ASTM F2532-19(2024)
(Guide)Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use
Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
2.1 Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) applied to oil spill response is the process of considering advantages and disadvantages of different spill response options (including no response) to arrive at a spill response decision resulting in the lowest overall environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
2.2 Spill response will likely involve some combination of response options. There are no response methods that are completely effective or risk-free. NEBA should be conducted with appropriate regulatory agencies and other organizations as part of spill contingency planning. NEBA is important for pre-spill planning since some response options have a limited window of opportunity.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers considerations in determining net environmental benefit of dispersant use on oil spills. This guide is applicable to both surface and sub-surface application. The purpose of this guide is to minimize environmental and socioeconomic impacts of oil spills.
1.2 Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) should be conducted as part of oil spill contingency planning.
1.3 There are many methods to control, cleanup or treat oil spills. Dispersants should be given equal consideration with other spill response options.
1.4 Only general guidance is provided here. For the purposes of this guide, it is assumed that the crude or fuel oil is dispersible to some extent. The dispersant is also assumed to be relatively effective, applied correctly, and in compliance with relevant government regulations. Differences between commercial dispersants 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 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 responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: F2532 − 19 (Reapproved 2024)
Standard Guide for
Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use
This standard is issued under the fixed designation F2532; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 2. Significance and Use
2.1 Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) applied to
1.1 This guide covers considerations in determining net
oil spill response is the process of considering advantages and
environmental benefit of dispersant use on oil spills. This guide
disadvantages of different spill response options (including no
is applicable to both surface and sub-surface application. The
response) to arrive at a spill response decision resulting in the
purpose of this guide is to minimize environmental and
lowest overall environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
socioeconomic impacts of oil spills.
2.2 Spill response will likely involve some combination of
1.2 Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) should be
response options. There are no response methods that are
conducted as part of oil spill contingency planning.
completely effective or risk-free. NEBA should be conducted
1.3 There are many methods to control, cleanup or treat oil with appropriate regulatory agencies and other organizations as
spills. Dispersants should be given equal consideration with
part of spill contingency planning. NEBA is important for
other spill response options. pre-spill planning since some response options have a limited
window of opportunity.
1.4 Only general guidance is provided here. For the pur-
poses of this guide, it is assumed that the crude or fuel oil is
3. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Oil Spill
dispersible to some extent. The dispersant is also assumed to be
Response
relatively effective, applied correctly, and in compliance with
3.1 The objective of NEBA is to choose the oil spill
relevant government regulations. Differences between com-
response option that will result in the lowest overall negative
mercial dispersants or between different oils are not considered
impact on the environment. The NEBA should focus on local
in this guide.
and regional areas of concern and should result in decisions
1.5 This guide applies to marine and estuarine environments
based on what is best for a specific location. With NEBA
only.
comes the recognition that, regardless of the response option
chosen, some impact will occur. Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix
1.6 When making dispersant use decisions, appropriate
X1 and Appendix X4 provide considerations and comparisons
government authorities should be consulted as required by law.
for use in the NEBA process. Appendix X2 and Appendix X3
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the
present an ecological risk assessment method for determining
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
the net environmental benefit of dispersant use.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
3.2 The NEBA process involves several tasks (1, 2).
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
3.2.1 Gather information on the risk considerations noted in
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
Table 2 including habitats and species of concern, physical and
1.8 This international standard was developed in accor-
chemical characteristics of the spilled oil, shoreline
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
geomorphology, potential socioeconomic impacts, and spill
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
response options. Resource trustees, area contingency plans,
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
and environmental sensitivity maps are good sources of infor-
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
mation.
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
3.2.2 Consider relative importance of natural resources.
3.2.3 Review oil spill case histories and experimental data
relevant to the spill location and response options being
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous assessed.
Substances and Oil Spill Response and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee
F20.13 on Treatment.
