United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research "^
Laboratory "
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-82-036 August 1982
Project Summary
Oil Spill Response
Scenarios for Remote
Arctic Environments
Robert H. Schulze, William G. Grosskopf, Jack C. Cox, and Lawrence A.
Schultz
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has recognized that special
problems occur during oil spill cleanup
in remote inland areas in cold climates.
In Alaska these problems result from
the harsh arctic and subarctic climate,
the unusual terrain features, and the
special problems of spills along swift
rivers. The purpose of this study is to
describe and analyze these problems
using four typical oil spill scenarios.
The study begins by describing Alaskan
environmental conditions that affect oil
spill behavior and oil spill cleanup. This
description emphasizes those aspects
of the environment that have the greatest
impact on spill behavior and cleanup.
The study then describes four spill
scenarios in remote areas, giving engi-
neering details of the mechanics of the
spill movement and the mechanics of
the cleanup effort. One scenario covers
a winter blowout of an exploration well
on the north slope tundra. The next in-
volves a Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill in
the Brooks Range where the pipeline
passes under a sensitive mountain
stream. The third scenario covers a fuel
farm spill that contaminates the local
water supply of an inland Alaskan
village. The fourth scenario involves a
fuel tank truck spill into a sensitive,
sport fishing stream.
The study describes the impact of
these spills on the environment and the
circumstances that dictate a particular
spill response method. Further, it pro-
vides a numerical evaluation of the
effectiveness of the spill response for
the cleanup effort.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Municipal Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
Cold climate oil spill cleanup in remote
inland areas gives rise to a special set of
problems. These problems are particu-
larly significant in the remote areas of
Alaska both because of the inaccessi-
bility of many areas and because of the
high level of petroleum development
that is occurring there now. The prob-
lems of spill response are, in fact, so dif-
ferent from those that occur in the
lower 48 states that they deserve spe-
cial recognition and analysis. This study
identifies these problems and evaluates
the effectiveness of selected spill re-
sponse methods using four typical spill
scenarios.
The problems of spill response in
Alaska are both complex and diverse.
Because of this, the analysis of these
problems is divided into seven sections.
The study begins by describing the en-
vironmental conditions in Alaska that
affect oil spill behavior and spill cleanup.
To identify these conditions, the natural
-------
environment is described in terms of the
climate, topography, geology, and ecol-
ogy, emphasizing those characteristics
that have the greatest effect on spill im-
pact and on spill behavior and cleanup.
For example, the description of the cli-
mate emphasizes the cold temperatures,
frozen lakes, rivers, permafrost, and
frozen tundra conditions that affect oil
spill behavior. The description also em-
phasizes the elements of the northern
environment that are most sensitive to
the impact of spilled oil such as the
tundra, bogs, and swift rivers.
The study of the environment identifies
sets of typical, or characteristic inland
areas where petroleum development or
handling operations occur and are,
therefore, most likely to be the sites of
remote spills. Characteristic environ-
mental conditions are then evaluated
along with typical spill situations to
develop the oil spill scenarios. These
scenarios are then used to develop spill
response methods showing what could
be considered as the best available
method to deal with each spill. These
procedures are analyzed to determine
the effectiveness of the response
method and the cost effectiveness of
the overall operations. Finally, inade-
quacies are identified in the spill re-
sponse procedures, and these are used
to suggest R&D initiatives designed to
improve overall performance.
The paragraphs that follow briefly
summarize the sections of the study
that develop the background information,
evaluate the spill response methods,
and propose R&D programs to correct
current deficiencies.
Development of the Study
Analysis
The detailed requirements of the study
were met through a set of systematic
project steps. These steps are described
in the paragraphs that follow.
Alaskan Profiles
The scenarios for this analysis were
to be selected to illustrate spill response
conditions in four typical remote Alaskan
environments. The Alaskan Profiles were
therefore developed to characterize the
types of environmental and social con-
ditions that occur in Alaska and the
kinds of problems that would develop
as a result of spills in these areas.
The information developed in the pro-
files falls into two broad categories, the
natural environment and the human
environment. For the purposes of study-
ing the effects of oil spills, the natural
environment includes:
• Climate
• Topography
• Geology
• Ecology
Those aspects of the human environ-
ment that are related to oil spill problems
include:
• Population and Society
• Economy
• Transportation Systems
• Petroleum Development
The Alaskan Profiles provide a broad
brush picture of the Alaskan environment.
