The History of Chemical Dispersants in the United States
Randy Belore
SL Ross Environmental Research LimitedBackground
Although dispersants were researched in the United States in the late 60’s and 70’s theiruse was not readily accepted due to concerns about their potential environmental impacts.
This began to change in the mid-1980’s. Their eventual acceptance as a viablecountermeasure is due, in part, to the education of regulators and resource mangers to thepros and cons of dispersant use. SL Ross Environmental Research Limited (SL Ross) hada key part to play in this process.
SL Ross is a Canadian company that has been involved in the study of the use ofchemical dispersants as an oil spill countermeasure since the company’s formation in1980. In the early 1980s SL Ross developed a dispersant-use decision-making tool for the
Canadian Government’s Department of the Environment (Trudel 1983). The
methodology subsequently was applied to the Canadian Southern Beaufort Sea region.
The results of the study were presented at the Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
Technical Seminar (Trudel et al. 1985) that was attended by representatives of US oilcompanies. At that time these US companies were looking for a way to promote informed
dispersant-use decisions in the US Gulf of Mexico region and became interested in theapproach.
An organization called the Marine Industry Research Group (MIRG) funded SL Ross topresent dispersant-use workshops in the US Gulf of Mexico states of Florida, Louisianaand Texas. Amoco Transportation Co., Chevron Corporation, Conoco Shipping Co.,
Exxon Shipping Co., Mobil Oil Corporation, Petro-Canada Products Inc., Phillips 66 Co.,
Shell Oil Co. and Standard Oil Co. were active member companies of MIRG when thiswork was carried out.
The goals of the workshops were to demonstrate the dispersant-use decision-making
process to natural resource managers and spill response regulatory representatives in eachof these states (as well as Federal regulators) and to gauge their reactions to the use of themethod in their regions. Both Federal and State agencies are responsible for the approvalof the use of dispersants on oil spills in the United States. The Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA) has primary federal authority over dispersant use in US federal waters
and various State agencies (Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Management, Departmentsof Environment etc.) have jurisdiction in State waters.
At the time of the workshops the US EPA and the State of Texas positions on dispersant
use were not favorable. The State of Florida had already begun to establish rules forpossible dispersant use and had some guidelines in place for making dispersant-use
decisions for State waters and was open to new ideas to improve their understanding ofthe issues. The State of Louisiana had not formed a strong opinion or prepared any1

guidelines on dispersant use and was very interested in learning more about the use ofdispersants.
The usual reasons given by representatives of the doubting organizations for not using
dispersants were that 1) another potentially toxic chemical should not be added to thewater to clean up a spill, 2) the oil should be removed from the marine environment notdispersed into it, and 3) the presence of dispersed oil would cause extensive damage tomarine resources. The strongest arguments against the use of dispersants have always
been those related to potential environmental or economic damage that might be caused.
These arguments are still used today by those who oppose dispersant use. The
dispersant-use decision process described below provides quantitative data to assess
whether these arguments against the use of dispersants have any merit in specific spill
situations.
Workshop Demonstration of Dispersant-Use Decision-Making Method
The workshops completed in Florida, Louisiana and Texas demonstrated the dispersantuse decision-making process developed by SL Ross. Personnel from the State andFederal agencies responsible for dispersant-use decision-making were invited toparticipate in the workshop and to provide local knowledge of the critical resources thatmight be affected by marine oil spills.
The decision-making process relies on a quantitative assessment of the likely impact ofoil on critical biological and economic resources using the approach outlined in thesimplified flow-chart of Figure 1.

Impact Assessment Flow Chart(untreated or dispersed spills)

Spill conditions
Environmental conditions
Oil properties

Oil Fate
Model

Location and Sizeof Areas of Toxic
Concentration

Resource-specific oil
toxicity criteria

Resource SpecificImpact Algorithms

Resource maps
Resource life history data
Fisheries data

Impact on All Resources
Figure 1. Dispersant-Use Decision Making Process Flow Chart
2

The basic process operates as follows.
?? First of all, the fate of oil from a hypothetical spill is determined both with andwithout the addition of chemical dispersants. Two maps are generated that
identify the likely location of oil over time. One shows the spatial distribution andconcentration variation of dispersed oil, the other shows the distribution andthickness variation of surface oil.
?? The important resources that could be affected by the surface or dispersed oilcases are identified.
?? The resources are ranked as to their relative importance. Habitats usually arehighly ranked because they support a wide range of species. Man-madebreakwaters would receive a low ranking.
?? A vulnerability profile for each resource is developed. This could include defining
the life stage structure of the resource (e.g., eggs and larvae, juvenile, adult fish),the level of oiling (dispersed oil concentration or slick thickness) that will cause
the impact of concern (mortality, tainting, fishery closure etc.) to each life stage,
the geographic and vertical distribution of each resource life stage and thecommercial value of the resource (if appropriate). Maps are again drawn up
showing this spatially varying data.
?? The oil fate maps are then overlaid on top of the resource map distributions andthe percent of the resource areas covered by oil at levels high enough to cause
impact are calculated.
?? The process is repeated for each resource of interest using the oil fate mapping forboth the chemically treated and untreated oil fate maps. The impact results aredocumented.
?? The impacts are then totaled for both the dispersed and untreated spill scenarios.
Resources of higher importance are given a higher weighting in the final
accounting of impacts.
?? A decision on whether dispersant application would be appropriate is then madebased on these quantitative results. If a significantly smaller impact on the criticalresources is demonstrated for the dispersed oil case, when compared to theimpacts if the oil is left on the surface, then the use of dispersants can berecommended and documentation of why the decision was made is available.

