ASTM F2532-2013 Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use《测定使用分散剂的区域环境收益的标准指南》.pdf

《ASTM F2532-2013 Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use《测定使用分散剂的区域环境收益的标准指南》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM F2532-2013 Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use《测定使用分散剂的区域环境收益的标准指南》.pdf（8页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: F2532 06F2532 13Standard Guide forDetermining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use1This standard is issued under the fixed designation F2532; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revi

2、sion. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers considerations in determiningassessing net environmental benefit of dispersant use on oil spills. Thepurpose

3、of this guide is to minimize environmental and socioeconomic impacts of oil spills.1.2 Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of all response options should be conducted as part of oil spill contingencyplanning.1.3 There are many methods to control or cleanup oil spills. Dispersants All spill res

4、ponse options should be given equalconsideration with other spill response options.consideration.1.4 Only general guidance is provided here. It is assumed that the crude or fuel oil is dispersible. The dispersant is assumed tobe relatively effective, applied correctly, and in compliance with relevan

5、t government regulations. Differences between commercialdispersants or between different oils are not considered in this guide.1.5 This guide applies to marine and estuarine environments only.1.6 When making dispersant use decisions, appropriate government authorities should be consulted as required

6、 by law.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibilityof the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatorylimitations prior to use.2. Refere

7、nced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2F1788 Guide for In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills on Water: Environmental and Operational ConsiderationsF2205 Guide for Ecological Considerations for the Use of Chemical Dispersants in Oil Spill Response: Tropical Environments3. Significance and Use3.1 Net Environmental

8、 Benefit Analysis (NEBA) when applied to oil spill response, is the process of considering advantagesand disadvantages of different spill response options (including no response) to arrive at a no response baseline) and comparingthem to identify a spill response decision resulting in the lowest over

9、all environmental and socioeconomic impacts.impacts froman oil spill and the response to that spill.3.2 Spill response will likely involve some combination of response options. There are no response methods that are completelyeffective or risk-free. NEBA should be conducted with appropriate regulato

10、ry agencies and other organizations as part of spillresponse contingency planning. NEBA is important for pre-spill planning since some response options have a limited window ofopportunity.4. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Oil Spill Response4.1 The objective of NEBA is to choose the oil spill

11、 response option that will result in the lowest overall negative impact onthe environment. The NEBA should focus on local and regional areas of concern and should result in decisions based on what isbest for a specific location. With NEBA comes the recognition that, regardless of the response option

12、 chosen, some impact will1 This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F20.13on Treatment.Current edition approved April 1, 2006Dec. 1, 2013. Published April 2006January 2014. Originally ap

13、proved in 2006. Last previous edition approved in 2006 as F253206.DOI: 10.1520/F2532-06.10.1520/F2532-13.2 For referencedASTM standards, visit theASTM website, www.astm.org, or contactASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standardsvolume information, refer to the standard

14、s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Becauseit may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately,

15、ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current versionof the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1occu

16、r. Tables 1 and 2Table 1 and Table 2 and Appendix X1 and Appendix X4 provide considerations for use in the NEBAprocess.Appendix X2 and Appendix X3 present an ecological risk assessment method for determining the net environmental benefit ofdispersant use.4.2 The NEBA process involves several tasks (

17、1, 2).34.2.1 Gather information on habitats and species of concern, physical and chemical characteristics of the spilled oil, shorelinegeomorphology, potential socioeconomic impacts, and spill response options. Resource trustees, area contingency plans, andenvironmental sensitivity maps are good sou

18、rces of information.4.2.2 Consider the relative importance of natural resources. resources and their vulnerability and sensitivity to oiling in theregion and time period of interest.4.2.3 Review oil spill case histories and experimental data relevant to the spill location and response options being

19、assessed.4.2.4 Compare advantages and disadvantages of response options including no response (see Table 1). Computer models. canbe used to evaluate tradeoffs of dispersant use. The models can estimate the volume of water adversely affected by physically or3 The boldface numbers in parentheses refer

20、 to the list of references at the end of this standard.TABLE 1 Pros and Cons of Spill Response OptionsResponse Method Advantages DisadvantagesNo response(monitor only)appropriate for spills that do not threaten shorelinesused when other response options may cause more damage thannatural removalused