In addition to this broad picture, the pro-
files quickly zero in on those aspects of
the environmental conditions that affect
oil spill response efforts. For example,
the description of the climate concludes
with an assessment of the impact that
climate can be expected to have an oil
spill potential, behavior, response, and
site restoration. Each of the other sec-
tions covering natural and human envi-
ronmental conditions are also related to
these same aspects of spill impact and
spill response.
Consider now some examples of the
kinds of information that are developed
in these environmental descriptions.
First, it is shown that oil spill behavior is
profoundly affected by climatic condi-
tions such as air temperature, snowfall,
ice, and winds. It is also shown that ex-
treme topographic features present in
Alaska, such as steep slopes and swift
rivers, have important effects on oil spill
movement.
Permafrost is another feature of cold
climates that affects oil spill behavior.
Permafrost affects the permeability of
the soil, the engineering characteristics
of the soil, and the sensitivity of the
terrain to the impact of a spill.
The physical character of the soil also
determines how the oil is absorbed in
the ground. A dry, porous soil will
absorb oil quickly; however, a moist or
saturated soil will tend to keep the oil on
the surface. The Profiles show that in
summer Alaska is almost always a wet
area. In many areas the soil may be wet
to the point that water is standing or
even freely flowing over the surface.
This means that spilled oil will remain
near the surface where it is easier to con-
trol and recover. It also means that the
spill may flow freely over a sloping sur-
face and coat large areas of vegetation.
The cold climate in Alaska affects the
way in which the spilled oil evaporates,
which is one of the most significant
characteristics of the oil spill behavior.
Cold temperatures, ice, and snow all
tend to reduce the rate of evaporation.
The result is that more of the light ends
remain in spilled crudes, which makes in
situ burning more successful.
The Profiles also show how the envi-
ronmental conditions in Alaska affect
spill response. For example, the study
shows how the climatic conditions of
light, cold, ice, snow, and wind chill
affect the methods of spill response
that can be used and the operation of
the response equipment. The study
shows how the topography affects the
spill response effort. Spill response
operations are also significantly affected
by the accessibility of the areas where
spills may occur and the type of equip-
ment that can be transported to and
deployed in these areas.
Permafrost is a characteristic of arctic/
subarctic conditions that affects the
way in which the spill response effort
can be mounted. Deploying equipment
in remote areas is difficult because off-
road vehicle traffic is not permitted in
many areas during the summer. Arctic
vegetation is fragile and the prints of
vehicles may leave scars that remain for
years. Because of the permafrost and
arctic vegetation, a massive effort to
recover a spill in an inland area may be
more damaging to the environment than
leaving the spill in place.
The preceding paragraphs provide a
sampling of the kinds of conditions that
occur in Alaska that limit the effective-
ness of inland spill response. The section
covering the Alaskan Profiles describes
these and other conditions in much
greater detail.
Alaskan Inland Oil Spill Behavioi
To determine the impact of the spillec
oil on the environment and the way ir
which the spill can be most effectively
recovered, it is necessary to describe
the way in which the spilled oil wil
move in the environment. This section
therefore, develops quantitative rela
tionships that show how spilled oil be
haves in remote Alaskan environments
Mathematical relationships are developec
for oil spill behavior for the various char
acteristic Alaskan conditions and com
binations of these conditions. Spil
behavior is predicted for oil on oper
water; oil moving over frozen ground
-------
snow, and ice; oil in water mixed with
ice; and oil on various soils and ground
water. Evaporation of spilled oil is one
of the most important characteristics in
determining how much oil will be avail-
able for recovery and what its condi-
tions will be at the time of recovery.
This section also describes spill evapo-
ration characteristics for a wide range
of spill environments. The relationships
developed in describing oil spill behavior
are used in the spill response scenarios
to predict the movement and fate of oil
in the environment.
Oil Spill Scenario Selection
The spill scenarios were selected to
fulfill a number of functions. First, they
illustrate situations that may occur in a
number of typical Alaskan environments.
This was accomplished by reviewing
sets of typical conditions that may occur
based on environmental conditions de-
scribed in the Alaskan Profiles. Next,
the scenarios were selected to represent
real spill situations. This is, they must
be typical spill situations that have some
potential to occur in remote Alaskan
areas. Selecting spill scenarios, then,
involves two tasks: selecting typical
environmental situations and selecting
typical spill situations.
