237-248.
Woodward and Clyde, Consultants. Manual of Practice for Protection and Clean-
up of Ocean, Estuarine and Inland Shore lines. Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1979. pp. 245.
107
-------
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF USE OF MANUAL
This example of how to use the manual follows the format of the Field
Manual. The hypothetical coastline spill response treated here covers a per-
iod of three days. For visual ease, Figure A-l indicates the spill location,
the coastal areas, and the resources around the spill. This is a fictitious
spill and so many different area types (as stipulated) are unlikely to be
found in such close proximity.
Step A. Obtain spill factors using the following methods described in Sec-
tion 3.
• initial notification report
• on-site reports from disabled tanker (spiller's information)
• aerial surveillance of spill site
• private observations (local public service personnel)
Spill Factors
Tine of Report: 1120, 1st day
Source: tanker
Spill Time and Date: 1030, 1st day
Location: open ocean - due west of coastline
Oil Type: viscous (fuel oil #4)
Oil Volume: 420,000 gallons (major) and still discharging at
approximately 10,000 gallons per hour
Step B. Obtain environmental factors using the following methods described
in Section 3.
• on-site reports from disabled tanker (spiller's information)
• aerial surveillance of spill site
• U.S. Coast Guard
108
-------
SCENIC
HISTORICAL
MONUMENTS
'.'^-^~. Vi "•;.- Nw posmoN
~' " ' ' " OFSLICKON
SLICK 'X 'V
**
MOVEMENT %
ON3RDDAY
Vel.SK)
- — — • r • ' ^
••.'" •
INDUSTRIAL
WATER FRONT
IRRIGATION INTAKE
MOVEMENT OF SLICK ON 2ND DAY
MOVEMENT OF SLICK ON 3RD DAY
AREAS AFFECTED ON 3RD DAY
OCEAN
OIL SLICK OYSTER BED
LAND
' f
INDUSTRIAL.
PROCESS WATER
INTAKES
Figure A-l. Scenario: coastal spill.
109
-------
• National Weather Service
• local residents
Environmental Factors
Current: 0.5 m/sec (1 knot) south
Wind: 40 km/hr (27 knots) east
Air Temperature: 30°C
Water Temperature: 20°C
Weather: clear
Sea State: high waves, 1-2.5 m (3-8 feet), no debris
Tide: high slack tide at 1000
Step C. Determine oil behavior using the following methods described in
Section 3.
• Step A - spill factors
• Step B - environmental factors
• vector addition - oil behavior on water
Oil Behavior
Resultant Slick Movement: current = .6 knots south
wind = .945 knots east
slick movement =1.25 knots southeast
final spill radius = approximately 9288
feet or 1.75 miles
• air and water temperature will not hinder or aggravate oil
behavior
• minimal weathering has taken place - no effect on oil behavior
• sea state will hinder containment efforts
• weather will have no effect on operations
Step D. Determine best practical containment methods. (Section 7, Table 20)
Step E. Identify potentially sensitive areas. (Section 4)
110
-------
El. affected areas
- open waters of the ocean - tuna fisheries area
E2. threatened areas in probable order of contamination
Area A - industrial waterfront property with harbor
Area B - wetland
Area C - sand beach with resort hotels
Area D - seal rookery
Area E - oyster bed
Area F - irrigation intake
Area G - industrial process water intake
Step F. Rate sensitivity of each threatened area from Section 5 using work-
sheet from Section 6 (Table 10).
• Step Fl - environmental values (Section 5, Table 5)
• Step F2 - aesthetic values (Section 5, Table 6)
• Step F3 - economic values (Section 5, Table 7)
• Step F4 - social water use values (Section 5, Table 8)
• Step F5 - outside consideration values (Section 5, Table 9)
(see Vforksheet for scenario)
• Step F6 - obtain modified total sensitivity rating for each area
using the worksheet from Section 6, Table 11. (Steps Fl + F2 +
F3 + F4 + F5) Numerical values are shown in Tables A-l and A-2.
Step G. Rank the threatened areas according to their relative sensitivity
using the worksheet from Section 6, Table 11. Numbers are in Table A-2.
Step H. Determine predicted order of contamination for threatened areas based
on dynamics (Section 6).
Step I. Assign a value from the area vulnerability index from Section 6,
Table 12, dependent on geomorphical components of area.
Areas (in predicted order of contamination) Vulnerability Index
• industrial harbor 5.5
• wetland 0.5
111
-------
TABLE A-l. HYPOTHETICAL COASTAL SPILL - SENSITIVITY RATING WORKSHEET
(STEPS Fl, F2, F3, AND F4)
VALUES
STEP Fl ENVIRONMENTAL
• Water Quality
Degradation
• Biological
Productivity
• Unique Habitat
Uses
• Ecological
Vulnerability
Fl Subtotal
STEP F2 AESTHETIC
• Scenic Quality
• Visual Impact
• Local
Appreciation
F2 Subtotal
STEP F3 ECONOMIC
• Income or
Use Reduction
• Natural Resource
Damage
• Replacement/
Restoration Costs
F3 Subtotal
STEP F4 SOCIAL
• Purpose of
Use
• Effect of Oil
• Degree of
Direct Contact
• Amount of Use
• Treatment Before
Use
F4 Subtotal
TOTAL SENSITIVITY
RATING
Rating
Range
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-20
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-20
0-64
SENSITIVE AREAS
A
/
0
t)
o
i
I
1
i
3
3
0
3
^
^
3^
&
/
0
3>
/3
B
3
y-
i
i^_
t
/ 2>
y
3
V
n
y
. /
3
V
0
o
$
/
O
/
*?
c
£
A
1
I
6
3
V
~f
n
H-
i
3
1
iX
^
/.£
3
-~>
*~>
a**.