21、when environmental conditions do not allow use of other responsemethodscan be politically unacceptablepotential wildlife exposurewind direction could shift resulting in oil stranding onshoreMechanicalon-waterrecoveryremoves oil from environmentallows recycling and proper disposal of recovered oilwin

22、d, waves, and currents can limit containment and recoverydebris and viscous oil problematiclimited recovery of spilled oil due to encounter rates in large spillsstorage and disposal of recovered oil may be limitedequipment and labor intensiveDispersants prevents or reduces oiling of wildlifeprevents

23、 or reduces oil stranding onshorereduced or no storage and disposal of oilreduces or prevents formation of mousseenhances natural degradation processesrapid treatment of large areasreduces adherence of oil to suspended particulates and inhibitssedimentation of oiltime frame for effective use may be

24、limited due toslick thickness, weathering, emulsificationless effective on high viscosity oils or in highlyemulsified oiloil concentrations in water column typicallygreater when dispersant used than when oil isnaturally dispersed resulting in increased impactson organisms in upper 10 m of water colu

25、mnexclusion zones may be created based on waterdepth, distance from shore, limited watercirculation, presence of marine sanctuary or waterintakes, etc.can be politically unacceptableDispersants prevents or reduces oiling of wildlifeprevents or reduces oil stranding onshorereduced or no storage and d

26、isposal of oilreduces or prevents formation of mousserapid treatment of large areasSee Guide F2205.Oil is left in the environmenttime frame for effective use may be limited due toslick thickness, weathering, emulsificationless effective on high viscosity oils or in highlyemulsified oiloil concentrat

27、ions in water column typicallygreater when dispersant used than when oil isnaturally dispersed resulting in increased impactson organisms in upper 10 m of water columnexclusion zones may be created based on waterdepth, distance from shore, limited watercirculation, presence of marine sanctuary or wa

28、terintakes, etc.can be politically unacceptableTreated oil may resurfaceTreated oil is hard to recover with skimmersIn-situ Burning reduced or no storage and disposal of oilmay prevent or reduce oil stranding onshoreprevents or reduces oiling of wildlifeSee Guide F1788time frame for effective use ma

29、y be limited due to slick thickness andemulsificationwind, waves, and currents may make ignition difficultweathered oil difficult to ignite2 to 3 mm minimum slick thickness for ignitionair pollution issues (smoke)can have burn residues that sinkcan be politically unacceptableF2532 132chemically disp

30、ersed oil and the surface area impacted by floating oil. Adverse effects are based on toxicity to aquatic organismsand density of wildlife species present in the spill area. Different model scenarios can be run in order to evaluate tradeoffs ofdispersant use or non-use.4.2.5 Predict potential enviro

31、nmental impacts for chosen response method.option.4.2.6 Weigh advantages and disadvantages of response options in relation to ecological value and human use of impacted area.4.2.7 Choose the optimum response method.4.3 Conflicts during the NEBA process are inevitable (1, 2). Conflicts may arise rega

32、rding protection of one species orecological habitat over another. Conflicts may occur between environmental and socioeconomic interests. It is desirable thatagreements are reached before a spill occurs. Some examples of potential conflicts are presented here.4.3.1 Dispersing oil can decrease the po

33、tential for birds becoming oiled from surface slicks. Dispersant use can increase theexposure of aquatic organisms to oil in the water column.4.3.2 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adverse effects to marshes threatened by stranding oil. Dispersants canincrease the potential for adverse

34、affectseffects to seagrass beds exposed to chemically dispersed oil.4.3.3 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adverse effects to mangroves threatened by stranding oil. Oil chemicallydispersed in the water column can cause adverse effects to coral reef organisms.5. Keywords5.1 benefit analy

35、sis; dispersant; ecological risk assessment; NEBATABLE 2 Risk Considerations for Dispersant UseOil Location Risk Drivers PrioritiesWater surface oil typepersistencesize of oil slickadvectiontime/distance before oil comes ashorebirds, marine mammals, sea turtles, endangered/protected speciesWater col

36、umn oil typeoil concentrationsadvectiondepthdilution potentialrate of water exchangeexposure durationfood web contaminationproximity to water intakesseasonlife stages of species of concernbiological recovery timecommercial or subsistence fisheriescoral reefsseagrass bedsendangered/protected speciest