Oil Spill Scenario Description
The study describes four spill scenarios
in remote inland areas of Alaska in engi-
neering terms including both the mechan-
ics of the spill itself and the mechanics
of the cleanup efforts. The spill scenarios
selected are of universal interest be-
cause of the kinds of spills that are
covered and because of the terrain
where they occur.
The first spill scenario describes a
winter blowout of an exploratory well
on the north slope of Alaska south of
Barrow. The scenario analysis develops
the way in which the oil could be ex-
pected to exit the well and the distribu-
tion of the oil on the surrounding terrain.
A complete project plan of the proposed
oil spill cleanup program is presented,
including personnel requirements, logis-
tic requirements, and a detailed, line-
item listing of the expected cost of the
response effort.
The second spill scenario concerns a
Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill on the south
slope of the Brooks Range where the
pipeline passes under a swift mountain
stream. The spill occurs in late winter
before breakup, and the oil is postulated
to move under the ice of the river along
the riverbanks until breakup occurs in
May. The oil is then released, flowing
with the breakup flood waters until the
waters recede, and a large part of the oil
is left stranded along the river banks.
This scenario provides the engineering
details of how the oil is expected to
move on the water table along the river-
bank before breakup, and how it moves
downstream and is deposited along the
shoreline. As in the first scenario, a
complete spill response plan is presented
and costed as a part of the scenario
description.
The third spill scenario traces the
path of an accumulation of petroleum
products on the water table under a fuel
farm at an inland Alaskan village. The
spill response procedure shows how the
oil is recovered from the water table
where it has been a contaminant to the
village water supply. As before, spill
response methods and costs are provided
in detail.
The last spill scenario concerns a fuel
tank truck that overturns on the haul
road north of Fairbanks and spills a re-
fined product into a sensitive sport fish-
ing stream. This scenario is typical of a
great many spills that occur in Alaska,
and it illustrates the problems involved
in responding to a small spill in a remote
area.
Spill Response Techniques and
Devices
Spill response techniques and devices
were reviewed in terms of their applica-
tion to the selected spill scenarios.
Because of the large number of devices
and methods of spill response that are
currently available, the evaluation and
description was limited to the technology
that could be applied to the scenarios
selected for analysis. The devices se-
lected are described in detail giving full
engineering specifications. In addition,
each device is evaluated in terms of its
expected performance in the spill
scenarios.
Spill Response Methods and
Effectiveness Analysis
This section evaluates the effective-
ness of the spill response methods
described in each of the scenarios. This
analysis is the most important part of
the study because it provides important
insights into the spill response process
and the use of funds to support this
process.
The effectiveness analysis begins by
defining and calculating spill impact. For
this study, spill impact is assumed to be
related to the volume of oil spilled, the
area covered by the spill, and the sensi-
tivity of the environment to the spilled
oil. The spill volume and area are mea-
sured using conventional metric units.
The sensitivity of the environment to
the spill is represented by a set of weigh-
ing factors that are given values of 0 to
4, with 0 representing the case of no
spill impact and 4 representing the case
of maximum spill impact. Mathematically
this can be shown as:
Impact =
2(time) Volume x Area x Sensitivity
Next it was necessary to define spill
response effectiveness. Basically, the
concept of response effectiveness in-
volves comparing the spill impact with a
response effort to the spill impact if no
response effort had been expended.
Taken as a fraction, the (Impact with
response)/(lmpact with no response)
become smaller as the response effort
increases, which is contrary to what
intuition would expect of an effective-
ness measurement. To bring logic and
intuition into congruence, the fraction is
subtracted from 1 so that higher values
of response effectiveness result from
higher levels of response effort. The ex-
pression for response effectiveness,
therefore, becomes:
Response effectiveness =
1 _ Impact with response
Impact with no response
Using this relationship, spill response
effectiveness was computed for three
response levels: a minimum level of
response, a moderate level of response,
and a high level of response, for each of
the four scenarios developed in the
study. Determining response effective-
ness for each scenario required many
computations because a separate cal-
culation had to be made for each type of
environment (rivers, shore, wetland,
and so forth) that occurred in the spill
area. The calculations were also made
for each of the three spill response
levels. The results of these calculations
were dependent on the spill response
methods that were selected and the suc-
cess with which these methods were
used. The results of each effectiveness
calculation were also determined by the
practical response requirements of the
individual spill situations. For example,
-------
the spill response methods were selected
and the spill response levels were deter-
mined in consultation with the spill re-
sponse specialists in Alaska. As a result,
the minimum level of response selected
was the minimum practical level that
would be acceptable to local respon-
sible officials. This level of response is
always likely to be fairly high in terms of
the amount of oil recovered; therefore,
the minimum level of response in each
case shows a relatively high level of
effectiveness. This situation tends to
show that the minimum level of response
is the preferred course of action in every
case. This result is reinforced in the cost
effectiveness analysis, which is described
next.