Current edition approved March 1, 2024. Published March 2024. Originally
approved in 2006. Last previous edition approved in 2019 as F2532 – 19. DOI: The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
10.1520/F2532-19R24. this standard.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
F2532 − 19 (2024)
TABLE 1 Dispersant Use Compared to Other Spill Response Options
Response Method Advantages Disadvantages
No response appropriate for spills that do not threaten shorelines can be politically unacceptable
(monitor only) used when other response options may cause more damage than potential wildlife exposure
natural removal wind direction could shift resulting in oil stranding onshore
used when environmental conditions do not allow use of other response
methods
Mechanical removes oil from environment wind, waves, and currents can limit containment and recovery
on-water allows recycling and proper disposal of recovered oil debris and viscous oil problematic
recovery limited recovery of spilled oil due to encounter rates in large spills
storage and disposal of recovered oil may be limited
equipment and labor intensive
Dispersants prevents or reduces oiling of wildlife Oil and dispersants are left in the environment
prevents or reduces oil stranding onshore time frame for effective use may be limited due to slick thickness,
reduced or no storage and disposal of oil weathering, emulsification
reduces or prevents formation of mousse less effective on high viscosity oils or in highly emulsified oil
enhances natural degradation processes oil concentrations in water column typically greater when dispersant
rapid treatment of large areas used than when oil is naturally dispersed resulting in increased
reduces adherence of oil to suspended particulates and inhibits impacts on organisms in upper 10 m of water column
sedimentation of oil exclusion zones may be created based on water depth, distance from
shore, limited water circulation, presence of marine sanctuary or water
intakes, etc.
can be politically unacceptable
In-situ Burning reduced or no storage and disposal of oil time frame for effective use may be limited due to slick thickness and
may prevent or reduce oil stranding onshore emulsification
prevents or reduces oiling of wildlife wind, waves, and currents may make ignition difficult
weathered oil difficult to ignite
2 mm to 3 mm minimum slick thickness for ignition
air pollution issues (smoke)
residues that may sink
can be politically unacceptable
TABLE 2 Risk Considerations for Dispersant Use
Oil Location Risk Drivers Priorities
Water surface oil type birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, endangered/protected species
persistence
size of oil slick
time/distance before oil comes ashore
Water column oil type commercial or subsistence fisheries
oil concentrations coral reefs
advection seagrass beds
depth endangered/protected species
dilution potential tourist/recreational areas
exposure duration
food web contamination
proximity to water intakes
season
life stages of species of concern
biological recovery time
Shoreline oil type intertidal communities
shoreline type marshes
persistence mangroves
season bird concentration areas
extent of oiled shoreline marine mammals
oil thickness endangered/protected species
natural cleansing (wave and tidal action) tourist/recreational areas
burial potential
shoreline accessibility
biological recovery time
3.2.4 Compare advantages and disadvantages of response 3.2.6 Weigh advantages and disadvantages of response op-
options including no response (see Table 1). tions in relation to ecological value and human use of impacted
3.2.5 Predict potential environmental impacts for chosen area.
response method. 3.2.7 Choose the optimum response method.
F2532 − 19 (2024)
3.3 Conflicts during the NEBA process may occur (1, 2, 3). increase the potential for adverse effects to seagrass beds
Conflicts may arise regarding protection of one species or exposed to chemically dispersed oil.
ecological habitat over another. Conflicts may occur between
3.3.3 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adverse
environmental and socioeconomic interests. It is desirable that
effects to mangroves threatened by stranding oil. Oil chemi-
agreements are reached before a spill occurs. Some examples
cally dispersed in the water column can cause adverse effects to
of potential conflicts are presented here.
coral reef organisms.
3.3.1 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for birds
becoming oiled from surface slicks. Dispersant use can in-
4. Keywords
crease the exposure of aquatic organisms to oil in the water
4.1 benefit analysis; dispersant; ecological risk assessment;
column.
NEBA
3.3.2 Dispersing oil can decrease the potential for adverse
effects to marshes threatened by stranding oil. Dispersants can
APPENDIXES
(Nonmandatory Information)
X1. FACTORS TO CONSIDER WITH DISPERSANT USE
Accessibility to the oil spill Oceanographic conditions (salinity, wave height, current velocity/direction,
Amount of oil spilled tides, water depth)
Aquatic toxicity of chemically dispersed oil Oil type, viscosity, weathered state
Areas of socioeconomic importance Presence of sensitive archaeological or historical sites
Commercial fisheries or subsistence fishing in spill area Regulatory approvals in place
Critical ecological habitats (feeding, migratory, nesting, spawning etc.) in Safety issues
spill area Shoreline type and vulnerability
Designated exclusion zones for certain response methods Shoreline accessibility
Effectiveness of other response methods Slick thickness
Equipment and trained personnel readily available Threatened/endangered species
Expect
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.