//
/
/
/
3
9-
?
3
ft
/
/
3
3
O
8
33
F
3
0
O
&
^>
o
1
o
/
3,
o
/
-------
TABLE A-2. HYPOTHETICAL COASTAL SPILL - AREA SENSITIVITY RANKING
(STEPS F5, F6, AND G)
VALUES
STEP F5 OUTSIDE
CONSIDERATIONS
• Political
Pressure
• Public
Pressure
• Tine
Restrictions
F5 Subtotal
TOTAL SENSITIVITY
[F1-F4]
STEP F6 TOTAL MDDIFIED
SENSITIVITY
STEP G SENSITIVITY
RANKING
Rating
Range
0-4
0-4
0-4
0-12
0-64
0-76
(1-8)
SENSITIVE AREAS
A
3
Z
£
7
/2>
c2<3
6
B
3
•1
<^
0
S"
^f
3^
2>
c
V
f
r
/*
3^
0
&
If
3s-
¥
E
V
«*•<,
o
(?
33
3f
^
F
I
-"7
6X.
0
3
-?/
~?4
S'
G
/
/
-------
Step J (continued)
PROTECTION PRIORITY DETERMINATION
Step E2
Step G
Step H
Step I
Modified
Identified Area
Threatened Sensitivity
Areas Rating
Industrial
Harbor
Wetland
Sand Resort
Beach
Seal Rookery
Oyster Bed
Irrigation
Intake
6
3
1
4
2
5
Predicted
Order of
Contamination
1
2
3
4
5
6
Area
Vulnerability
Index
5.5
0.5
3.0
5.5
3.5
5.5
Industrial
Process Water
Intake
7
5.5
Step J
Protection
Priority
Ranking
12.5 (fourth)
5.5 (first)
7.0 (second)
13.5 (fifth)
10.5 (third)
16.5 (sixth)
19.5 (seventh)
Step K. Determine best practical protection methods for each area from Section
8.
Step L. Implement protection actions according to priorities using best prac-
tical methods.
Step M. Reassess spill dynamics.
• shift in wind direction on 2nd day from east to north at same speed
• shift in tide-flooding upriver
• shift in current on 2nd day from south to east at same speed
• start of precipitation (rain)
Step Ml. Identify additional areas threatened because of drastic change in spill
dynamics (Step E2).
• scenic historical monuments
• rocky shoreline
114
-------
• public marina
• pebble beach used for swimming
• coastal residential area
Step M2. Rate sensitivity of additional threatened areas using Steps F and G.
In this scenario, most to least sensitive are as follows:
• public marina
• coastal residential area
• pebble beach used for swimming
• scenic historical monuments
• rocky shoreline
Step 143. Determine probable order of contamination (Step H).
Step M4. Assign area vulnerability index value (Step I).
Step M5. Determine protection priorities (Step J) .
Area
Public marina
Coastal resi-
dential area
Pebble beach
Historical
monuments
Rocky shoreline
Step M6. Reorder protection priorities by combining rankings from Step J and
Step M5 as follows (in order of priority ranking).
Sensitivity
1
2
3
4
5
Order of
Contamination
3
5
4
1
2
Vulnerability
4.0
5.0
2.5
4.5
5.5
Protection
Priority
Ranking
8.0 (first)
12.0 (third)
9.5 (second)
9.5 (second)
12.5 (fourth)
Area
• wetland
• sand resort beach
• public marina
• pebble beach
Priority Ranking
5.5
7.0
8.0
9.5*
115
-------
Step M6 (continued)
Area Priority Ranking
• historical monuments 9.5
• oyster bed 10.5
• coastal residential area 12.0
• rocky shoreline 12.5*
• industrial harbor 12.5
• seal rookery 13.5
• irrigation intake 16.5
• industrial process water intake 19.5
* When rankings are the same, the area with the highest
sensitivity rating has the higher priority.
Step N. Implement actions to protect those threatened areas that have not been
previously protected in Step L.
Step 0. Determine areas affected by oil on 3rd day because of protective mea-
sures failure or previous contamination before protection from Section
4. In this scenario, protective measures were applied too late and
these areas suffered contamination.
• pebble beach
• rocky shoreline
• public marina
• scenic historical monuments
• sand resort beach
• tuna fisheries area
Repeat
Step G. Determine sensitivity of area to oil contamination from Section 6,
Table 11. (Rate the same as for protection sensitivity, but use only
those areas affected.)
Step P. Determine degree of contamination for each area from Section 6 (Table
14).
116
-------
Area Degree of Contamination
Pebble beach 1
Rocky shoreline 3
Public marina 4
Scenic historical monument 1
Sand resort beach 2
Tuna fisheries area 5
Repeat Determine area vulnerability index values for each affected area
Step I. (Section 6, Table 12).
Step Q. Determine wave energy index value for each affected area (Section 6,
Table 15).
Area Wave Energy Index
Pebble beach 2
Rocky shoreline 3
Public marina 1
Scenic historical monuments 1
Sand resort beach 2
Tuna fisheries area 3
Step R. Determine cleanup priorities by summing items in Steps G, P, I, and
Q using Table 16 in Section 6.