Cost Effectiveness of Spill
Response
In this study, the cost effectiveness
of spill response is determined using the
expression:
Cost effectiveness =
Normalized cost
Response effectiveness
The normalized cost shown in the
formula is the total cost of each spill
response level divided by the total cost
of the entire operation. Since each re-
sponse level describes the actions that
are taken in addition to the response
level that preceded it, the costs asso-
ciated with the response levels are
cumulative.
This expression for cost effectiveness
can be visualized conceptually as a rela-
tive cost per unit level of effectiveness.
Ideally, if the cost effectiveness is plot-
ted against the percent of product re-
covered or levels of spill response, the
cost effective solution would be the min-
imum point on the curve. In practice,
the minimum point on the curve often
corresponds to the lowest acceptable
level of response, and all other points
are higher. This result can be expected
when one considers that the lowest
level of response generally includes the
heaviest accumulations of oil close to
the spill site. These accumulations can
be cleaned up at the lowest cost per
unit volume recovered, and therefore
this recovery is cost effective. Higher
levels of response generally involve
exerting a higher level of effort cleaning
up a smaller amount of oil farther from a
spill site, and therefore these operations
are often less cost effective.
Consider for a moment the results of
a computation of spill response effec-
tiveness and cost effectiveness. The
specific example happens to be from
the pipeline spill scenario, but the details
of the scenario are not important to this
discussion. The result, in this case, is
also typical of the analysis that was made
for each of the other three scenarios.
Recall that the response effectiveness
and cost effectiveness computations
are made for three levels of spill re-
sponse, where Response Level I is the
minimum acceptable level of response.
Response Level II is a moderate level of
response, and Response III is a relatively
high level of response.
Figure 1 shows the results of the
computation for response effectiveness
for the pipeline scenario. The spill re-
sponse effectiveness shown in Figure 1
is not particularly high, but it can be
considered to be realistic. Note that the
curve is relatively flat; that is. Response
Level I is high as compared with Levels
II and III. This is a condition that is likely
to be typical of many inland spill situa-
tions. In this scenario, there is a heavy
accumulation of oil at the spill site. A
high percentage of this oil must be
cleaned up to repair the pipeline. Recov-
ering this large volume of oil has a sig-
nificant effect on the computation of
spill response effectiveness. In addition,
the next largest volume of the spill, the
oil that coats the shoreline, is also re-
covered in Response Level I as part of
the minimum acceptable level of response.
This also serves to increase the effec-
tiveness of Response Level I.
The response effectiveness for Re-
sponse Level II is only slightly higher
than that for Response Level I. This is
because the effort to recover visible oil
downstream only results in a small vol-
ume of oil being collected. Also, recall
that the response levels are cumulative;
that is. Response Level II is performed in
addition to Level I and so forth. As a
result, the effectiveness of Response
Level II is high, but only slightly higher
than Response Level I.
Finally, Figure 1 shows that the
effectiveness of Response Level III is
lower than that for Response Level II.
