UAF Toxicology and Ecosystem Impacts

1. UAF Toxicology and Ecosystem Impacts INE, Dr. Robert A. Perkins, PE IAB, Dr. Mary Beth Leigh Kelly McFarlin

2. Over viewing INE Tox Eco • INE and Toxicology • With IAB • Dispersants and Oil Spills • Testing Programs and Capabilities • Types Laboratory Testing (Kelly) • Current • Biodegredation • Use of Data in Decision-Making • Partners and Friends

3. Personnel • INE • IAB

4. Oil Spills and Dispersants • “After oil is spilled, nothing good happens.” • Mechanical Recovery • In situ Burning • Mechanical (Natural) Dispersion • Chemical Dispersion

8. HOW DISPERSANTS WORKTHE GOAL: REDUCE OIL CONCENTRATION TO LESS THAN IMPACT LEVELS AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE

9. Mixing oil and water Slide Courtesy of Alun Lewis

10. Why do small oil droplets float more slowly than large oil droplets ? STOKES LAW Dh/t =D2(rw - ro)g 18hw Small oil droplets rise much more slowly than large droplets Slide Courtesy of Alun Lewis

11. Effectiveness • Type of oil • Weathering state • Sea state and weather conditions • Generally published for major dispersant formulations • UAF has done standard lab tests on these • Meso-scale tests are common

12. Removes Oil from Surface

13. Puts oil into the water column Fig. 1-9. Concentrations of oil in the water column following dispersal of a 0.1 mm thick slick of fresh oil treated with a chemical dispersant (after Lewis and Aurand, 1997)

14. Are Dispersants Toxic?

16. Scientific toxicology Seeks to understand the natural laws regarding effects • Applied toxicology Seeks to establish safe doses (concentrations)

17. http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/ind310/industrialtoxicology.htmlhttp://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/ind310/industrialtoxicology.html

18. Blue is therapeutic effect Green is harmful effect

19. LC50? • Method of comparing chemicals and situations • Modeling

21. DISPERSION EFFECT • Water Currents Distribute Oil Over Wide Area OF THE WATER COLUMN

22. OK, but • Are dispersants toxic?

23. CROSERF • Chemical Response to Oil Spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum • Boxes of Literature • No standardized : Oil Weathering state Dispersant Dosing rate or method Analysis Species Mixing

24. Sponsors of Research • Texas General Land Office (TGLO); • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP); • California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (CA OSPR); • Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); • Exxon Corporation; • American Petroleum Institute (API), and • Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC).

25. Plus • Minerals Management Service (MMS); • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and • Chevron Corporation

26. Universities and Sponsors • University of California, Santa Cruz (later UC Davis) - CA OSPR • University of South Florida - FL DEP • Texas A&M University - TGLO • University of Alaska Fairbanks - ADEC

27. CROSERF Testing • Standard species and standard oil Calibrate labs • Standard species and local oil Is our oil different? • Local species and local oil Are our local species different?

29. Test Regimes • Species Mysid • Fish larvae • Tanner crab larvae • Microtox • Oils • PBCO • ANS, Fresh • ANS, Weathered • 200 deg. C.

30. Treatment • WAF [water accommodated fraction] • CE-WAF [chemically enhanced WAF] • Exposure, 96-hr • Chambers • Static with Renewal

31. Almost forgot • VOA • C6-C9 • BTEX • TPH • C10-C36 • THC, and • Loading

32. Whoops • Warm 25 °C • Cold 4 to 7 °C

33. Fresh CE-WAF

34. Eco Tox Testing Goals • Test relevant species • Sensitive life stage • As close to environment conditions beneath a spill • Establish dose-response • Input to modeling environmental effects

35. Test Species • Whales to microorganisms • Best would be convenient and relevant, • Convenient - amenable to laboratory testing • Relevant - important to the ecosystem in question, recognized by the public, sensitive to the chemical. • “Standard” test species • All warm, 20 C, water

36. KELLY

37. Arctic Testing • Toxicitiy

38. Background Joint Industry Program to Evaluate the Effects of Dispersed Oil on Cold Water Environments of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (JIP) • JIP sponsors: Shell, ExxonMobil, Statoil, Conoco March 2008 workshop facilitated focus of research and methods used • Workshop participants: local community, academia, resource agencies and industry • UAF, NOAA, MMS, NSB, ExxonMobil, Shell, PWSSC, PWSRCAC, USCG, ACS, AKVAPLAN-NIVA, and SINTEF • Workshop proceedings • Identified two key arctic species for toxicity testing that were primarily chosen based on their location in the pelagic food web • Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) • Copepod (Calanus glacialis)

39. Arctic Cod (Boreogadus saida)

40. Copepod (Calanus glacialis)

41. Sculpin (Myoxocephalus sp.)

42. Barrow Laboratory The Barrow Arctic Research Center, Barrow, Alaska

43. KELLY

44. Field Expeditions

46. Oil type? Chukchi, Beaufort

47. END Kelly • Kelly on difference with arctic and non speices • Lag time, etc. • Bio degredaiton • AMOP • IOSC • PEER REVIEW

48. Use of Data • Confront misinformation • “Microbes that degrade oil are not present in the Arctic” – testimony to Oil Spill Commission • “Regardless of their effectiveness, questions remain regarding the potential toxicity and impacts of dispersants on Arctic ecosystems.” xii [National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES Staff Working Paper No. 13 quoting from http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/oil-spill-prevention-and-response-in-the-us-arctic-ocean-unexamined-risks-unacceptable-consequences-8589942645 ]

49. Modeling

50. Forward and Current Models • Forward • Set limits on dispersant use • Pre-approvals • Water depth • Geography • Current • Spill response options • Risk analysis, NEBA