Step P Step Q Step R Step S Step T
Wave Cleanup
Degree of Vulnerability Energy Priority
Area Sensitivity Contamination Index
Pebble beach
Rocky shore-
line
Public marina
Scenic historical
monuments
Sand resort beach
3
6
2
4
1
1
3
4
1
2
2.0
5.0
3.5
4.0
2.5
2
3
1
1
2
8 (second)
17 (fifth)
10.5 (fourth)
10.0 (third)
7.5 (first)
Tuna fisheries
area 5 5 5.5 3 18.5 (sixth)
117
-------
Step S. Determine best practical cleanup and recovery methods for each area
from Sections 7 and 9.
Step T. Implement cleanup and recovery actions on affected areas in order of
priority.
Step U. Evaluate overall spill response from Section 10 using the criteria in
Table 32.
Criteria Rating
Response time +2
Source abatement 0
Containment at source +1
Sensitive areas protected 0
Amount of oil recovered +2
Areas cleaned vs. areas requiring cleaning +3
Manpower/equipment use +2
Public concenrs +3
Total Effectiveness +13
Ineffective Spill Response Phases
• Spill should have been contained at source more effectively and
rapidly (high sea conditions made this difficult).
• More sensitive areas should have been protected (this was largely
the result of drastic environmental changes on the 2nd day) .
Step V. Consider termination of effort (Section 11) in each area being cleaned
up if spill response cannot address ineffective phases encountered.
• Determine continued effort costs using effort index for sand re-
sort beach and pebble beach.
Criteria Sand Resort Beach Pebble Beach
Manpower requirements +1 0
Equipment requirements +3 +1
Time requirements +3 0
Environmental damage +3 0
Area use interference +3 +1
Effort Index +13 +2
118
-------
• Determine benefits from continued efforts using benefit index for
same two areas.
Criteria Sand Resort Beach Pebble Beach
Aesthetic benefits 0 +3
Environmental benefits +1 +1
Economic benefits +3 0
Social water use benefits 0 +3
Public pressure +!_ +1
Benefit Index +5 +8
• Subtract effort index for each area from its benefit index.
- Sand resort beach = (+5) - (+13) = (-8)
- Pebble beach = (+8) - (+2) = (+6)
• Compare these values to Table 34 to determine if effort should be
continued or terminated.
• Terminate effort on sand resort beach and. continue effort on peb-
ble beach until benefit decreases or effort increases.
119
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPUTER MODELS FOR OIL SPILLS
1. SLIKTRAK. Computer simulation of offshore oil spills, cleanup, (1977
Conference) effects and associated costs.
2. A computer simulation technique for oil spills off the New Jersey-
Delaware Coastline. U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center,
Avery Point, Groton, Connecticut 06340.
3. New York Harbor Oil Drift Prediction Model, Department of Physical and
Ocean Sciences. U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut 06320.
4. The Use of a Diagnostic Circulation Model for Oil Trajectory Analysis.
Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory, Environmental Research Laboratory,
NOAA, Seattle, Washington.
5. Warner, Graham, Dean Model - Department of Navy. Basically an unsteady
Ekman-type model. Major problems with moderately complex boundary condi-
tions (shoreline, variable depth, etc.). Restricted to use in far off-
shore areas.
6. CEQ Model (Sewart, Devanney, Briggs, 1974). Consists of two advections
models - one near shore and one offshore - need specifics on tidal cur-
rent and reliable wind velocities. Major constraint in offshore use is
reliability to estimate residual currents.
7. Tetra Tech Model (IT Model), Wang & Hwang (1974). Effects of local water
velocities upon the spreading of the oil slick. The use is restricted
to use in enclosed water bodies such as bays and harbors.
8. Seadock Model, Williams et al (1975) - probable impact of oil on shore-
line and to organize a contingency cleanup program. This is the most
extensive composite model; it includes three major categories (wind field,
advection, and slick transformation). However, the rules of thumb used in
the model in some cases are crude. Model also suffers from some incon-
sistencies.
9. Coast Guard Model (New York Bight) (Miller). Impact of oil spills along
the N.J. and Delaware coast. Major problem when estimating velocity of
oil slick movement.
120
-------
10. Deepwater Ports Project Officer Model (DPPO Model) NQAA (1976). Similar
to Seadock model but not as complex.
11. Delaware Model - Wang, Campbell and Ditmars (1975). Oil spills in the
Delaware Bay.
12. Battelle Oil Spill Model (BOSM) , Ahlstrom (1975), similar to the IT Model.
Does not account for slick volume changes. The amount of oil sticking to
the beach is determined by beach characteristics. However, no quantita-
tive rules are given to determine these factors: tide, beach.
13. Narragansett Bay Model. Primack & Brown (1973), University of Rhode
Island. Oil spill movement.
14. Puget Sound Model, Rath & Francis (1976), Review, and Vagners & Mar (1976).
15. San Francisco Bay Study. Conomos (1974). Correlation between oil move-
ment and both surface and bottom drifter movement.
16. USC Model - R.L. Kblpak - funded by the API. Not yet complete (1976) .
The model will handle five regions to be included in a composite model:
H2O surface, H20 columns, atmosphere, bottom sediments, and near shore
zone.
