raw fluor
escence units
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1m depth on 05/23/2010
natural
dispersion
background
chemical
dispersion
10 min.
post spray
9:43:20
time
9:44:40
9:46:00
9:47:20
9:48:40
9:50:00
9:51:20
9:52:40
9:54:00
9:55:25
9:56:45
9:58:00
9:59:25
10:00:46
10:02:05
10:03:26
10:04:45
10:06:06
10:07:25
10:08:46
10:10:05
10:11:26
10:12:45
10:14:05
10:15:25
10:16:45
11:29:45
11:31:05
11:32:25
11:33:45
11:35:05
11:36:25
11:37:45
11:39:05
11:40:25
11:41:45
11:43:05
11:44:25
12:50:42
12:52:02
12:53:22
12:54:42
12:56:02
12:57:22
12:58:42
13:00:02
13:01:22
13:02:42
13:04:02
sampling
transect
Pre-application
Post-application
sampling
vessel
untreated
oil
dispersed
oil
coordinates
oil drift
coordinates
sampling
vessel
not be easy in such circumstances, carrying out Tier II and Tier III fluorometry monitoring where it
is possible can provide useful qualitative evidence of the environmental benefit of dispersant use,
as demonstrated at the Sea Empress incident (Lunel et al., 1996).
Tier III: additional monitoring
Tier III uses the same methodology as Tier II, but with sampling occurring at additional depths to
further define the shape and size of the dispersed oil cloud/plume. This is achieved by either
taking additional readings to a depth of 10 metres in areas along the transect where there was a
peak in readings at 1 metre, or by running the transect with fluorometers deployed at two different
IPIECA-IOGP Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project
12
When taking fluorometry
readings, a transect
should be followed
through the slick: if there
is an increase in readings
of five times between the
untreated oil (left) and the
dispersed oil (right), the
dispersant may be
considered as effective.
Figure 3 Monitoring the effectiveness of dispersant using fluorometry
Sour
ce: US Coast Guar
d
Figure 4 Example result from fluorometer monitoring of a vessel dispersant application test to
evaluate effectiveness
Sour
ce: NOAA
depths (for example, at 1 metre and 5 metres). Tier III monitoring may also include the
measurement of the physical and chemical parameters of the water column, including
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, conductivity (surrogate for salinity), and any other
parameters which may have an effect on the rate of dispersion.
Field Guides on dispersant application monitoring have been produced by OSRL, based on the
SMART Protocol. These are freely available at:
http://www.oilspillresponse.com/technical-
development/technical-field-guides
.
Monitoring prolonged dispersant application
There may be circumstances where the surface application of dispersant is feasible and required
for prolonged periods. Scenarios may arise involving ongoing oil releases from sources such as
vessels, subsea pipelines or offshore platforms. This issue has been considered by the US
National Response Team, and led to the publication of guidance for the monitoring of dispersant
operations that are expected to exceed four days. The guidance supplements, but does not
replace, the SMART protocol.
Prolonged monitoring addresses estimations of the weathering characteristics and potential
dispersibility of oil. In some cases these studies may have been undertaken as part of the
contingency planning process, and relevant information would therefore be available to response
managers at the commencement of an incident. Where this is not the case, it may be possible to
undertake rapid laboratory analyses of the spilled oil to ascertain weathering characteristics
(particularly increases in viscosity and emulsification) and how these may reduce the effectiveness
of the dispersant. Such laboratory information can be verified in the field as the response
progresses, by carefully-controlled and observed test spraying from vessels in the field on ageing
areas of the spilled oil—assuming such areas remain and have not been prevented by the success
of the response. The test sprays can be monitored with visual observation and fluorometry, and
correlated with laboratory testing and, possibly, also with a shipboard field effectiveness test.
