API PUBL 4684-1999 Compilation and Review of Data on the Environmental Effects of In Situ Burning of Inland and Upland Oil Spills《内陆高地原地燃烧漏油对环境影响的数据汇编和评估》.pdf

《API PUBL 4684-1999 Compilation and Review of Data on the Environmental Effects of In Situ Burning of Inland and Upland Oil Spills《内陆高地原地燃烧漏油对环境影响的数据汇编和评估》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《API PUBL 4684-1999 Compilation and Review of Data on the Environmental Effects of In Situ Burning of Inland and Upland Oil Spills《内陆高地原地燃烧漏油对环境影响的数据汇编和评估》.pdf（194页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、- STD-API/PETRO PUBL 4b84-ENGL L999 Sll 0732290 Ob14024 413 II P American Petroleum Institute E*“rn.n,“,.I Parrdp s,?dqtu fw Tdq5 COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF DATA ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF IN SITU BURNING OF INLAND AND UPLAND OIL SPILLS Health and Environmental Sciences Department Publication Nu

2、mber 4684 March 1999 STD.API/PETRO PUBL Yb8Y-ENGL 3993 II 07322919 Ob34025 35T 1111- -I.- American Petroleum Institute B“r,m,n,“l Pdrm73kJp s Includes Spills Where Multiple Environments Were Burned 2-7 2-2. Range of Volume of Oil Burned, for the 18 Cases Where the Volume Burned Was Known 2-7 2-3. Ty

3、pes of Oil Bumed for the 31 Cases Included in This Analysis . 2-8 4-1 . Ecoregion Provinces for the Conterminous United States . 4-3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-3 2-1, Summary list of in situ bum cases included in this report . 4-1. Major plant species by ecoregion, cross-referenced by community typ

4、e 4-9 5-1. Fire ecology and effects summaries for major plant species of U.S. ecoregions . 5-7 5-2. Fire ecology and effects summaries for selected wetland grasses and sedges of North America (including Alaska) . 5-48 STD-API/PETRO PUBL 4684-ENGL 1999 0732290 Ob14034 3b2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS API -

5、bbi - BTEX - cm - dbh - ERNS - FEIS - km - L - m mg mg/m3 - mph - m/s - - - NIST - NOAA - PAH - PPm - RRT - TPH - USDA - USEPA - American Petroleum Institute bar re I (s ) Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene; Volatile Hydrocarbons centimeter diameter at breast height Emergency Response Notif

6、ication System Fire Effects Information System kilometer Liters meter milligram milligram per cubic meter miles per hour meters per second National Institute of Standards and Testing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons parts per million Regional Response

7、 Team Total petroleum hydrocarbons U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service STD.API/PETRO PUBL 4b84-ENGL Lqqi I 0732290 Ob34035 2Tq m EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The primary objective of this study was to identify those environmental conditions

8、 under which burning should be considered as a response option for oil spilled in inland and upland habitats. Two very different approaches were used: 1) docu- menting the “state of the practice“ for spills where burning was used; and 2) extracting guidelines from the extensive literature on fire ec

9、ology and prescribed burning of vegetation. Combined, these two approaches provide the best available guidance on when burning should and should not be considered for a specific spill in inland and upland areas. Previous literature searches, recent publications, and personal contacts were used to id

10、entify 31 case histories of spills or experiments where oil was burned in inland and upland habitats. These case histories were reviewed in Section 2 to identify the conditions under which oil has been burned in the past. Generally, burns were conducted mostly in marshes and open fields. Nearly half

11、 of the bums of a known volume of spilled oil were for quantities of less than 1,500 liters. The most common type of oil bumed was crude oil; there was only one case where a heavy crude oil was burned. Short summaries were prepared (Appendix B) to document the spill conditions, an evaluation of the

12、burn, and any follow-up monitoring results. Unfortunately, there have been very few spills where post-burn monitoring was conducted for any period of time. Burning, especially of small spills, is routinely conducted in some states, but there is little documentation available other than the fact that

13、 the oil was burned. Because of the focus on environmental issues, those relating to human health and air quality were not extensively addressed in this study. It should also be noted that there are few data on health concerns since most burns are conducted in remote areas. However, the case histori

14、es do provide information on the state of the practice in terms of how in situ burning is used in inland and upland areas, which is presented in Section 3. In the past, spilled oil has been burned for the following reasons: To quickly remove oil to prevent its spread to sensitive sites or over large