The key local experts responsible for protecting the local environment, and ultimately
making the final dispersant-use decision, were invited to participate in the three US
workshops completed in 1986 and 1987. These experts provided distribution andvulnerability information for a number of critical local resources. The groups thenanalyzed a number of example oil spill scenarios and spill impact assessments fordispersed and untreated response scenarios. In many of the cases analyzed the use ofdispersants was clearly justifiable due to the potential for reduced damage to shoreline
habitats and bird populations.

3By involving the local State and Federal personnel in the development of the spill
scenarios and resource vulnerability profiles during the workshop they were given a senseof ownership in the product and thus had more confidence in the decisions that weremade based on the outcome of the analyses.
At the end of the workshop sessions Florida and Louisiana were very enthusiastic about
the method and its potential and Texas became a willing participant. However, it became
apparent during the workshops that the resource agencies were interested in including alarge number of resources in the assessment process to ensure that all possible impacts
were assessed. To address this a meeting was held with key resource representatives fromall of the states bordering the US Gulf of Mexico. Key indicator resources at risk wereidentified by representatives of each State during these discussions and at the end of themeeting 71 resources within the Gulf of Mexico were identified as being critical for
dispersant-use assessment. These resources included 5 habitat types, 5 reptiles, 2 marine
mammals, 10 invertebrates, 23 species of finfish, 23 birds, marinas, parks, and shorelines.
Development of Computerized Dispersant-Use Decision Aid
It was obvious that there were too many resources to consider using a manual mappingand overlay analysis, similar to that used in the workshops, to complete the analyticalwork needed for the dispersant-use decision. MIRG agreed to fund the computerizationof the process using GIS technology and SL Ross’s computerized oil spill fate andtrajectory model. The intention was to have a system in place that could quantify andreport the impact of an oil spill on all 71 resources within a reasonable time frame (withinhours of a spill) so the information would be available for decision makers shortly after aspill event to assist in the dispersant-use decision process.
Resource maps and vulnerability profiles were assembled with the assistance of theresource management agencies of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Texas and federal resource agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fishery Service, Minerals Management Service, and NOAA. An
automated, computerized system was constructed over a two-year period. The full system
is described in detail in a 1989 International Oil Spill Conference paper (Trudel et al.
1989).
Sample resource maps developed for the system are shown in Figure 2. Over 400 suchmaps were generated for use by the system.
The computerized system was subsequently used to evaluate dispersant use tradeoffs invarious regions with various spill types and locations. It became clear at which locations
dispersants could be used to reduce environmental impacts (eg. protect important birdcolonies or habitats) and where dispersed oil might cause more damage than good (eg.
near commercial oyster beds).
The State and Federal regulatory agencies that participated in the process noticed theseresults and their opinions on dispersants and their potential value as a countermeasure4

began to change. They realized that the potential benefits of dispersants outweighed theirearlier concerns (adding another chemical, not removing the oil from the water, thelikelihood of major damage to in-water species, etc.) in many situations.