17. AVCO Report, Waldman (1973) . A report that may be considered as a model.
Actually it is a discussion of some of the basic environmental factors
influencing oil spills and methods used to model them.
18. Lower Mississippi River Simulation Model; Tsaholis, Demos, T., Shell
Development Company (1979); A general riverspill simulation model to pre-
dict behavior of an oil spill.
19. Fishery - Oil Spill Interaction Model; Reed and Spaulding (1979); Univer-
sity of Rhode Island; Simulations of the interactive effects between an
oil spill and a cod fishery on Georges Bank with impacts on commercial
catch.
20. U.S. Coast Guard Oil Spill Forecasting Model, Lissauer and Murphy, U.S.
Coast Guard Research and Development Center (1979). The integration of
a horizontal transport model, an evaporation model, and a vertical dis-
persion model.
21. NWS & PU Model, Hess and Kerr, National Weather Service and Princeton Uni-
versity (1979) - To forecast motion of oil spilled on the surface of water.
22. Canadian Beaufort Sea Open Water Model, Venkatesh, Sahote and Rizkalla,
Atmospheric Environment Service and Atmospheric Dynamic Corporation (1979).
Prediction of the motion of oil spills in Canadian Arctic waters.
23. Georges Bank Model, Cornillon, Spaulding and Hansen, University of Rhode
Island (1979). An oil spill treatment strategy modeling for Georges Bank.
121
-------
24. FRC Model, Ta Liu and Tai Liu, Flow Research Conpany (1979). Laboratory
experiments to investigate the effects of an oil slick on ocean waves.
122
-------
APPENDIX C
OIL SPILL CLEANUP COSTS (MAY 1979 SURVEY)*
I. Labor Rates (dollars per hour)
t
Straight Time Overtime Double Time
range average range average range average
Workman $8.00 - $21.25 $13.19 $10.80 - $34.50 $19.94 $13.60 - $40.00 $22.57
Equipment
Operator $9.00 - $26.00 $15.60 $12.15 - $48.00 $23.05 $15.30 - $52.00 $25.29
Foranan $13.00 - $30.00 $18.08 $16.00 - $45.50 $26.32 $19.00 - $50.00 $28.61
Supervisor $15.00 - $35.00 $23.50 $20.00 - $54.50 $30.54 $22.50 - $60.00 $33.61
s
II. Equipment Rental Rates (cost ranges)
Compressors: (based on flow Cost per day (or hour, if indicated)
capacity)
85 - 200 GEM $42.00 - $220.00
201 - 600 CFM $66.00 - $308.00
>600 CEM $96.00 - $330.00
Generators: (based on current
capacity)
up to 4 KW $16.00 - $60.00
5 - 15 KW $65.00 - $125.00
50 - 150 KW $550.00 - $750.00
Heavy-Duty Equipment: (based
on size)
Backhoe $96.00 - $480.00
123
-------
Front end loader
Tractor
Mobilization Equipment:
Helicopter, up to 3 hours
more than 3 hours
Plane
Comnand trailer
Tank storage trailer
(275 - 8000 gallons)
4-wheel-drive truck
Tank storage truck
(2000 - 9000 gallons)
Utility truck
12 - 14 ft work boat
(without outboard)
Boston Whaler work boat
(without outboard)
12 - 20 ft work boat
(with outboard)
30 - 40 ft work boat
(diesel-powered)
Work barge
Vacuum pumping barge
Pumps: (based on type and size)
Centrifugal (1-3 inch)
Single diaphragm (2-3 inch)
Double diaphragm (2-3 inch)
High pressure
Moyno solids
$240.00 - $440.00
$60.00 - $144.00
$165.00 - $310.00 per hour
$400.00 - $575.00 per day +
$75.00 - $95.00 per flight hour
$100.00 - $320.00 per hour
$50.00 - $100.00
$7.00 - $50.00
$34.00 - $160.00
$160.00 - $372.00
$27.50 - $60.00
$40.00 - $60.00
$148.00 - $300.00
$56.00 - $240.00
$280.00 - $450.00
$38.00 - $50.00
$360.00 - $600.00
$15.00
$28.00
$28.00
$48.00
$75.00
$40.00
$50.00
$50.00
$75.00
124
-------
Submersible (1-1/2-8 inch) $24.00 - $280.00
Dual Pass Strainer (2-6
inch)
Skimmers: (based on size and
capacity)
Disc or roll type
Single overflow Weir type
Adjustable overflow
Weir type
Double advancing Weir type