15、r areas ES-1 STD-API/PETRO PUBL 4684-ENGL 1999 0732290 Ob14036 135 To reduce the generation of oily wastes, especially where transportation or disposal options were limited Where access to the site was limited, by shallow water, soft substrates, or the remoteness of the location As a final removal t

16、echnique, when other methods began to lose effectiveness or become too intrusive The following favorable conditions for burning were identified from the case histories: Remote or sparsely populated sites Mostly herbaceous vegetation (with few trees or shrubs) Plants are dormant Unvegetated areas, su

17、ch as ditches, dry streambeds, etc. In wetlands, presence of a water layer covering the substrate In cold areas, presence of snow and ice which provides natural containment and substrate protection Calm winds Spills of fresh crudes or light refined products Sections 4 and 5 present applicable inform

18、ation gleaned from the field of fire ecology and prescription burning. Prescribed fires are often used as a forest and range management tool, and are often conducted for the same reasons as in situ burning: fire can be less damaging, more effective, and less costly than chemical and intrusive mechan

19、ical methods. The fire ecology literature was searched for both general guidelines as well as species-specific profiles on fire ecology and effects, providing excellent guidelines on the effects of burning (in the absence of oil) on plant communities. There are many lessons already learned by fire p

20、ractitioners and ecologists which are directly applicable to the use of in situ burning of spilled oil. These lessons apply to conditions when a burn shouldkhould not be considered (e.g., soil type and moisture, droughts), the conducting of actual bum events (e.g., the direction of the burn and how

21、to control the burn intensity), as well as post- burn considerations (e.g., the potential for erosion and over-grazing). ES-2 STD.API/PETRO PUBL 4684-ENGL 1999 W 0732290 Ob14037 O71 The U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains a Fire Effects Information System which includes data on the fire ecology

22、 and adaptations of numerous plant species, including post-fire regeneration strategy, immediate fire effect, plant response to fire, fire management considerations, and fire case studies. Information on fire effects and ecology of more than 200 dominant plant species of the United States were summa

23、rized from this database in Section 5. These summaries should provide spill responders with better information on the potential response of different habitat types and plant species to in situ burning. The conclusions of the study on the environmental effects of in situ burning in inland and uplands

24、 areas are presented in Section 6. Burning is a valuable tool under many conditions, such as: in locations at a distance from populated areas; for spills of light to medium oils; when the oil is likely to spread to more sensitive or larger areas; at sites with restricted access; and where other opti

25、ons are likely to be very intrusive and cause more harm. However, there is still insufficient documentation to answer some of the key questions likely to be asked by resource managers and agency representatives. Only through better documentation and monitoring will the response community be able to

26、confidently state the conditions under which burning is an appropriate response tool. ES-3 STD.API/PETRO PUBL 4b84-ENGL 1999 m 0732290 Ob14038 TOO m Section 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Burning of spilled oil provides a relatively easy, low cost cleanup method by eliminating removal, transportation, and d

27、isposal costs, as well as reducing the time required for cleanup. There is a strong opinion among oil spill professionals that in situ burning of oiled habitats is a viable altemative which can, when used properly, minimize the kinds of environmental impacts associated with mechanical and manual rem

28、oval efforts. In a guide rating the environmental effects of response options (American Petroleum Institute and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994), in situ burning was favorably ranked as a response option for many of the more sensitive inland and upland habitats. However, such “

29、alternative” response options are generally considered on a case-by-case basis until there is sufficient field experience for the response community to confidently make routine decisions on when to use them. Although published information on burning of spilled oil in inland and upland sites is very

30、limited, there was a general sense in the response community that, perhaps, unpublished experiences of the use of burning existed in the files and records of government response agencies and oil production and transportation companies. This study was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute

31、(API) to locate and obtain this potentially valuable resource of unpublished information on use of burning as a spill response tool in inland and upland areas. A parallel effort was made to review and summarize information on the effects of fire and prescribed burning on different upland and wetland

32、 vegetation types in the absence of oil. General fire ecology and prescribed burning documents were reviewed, and a national database on fire effects was consulted. This report presents a summary of the case histories and lessons learned from previous uses of burning in inland environments, with and

33、 without oil. While some information on human health and safety is included, the focus of this report is on the environmental fate and effects of in situ burning. For more information on inhalation hazards from smoke particles and other emissions from burning oil, refer to Fingas et a/. (1993, 1994)

34、 and Benner et al. (1990). 1-1 Section 2 IN SITU BURN CASE HISTORIES INTRODUCTION The initial focus of this study was to compile and summarize case histories of in situ burning of oil in inland and upland environments. By integrating case history information for various spill scenarios and habitat t