Figure 2. Example Resource Maps

5

Dispersant Use Pre -Approval Zones
In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the State and Federal regulatory agencies became
more eager to use dispersants and started questioning why they were not being
considered in some response operations. The approval process was still somewhat
cumbersome at this time and response agencies had not yet fully geared up for rapid
dispersant response. Quick approval was seen as essential to responders investing in
dispersant response equipment. Dispersant operations are more effective when the oil isfresh and not spread over too large an area.
Pre-approval for the use of dispersants in small areas such as the Louisiana Offshore Oil
Platform (LOOP) and the lightering zone off Galveston Texas was established. In apaper given by the U.S. Coast Guard at the 1997 International Oil Spill Conference(IOSC) (Calhoun et. al. 1997), these pre-approvals were described as complicated,cumbersome and seldom used. The Regional Response Team (RRT) in Region VI
recognized that an effective decision-making process incorporated into a pre-approvalplan was needed if dispersants were to be an effective countermeasure. Having
recognized this the RRT for Region VI gave On-Scene Commanders (OCSs) authority touse dispersants off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas under specific conditions in Januaryof 1995. Details of this pre-approval process can be found in the aforementioned paper byCalhoun.
Similar dispersant pre-authorization zones have been established throughout the UnitedStates. A summary map of pre-authorization zones along US shores can be found at(http://www.uscg.mil/vrp/maps/dispmap.shtml). Presently only the states of Oregon andWashington do not have pre-authorization zones for the use of dispersants.
Accounts of dispersant use on actual spills in US Gulf of Mexico waters since theimplementation of the pre-approval process can be found in the proceedings of the 2001
IOSC (Kaser et. al. 2001, Stoermer et. al. 2001).
Application of dispersants in these pre-authorized zones generally must be accompanied
by programs to monitor both the effectiveness of the dispersant and effects of thedispersed oil on the local resources. A dispersant-effectiveness monitoring program
called SMART has been developed by a number of US agencies and is implemented by
the US Coast Guard during dispersant application programs to determine if thedispersants are working. Details of this monitoring program can be found at the following
web address (http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oilaids/SMART/SMART.pdf).
Effects monitoring plans are generally incorporated into a company’s contingency plan if
dispersant use is a proposed countermeasure operation. Each environmental monitoringplan is unique to the environment for which it is intended.

6

Changing Attitudes Concerning Dispersant Use vs Conventional Cleanup
Techniques
After the Exxon Valdez spill the US Coast Guard implemented requirements for oil-spill
removal equipment in vessel and marine-transportation-related facility response plans.
These response plan equipment capability limits (CAPS) specify the amount of oil thatmust be recovered using available equipment (in-house or by contractor) that must bedeployed within specific response times. The Caps guidelines put in place in the mid-90’s
allow for a reduction in mechanical recovery capability of up to 25% in areas where
1) dispersant pre-authorization is in place, 2) the spilled oil is chemically dispersible, and
3) a dispersant application capability is in place. Dispersant use is not mandated in any
way under the existing guidelines but credit for their availability can be obtained. TheCAPS guidelines are currently under review and the USCG is proposing that contingencyplan holders be required to have pre-spill planning arrangements in place for the use ofdispersants. Theses new rules would make having a dispersant capability mandatory andremove the 25% credit for their availability. This is evidence of further movement
towards the acceptance of dispersants as a viable and vital spill countermeasures option.
Summary
Prior to the mid 1980’s chemical dispersants were not seriously considered a legitimate
spill response tool in the United States. The Marine Industry Research Group sponsored aseries of dispersant-use decision-making workshops in the US Gulf of Mexico in 1986
and 1987. These workshops were attended by the state and federal agencies responsible
for resource management and dispersant-use decisions in the region. This effort helped
illustrate the potential benefits of dispersant use to those responsible for their regulation.
A change of attitude towards the use of dispersants began and dispersants started to beconsidered as a viable oil spill countermeasure in appropriate circumstances. Preapproval zone were established in the US Gulf of Mexico in the early and mid-1990’s tofacilitate the quick application of dispersants in the event of a spill. As examples of thesuccessful use of dispersants grew so did their acceptance in other US Regions. At thistime dispersant pre-authorization exists in some form in all coastal states except Oregon
and Washington. There is currently a rule change being proposed by the US Coast Guard
to require contingency plan holders to have pre-spill planning arrangements in place forthe use of dispersants.

7References
Calhoun, CAPT James W., CDR Stephan P. Glenn, LCDR Lynn M. Henderson,
Welcome T. Duncan. 1997. Development of a Dispersant Doctrine in the Gulf ofMexico. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings.
Kaser, CDR Richard M., LCDR Julie Gahn, Charley Henry. 2001. Blue Master: Use ofCorexit 9500 to Disperse IFO 180 Spill. 2001 International Oil Spill ConferenceProceedings.
Stoermer, LTJG Scott, LCDR Georgw Butler, Charley Henry. 2001. Application ofDispersants to Mitigate Oil Spills in the Gulf of Mexico: The Poseidon Pipeline
Spill Case Study. 2001 International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings.

Trudel, B.K., S.L. Ross and L.C. Oddy. 1983. Workbook on Dispersant use DecisionMaking. The Environmental Impact Aspects. Prepared for the Environmental
Protection Service, Environment Canada.
Trudel, B.K. and J.J. Swiss. 1985. Application of Chemical Dispersants to Oil Spills in
the Southern Beaufort Sea: Some Preliminary Findings. Proceedings of the Eighth
Annul Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar.
Trudel, B.K., R, C. Belore, B.J. Jessiman and S.L. Ross. 1989. A Microcomputer-Based
Spill Impact Assessment System for Untreated and Chemically Dispersed Oil
Spills in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. 1989 International Oil Spill Conference
Proceedings.

8