Rotating porous belt type
Support Equipment:
Coppus air blower
Breathing equipment
Chemical cleaning unit
Communication equipment
Boom lights
Flood lights
150-watt pneumatic lights
500-watt mercury vapor
lights
Sparkproof lights
High-pressure steam unit
High-pressure water washer
(100 psi - 10,000 psi)
Hand dip nets
Rakes, pitchforks, shovels
Chain saw
Non-sparking tools
$15.00 - $25.00
$100.00 - $760.00
$30.00 - $480.00
$45.00 - $480.00
$400.00
$96.00 - $450.00
$26.50 - $45.00
$100.00 - $175.00
$380.00
$20.00 - $125.00
$10.00
$15.00 - $25.00
$12.00
$14.50
$8.00
$65.00 - $600.00
$25.00 - $520.00
$1.00 - $10.00 each per day
$1.00 - $10.00 each per day
$20.00 - $40.00
$100.00 - $125.00
125
-------
Vacuum Equipment: (based on
storage capacity)
Vacuum truck
(<2000 gallons) $268.00 - $360.00
Vacuum truck
(2000 - 4000 gallons) $280.00 - $640.00
Vacuum truck
(>4000 gallons) $448.00 - $800.00
Vacuum pumping barge $360.00 - $600.00
III. Materials and Supplies**
Boom rental rates (dollars per foot per day):
1st day 2nd - 7th days 8th - 15th days more than 15 days
range average range average range average range average
Class I $.50-$1.42 $1.01 $.50-$1.35 $.85 $.50-$1.35 $.85 $.50-51.35 $.85
Class II $.30-$1.50 $.94 $.30-$1.25 $.79 $.24-$1.25 $.68 $.24-$1.25 $.59
Class III $.35-$3.00 $1.52 $.35-$1.50 $1.22 $.25-$1.25 $1.01 $.28-$1.50 $1.01
Boom cleaning charges $.25 - $1.50 per foot
Hose rental rates:
Air hose (3/4 - 2 inch) $.08 - $.55 per foot
Fire hose (2-1/2 inch) $.20 - $.24 per foot
Discharge hose (1-1/2 - 6
inch) $.16 - $.76
Suction hose (3-6 inch) $.24 - $1.00
Piston Film or Herder Chemical Costs:
Oil Herder $13.00 per gallon
Sorbent Costs:(refer to Appendix E for sorbent efficiencies)
Particulate $2.92 per pound
Perlite $6.75 per bag
Polypropylene mop $35.00 each
Polyurethane $1.38 per cubic foot
126
-------
Soda ash $.15 per pound
Sorbent blanket (35 inch
x 200 ft) $96.00 each
Sorbent booms, 8" diameter $2.80 - $3.88 per foot
9" diameter $2.90 - $4.50 per foot
Sorbent fiber material $.28 - $.40 per pound
Sorbent pads, 24x32 inch $1.00 - $1.45 each
17-1/2 x 17-1/2 inch $.52 each
Sorbent pillows, 14x25 inch $7.40 - $8.00 each
10x14 inch $2.95 each
Sorbent rolls (150 ft) $79.00 - $102.00 each
Sorbent sheets, 18 x!8 inch $.55 each
36 x 36 inch $2.10 each
Sorbent sweeps (100 ft ) $69.00 per bale
Sorbent strips (3 x 26 inch) $.16 each
Straw $5.00 per bale
Urethane foam sheets
(54 x 36 inch) $6.00 per pound
* Costs based on representative sample of private cleanup contractors as of
May 1979.
t Applicable to some companies on Sundays and holidays.
§ Daily costs based on an 8-hour work day. Cost ranges partly attributable to
differences in equipment specifications. Equipment rates exclusive of oper-
ator and fuel costs.
** Refer to manufacturer's specifications for material and supplies, efficien-
cies and effectiveness.
127
-------
APPENDIX D
COMMON CRUDE OIL PROPERTIES
Most Cannon Desig-
nation of Crude Stream
Aquasay
Alberta Mix
Anna
Anaco
Anquille*
Arabian heavy*
Arabian light-berri
Arabian light
Arabian medium
Arabian msdivm-Zuluf *
Area LL-980
Arjuna
Arzew blend
Attacka*
Bachequero
Bai Hassan Jambar
Barinas
Basrah
Bekapai*
Beryl*t
Bloque
Bombai
Bonny light
Bonny medium
Boscan
Brass River
Brega
Bu Attifel
Bunja
Burgan (Wafra)
Cabimas
Cabinda*
Central Lago
Ceuta
Cinta*
Cretaoao
Producing
Country
Venezuela
Canada
Libya
Venezuela
Gabon
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Indonesia, Java
Algeria
Indonesia, East
Kalimantan
Venezuela
Iraq
Venezuela
Iraq
Indonesia, East
Kalimantan
U.K.
Venezuela
Venezuela
Nigeria
Nigeria
Venezuela
Nigeria
Libya
Libya
Indonesia, E.