One outcome of these various tests will be a better understanding of dispersant effectiveness in
terms of the cut-off point for its application during prolonged operations. This will provide field
operational teams with a heightened awareness of the likely success of ongoing operations, and
of where particular attention may need to be given to ensure that dispersant operations remain
effective, e.g. by recognizing the appearance of oil that is becoming non-dispersible, and the
geographic areas where operations are unlikely to be viable.
13
At-sea monitoring of surface dispersant effectiveness
All aspects of the potential use of dispersants require planning, which should include provision for
mobilizing the appropriate resources for dispersant effectiveness monitoring. The emergency
response phase (typically the initial few hours of an incident) is focused on Tier I SMART
monitoring. More detailed monitoring capability associated with Tier II and Tier III monitoring is
most likely to be held and deployed by specialized oil spill response organizations with dedicated
dispersant application capability.
Equipment
Tier I monitoring equipment may be limited to ensuring the availability of resources, guidelines and
procedures for the observation of oil and the appearance of dispersed oil. Digital camera(s) and
video recorder(s), geo-referenced where possible, and in a ready-to-go condition, should be
available to record observations. Camera systems mounted on aerostats are increasingly being
used by oil spill response vessels. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may also be available to
responders. These aerial platforms may carry both visual and IR imaging.
Where practical, and if considered necessary, an organization may maintain simple field
effectiveness testing kits as part of the first-response equipment. More sophisticated monitoring
tools such aerial remote sensing capability and fluorometry are likely to be held and deployed by
specialized oil spill response organizations and scientific institutes.
Response managers and decision makers are likely to request rapid communication of the initial
results of dispersant test sprays. This may extend to requirements for live image feeds and voice
communications from field supervisors and vessel/aerial-based observers to the Command centre.
Personnel
It is vital for first responders involved in supervising or observing test sprays or initial dispersant
operations to be familiar with the required techniques for observation and verification of dispersant
effectiveness.
Training personnel for this role can be challenging, considering that the opportunities for real-time
observation and monitoring of dispersant application are opportunistic and very limited.
Supporting materials have been developed which assist with the correct implementation of
protocols, including the following examples available from NOAA:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/resources/dispersant-
application-observer-job-aid.html
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/training-and-education/training/workshops/aerial-
observation-training.html
IPIECA-IOGP Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project
14
Planning considerations
Personnel from specialized oil spill response organizations will be expected to have undergone
appropriate training and development as part of their organization’s internal training programmes,
and to be competent to undertake monitoring associated with the dispersant capability mobilized
by their organizations.
It is recommended that the team undertaking monitoring includes representation from relevant
authorities, agencies or regulators. This is to ensure that consensus on observations can be
reached in the field and, where there is uncertainty about effectiveness, this can be raised and
further monitoring undertaken to provide further data.
Operational support and logistics
All monitoring will require some degree of logistical support, and in all cases the basic transport of
observers by vessel or aircraft to the site will be required. If spraying is from a vessel it may be
possible for the observation to take place from the same vessel. At some larger spills there are
likely to be demands from various at-sea response operations for vessels and aircraft. It is
imperative that monitoring activities are highlighted in advance through contingency planning. The
incident management team should therefore be prepared to integrate monitoring requirements
into the response effort and allocate adequate resources.
In many spill scenarios, vessels of opportunity (VOOs) can be used to support more advanced
Tier II and Tier III monitoring. Operationally, the vessels need to be able to manoeuvre at slow
speeds, tow fluorometers (which are typically towed at speeds up to 2 knots), and be sufficiently
manoeuvrable to navigate the required path through the slick. A VOO also needs to be able to
travel quickly between deployments to different slicks or operating bases as required.
Practically, a VOO needs to have sufficient deck space and the means of securing a davit, if
required, to deploy the fluorometer. Vessels with high sides will be difficult to work from due to the
limitations in easily deploying and recovering the submersible equipment. Finally, dependent upon
the location and type of the incident and the ongoing operations, suitable and sufficient
accommodation may be required for the monitoring team.