Although the drop is small, the reasons
for this drop are important. Recall that
the spill impact is the product of the vol-
ume spilled, the area covered, and the
sensitivity of the environment to the
spilled oil. Generally, for each higher
level of response the volume spilled will
decrease, the area covered will decrease,
and therefore the spill response effec-
tiveness will increase. This is true except
for the factor of sensitivity. The spill sen-
sitivity is expected to decrease with each
response level, but it is not constrained
to do this. In fact, intensive efforts tc
recover the last small amount of oil for an
inland spill are likely to be more destruc-
tive to the environment than leaving the
oil in place. This is what happened in Re-
sponse Level III. The spill sensitivities foi
the various response levels tend to remain
the same, and even increase in some
cases for the higher levels of response,
When the sensitivities remain the same,
it may be that the oil spill impact is
replaced by an impact caused by the re-
sponse crews and heavy equipment. Ir
cases in which intensive efforts art
mounted on land to collect small amounts
of oil, the sensitivity to the response ef
fort may be considerably greater thar
the sensitivity to the spill. This is whai
happened in Response Level III of the
pipeline scenario. The fact that the re
sponse effectiveness for Response Leve
III is only slightly less than Level II can be
accounted for by noting that the sensi
tivities used in computations are an aver
age of a great many sensitivity factors
and therefore a few higher sensitivitie;
for Response Level III do not change the
result much. In addition, the range o
values used for the sensitivities is small
0 to 4, so that the difference that result;
from using a higher sensitivity is alsc
small. The important point to note is this
the sensitivity of the environment is
important to planning a spill response ef
fort; and if an intensive effort is launchec
on a highly sensitive inland environment
the impact of the response effort itsel
may be greater than the impact of th<
spilled oil would be if it were left in place
Consider now the cost effectivenes!
for the sample pipeline spill scenario
Cost effectiveness is defined as th<
quotient of normalized cost and responst
effectiveness. The cost effectivenesi
for the three pipeline spill responst
levels is shown in Figure 2. Since th<
curve has no minimum, Response Leve
I, which gives the lowest value, is thi
most cost-effective solution. Responst
Level II is only slightly more costly ant
also only slightly more effective. Re
sponse Level II represents an essentially
neutral position; it may be worth the ef
fort, but only marginally. If the effec
tiveness of Response Level II wen
slightly better, it would be the mos
desirable solution. Response Level III i
the least desirable solution. The curvi
-------
shows that it has a high incremental
cost for the additional improvement in
effectiveness.
This sample analysis shows that it is
possible to quantify spill response effec-
tiveness by determining the extent of
the spill, the sensitivity of the environ-
ment to the spill, and the changes that
various spill response actions cause in
spill coverage and environmental sensi-
tivity. The advantages of this system
are that both spill volume and area oper-
ate together in determining spill impact.
Also, either of these terms alone can
0.5
CO
I
I
w
Cj
I
1
I 0.2
Cb
0.4
0.3
0.1
Response effectiveness = 1 -
Impact with response
Impact with no response
I
II
III
Spill response level
Figure 1. Spill response effectiveness vs. spill response level.
2.5
.1
2.0
1.5
I II III
Spill response level
Figure 2. Cost effectiveness vs. spill response level.
result in a high level of spill impact. For
example, a relatively low volume spill
that coats a wide area is shown by this
computation to have a high level 'of
impact. Another advantage of the sys-
tem is that the impact of the spill is a
function of the spill location; more sen-
sitive environmental areas are shown to
suffer a higher level of impact. Also, the
environmental sensitivity is not con-
strained to move with the spill response
effort. Thus, a massive spill response
effort on sensitive terrain can be shown
to have a greater impact on the environ-
ment than the spill itself. The volume of
oil collected is, therefore, not the only
measure of spill response effectiveness.
If the cost of various levels of spill
response can be determined, then the
effectiveness computation can be used
with the cost data to show the cost
effectiveness of each level of spill
response. This analysis will identify
intensive response efforts that result in
a very low level of spill recovery or other
benefit to the environment.
The analysis of spill response effec-
tiveness and cost effectiveness has
many benefits. The system produces a
numerical result that can provide impor-
tant insights into a highly complex
problem. Specifically, this analysis helps
to identify response alternatives that
are effective as well as those that are
questionable or even counterproductive.
Since there are few ways to measure
the real success or failure of a spill re-
sponse action, a system that separates
effective actions from ineffective actions
is a valuable analytical tool.
Conclusions
The major conclusions that can be
drawn from this study are as follows:
• It is possible to develop a series of
oil spill scenarios for remote inland
Alaskan environments that illustrate
a broad range of physical conditions
and spill situations.
• It is possible to characterize spill
response effectiveness quantita-
tively and to evaluate the effective-
ness and the cost effectiveness of
specific spill response procedures.
