|
ADVANCES IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE - 5JAlan Mearns, NOAA - Ballast water
treatment during emergency response: The case of the M/T Igloo Moon In November 1996, an LPG tanker, the M/T
Igloo Moon, ran aground on a National Park Service coral reef in Florida. Carrying Butadiene, the tanker was unable to release itself and made decisions to lighter the cargo and deballast the tanks. The ballast water would
be discharged into the surrounding waters of the reef. Because of fear of invasive species from the ballast water tanks, the National Park Service refused to allow the operating team to de-ballast. Under worsening weather
conditions, the operating team received permission to chlorinate the ballast water tanks in order to kill all organisms in the tanks. A solution of 50 mg/L Chlorine was added to the tanks. At this point the NPS allowed
the de-ballasting to commence. Eventually the ship was freed from the reef. No further action was taken to ascertain any detrimental damages from the chlorinated water to the reef system or fish. Contact Alan Mearns:
alan_mearns@hazmat.noaa.govNir Barnea, Office of Response & Restoration, NOAA - In-Situ burning during oil spill response operations
Barnea outlined the advantages and disadvantages of performing in-situ oil burning from oil spills. Burning is a good option:
- Early in spill response before emulsification
- When spill slick is thicker then 1-2mm
- Little or no wind or waves are present
- No strong current is present - maximum 0.7 knots
- When people or machinery could damage the natural environment, such as in in-land environments such as marshes.
Burning is a poor option:
- Later in spill response when mousse has formed
- Human health and safety may be a risk, particularly from the smoke plume
- Certain severe environmental situations
Barnea noted the effectiveness of in-situ open water burning is very high, much more so then conventional skim and clean methods. However there continues to be a lack of support for burning, primarily because certain
regions use other methods as first priority measures. Barnea notes when spill occurs, the best option is to asess the situation and choose the most favorable options with regards to the spill and the environment. This
assessment should be made without prior favoritism towards any particularly method. Case studies of in-situ burning include the New Carissa, San Jacinto, Brunswick Marsh and even the Exxon Valdez where 30,000 gallons of crude
were burned on day two of the spill response
|
|