The short operational time horizons between vessel-borne spraying operations are compounded
when aircraft are used to spray dispersant because, for safety reasons, the vessel is required to
move off-station during the aerial spray operation and then return to the treated area on
completion. While aerial dispersant spraying can prove extremely effective, attempting to
establish numerical efficacy using vessel-borne equipment following an aerial spray operation
can be fraught with difficulty.
15
At-sea monitoring of surface dispersant effectiveness
The application of dispersants to floating oil slicks is one of the key at-sea response tools with the potential
to reduce the overall ecological and socio-environmental damages caused by a spill.
However, dispersants are not effective on all oils in all conditions; their effectiveness will vary depending on
the prevailing environmental conditions, and the type of spilled oil and its weathering state. In all cases
following shipping spills, the effectiveness will reduce with time, and there will usually be a ‘window of
opportunity’ for the effective application of dispersant. This does not of course apply in the case of an
ongoing release of oil from an offshore platform where fresh oil, which is amenable to dispersal, continues
to be released over time.
It is important to ensure that dispersant is only used on spilled oil in areas where this is appropriate and
when there is a reasonable expectation of it being effective. Monitoring should be established to verify that
the dispersant is effective. Initial estimations of likely effectiveness may be based on studying an oil’s
properties (notably the viscosity and pour point) and on computer modelling predictions of the oil’s fate, or, in
cases where operations are fixed and the oil type is known, on laboratory studies of oil weathering and
dispersibility. It should be recognized that the behaviour of oil at sea means that estimations may not match
the reality, and some weathering processes, such as emulsification, are difficult to predict accurately.
It is typical for national regulations to include laboratory testing of dispersant effectiveness prior to a product
being allowed for use; this is explained in detail in the IPIECA-IOGP document, Guidelines on oil characterization
to inform spill response decisions (IPIECA-IOGP, 2013). These tests provide the means to screen out poor
products, but they cannot reproduce open sea conditions. The results of such laboratory testing (usually
presented as ‘percentage effectiveness’) cannot, therefore, be extrapolated to likely performance in the field.
The difficulties of calculating both the volume of floating oil slicks and the extent of oil naturally or chemically
dispersed beneath a slick mean that it is not currently possible to quantify with any degree of precision the
effectiveness of dispersant applied in the field. Monitoring effectiveness is therefore a qualitative exercise, which
focuses on determining whether the application of dispersant has led to increased levels of dispersed oil
coupled, where possible, with observations of a reduced area of surface slick.
The use of field effectiveness tests coupled with initial test sprays can help decision makers to determine
whether the full deployment of dispersant should go ahead. However, such tests need to be undertaken
quickly so as to avoid unnecessary delays in the decision making process.
The SMART protocol provides a suitable approach for practical monitoring of effectiveness in the field. In
many cases monitoring will be limited to visual observations from vessel or aircraft, possibly supported by
remote sensing. In larger spills it may be viable to utilize in-water monitoring using fluorometry, although this
is difficult to deploy in relation to aerial dispersant application. In larger incidents where the primary
application is aerial, limited application of dispersant by vessels may also be carried out to enable in-water
monitoring to be undertaken.
In all cases the monitoring should include representations from relevant authorities and be carried out on a
regular basis to ensure that the dispersant remains effective on weathering oil.
IPIECA-IOGP Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project
16
Conclusions and recommendations
AMSA (2012). National Plan Oil Spill Dispersant Effectiveness Field Test Kit (Nat-DET): Operational
Guide. Revision: June 2012. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/NatDET_Guide_2012.pdf
BenKinney, M., Pascal, B., Huler, C., Wood, B., Russell, M., Nevin, A. and Gass, M. (2011).
Getting SMARTer: Recommendations for Improving SMART Monitoring Procedures Based on
Experiences from the Deepwater Horizon Response: Scientific Support for Deepwater Horizon
(DWH) Aerial Dispersant Operations. In International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, March
2011, Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. abs349. 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2011-1-349
Fingas, M. F., Kyle, D. A., Laroche, N. D., Fieldhouse, B. G., Sergy, G. and Stoodley, R. G.