Specifically, it is possible to evaluate
spill response efforts in terms of:
— Spill impact
— Reduction of spill impact result-
ing from various response pro-
cedures
— The impact of the spill response
procedure itself
-------
— The cost effectiveness of the re-
sponse procedure including the
margin of response effectiveness
developed compared with the
cost of producing that effect
• The analysis of spill response effec-
tiveness and cost effectiveness has
many benefits. The system pro-
duces a numerical result that can
provide important insights into a
highly complex problem. For exam-
ple, the analysis of the spill impact
and response effectiveness in the
four selected scenarios shows that:
— A relatively high level of spill re-
sponse effectiveness results from
the minimum acceptable level of
response, and only minor im-
provements result from higher
levels of response.
— The minimum level of response
is the most cost effective, and
cost increases much more rapidly
than effectiveness as higher
levels of response are reached.
— A final massive spill response ef-
fort launched to recover a small
amount of oil is often neither
cost effective nor practical. In
fact, the final effort may be more
damaging to the environment
than leaving the oil in place.
• Equipment suitable for performing
some routine spill response proce-
dures in remote inland environments
may not be available. Development
of the necessary pieces of response
equipment has the potential for in-
creasing the effectiveness and re-
ducing the cost of spill cleanup in
remote areas.
• Wide differences in opinion exist,
even among qualified experts in
Alaska, about the kinds of actions
that should be taken for site
restoration. Important questions
that do not appear to be resolved
include the treatment of heavily
oiled beaches, the disposal of oiled
debris and vegetation, and the kinds
of policies that should be adopted
to minimize the impact on wetlands.
Decisions concerning the action to
take for site restoration must be
made on a case-by-case basis;
however, apparently no generally
accepted criteria exist for making
these decisions. Acceptable meth-
ods for site restoration need to be
identified and described.
General Recommendations
The recommendations that follow
from this analysis include general rec-
ommendations for the management of
oil spill response programs and specific
recommendations for research and de-
velopment initiatives. The general rec-
ommendations are:
• This study has shown that it is
possible to evaluate spill response
effectiveness and the cost effec-
tiveness of specific spill response
procedures quantitatively. It is,
therefore, recommended that this
approach be applied to a larger,
diverse group of spill response
problems that require analysis and
quantitative solutions.
• In each of the four spill scenarios
evaluated in this analysis, a rela-
tively high level of response effec-
tiveness was achieved with the
minimum acceptable level of re-
sponse, and only minor increases in
effectiveness occurred at higher
levels of response. Further, the
minimum level of response was the
cost effective result in each case,
and cost increased much more
rapidly than effectiveness as higher
levels of response were reached. It
is recommended that a top level
policy analysis be conducted to
establish what could be considered
a practical level of response for
typical spill situations. This level of
response would not require an
unusually costly response proce-
dure that may only achieve a rela-
tively low level of effectiveness
and would not encourage intensive
response efforts that could actually
be damaging to the environment.
• This study determined that there is
a general lack of agreement as to
the actions that should be taken for
site restoration after a spill response
effort has been completed. It is,
therefore, recommended that policy
guidelines be developed to assist
field personnel in determining the
types and levels of site restoration
that should be used.
Research and Development
Initiatives
Specific recommendations for research
and development initiatives are presented
here.
Cleaning Oiled Snow
Cleaning or processing oiled snow is a
routine operation in Alaska, but there is
no standard, easy way of doing it.
Sometimes the snow and oil are sepa-
rated by melting the snow in an air berm
and skimming the oil off the top of the
water. Although effective, this proce-
dure is relatively slow and labor inten-
sive, and therefore expensive. A single
device is needed to perform all the steps
of the process that are presently per-
formed by the response crew at the air
berm. It is recommended that a project
be established to develop a single, port-
able device that could be used to sepa-
rate snow and oil with a minimum
requirement for outside energy sources
and labor.
Cleaning Sand and Gravel
The problem of cleaning sand and
gravel occurs repeatedly in oil spill
situations. In this study, oiled gravel in
one scenario was cleaned in a snow
melter and returned to its original site.
This procedure is probably effective in
cleaning but not efficient in the use of
men and materials. In another scenario,
heavily oiled sand was removed from
the spill site for disposal. This procedure
is also not efficient and is likely to be
damaging to the environment. It is,
therefore, recommended that a portable
device be developed that is capable of
cleaning oiled sand on site so the removal
and disposal is not required.
On-Site Burning
Many observers believe that disposal
by burning the spilled product in place is
a good response method in some cases.