37、ourist/recreational areasShoreline oil typepersistenceseasonextent of oiled shorelineoil thicknessnatural cleansing (wave and tidal action)shoreline accessibilitybiological recovery timeintertidal communitiesmarshesmangrovesbird concentration areasmarine mammalsendangered/protected speciestourist/re

38、creational areasShoreline oil typepersistenceseasonextent of oiled shorelineoil thicknessnatural cleansing (wave and tidal action)shoreline accessibilitybiological recovery timeintertidal communitiesmarshesmangrovesbird concentration areasendangered/protected speciestourist/recreational areassubsist

39、ence harvestingmariculturefish spawning areasarcheological/historical sitesF2532 133APPENDIXES(Nonmandatory Information)X1. FACTORS TO CONSIDER WITH DISPERSANT USEAccessibility to the oil spillAmount of oil spilledAquatic toxicity of chemically dispersed oilAreas of socioeconomic importanceCommercia

40、l fisheries or subsistence fishing in spill areaCritical ecological habitats (feeding, migratory, nesting, spawning etc.) inspill areaDesignated exclusion zones for certain response methodsEffectiveness of other response methodsEquipment and trained personnel readily availableExpected environmental

41、recovery time for each response optionExpected time of oil stranding onshore or entering an environmentallysensitive areaHow quickly can equipment be deployed?Meteorological conditions (wind speed and direction, inclement weather)Oceanographic conditions (salinity, wave height, current velocity/dire

42、ction,tides, water depth)Oil type, viscosity, weathered statePresence of sensitive archaeological or historical sitesRegulatory approvals in placeSafety issuesShoreline type and vulnerabilityShoreline accessibilitySlick thicknessThreatened/endangered speciesVulnerability of valued habitat or species

43、 to oilingWindow of opportunity for each response methodNOTE X1.1The above factors are not weighted equally and will vary depending on regional priorities.X2. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR DISPERSANT USE PLANNING(3, 4, 2, 5, 6, 7)X2.1 Phase 1 Problem Formulation (Refer to Appendix X1)X2.1.1

44、Identify stakeholders.X2.1.2 Identify ecological resources of concern.X2.1.3 Create spill scenariosX2.1.4 Identify endpoints for ecosystem protection and recovery.X2.1.5 Identify response options and scenarios to be evaluated.X2.1.6 Identify potential effects of response options alone, response opti

45、ons in combination with oil, and oil alone.X2.1.7 Develop conceptual model of the ecosystem affected.X2.2 Phase 2 Analysis (Refer to X3.1)X2.2.1 Characterize ecological effects (toxicity, physical effects) and environmental data for various response options alone,response options in combination with

46、 oil, and oil alone.F2532 134X2.2.2 Estimate exposures for various response options alone, response options in combination with oil, and oil alone.X2.3 Phase 3 Risk Characterization (Refer to X3.2)X2.3.1 Estimate potential ecological effects of response options alone, response options in combination

47、 with oil, and oil alone.X2.3.2 Optimize response based on endpoints for ecosystem protection.X2.3.3 Integrate ecological risk results into contingency plans.X2.3.4 Periodic revision and review.X2.3.5 Data collection on endpoints during response.X3. ECOLOGICAL RISK MATRIX AND CHARACTERIZATIONX3.1 Ec

48、ological Risk Matrix (Modified from Ref (5)X3.1.1 The risk matrix below can be used for the Phase 2 analysis of the ecological risk assessment. In Phase 2 analysis, ecologicaleffects are characterized. Letters A through E describe impact and numbers 1 through 4 describe recovery of the resource. Thi

49、s isan example only. What is considered high, moderate, low, slow, or rapid will vary with location and are not fixed values. Consultwith stakeholders.Impact =% of totalresourcesaffected1 =SlowRecovery(7 years)2 =Moderate/SlowRecovery($3 to 7 years)3 =Moderate/RapidRecovery($1 to 2 years)4 =RapidRecovery60%)A1 A2 A3 A4B =Moderate/HighImpact($40 to60%)B1 B2 B3 B4C =ModerateImpact($20 to39%)C1 C2 C3 C4D =Moderate/LowImpact(5 to 19 %)D1 D2 D3 D4E =Low Impact(5 %)E1 E2 E3 E4X3.2 Ecological Risk Characterization (Example Only)X3.2.1 Below is an example of a possible matrix that co