Kalimantan
Neutral Zone
Venezuela
Angola (Cabinda)
Venezuela
Venezuela
Indonesia, Sumatra
Venezuela
Gravity
"API
38.6
38.4
36.1
42.4
32.0
28.2
38.8
33.4
30.8
30.7
26.6
37.7
44.3
43.2
16.8
34.1
26.6
33.9
41.1
39.5
37.8
19.6
37.6
26.0
10.3
43.0
40.4
40.6
32.2
23.3
20.0
32.9
38.0
30.4
32.0
44.0
Pour
Point
N/A
- 10°F
+ 75°F
N/A
+ 3»C
- 30°F
- 30°F
- 30°F
+ 5°F
- 40°F
N/A
+ 80°F
- 21°C
- 304F
- 10°F
- 18°C
N/A
+ 15°C
-32.5°C
<- 65°F
N/A
N/A
+ 36 °F
<- 5°F
+ 50°F
- 5°F
+ 30°F
+ 39°C
+17.5°C
- 5°F
N/A
+ 65°F
N/A
N/A
+ 95°F
N/A
Viscosity
SUS @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic 1
SUS 8
Kinematic @
SUS @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
Kinematic @
SUS 8
SUS 8
SUS 9
SUS 8
Kinematic @
Kinematic 8
Saybolt @
SUS 8
Kinematic A
N/A
100°F : 35.9
37.8°C : 13.70 cSt
N/A
N/A
70°F
100 °F
70 °F
100 °F
70 'F
100 °F
70°F
100 °F
70°F
100°F
N/A
90°F
100 °F
N/A
70°F
100°F
100 °F
100°F
120° F
N/A
70°C
37.8°C
50°C
37.8°C
N/A
35.8 cSt
18.9 cSt
5.65 cSt
3.78 cSt
10.4 cSt
6.14
16.2
9.41
18.3
10.7
39.2
37.7
1.79 cSt
1.39 cSt
1,362
5.95 CSt
4.43 cSt
32 c3t
1.840 cSt
1.540 cSt
2.91 cSt
N/A
100 °F 36.0
100°F 60.7
100 °F 90.0
140 °F 11.18
70 °F 35.70
100°C 22.91
70°F 5.58
100°F 3.56
70°C 3.2 cSt
N/A
Fural
122°F : 134 Units
N/A
100°F : 78.6
N/A
N/A
122°F : 23.7 cSt
150°F : 14.2 cSt
N/A
(continued)
128
-------
APPENDIX D (CONTINUED)
Most Common Desig-
nation of Crude Streai
Cyrus
Darius*
Dubai
Duri
Ecusdor cm3fi
(Orients)
Ekhabinskaya
Ekofisk*
El Bundug
Emeraude*
Eocene
Escravos
Es Sider
Fereidoon blend*
For cartos blend
Forbes*
Fosterton Crude
Gamba
Guanipa
Gulf of Suez blend*
Handil*
Hassi Messaoud
Hombre Pintado
Hout
Interprovincial
Ipire
Iranian heavy
Iranian light
Jatibarung
Kerindingan*+
Khafji
Kirkuk
Klanono
Kuwait
Producing C
i Cbuntry
Iran
Iran
Dubai
Indonesia, Sumatra
Ecuador
U.S.S.R.
Norway
Abu Dhabi
Congo (Brazzaville)
Neutral Zone
Nigeria
Libya
Iran
Nigeria
U.K.
ranarla
Gabon
Venezuela
Egypt
Indonesia,
E. Kalimantan
Algeria
Venezuela
Neutral Zone
Canada
Venezuela
Iran
Iran
Indonesia, Java
Indonesia,
E. Kalimantan
Neutral Zone
Iraq '
Indonesia,
Irian Java
Kuwait
Sravi
°AP
13.
33.
32.
20.
30.
30.
35.
38.
23.
18.
36.
37.
31.
30.
36.
24.
31.
avg
31.
30.
44.
26.
34.
36.
33.
30.
33.
28.
21.
28.
35.
18.
31.
ty
i
0
9
5
6
4
7
8
5
6
6
2
0
0
5
6
1
8
5
8
0
6
1
4
5
8
5
9
6
7
9
7
2
Pour
Point
- 10 °F
0°F
- 5"F
+ 57«F
+ 20°F
- 17.5°F
+ IS'F
- 10°C
- 36°C
- 20 °F
+ 50°F
- 1°C
- 10°F
+ 5°F
+ 30°F
15°F
+ 23° C
N/A
+ 40 °F
+ 35°C
- 24°C
N/A
0°F
- 35'F
N/A
- 5"F
- 20 "F
+110 "F
< 10°F
- 35°C
- 36° C
+ 408C
0°F
SUS
sus
Kinematic
SUS
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
Saybolt
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
SUS
SUS
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
SUS
V:
@
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
@
e
9
9
@
9
@
9
9
9
9
9
9
@
.scosity
68°F
68°F
130°F
70 °F
100°F
130°F
100°F
100°F
50°C
100 °F
37.8°C
37.8°C
122°F
100°F
100°F
68°F
130°F
IOO'F
IOO'F
100°F
37.8°C
N/A
68°F
130°F
37.7°C
50°C
14*F
32°F
680F
IOO'F
N/A
70°F
100 °F
100°F
N/A
100°F
130°F
100°F
130°F
122°F
140°F
100°F
122°F
NA
100 °F
50 °C
100 °F
4,992
58
40
10.
6.
4.
1,844
61.
3.
42.
2.
78
80.
38.
5.
94
49
43.
40.
139.
36.
116
46
5.
4.
5.
4.
2.
1.
10.
6.
41.
9.
7.
6.
4.
128.
56.
: 21.
: 14.
: 4.
34.
58.
4
35
39
8
51
48
3
4*
uz
2
56
6
7
6
7
872
077
540
112
759
989
51
03
7
81
55
44
83
1
1
9
4
61
7
7
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
CSt
imal
lit
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
CSt
CSt
cSt
CSt
cSt
cSt
3St
cSt
CSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
(continued)
129
-------
APPENDIX D (CONTINUED)
Most Cannon Desig- Producing
nation of Crude Stream Country
Tahiian light*
Lagonar
Lagomedio
Lagetreco
Laguna
Lagunillas
Lama
Lunar
La Rasa
Leduc Wbodbend
Leona
Mandji blend
Mara
Mara heavy
Marlago
Mata*
Melanin
Mercedes
Merey
Mesa
Mezcla Boscan
Minas
Monagao heavy
Morichal
Montrose*t
Mubarras
Muraban
Ninian*^
North Slcpet
Oficina
Cnan
Critopano
Oscurote
Paoonsib
Penbina Crude
Pennington*
Pilon
Piper*t
Poleng*
Qatar Island (Dukhan)
Qatar marine*
Qua Iboe*
Malasia, Sabah
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Gravity
"API
36.0 +
Pour
Point
60°F
Viscosity
60 "F
sus @ 100 "F
: 38.4
: 33.9
31.6
32.0
15°F
SUS @ 1DO°F
: 55
31.4
11.6
15.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32.6
37.0
24.2
PanaHa 39.7
Venezuela
Gabon
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Indonesia,
E. Kalimantan
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Indonesia, Sumatra
Venezuela
Venezuela
U.K.