The problem is to identify the cases in
which this method is best. Burning with
little permanent damage to the environ-
ment is possible in certain seasons of
the year, with certain kinds of vegeta-
tion, terrain conditions, and moisture
conditions. Additional information is
needed to establish the criteria to deter-
mine when burning is the best course of
action. It is recommended that a basic
research program be initiated to deter-
mine the impact of burning in a wide
variety of conditions. These tests should
be directed toward developing a set of
decision-making criteria for use in the
field to determine when on-site burning
should be used.
Fast Current Containment Booms
The swift, debris-laden rivers of Alaska
make deployment of containment booms
-------
a problem. In many cases, the use of
containment booms would be desirable,
but they are not used because existing
booms are not effective in these condi-
tions. The following program is recom-
mended to correct this deficiency:
• Test existing booms to determine
which is the best suited for use in
high current, shallow stream situa-
tions.
• Use a hydraulic model to determine
the best ways to deploy booms in
these situations.
• If none of the booms available are
suitable for this application, design
a new boom.
Fast Current Recovery Device
When oil is successfully contained
behind a boom in a swift river in Alaska,
there remains a problem in recovering
the slick. The ideal device would be
effective in recovering a thin slick in a
fast current. Although many recovery
devices are available, they do not meet
these requirements. It is recommended
that existing devices be tested to deter-
mine whether any are suitable for this
application. If a suitable device is not
identified, it is recommended that a
new device be developed.
Portable Flaring Burner
Disposal of the recovered product is
frequently a problem in Alaska. In re-
mote inland areas, most of the standard
methods of disposal are not possible.
Further, transporting the recovered pro-
duct to a site for clean disposal is also a
problem. A portable device is needed to
provide an environmentally safe method
of disposal in remote inland areas. To
meet this requirement, it is recommend-
ed that a portable, open flame burner be
developed that could be transported to
remote areas and used to provide a safe,
clean burn of the recovered products.
Surface Detection of Product on
the Water Table
The area of the spill on a water table
cannot generally be determined from the
surface. The only way to map the area
of the spill is to drill holes in the ground
until spill boundaries are discovered.
This method is slow, expensive, and
destructive to the terrain. A device that
could sense the presence of under-
ground oil from the surface would be
invaluable. It is recommended, there-
fore, that a device capable of detecting
oil on the water table from the surface
be identified or developed.
Site Restoration
Wide disagreement exists about the
kinds of actions that should be taken for
Alaskan site restoration. To provide the
basis for making decisions concerning
site restoration, it is recommended that
a research project be initiated to deter-
mine the best ways of responding to
some of the following situations:
• Oiled beaches and shorelines
• Oiled debris and vegetation
• Oiled wetlands
• Oiled soils
Decisions concerning the action to
take for site restoration must be made
on a case-by-case basis; however, no
criteria for making these decisions ap-
pear to be generally accepted. The pro-
posed research project should identify
and describe acceptable methods for
site restoration. These methods should
be accepted and approved by the re-
sponsible state and Federal authorities.
The accepted methods of site restora-
tion could then be used for on-site deci-
sion making by spill response crews.
Identifying Cost Effective Levels
of Spill Response
The analysis of scenarios investigated
in this study shows that the final inten-
sive effort to recover the last small
amount of oil is not generally cost
effective. In some cases this effort may
even be damaging to the environment.
It is, therefore, recommended that an
R&D project be established to develop
criteria for making the decision on
recovering the last traces of a spill. It is
suggested that this project review spill
response records to obtain field data. In
addition, it is recommended that addi-
tional data be developed using a cost
effectiveness simulation of typical spill
problems. This simulation could be used
to show the expected results of various
response actions and the effectiveness
of these actions. The results of the anal-
ysis could then be used to develop
decision-making criteria for use by
responsible spill control officials.
The full report was submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2799
by ARCTEC, Incorporated, under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Robert H. Schulze. William G. Grosskopf. Jack C. Cox, and Lawrence A. Schultz
are with ARCTEC, Incorporated, Columbia, MD 21045.
Leo T. McCarthy, Jr., is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Oil Spill Response Scenarios for Remote Arctic
Environments," (Order No. PB 82-231 416; Cost: $30.0O, subject to change)
will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837
•&U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982/559-092/0465
-------
United. States Center for Environmental Research Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Information Environmental
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268 Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300 PS 0000329
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
------- |