35、ypes, it was thought that meaningful in situ burn guidelines could be developed for inland and upland areas. In situ burning case summaries and lessons learned are provided below. Because of the general lack of good documentation for most spills where burning was used during the response, it is sugg

36、ested that better documentation of inland and upland in situ burns in the future could greatly increase the knowledge base. METHODS Identification and Collection of Data The data collection effort focused on information on in situ burning in inland and upland environments, including brackish and fre

37、shwater wetlands. The primary contacts for identifying or collecting data were federal agencies, state agencies, and petroleum corporations. A list of the people and organizations contacted during this study is provided in Appendix A. The federal agencies contacted were: National Institute for Stand

38、ards and Testing (NIST) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM) Transportation Safety Institute U.S. Coast Guard US. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The states contacted were: Alas ka Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine M

39、innesota Missouri Ohio 2- 1 STDmAPIIPETRO PUBL 4b84-ENGL 1999 0732290 Ob14040 bbb W Oklahoma North Dakota Pennsylvania Texas Wisconsin Wyoming The oil and pipeline companies contacted were: Amoco Imperial Oil Lakehead Pipeline Marathon Oil Williams Pipeline The following universities and land manage

40、rs were contacted: Louisiana State University Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana state refuge) Texas A S.L. Ross, 1996) were utilized to identify case studies where in situ burning of oil spills had been conducted. This information was also updated with papers from the 1997 Oil Spill Conference

41、session on in situ burning. Information from other sources and contacts included monitoring, survey, and research reports, USEPA spill reports downloaded from the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database, state spill reports, and anecdotal information from telephone interviews. A brief

42、 summary of each case history for in situ burning in inland and upland areas was prepared, including as much information as available on the amount of oil burned, the habitats burned, and observations on the effectiveness and effects of the bum (Appendix B). The case studies are listed in Table 2-1

43、in alphabetical order using the spill name. References for each case study are listed in each summary. Based on these case studies, the “state of the practice” in terms of the key considerations for burning oil was summarized. A checklist for observing burns was also developed (Appendix C). The chec

44、klist should provide a quick and easy method of documenting 2-2 STD-APIIPETRO PUBL 4h84-ENGL 1999 W 0732290 0614041 5T2 - v) 3 O (d o f e - al K O z - v) 7 O al o o L F - n 3 3 9 3 a 2 E - n 3 3 9 3 9 3 O z 2-3 STD-API/PETRO PUBL 4684-ENGL 1999 W 0732290 06/4042 439 9 S O m o) o: o) c c al c Q1 n a

45、I- O - r O Q o O 4 - c F - Q) c O z v) O al a 3 -2 u) 3 O Q) 2 I L 2 -4 STD-APIIPETRO PUBL 4bB4-ENGL 1999 C O cp Q) rn al I ci c al c ! V cn P S v) E O Q o O J - ci - v) 3 O a, : L a, I - a, c O r U O F 2 . N lD N ? Y O - a, C !? 0732290 Ob14043 375 W x s c, 8 m 3 o Ej .i1 - m O ci .Ei s Y W Y m m W

46、 m U Y 5 .!i It 2-5 STD.API/PETRO PUBL 4684-ENGL L999 m 0732290 ObL4044 201 = the spill and burn, so that in the future, guidelines can be refined based on a larger, more substantial data set. SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES Table 2-1 lists the 31 case histories of inland and upland in situ burns included i

47、n this report. There have been many more spills in which in situ burning was used as a cleanup method, but they were not included in this report because of the lack of documentation. Some states have allowed burning on a regular basis (Illinois, Kansas, Wyoming); however, the only documentation is t

48、he fact that product was spilled and then burned. The general guidelines for burning followed by these states have been: (1) the smoke plume should not impact any populated areas; and (2) oil recovery by other methods is not feasible, based on information provided by the Responsible Party. Typically

49、 if a bum site is at least 0.8 to 1.6 kilometers (km) from a populated area, burning has been allowed. These bums have usually been for spills of less than 800 liters (L) or about 5 barrels (bbl) of oil. Most of the 31 spills included in this report are located in the U.S., but spills in Canada, Hungary, Norway, and Russia are also included. They cover geographic regions ranging from southern Texas to the Arctic Circle. Environmental regimes ranged from brackish and freshwater marshes to cultivated fields and dirt roads (Fig. 2-1). Volumes burned ranged from as little as 8