(1995). The effectiveness testing of oil spill-treating agents. In The Use of Chemicals in Oil Spill
Response, ASTM STP1252, P. Lane (Ed.). ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA, USA. pp. 286-
298.
www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/SOURCE_PAGES/STP1252.htm
IPIECA-IOGP (2013). Finding 19: Guidelines on oil characterization to inform spill response
decisions. Finding 6 of the IOGP Global Industry Response Group (GIRG) response to the
Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. IPIECA-IOGP Oil Spill Response
Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP).
http://oilspillresponseproject.org/completed-products
IPIECA-IOGP (2015). Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA). IPIECA-IOGP Good Practice
Guide Series, Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP). IOGP Report 517.
http://oilspillresponseproject.org/completed-products
IPIECA-IOGP (2015a). Dispersants: surface application. IPIECA-IOGP Good Practice Guide
Series, Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP). IOGP Report 532.
http://oilspillresponseproject.org/completed-products
Lunel T., Swannell R., Rusin J., Bailey N., Halliwell C., Davies L., Sommerville M., Dobie A.,
Mitchel D., McDonagh M. and Lee, K. (1996). Monitoring of the effectiveness of response options
during the Sea Empress incident: a key component of the successful counter-pollution response.
In Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 2, Issues 2–3, 1995, pp. 99-112. (Published in 1996.)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353256196000114
NRC (1989). Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea. Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill
Dispersants, US National Research Council (NRC). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=736&page=R1
NRC (2005). Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. Committee on Understanding Oil Spill
Dispersants, US National Research Council (NRC). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11283
17
At-sea monitoring of surface dispersant effectiveness
References and further reading
NRT (2013). Environmental Monitoring for Atypical Dispersant Operations, Including Guidance for:
Subsea Application; Prolonged Surface Application. U.S. National Response Team (NRT).
www.nrt.org/production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/AllAttachmentsByTitle/SA-1086NRT_Atypical_
Dispersant_Guidance_Final_5-30-2013.pdf/$File/NRT_Atypical_Dispersant_Guidance_Final_5-30-
2013.pdf?OpenElement
Oil Spill Response Limited, Technical Field Guides for Dispersant Application Monitoring.
www.oilspillresponse.com/technical-development/technical-field-guides
.
S. L. Ross (2008). Updating the U.S. SMART Dispersant Efficacy Monitoring Protocol. A review of
OHMSETT dispersant effectiveness test results, 2001–07. S. L. Ross Environmental Research
Limited. Prepared for the USCG Research and Development Center, Groton, CT and U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.
www.slross.com/publications/AMOP/2009_Updating_the_U.S._SMART_Dispersant_Efficacy_
Monitoring_Protocol.pdf
USCG et al. (2006). Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART). U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Minerals
Management Service (MMS).
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/SMART_protocol.pdf
IPIECA-IOGP Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project
18
This page is intentionally blank
© IPIECA-IOGP 2015 All rights reserved.
IOGP represents the upstream oil and gas industry before
international organizations including the International Maritime
Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Regional Seas Conventions and other groups under the UN
umbrella. At the regional level, IOGP is the industry representative to
the European Commission and Parliament and the OSPAR
Commission for the North East Atlantic. Equally important is IOGP’s
role in promulgating best practices, particularly in the areas of health,
safety, the environment and social responsibility.
www.iogp.org
IPIECA is the global oil and gas industry association for environmental
and social issues. It develops, shares and promotes good practices and
knowledge to help the industry improve its environmental and social
performance; and is the industry’s principal channel of communication
with the United Nations. Through its member led working groups and
executive leadership, IPIECA brings together the collective expertise of
oil and gas companies and associations. Its unique position within the
industry enables its members to respond effectively to key
environmental and social issues.
www.ipieca.org
Dostları ilə paylaş: |