Abu Chabi
Abu Ehabi
U.K.
USA
Venezuela
Groan
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Canada
Nigeria
Venezuela
U.K.
Indonesia, Java
Qatar
Qatar
Nigeria
24.0
29.0
26.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SUS A 100°F
N/A
SUS @ 100°F
N/A
: 39
: 120
17.1-avg.
27.4
25.9
24.7 <
29.4
18.0-avg
30.1
32.8
35.2 +
12.
12.
41.
38.
39.
35.
26.
36.
34.
18.
23.
12.
32.
37.
14.
0
0
9 +
1
4
1 +
8
3
7
4-avg
2
8
7
7 +
4
.08467 -
(5.6)
43.
40.
37.
37.
2 +
9
0 +
4 +
N/A
N/A
10 °F
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90»F
N/A
N/A
20°F
30°F
15°F
45«F
S'F
N/A
24 °C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
37°F
N/A
9°F
15°F
5°F
25°F
50°F
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SUS @ 122°F
N/A
N/A
SUS @ 68°F
Kinematic 9 50° C
Kinenatic 9 21° C
IOO'F
Kinematic 9 130°F
60°F
SUS @ 100°F
N/A
SUS @ 100°F
N/A
N/A
N/A
SUS @ 100°F
sus @ IOO'F
N/A
Kinematic @ 20° C
100°F
Kinematic @ 120°F
40°F
SUS 9 80°F
40°F
SUS 8 80°F
Kinenatic 9 37.8»C
: 64
40
4.7
5.0
6.94
4.66
235
83
55
43
36
6.97
1.8
1.4
54.6
41.4
70.6
40.8
2.89
cSt
CSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
CSt
cSt
130
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX D (CONTINUED)
Most Cannon Eesig- Producing Gravity
nation of Crude Stream Country "API
Quiriquire
Ratawi
Red Water Crude
Reforma (Cactus
Reforma)
Ronashkinskaya
Rostram*
Ruiz
San Joaquin
Sarit
Sassan*
Seppinggan*t
Seria light*
Siaifjord
Silvestre
Sirip blend
Sooororo
Sta. Rosa
Taching
Tasakan (Pamusian)
Temblador
Tembungo*
Thistlext
Tigre
Tia Juana light
Tia Juana med.
Tia Juana heavy
Trinidad blend
Tucupido
Tyumen
Unm Shaif *
Walio Export Mix
Zakum*
Zarzaitine*
Zveitina
Venezuela
Neutral zone
Canada
Mexico
U.S.S.R.
Iran
Venezuela
Venezuela
Libya
Iran
Indonesia,
E. Kalimantan
Brunei
Norway
Venezuela
Iran
Venezuela
Venezuela
China (PRC)
Indonesia,
E. Kalimantan
Venezuela
Malaysia, Sabah
U.K.
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Trinidad
Venezuela
U.S.S.R.
Abu Dhabi
Indonesia, W. Irian
Abu Chabi
Algeria
Libya
16
23
34
33
32
35
31
42
36
33
37
38
38
26
27
27
49
33
19
16
37
37
24
33
24
12
33
36
34
37
35
40
42
39
.6
.5
.7
.0
.6
.9
.8
.3
.5
.9
.9
.8
.2
.4
.1
.7
.8
.0
.5
.9
.4
.4
.5
.4
.9-avg
.1
.6
.0
.0
.6
.4
.1
.0
.6
Pour
Point
N/A
+ 15°F
N/A
- 5°
to 10°F
- 20°F
22.5'C
N/A
N/A
- 5°F
+ 15° F
+ 60°F
+ 20°F
- 33°C
N/A
- 33° C
N/A
N/A
95°F
- 45°F
N/A
+ 25°F
+ 40'F
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
+ 57°F
N/A
- 20°C
+ 5°F
+ 20 °F
+ 5°F
9°C
+ 55°C
Viscosity
Saybolt
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
SUS
Kinematic
Kinematic
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
@
8
8
8
@
8
8
8
8
8
8
N/A
122°F
100°F
60°F
100°F
100°F
50"C
N/A
N/A
37.8°C
77° F
100°F
120°F
100°F
37.8°C
N/A
100°F
N/A
N/A
77°F
100°F
100°F
N/A
100 °F
70°F
100°F
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
68°F
130°F
N/A
50°C
100°F
37.8°C
100°F
37.8°C
40°F
100°F
: 204
: 46
.
: 6
: 50
: 3
10
52
2
1
33
4
20
: 208
: 137
: 26
: 2
: 7
: 4
47
38
3
38
4
35
3
202
42
6 fural
units
.81
.1
.08
.0
.1
.18
.99
.35
.4
.9
.9
.2
.0
.0
.59
.4
.5
.91
.7
.4
.8
.2
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
cSt
ccSt
* Wholly or partially offshore t Production not stabilized, values could change
S Field not in production. Development expected
Source: ' A Guide to Vforld Crude Oil Export Streams, Petroleum Publishing Cotpany
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1976.
z Evaluation of World's Important Crudes, Petroleum Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1973.
131
-------
APPENDIX E
MAXIMUM OIL AND WATER PICKUP BY SORBENTS*t
(A.L. Itobertson, 1978, modified)
SORBENT
1. Conwed (modified)
2. Peat Moss
3. Rttoberraid Black*
4. Slikwik
5. Straw
Inorganic
6 . Zorbite*
Mixed (Organic/Inorganic)
7. Sorbent C
Synthetic (Polymeric)
8. Conwed Durable Pads*
9. Graboil
10. Inbiber Beads
11. Leoraat*
12. Oil Snare
13. Qwik-Wick*
14. Spill Control Co. FPD*
15. Spill Control Co. PEP*
16 . Tafinat*
17. 3M Fibre
18. 3M Sheet
19. Winkler Foam 50-PS-RU*
20. Winkler Foam 50-K-PS*
21. Winkler Foam
g
CRUDE
12.0
4.2
3.0
5.5
1.8
4.2
8.6
20.3
41.3
3.0
4.6
1.0
11.2
11.6
46.9
11.0
11.9
12.4
32.4
13.0
7.0
1-Day Aged
oil/g sorbent
BUNKER C
24.0
3.6
3.4
9.6
4.7
19.9
13.5
23.0
41.8
5.0
9.5
4.5
16.2
14.5
39.6
14.6
12.2
6.7
28.0
10.9
9.4
DIESEL
11.7
3.4
1.5
4.8
1.5
4.5
5.3
17.8
30.6
4.4
4.7
1.3
10.6
12.6
41.1
9.4
10.6
14.7
11.3
3.7
1.6
g
CRUDE
0
0.3
0
0.3
0
4.1
2.1
1.1
0
0
.02
1.5
0.2
0
0
0
0.1
0
6.0
3.4
4.0
water/g sorbent
BUNKER C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DIESEL
0
0
0.5
0
0.2
0
1.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.4
7-Day Aged
g
CRUDE
14.2
3.1
2.8
6.7
1.5
1.8
16.6
15.5
47.0
2.9
6.4
1.6
4.3
10.3
45.9
10.1
12.0
12.4
31.6
24.3
21.0
oil/g sorbent
g
BUNKER C DIESEL CRUDE
25.1
3.1
2.9
6.1
3.8
13.8
5.6
22.9
62.9
6.4
10.1
6.0
14.8
14.0
42.0
14.7
9.1
10.0
42.7
3.8
8.7
13.5 1.0
2.9 0.7
1.8 0.1
4.5 0
2.5 0.5
7.2 4.0
6.8 7.7
18.5 4.6
28.8 0
3.5 0
6.0 1.3
1.4 0.9
10.2 9.3
10.2 0
27.3 0
9.0 4.0
10.3 0.9
13.4 0
14.9 2.6
1.5 23.8
2.8 14.7
water/g sorbent
BUNKER C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DIESEL
0
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.3
0
0.3
0
1.9
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
3.0
1.6
0.2
OJ
to
* Sorbent not tested in the 1974 Environment Canada study.
t Based on triplicate tests.
-------
APPENDIX F
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Source
Information Available
U.S. EPA Regional Offices
U.S. Coast Guard District
Offices
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
State Water Departments
State Fish and Game
Departments
National Weather Service
Army Corps of Engineers
State Coastal Department
State and Local Parks and
Recreation Departments
OSC spill reports, generalized spill data, loca-
tion of nearest cleanup contractors.
Historical spill data, local meteorological data,
oceanographic data, technical assistance for
cleanup methods, locations of closest cleanup
contractors.
Data pertaining to possible sensitive and
unique areas, data concerning threatened species
in an oil spill area, directions to take concern-
ing the protection or cleanup of important eco-
logical systems (rookeries, hatcheries, etc.).
Data concerning all water systems within a
state, some measure of outside considerations in
a particular area based on experience, locations
of area cleanup contractors, data concerning
water uses in an area.
Data detailing locations of major aquatic breed-
ing and habitat areas within a state, data con-
cerning wildlife water uses.
Meteorological and nautical data.
Historical water data for spill site, predicted
flow patterns of an area.
Data on coastal shoreline development areas, data
on where the recreational, commercial, and wild-
erness shorelines are located, data on currents,
waves, and tides.
Data on the recreational use of certain areas,
data on the habitats of recreational wildlife
(game fishes, birds, etc.).
(continued)
133
-------
APPENDIX F (CONTINUED)
Source Information Available
USGS Data on the geologic and hydrologic features of
a spill area, topographic data, data on water
uses in an area, usually in map form.
NQAA Nautical and meteorologic data, visual recon-
naissance capabilities.
State and Local Universities Can provide scientific data in the form of wild-
and Colleges life specialists, etc., can assist technically
in formulating containment and cleanup efforts.
State and Local Historical Can provide input as to the aesthetic and his-
and Conservation Groups torical values of an area, provides information
concerning local outside consideration.
National Conservation and Can provide input concerning the existence of
Wildlife Organizations threatened or endangered species in a spill area
as well as providing information to determine
inpact on wildlife in a spill area.
State and Local Information concerning water uses, outside con-
Government Officials siderations, spill area uniqueness, and general
information concerning logistics.
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981-757-064/0278
------- |